Guardianship dispute — parenting order — guardianship direction — relocation — Covid-19 — global pandemic — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 46R & 140 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 206B — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 193 & 194 — District Court Rules 2014, r 209 — High Court Rules 2016, r 15.1 — RGPY v AL [2005] 24 FRNZ 369 — TD v T [2019] NZHC 2490 — Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262 — Bean v Bean [2019] NZHC 20 — Dillon v Chief Executive Ministry of Social Development [2017] NZHC 1487 — H v F High Court Christchurch, CIV-2010-409-000905, 3 September 2010 — Chief Executive Ministry of Social Development v Shandey [2015] NZFC 1728. The applicant father had applied for a parenting order and a guardianship direction that the parties' three children relocate to live with him in his home country in Europe. The respondent mother applied to strike out the applicant's application for a guardianship direction. The parties agreed that it would be in the children's best interests to live in the same country as both of their parents. However the respondent submitted that if the guardianship application was allowed, she would not move to the applicant's home country; this would threaten her mental health and her economic security, and expose her to an increased risk of contracting Covid-19. She also argued that the ongoing litigation was harmful to the children. Despite the applicant's arguments that the relocation would give the children stronger links to their family and cultural heritage, the Court found that it would have adverse effects on them. It would disrupt their schooling and their relationships with friends and family, and they would struggle to live apart from their mother. The applicant's application had no reasonable chance of success, so the Court ordered that it be struck out. Judgment Date: 14 December 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *