Reserved decision — parenting arrangements — relocation — names of children — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 46G & 133 — S I v U FC New Plymouth FAM-2005-043-939, 20 July 2007 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZFLR 884 — P(LM) (otherwise E) v P(GE) [1970] 3 All ER 659 — Stadniczenko v Stadniczenko [1995] NZFLR 493 — Brown v Argyll [2006] NZFLR 705 — Lowe v Way [2015] NZHC 2377. The parties were the parents of four young children. They had separated after a seven-year relationship. The Court had previously made interim parenting orders placing the children in the day-to-day care of the respondent, with regular contact with the applicant. The current proceedings were to determine three issues. The first issue was the names of the two youngest children, who were twins. The applicant father did not like the twins' current names and wanted them changed. The Court found that the issue may have been the result of poor communication between the parties. In any case, a name change at the age of three would confuse the children and generally disadvantage them. The Court found that the best solution was to replace the children's middle names with the applicant's choice of names. The next issue was the respondent's application to relocate the children to a different region. The Court decided that it would serve the welfare and best interests of the children to stay where they were currently living. This would allow them to spend more time with their father and to develop their relationship with him. It would be possible for the parties to reduce their level of conflict while living in the same city. The last issue was the final parenting arrangements for the children. Since the Court made the interim parenting orders, an incident had occurred in which members of the public had contacted the police regarding the applicant's behaviour towards the oldest child. The applicant had had no contact with the children since. The Court found that in spite of the police incident and other factors, the children would be safe in the care of either of the parties. Therefore the Court made a final order placing the children in the day-to-day care of the respondent, with regular contact with the applicant. Judgment Date: 29 July 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *