It has nothing to do with who initiates mediation. It's about genuinely attempting to consult and reach agreement about a major long-term decision affecting the child before going to court. If you don't consult with the father before making this decision and instead just unilaterally change the care arrangement and contravene the orders, you're going to experience more difficulty defending an argument that the court should listen to the child's opinion and change the orders instead of just imposing a bond.
You don't know that the father has 'technically' breached anything. The original poster is silent as to whether the orders hold that care arrangements are to be 'by agreement and failing agreement as follows', and they are also silent as to whether there were restrictions on relocation.
Why should the poster initiate mediation instead of just unilaterally changing the care arrangements? Because under statue law, that's their obligation, both as a party to orders, and more importantly, as a parent.
You don't know that the father has 'technically' breached anything. The original poster is silent as to whether the orders hold that care arrangements are to be 'by agreement and failing agreement as follows', and they are also silent as to whether there were restrictions on relocation.
Why should the poster initiate mediation instead of just unilaterally changing the care arrangements? Because under statue law, that's their obligation, both as a party to orders, and more importantly, as a parent.