Relocation disputes remain among the most difficult parenting matters in Australian family law. They arise where a parent’s legitimate need to relocate – whether for employment, family support, safety, affordability or a fresh start after separation – conflicts with the child’s need for stability and continuing relationships. Although these cases are often framed as a contest between one parent’s freedom to move and the other parent’s fear of losing time, the legal question is more precise: what arrangement best promotes the child’s best interests under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)?
Australian family law does not apply a separate relocation test. Relocation is determined under the ordinary parenting framework, with the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration. Since the parenting reforms that commenced in May 2024, the removal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility has reinforced a more flexible and fact-specific assessment.
Section 60CC of the Family Law Act provides the central framework for that assessment. In relocation matters, the court will consider matters including the child’s safety, any views expressed by the child, the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs, each parent’s capacity to meet those needs, and the benefit to the child of having a relationship with each parent and other significant people, where it is safe to do so. For Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children, the court must also consider the child’s right to enjoy their culture and maintain connection with family, community, culture, country and language.
That framework explains why relocation cases rarely turn on one decisive factor. The court will consider the child’s age, attachments, schooling, routines, safety, the reasons for the proposed move, the likely impact on the child’s relationship with each parent, and the practicality of any proposed time arrangements. A parent’s reason for moving may be entirely understandable, but that alone will not be enough. The relocating parent’s proposal must have significant regard to the child’s welfare.
In practice, evidence often determines the strength of a relocation case. A persuasive proposal will usually address housing, schooling, employment, financial support, transport, changeover arrangements, holiday time, communication and how the child’s relationship with the other parent will be preserved. Vague assertions about better opportunities or general family support are unlikely to carry the same weight as a detailed plan showing how the child’s day-to-day life will operate after the move.
Relocation also exposes a broader tension in post-separation parenting. The law recognises that parents must be able to rebuild their lives, but not at the expense of the child’s need for continuity, safety and meaningful connection. The court is not simply choosing between adult autonomy and parental involvement. It is assessing whether the proposed move can be translated into a stable parenting structure that serves the child.
Relocation law does not prevent parents from rebuilding their lives, but it requires any proposed change to be tested against the child’s interests. The decisive issue is not simply the strength of the parent’s reason to move, but whether the proposed arrangements provide a stable, realistic and child-centred framework for the child’s life after relocation.
