Guardianship dispute — relocation — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 46R — S v O [2006] NZFLR 1 — Briggs v Page [2013] NZFC 9049 — ACCS v AVMB [2006] NZFLR 986 — M v M [2014] NZFC 9723 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1. The hearing was to determine which country the parties' two sons, aged 12 and 14, would live in. The applicant mother argued that they should live with her in New Zealand, while the respondent father favoured them living with him in Australia. The sons were currently living with the applicant mother, having relocated to New Zealand after the parties' marriage broke down while they were living overseas in a third country. Both the applicant and respondent said that if their preferred country was not chosen, they would relocate to live close to the sons. The Court found few differences between the parties, and the sons would be safe in the care of either the applicant or the respondent. Likewise, it would be difficult for the respondent to live in New Zealand or for the applicant to live in Australia, given their lack of family support away from their respective home countries. Ultimately the Court's decision was swayed by the applicant's current state of mind and the preferences of the older son. Both of these factors favoured the sons staying in New Zealand. The Court ordered that the sons remain in New Zealand in the shared care of the parties, and provided draft parenting orders for the parties to discuss. Judgment Date: 13 August 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *