Relocation — visa application — mental health — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112 — Woolf v Woolf HC Dunedin CIV-2010-412-778. The applicant applied for relocation for her and her two children to England. The respondent opposed the application and advocated for the children to stay in New Zealand. The applicant submitted that relocation to England was best for her mental health and staying in New Zealand would worsen it to the point where it would affect her parenting and the children. The applicant also submitted that the parties had a prior agreement to live in England and that the respondent was able to relocate. The respondent submitted that there was only a small chance of a successful relocation due to the cost and time of the visa process. He did not have the funds nor the resources for the process. The respondent also had a new relationship which would end if he were to relocate. The Court found that the agreement between the parties was not necessary to resolve, as it was made when the parties were in a relationship and lived together. In terms of the mental health issues, it was assessed that the applicant's mental health would improve if she were to move back to England and also if she were properly treated. However, her mental health was not affecting her parenting. It was assessed that the respondent's mental health would deteriorate to a point of affecting his parenting if relocation were to happen. Obtaining a visa was costly and there was no certainty that it was going to be successful; therefore the Court found it was reasonable for the respondent to decline to relocate. Due to relationship concerns the Court found that it was not in children's welfare and best interests to move. The relocation application was declined. A parenting order for equal shared care was made. Judgment Date: 2 February 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *