BEAUCHAMP & BEAUCHAMP

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Neville considered a parenting application brought by the Father, which was resisted by the Mother. The Father's primary contention was that he was no longer able to afford private school fees. However, he inferred that if the children spent more regular time with him, he would be able to contribute to these fees. The Mother also sought to amend the final parenting orders.

The central legal issue before the court was the application of the rule in *Rice & Asplund*. Specifically, the court had to determine whether this rule, which generally prevents a party from seeking to vary final parenting orders unless there has been a significant change in circumstances, applied to both the Father's application regarding school fees and the Mother's application to amend the final orders. The Father argued that the Mother could not rely on the *Rice & Asplund* rule to thwart his application while simultaneously seeking to change the final orders herself.

Judge Neville reasoned that the *Rice & Asplund* rule should be applied consistently to both parties' applications. The court found that the Mother could not invoke the rule to prevent the Father from seeking orders concerning school fees, while at the same time seeking to alter the existing final orders. The court noted that both parties had separately sought orders regarding the child's time with the Father.

By consent, the court ordered that the child, [X], would spend time with the Applicant Father in accordance with her wishes. Further orders were made restraining both parties from discussing the proceedings with or in the presence of the children, and requiring notification of the parenting orders to the Child Support Agency. There was no order as to costs, and all extant applications were dismissed, with the matter finalised.