help answrring the question about relocation to this essay.

Hong is also a new client. She tells you that she and her partner, Kien, separated two years ago. So far, everything has been reasonably amicable, although for the first year after separation, Hong did not want to see the children very often. They haven't made any long-term plan in relation to the children. Earlier this year, they tentatively (and verbally only) agreed to an arrangement whereby the children, Jason (aged 15), Milly (aged 7) and Grace (aged 5) will live with her but spend two nights a week with Kien. This happens most weeks but Kien has cancelled at the last minute several times. They also agreed to share the school holidays equally but because of Kien's work commitments he has not taken the children at least twice when he was supposed to and only had them for one week in the last Summer holidays. Hong says that things have been going reasonably well this year, but she is concerned as to whether she should obtain some Court orders to give her certainty about the children. As they are not married, she is unsure as to which Court would hear any dispute. Hong says that a few weeks ago she was talking to Kien about locking into a formal arrangement that more realistically reflected his work commitments. Kien said to her 'You should be happy with what we have. If you take me to Court and try to reduce the time I have with the children through our agreement, you would be seen as an interfering parent. That will go against you'. Hong has been thinking of moving with the children back to Brisbane where her parents and extended family live. She mentioned it to Kien once last year and he said, 'You can't move without my permission'. She wants to know if this is true and if Kien could stop her moving. Hong does not get on with Kien's parents. She says they always take Kien's side. She says that Kien's father is very strict and the children are scared of him. Years ago, Kien told her that his father had been violent towards him as a child. The children have always regularly visited their grandparents and have stayed with them from time to time for a night or two but have told her they did not like it. Recently, Kien's father said to her, 'Kien told me you might be moving. We will l we can to stop you. You can't take our grandkids away. We are entitled to time with them. It's in the law'. Again, she wants to know if there is any truth to this. Hong says that 20 years ago, when they started going out, Kien was a heavy drinker and would sometimes get violent. She says that he changed his ways shortly after they started going out rarely drank. He has not acted violently since. However, she is now concerned that a court dispute might trigger past behaviour and wants to know what happens if Kien becomes violent toward her or the children in terms of how the Court takes such things into account in deciding parenting arrangements and how it might impact on the process. Finally, Hong says that she has gone back to using her maiden name and wants to know if she can also have the children known by her maiden name.

In s63B of the FLA, parenting agreements are the preferred avenue for determining custody arrangements in Australia however are not binding. Hong and Kien have a tentative arrangement already; however, despite the inconsistency of Kien, she seeks more stability with the children. Although the 'status Quo" is current it may not be a long term, or in the best interest. In the Marriage of Raby , the Full Court put forward several matters that may be relevant in evaluating the significance of the status quo in a given case: age of the child, the length of the status quo, its quality and, in particular, the nature of the child- adult relationships developed within it. S63B of the Family Law Act (FLA) states that "the parents of a child are encouraged to, Agree about matters concerning the child, take responsibility for their parenting arrangements and for resolving parental conflict and to use the legal system as a last resort rather than the first resort." However Kien is threatening Hong that if she goes to court it will go against her, therefore from the facts we can conclude that the parents can not agree and the court will impose parenting orders.

Parenting orders that are imposed by the courts are also under the jurisdiction of the FLA, s64B outlining that the extent of the order can include

• Who child lives with
• Allocation of parental responsibilities and maintenance of children.

The process can be made by one or both parents , under s65D(1). We can conclude from the previous violence and possibly trigger of a violent act, s65F would be voided in this case.

Once the court is satisfied, they will consider the "best interest of the child" of the upmost importance in s60cc as follows:

1. The benefit of the child is to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.
2. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subject to, or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.

In evaluating these factors the court will begin in s61 D of the FLA, which is that equal shared parental responsibility is the starting point. There was a belief that children would naturally be better off with their mothers, Gronow v Gronow (1979) by the High Court affirmed that there was no principle or presumption favoring maternal custody. Consequently as a result of this the courts use the best interest of the child test as well as the presumption of shared parental responsibilities to come to a practicable order. If it has been found that equal shared parenting time is applicable, in this case it would be determined under s65DAA of the FLA, whether equal shared parenting time or "substantial and significant time" is in the best interest of the children.

Due to the fact Kien has canceled at the last minute several times, it is highly doubtful that he has the ability to adequately look after the children on a 50/50 basis, thus making it neither reasonably practical nor in the best interest of the children.

In order for Hong to change the children's last name back to her maiden name she would need the consent from both parents in order to change. The court will only consider the children's best interest and their connection to each name and how the change will impact the children. The surname is a "major long term issue" s4 (1), If one party applies to court to force issue "best interest" applies. Drawing from the precedents of Chapman v Palmer (1978) leading case that the name that has the best interest of the child. The courts aim to determine which surname better serves the Childs welfare. The full court decision in Reynolds v Sherman further emphasises that a Childs surname falls under parental responsibility. S 64B (2) and 60CA of the FLA. The court in Hong case will look to the children's welfare, potential effects of the name change and if he decision results in embarrassing the child.

Regarding Kien parents, the FLA under section 60CC(3) (b) specifically referred to grandparents, ( No such reference in 60 CC(2)(e) a child's best interest requires the courts to look at their relationship with the grandparents. Although there is consideration, Grandparents do not have an automatic right to see their grandchildren, but have the right to apply to the court. Further, s 60B(2)(b), one of the principles underlying the objects of Pt VII, talks of children having a right to spend time and communicate with their grandparents and other relatives; it does not mention living with them. In determining whether Kiens parents are entitled to seeing their grandchildren. The court will use the same "best interest" test as for parenting orders and use factors such as the views expressed by the children and the children's relationship with their grandparents. Thus, the court will look at the children's "best interest", considering the facts that say the children "do not like it" the likelihood of the court deciding this will be unlikely as it may not be in the child's best interest.

Hong concerns that the court might trigger violence and that Kien has a history of violence, the court's position can be seen above about s 60CC where the "best interest" of the child are concerned. In the context of assessing whether Kiens history of violence and the violent past with the grandparents poses a risk to the children's best interest, the High Court formulated the test for harm in M v M (1988). This test asks the questions "is there an unacceptable risk?" This test was originally for sexual abuse cases but was extended to violence cases as well. When determining whether or not there is an unacceptable risk to children in regards to violence, an investigation into the truth of the allegations but rather the potential risk into those allegations if they were true. This can further be seen in A v A (1998) in which courts decided it could examine the allegation to decide whether an unacceptable risk was present but it was not the courts task to determine the truths of those allegations. We can see in the facts that Kien was a heavy drinker and violent on some occasions and his parents have been violent towards him as a child, thus far, should Kien commit an act of violence towards Hong or the children. The court will take the facts of the allegation and examine them to determine the risk associated with visitation and declare if it is in the best interest of the children.

However, if we look at Hong's desire to relocate her and the children to Briibane.