Barrine and Vance (No.2)

This matter concerned a parenting dispute between the applicant father and the respondent mother regarding their young child, [X]. The father sought orders for joint parental responsibility and a gradual increase in his time with [X], ultimately aiming for an equal time regime. The mother sought sole parental responsibility, with [X] living with her and spending supervised time with the father. The Independent Children’s Lawyer recommended joint parental responsibility but with limited, supervised and unsupervised time with the father. The court was presided over by Judge O'Sullivan.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there had been a sufficient change in circumstances since the previous orders were made to justify altering those orders, in accordance with the principles established in cases such as *Rice v Asplund* and *SPS & PLS*. This involved determining whether the father's application should be dismissed at a preliminary stage, without a full hearing, due to a lack of demonstrated change in circumstances sufficient to warrant further litigation. The court also considered the overarching principle of acting in the best interests of the child, and the need to avoid "endless litigation" and the psychological harm it can inflict on children.

Judge O'Sullivan applied the "rule in Rice & Asplund", as explained in *Searson & Searson*, to determine the application as a preliminary matter. The court noted that this rule is a practical application of the best interests principle, designed to prevent repetitive litigation where there has not been a material change in circumstances. The judge found that the previous orders, which granted the mother sole parental responsibility and stipulated a specific time regime with the father, were to be maintained unless a significant change in circumstances was demonstrated. The court's reasoning indicated that the father had not presented sufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to justify disturbing the existing orders, and that continuing the litigation would be detrimental to the child's welfare.

The application filed on 19 June 2017 was dismissed.