Kulat & Azzarudin

Kulat & Azzarudin involved the appellant appealing against parenting orders made by a Family Court trial judge. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in exercising her discretion and provided inadequate reasons concerning the application of the rule in Rice and Asplund. The appeal was based on the premise that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the rule in Rice and Asplund, which is a guideline for considering a child's wishes in parenting disputes. The child in question had expressed contrary views to those stipulated in the 2012 final parenting orders. These orders had mandated a change in the child's primary care arrangements and relocation to Country C for secondary school. The child's intelligence and maturity were described as impressive, and the 2012 orders carried significant changes for the child.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the trial judge had correctly applied the rule in Rice and Asplund and whether the child's views were appropriately considered under s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The appellant contended that the trial judge had failed to adequately address the rule, which would have warranted its consideration as a preliminary issue. However, the court noted that the rule was addressed after a family report was completed and at the conclusion of the trial. The court found that the trial judge had properly exercised her discretion in assigning weight to the child's views, taking into account the child's intelligence, maturity, and the profound changes the 2012 orders would entail for the child. The court also found that the trial judge's reasons demonstrated consideration of various factors beyond the parties' disagreement.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge had not erred in her application of the rule in Rice and Asplund. The reasons provided by the trial judge demonstrated a thorough consideration of the child's views and other relevant factors. The court concluded that there was ample evidence to support reconsideration of the 2012 orders. The appellant's challenges to the trial judge's decision were without merit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $18,515.10.