FINCH & SHIBO

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Finch (the father) to vary consent orders made in November 2011 concerning parenting arrangements for the child K. Ms Shibo (the mother) opposed the application and sought orders that the father be restrained from commencing further proceedings without leave of the court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the father had demonstrated a significant change in circumstances justifying a variation of the existing consent orders, and whether his application was frivolous or vexatious, warranting an order under section 118 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) requiring him to obtain leave before commencing future proceedings. The court also considered the paramountcy of the child's best interests and the need to protect the mother from further harassment.

Justice Forrest dismissed the father's application, finding that he had failed to persuade the court that a variation of the orders was in the child's best interests. The court found that the father had not demonstrated a significant change in circumstances since the consent orders were made, and that his evidence regarding his alleged incapacity to comply with the existing transition arrangements was not credible. Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed alternative transition locations were unavailable or unsuitable, and that the existing arrangements were necessary to shield the child from the risk of violence and abuse due to the history of domestic violence between the parents. The court concluded that the father's application was frivolous and vexatious, having no reasonable prospect of success and serving only to cause annoyance.

Consequently, the court ordered that the father must not commence any proceedings seeking orders under Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* in any court without first obtaining the leave of a court having jurisdiction. Any application for leave was to be heard ex-parte and not served on the mother.