Relocation — best interests and welfare of the child — day to day care — parenting order — discharge of prevention order — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 2, 4, 5, 15 & 16, — Guardianship Act 1968 — D v S [2002] NZFLR 116 — Stadniczenko v Stadniczenko [1995] NZFLR 493 — Kacem v Bashir [2020] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1. The parties were previously married and had one child together. Their marriage had since been dissolved. Both parties sought a parenting order for the child, and the applicant applied for the child to be permitted to move to Australia. The applicant and her current partner planned to move to Australia for career opportunities. This intention was communicated to the respondent, who didn't reply. The respondent applied for a without notice order to prevent the child's removal from New Zealand. The applicant was the child's primary caregiver, and she was present for the child's schooling and extra curricular activities. When the child was at her father's house, his other family members took care of her. The child expressed that she wanted to move to Australia and that she had a good relationship with her step father, but she was open to keep up communication with the respondent. The respondent had undergone a non-violence programme after he was arrested and charged with assault on the applicant. However, there were no concerns regarding the child's safety. The Court found that the applicant should have the day to day care of the child as the child thrived in her care and it was in the child's best interests. The respondent had never taken care of the child and wasn't able to say anything positive about the applicant, which would have a negative impact on the child. The Court ordered the child be permitted to move to Australia because of the schooling opportunities there, improved lifestyle, and the fact that she would be with her mother and stepfather. The child was to spend some time with the respondent and his family before the relocation to say goodbye. The Court ordered weekly video calls with the respondent, and other face to face contact during visits. The order that prevented the child's removal from New Zealand was discharged. The applicant was successful. Judgment Date: 7 June 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *