Relocation after separation: key lessons from Lando & Robin
Relocation disputes are among the most challenging parenting matters before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. They often involve urgent interim applications, heightened conflict, and competing claims about what is best for children following separation.
The decision in Lando & Robin [2025] FedCFamC2F 837 provides a timely reminder of how courts approach relocation disputes—particularly where one parent relocates with children without consent—and the principles that guide interim decision-making.
Relocation and Parenting Orders: The Legal Framework
Relocation disputes are determined within the parenting framework of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). There is no separate legal test for relocation. Instead, the Court must make parenting orders that are in the best interests of the child.
Following the 2024 amendments, the Court is required to consider seven best-interest factors, namely:
- What arrangements promote the safety of the child and the child’s carers, including safety from family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm;
- Any views expressed by the child;
- The child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
- The capacity of each parent (and other relevant persons) to meet those needs;
- The benefit to the child of being able to maintain relationships with each parent and other significant people, where it is safe to do so;
- Anything else relevant to the child’s circumstances; and
- For an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, the child’s right to enjoy their Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture.
In relocation matters, the Court assesses a proposed move against these considerations as a whole, rather than treating relocation as a separate question.
The Decision in Lando & Robin
In Lando & Robin, the mother relocated with the children to a different suburb following separation, without the father’s agreement or court approval. The father sought interim orders requiring the children to return to their previous location pending a final hearing.
The matter came before the Court on a review of interim orders. The central issue was whether the children should remain in the new location or be returned while the parenting proceedings continued to a final hearing.
The Court upheld the interim orders requiring the children’s return to their original location, finding that:
- the unilateral relocation disrupted established arrangements;
- the move had a real impact on the children’s relationship with their father; and
- preserving stability pending a final hearing was in the children’s best interests.
The mother’s application for review was dismissed.
What This Case Teaches Us About Relocation
- Unilateral Relocation Carries Real Risk
Courts closely scrutinise relocations undertaken without consent. Even where a parent has legitimate personal reasons for moving, the Court may order a return if the move compromises the child’s stability or parental relationships.
- Interim Orders Matter
Relocation disputes are often determined, at least temporarily, at the interim stage. Courts are cautious and may prioritise preserving the status quo until evidence can be tested at trial. Interim outcomes can therefore shape the practical reality for families for many months.
- Parental Freedom of Movement Is Not Determinative
While parents are free to live where they choose, children are not. The Court may limit where children live if necessary to protect their welfare and relationships. A parent’s convenience or preference cannot outweigh the child’s best interests.
- Allegations of Family Violence Must Be Evidence-Based
Where allegations of coercive control or family violence are raised in relocation cases, the Court must consider them carefully. However, such allegations must be supported by evidence and assessed in the context of the child’s safety and wellbeing, rather than used as a relocation justification alone.
Practical Takeaways for Parents
- Do not relocate with children without agreement or legal advice.
- Prepare detailed evidence addressing the child’s schooling, routines, relationships and support networks.
- Propose workable parenting arrangements that realistically preserve the child’s relationship with the other parent, if safe to do so.
- Understand that interim hearings are critical, particularly in relocation disputes.
Conclusion
Lando & Robin reinforces a consistent message in family law: relocation decisions turn on children’s needs, not parental preferences. Courts will intervene where unilateral moves undermine stability or meaningful parental relationships, especially at the interim stage.
For parents considering relocation after separation, early legal advice is essential to understand the risks, obligations, and evidence required to support any proposed move.
