Guardianship — variation of parenting order — relocation — COVID-19 pandemic — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 56 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112, [2010] NZFLR 884, [2011] 2 NZLR 1 — D v S [2002] NZFLR 116 — Stadniczenko v Stadniczenko [1995] NZFLR 993 — C v W (Custody) [2005] NZFLR 953. The applicant asked that a parenting order be varied to allow her day-to-day care of the parties' child. She argued that the variation would allow the child a more meaningful relationship with the applicant and her family; that she the applicant was better placed to meet the child's development needs as she progressed into teenage years; and that the child would relocate to another town that was more suitable for her than the town where she was living currently. The respondent submitted that the current arrangement suited the child and there was no need to change it. The Court found that although the current arrangement sometimes required the respondent's partner or mother to take care of the child, this was not detrimental to the child and was what she was used to. In contrast, the changes proposed by the applicant would be disruptive to the child and were essentially "change for the sake of change". The application was declined, and the child was to remain in the day-to-day care of the respondent. The Court also made some rulings on how the parties were to manage in the event of a change in COVID-19 alert levels. Judgment Date: 5 November 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *