HIKMAT & JARMAIN

In the Family Court of Australia, the mother sought the enforcement of final consent orders, specifically an order requiring the parties to apply for a passport for the child. The father had complied with this passport order during the proceedings. The father, in turn, sought to vary the final parenting orders, which had been made by consent less than six months prior.

The court was required to determine whether to enforce the passport order and whether to vary the final parenting orders. In relation to the father's application to vary the orders, the court had to consider the principles established in *Rice v Asplund* and assess whether there had been a significant change in circumstances warranting a re-litigation of the parenting arrangements. The court also had to consider the mother's application for costs.

Macmillan J found that there was no significant change in circumstances and that the father's proposed variations did not alter the existing orders in a significant way that would justify further litigation. The court concluded that it was not in the child's best interests to embark on further litigation. Consequently, the father's application to vary the parenting orders was dismissed. The court also noted the mother's claim for costs and directed the parties to file written submissions on this issue.