Reserved judgment — leave to commence proceedings — parenting orders — relocation — consent — materiality — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 77(3)(c) & 139A(4) — Pidgeman v Oliver [2015] NZFC 6585 — Border v Tokoroa [2014] NZFC 10947; [2015] NZFLR 832 — Roundtree v Tipsanich [2015] NZFC 5488; [2016] NZFLR 99. The parties had been engaged in litigation over the care of their children for several years. The Court had previously made a final parenting order placing the children in the day-to-day care of their father (the respondent), with contact with their mother (the applicant). The current hearing concerned an application for leave to vary the custody order, in the event that the parties relocate to the United States. The issue for determination was whether the Court had to hear the application, because the parties had consented to leave; or whether the Court had the discretion to consider leave with or without the parties' consent. The Court found that the consent should be regarded as consent that promotes the best interests of the children. To continue the litigation would be to prolong the dispute between the parties, and therefore not in the children's best interests. Further, the matters raised by the applicant in her application for leave were not material. Leave was declined. Judgment Date: 31 July 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *