Cook & Tracey

This matter concerned an application by the mother to re-litigate residence issues concerning the parties' child. The application sought to change parenting orders made by Le Poer Trench J on 25 January 2005, following a defended hearing. The mother and father had a lengthy and complex litigation history, with the child having resided with the mother since birth. The mother had since remarried and relocated to Tasmania with her new husband and her son.

The primary legal issue before Benjamin J was whether the mother's application to change the existing parenting orders met the threshold established in *Rice v Asplund*. This test requires that there be either a substantial change in circumstances since the making of the last orders, or new evidence that was not before the court previously and is likely to produce a significantly different result. The court was required to determine if the mother's application satisfied this stringent test before allowing the matter to proceed to a full hearing.

Benjamin J dismissed the mother's application, finding that it failed to meet the *Rice v Asplund* test. His Honour reasoned that there had been no substantial change in circumstances since the 2005 orders, nor was there any new evidence presented that would likely lead to a significantly different outcome. The court applied the principles from *Rice v Asplund*, which are designed to prevent the constant re-litigation of parenting orders and to provide finality for families. The court also noted the extensive history of litigation between the parties, reinforcing the need for such a threshold test.

Consequently, Benjamin J ordered that the Response filed by the mother on 27 July 2007, along with all other outstanding applications, be dismissed. The matter was removed from the list of cases requiring determination. The court also certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel and senior counsel to attend the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004.