Dominic and Dominic

This case concerned an application by the father, Mr Dominic, to re-open finalised residence orders for one of his children, N, a 15-year-old. The mother, Ms Dominic, was the respondent. The dispute arose after final orders were made in November 2011, which placed the three younger children, including N, with their mother. The father sought to have N’s residence reconsidered, arguing that circumstances had changed significantly.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the father had established a significant change in circumstances sufficient to justify re-opening the finalised residence orders for N, applying the principles established in *Rice* and *Asplund*. Relatedly, the Court considered the expressed wishes of N, who was now 15 years old, and the ongoing issues of parental responsibility and time spent with the father for all four children, which remained before the Court.

The Court refused the father's application to re-open the residence orders. It found that the circumstances he relied upon were either predictable, anticipated by the Court in previous proceedings, or had subsisted throughout the litigation. Specifically, the mother recommencing a relationship was not considered a significant change. N's anxiety and depressive state, which had been present throughout the proceedings, were also not deemed a significant change. The Court noted that while N, now aged 15, expressed a wish to live with his father, his age alone did not constitute a significant change in circumstances that would warrant re-opening the residence orders. The Court acknowledged that issues concerning parental responsibility and the time N and his siblings would spend with their father were still to be determined.

Consequently, the Court refused leave to proceed with the father's application for a further residence order for N. The matter was adjourned for the determination of the remaining issues concerning parental responsibility and time between each of the children and their father.