The principle, borne from the 1978 case of Rice v Asplund, is that the Court can only revisit final parenting orders where it is satisfied “there has been substantial change in the circumstances since that earlier order”. Citing Chief Justice Evatt in that case, the court:

should not lightly entertain an application to reverse an earlier custody order [now referred to as parenting orders]. To do so would be to invite endless litigation… the court would need to be satisfied… there is some changed circumstance which will justify such a serious step, some new factor arising or… some factor which was not disclosed at the previous hearing which would have been material.

In contemplation of the rule in Rice v Asplund, the Court takes the view (citing Nygh J in McEnearney v McEnearney) that:

The last thing…this court would wish to see would be a perennial football match between parents who…might seek to canvass again and again the question of custody of a child with the enormous psychological harm which they would be inflicting not only upon each other but especially upon the child…

In 2017 (nearly 40 years later), the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard the case of Searson v Searson in which it considered the rule in Rice v Asplund in light of the mother’s application to change final parenting orders, to allow her to relocate interstate with the parties’ children. In Searson, the original final parenting orders were made with the consent of the parties on 25 May 2015, providing for the parties’ three sons to live primarily with the mother and spend five nights a fortnight with the father.

On 5 September 2016, the mother filed a fresh application for final parenting orders. She sought to relocate with the children to South East Queensland to live with her de facto partner and proposed that the children travel to Melbourne six times a year to visit their father. The mother submitted that her financial circumstances were “dire” (in part, due to the father’s failure to meet his child support obligations) and she intended living with her new partner (with the children) who would provide financial and emotional support. The parties’ solicitors agreed that the question of whether the rule in Rice v Asplund applied should be determined on a preliminary (separate) basis.

Her Honour Judge Harland heard, and dismissed, the mother’s application on 9 December 2016 finding that she had not:

established a prima facie case that there has been a significant change of circumstance. Many of the issues the mother raises, were issues raised at the time of the final hearing or which could have been raised… [for example] her relationship [with her new partner in South East Queensland] existed at the time of the final court orders…

Harland J took the view that there wasn’t any ‘new factor arising’ as the parties had already contemplated the mother’s de facto relationship at the time they consented to final parenting orders.

The mother appealed successfully to the Full Court. Murphy J held (and Kent & Loughnan JJ agreed). The original orders were predicated upon the parties being in close geographical proximity. The mother’s evidence was that at the time of the earlier orders, her “committed” de facto relationship had been “developing”, but since then the relationship had “deepened” and her financial circumstances had deteriorated – giving rise to her desire to relocate. The Full Court thus held that:

the mother presented a compelling prima facie case that the circumstances relevant to the co-parenting of the children had changed [and] … were substantial.”

The appeal was allowed and the matter sent back to the Federal Circuit Court for trial to determine if there was merit in the mother’s application to relocate with the children. It is clear from this case that careful consideration must always be given to the purpose and reasons for any parenting application after Final Parenting Orders have been made.

To discuss any matter concerning your current parenting orders, please contact a member of our Family Law team.

Related Articles

View All
Family Law / Family Law Advice

Tisher Liner FC Law (Family Law) and Justine Clark recognised in Doyle’s Guide

Tisher Liner FC Law has been recognised within the family law profession in the Doyle’s Guide as a recommended...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

The Merging of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court – what does it mean for you?

The merger of the two Courts is intended to resolve the backlog of family law matters awaiting judicial determination...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

Announcement of new Family Law Special Counsel – Brynne Allen

We are pleased to announce the appointment of Brynne Allen as Special Counsel in Family Law at Tisher Liner FC Law...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

Separating? Ten tech changes you need to make NOW

Often parties inadvertently continue to receive and access information about their former partner or spouse after...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

Spousal Maintenance: Drafting Effective – Applications and Interim & Final Maintenance Orders

The presentation to other family lawyers, as part of the requirement for solicitors to undertake continuing legal...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

Lunar New Year: Good Luck and Misfortune (and Windfalls in Family Law)

As we welcome the auspicious Year of the Ox, some may be tempted to seek their fortune by purchasing a lottery ticket...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

I want my child to be vaccinated against COVID-19 – but my ex does not agree… What do I do?

  On 7 January 2021, the Australian Government announced its national roll-out strategy for the COVID-19 vaccine...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

When can I apply for a Divorce after I have separated? Does a Divorce impact on my property settlement?

There are very particular requirements that need to be met for a Divorce Order to be made by the Court However, if all...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

Who buys the blazer? Back to school child support issues

Of course, parents can come to their own arrangements about these issues and both parties have a financial obligation...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

Family Law Update – Expanded COVID-19 List

The criteria for the list has been expanded to those family law matters which have been directly and indirectly...
Read More
Family Law

United Nation’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

On 7 February 2000, the General Assembly of the United Nations officially designated 25 November 2020 as the...
Read More
Family Law / Family Law Advice

Family Law Court Filing Deadlines for Parenting Applications

However before we close the door on 2020 and move onwards and upwards towards a (hopefully) brighter 2021, it is...
Read More