Charged in QLD or NSW? Which state you're in changes everything about your licence. Know your options before your court date.
A mum gets the career opportunity of a lifetime. A dad refuses to let his children leave the country. A court has to decide. This scenario played out on the Gold Coast, and the outcome surprised a lot of people.
Here’s what happened to this Gold Coast mother, and what it tells you about how Australian courts approach relocation disputes under the updated Family Law Act.
Ben and Mel* divorced after 12 years of marriage. They have three children together, aged 14, 11, and 8. For two years following the separation, they shared care equally, week on, week off, and by all accounts, the children were thriving.
Then Mel received a job offer in New York, which was triple her current salary. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in the fashion industry. She wanted to take all three children with her.
Ben said absolutely not.
He stated that he had been just as involved in his children’s lives as Mel had. The father coached their sports teams, helped with homework, and never missed a school event. Additionally, the children had friends, extended family, and hobbies they loved on the Gold Coast.
On the other hand, Mel argued she had been the primary carer during the marriage while Ben worked long hours. She said the children would have better opportunities in New York. For example, she planned to send them to private schools. Mel argued the kids would have a higher standard of living in the States. She even offered to pay for Ben to visit the kids in New York four times a year.
The court had to decide.
This time, the courts decided that Ben should became the primary care. The court refused to permit the relocation.
Here’s why.
Under the Family Law Act 1975 (as amended by the Family Law Amendment Act 2023), courts no longer apply a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. Instead, every parenting decision is guided by a streamlined set of best-interests factors that focus on safety, the benefit of relationships with each parent, and the child’s individual needs.
In relocation cases specifically, Queensland courts must weigh competing considerations carefully. In this case, it was the genuine opportunity for one parent against the disruption to the children’s established lives.
In Ben and Mel’s case, several factors proved decisive.
The oldest child, aged 14, told the independent children’s lawyer she wanted to stay in Australia. She wanted to remain close to her friends and her father.
Under the updated Act, children’s views carry meaningful weight in proceedings, with the significance scaling to the child’s age and maturity. A 14-year-old expressing a clear, considered preference is something a court will take seriously, especially where it is consistent with the rest of the evidence.
One of the core considerations under the new framework is the benefit to the child of maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents, provided that relationship is safe.
Relocating to New York would have fundamentally altered the children’s relationship with Ben. Of course, four visits per year is not the same as a week-on, week-off arrangement. The court found that the loss to the children of regular, day-to-day contact with their father outweighed the financial and professional benefits of the move for Mel.
Additionally, the court assessed both parents’ ability to provide for the children’s emotional, psychological, and practical needs.
Ben’s involvement, which included coaching, homework, school events demonstrated a consistent capacity to meet their needs on the Gold Coast. The children were settled, connected, and supported in their current environment.
Mel’s proposal, while well-intentioned, would have uprooted three children from everything familiar to them.
Importantly, neither parent raised concerns about the other’s fitness or safety. This was not a case involving family violence or abuse, the dispute was purely about relocation.
Under the new framework, safety is the first and most important consideration. Where there are no safety concerns, the other best-interests factors come into sharper focus, and in this case, they all pointed toward the children remaining in Australia.
Also read: The Biggest Myths About Divorce and Family Law in Australia
Relocation disputes are among the most difficult matters in family law. They pit one parent’s legitimate aspirations against the children’s established connections, and there is rarely a clean answer.
A few key takeaways from this outcome:
Career opportunities alone are not enough. Courts acknowledge that relocation can offer genuine benefits. But those benefits must be weighed against what the children stand to lose. A significant salary increase or professional advancement does not automatically tip the scales.
Children’s voices matter more than they used to. The Family Law Amendment Act 2023 elevated the weight given to children’s views. Older children who can articulate considered preferences are increasingly influential in these proceedings.
Established involvement counts. Ben’s consistent, hands-on parenting was central to the court’s decision. Parents who are actively present in their children’s daily lives are in a stronger position when relocation is contested.
Offers of compensation have limits. Courts may note proposals like funded visits, but they will still ask whether, for these particular children, that actually preserves a meaningful relationship with the other parent.
Whether you are the parent seeking to relocate or the parent opposing it, the stakes are high, and the legal considerations are genuinely complex. These cases turn on specific facts, and the outcome is rarely predictable without careful legal advice.
The 2023 reforms changed the framework significantly. If your parenting orders were made under the old law, before May 2024, or you are navigating a fresh dispute now, it is important to understand how the current best-interests factors apply to your situation.
Kingsford Lawyers’ family law team works with separated parents across Queensland and Victoria. If you are dealing with a relocation dispute or any parenting matter, contact us online or call 1300 244 342 for a confidential, obligation-free discussion.
The information in this article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Family law matters are highly fact-specific. Please seek independent legal advice for your situation.
*This is a fictionalised scenario based on real-world relocation disputes under the updated Family Law Act, with details changed to protect privacy.
Charged in QLD or NSW? Which state you're in changes everything about your licence. Know your options before your court date.
Many parents assume a child can simply "decide" at age 12 or 14. Under Australian family law, there is no such threshold. Here is what courts actually weigh, and when a child's preference starts to carry real weight.
Many parents assume a child can simply "decide" at age 12 or 14. Under Australian family law, there is no such threshold. Here is what courts actually weigh, and when a child's preference starts to carry real weight.
WE SPEAK – ENGLISH, ITALIAN, MANDARIN, FINNISH, PORTUGUESE, RUSSIAN, BENGALI, HINDI, URDU, GREEK, AFRIKAANS, SPANISH, ARABIC AND PUNJABI
English (Australia) English (Australia) 
简体中文
Italiano
Português do Brasil
Suomi
Русский
Afrikaans
বাংলা
Ελληνικά
Reach out to us, and let’s work together towards a solution that brings you peace of mind and a positive step forward.