Bronson and May (No.2)

In Bronson and May (No.2), Judge Jones considered an application by the Mother to dismiss the Father's Amended Initiating Application. The dispute concerned parenting orders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether, when applying the principle established in *Rice and Asplund*, it is necessary to address in detail, or at all, the factors set out in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning a child's best interests. The court considered previous Full Court decisions, including *Carriel & Lendrum*, *Miller & Harrington*, and *Poisat & Poisat*, which indicated that while the best interests of the child remain paramount, the nature and extent of the consideration of section 60CC factors can vary depending on the circumstances.

The court reasoned that the principle in *Rice and Asplund* is generally not in the child's best interests to have repeated applications concerning their custody and access. This is because a prior parenting order already reflects the child's best interests at the time of its making, and ongoing disputes are contrary to a child's welfare. Therefore, further litigation should only be embarked upon if a sufficient change in circumstances can be demonstrated. The court also considered whether an order dismissing an application under *Rice and Asplund* constitutes a "parenting order" under the Act, expressing doubt that it does, as the definition in section 64B does not appear to include such dismissals.

The court ordered that the Mother's application to dismiss the Father's Amended Initiating Application be dismissed. The proceedings were adjourned for a mention on 7 December 2017.