BENSON & DRURY

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Kari considered a dispute between a father and a mother concerning final parenting orders made in August 2017. These orders had permitted the mother to relocate from Adelaide to Melbourne with the children. The father sought orders for the children to return to live in Adelaide, while the mother requested that the court first determine the application of the principles in *Rice v Asplund* as a threshold issue. The children were noted to be suffering from mental health issues.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the deterioration of the children’s mental health constituted a change in circumstances sufficient to justify reopening the final parenting proceedings. Secondly, whether a Family Report should be prepared before the court considered the principles established in *Rice v Asplund*.

Judge Kari dismissed the father's applications, finding that the deterioration in the children's mental health did not, in itself, constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant reopening the final parenting orders made in 2017. The court also determined that a Family Report was not required before considering the *Rice v Asplund* principles. Consequently, all parenting proceedings were dismissed as finalised.