Betros & Betros

The case of *Betros & Betros* concerned an application by a father seeking to reopen parenting arrangements for his three children. The father sought to vary existing orders that provided for the children to live with their mother and have limited supervised time with him. Both the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) opposed the father's application to reopen the proceedings. The court was required to determine whether there had been a significant change in the children's circumstances to warrant a fresh hearing regarding their parenting arrangements, applying the principles derived from *Rice & Asplund*.

The court's primary consideration was the best interests of the children. The father's application to reopen the proceedings was based on his contention that there had been a significant change in circumstances. However, the court found that the evidence presented did not establish a prima facie case of changed circumstances. Even if some changes were accepted, they were not deemed sufficient to justify reopening the proceedings, particularly given the limited prospect of success for the father's application and the potential detriment to the children from further litigation. The court noted that previous proceedings had identified a need to protect the children from psychological harm and that the father had engaged in behaviour designed to undermine the children's relationship with their mother.

Despite dismissing the father's application to reopen the parenting orders, the court acknowledged the children's strong views regarding their time with their father. In line with a recommendation from the family consultant and with the agreement of both parties, the court ordered that the Independent Children's Lawyer, potentially with expert assistance, explain to the children the reasons for the supervised time arrangements. The father's Initiating Application and any amended applications were otherwise dismissed.