FENTON & FONTAINE

In the Family Court of Australia, the mother sought parenting orders concerning the child B, following the making of final orders. The mother contended that a significant change in circumstances had occurred, primarily based on the child's expressed views, as documented in a family report, that she wished to live with the mother.

The central legal issues before the court were whether there had been a significant change in circumstances since the making of the final orders, and if so, what parenting orders were in the best interests of the child. A further issue concerned the weight to be given to the expert opinion contained within the family report, particularly in light of its methodology and reasoning.

The court determined that the expert's opinion, which recommended the child live with the mother, did not meet the criteria established in *Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles* because its pathway of reasoning was not clear. Consequently, the expert conclusions and recommendations were not relied upon. Without sufficient evidence of a significant change in circumstances, the mother's application was dismissed. The court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility and directed the parties to consider how the child could spend more time with her mother.