Reserved judgment — parenting orders — protection orders — care arrangements — relocation — naming of children — registration of births — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 5A, 6, 16, 132 & 133. The parties had been in a relationship and had four children. The applicant father sought parenting orders, but was opposed by the respondent. The respondent also sought a direction allowing her and the children to locate to another town. Finally, there was a guardianship issue relating to the names of the two youngest children, who were twins. The parties were unable to agree on names for the twins, and as a result had not registered their births. The parties had had communication problems, and each maintained that the other had been abusive. The respondent had concerns about the children being in the care of the applicant as she thought that he had unconventional beliefs and a disorganised lifestyle. She also thought that he was causing problems for the children by calling the twins by different names than the names that she had given them. The Court considered that the parties had a dysfunctional relationship and could not communicate properly with one another. It was harmful to the children to be exposed to their ongoing conflict. The applicant would not deliberately harm the children but he had no stable accommodation and was unable to support them financially. However the respondent was a capable and committed caregiver. The Court made interim orders granting the respondent day-to-day care of the children with contact between the applicant and the children, and ordered a s 133 psychological report to resolve various issues. Judgment Date: 30 June 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *