Relocation — Australia — welfare and best interests of children — guardianship dispute — schooling — parental pressure — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 46 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1, [2010] NZFLR 884, (2010) 28 FRNZ 483. This hearing involved the second application brought by the applicant for an order to relocate the parties' children to Australia. In 2015 the father sought to relocate the children but this was declined on the basis the relocation was not in the welfare and best interests of the children. The Judge came to the same conclusion in this case. Section 4 of the Care of Children Act (the Act) states the paramount concern is the welfare and best interests of the child. It is also a requirement that the Court take into account the principles in s 5 which include safety, parental and guardian responsibility for care, consultation and co-operation, continuity of caregiving arrangements, continuing relationships with parents and the preservation and strengthening of extended family relationships and identity. Section 6 identifies that opportunities must be given to children to express their views and any views expressed must be taken into account. A move to Australia would disrupt the children's education, friendships and relationships with wider family members in New Zealand. They would also be removed from te ao Maori, an important part of their culture. The younger child wished to remain in New Zealand but would be okay with a move, as long as that decision was made by the Judge. The older child wanted to move to Australia after the father had shown him the school he might attend there. The Judge had misgivings that the father had placed some pressure on the children to align with him, while the mother told the children to do what was best for them not their mother or father. The father's application was declined, and the children were to be schooled in New Zealand. Judgment Date: 4 October 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *