Malloy and Stopford Malloy (No 3)

In the matter of *Malloy and Stopford Malloy (No 3)*, Harper J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father seeking time with the child, C. Consent orders made in 2017 had stipulated that C live with the mother and spend supervised time with the father. However, complications arose, leading to the cessation of supervised time, and the father had not seen C for two years prior to this application. The mother relied on the principles established in *Rice v Asplund*.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the father's application for time with C, particularly in circumstances where there was no fresh evidence concerning the child's current circumstances. The court was required to consider the application in light of the existing consent orders and the principles of *Rice v Asplund*, which generally require a significant change in circumstances to justify varying final parenting orders.

Harper J reasoned that given the passage of time and the cessation of contact, it was necessary to obtain updated expert evidence to properly assess the child's best interests. The court applied the principles that while *Rice v Asplund* requires a material change in circumstances to vary final orders, the court retains the power to gather evidence to inform its decision-making process, especially when the welfare of a child is concerned. The court determined that a Family Report was essential to address the issues identified in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Consequently, the court made orders for the appointment of an independent children's lawyer and directed the parties and the child to attend upon a Family Consultant for the preparation of a Family Report. The court also made directions regarding the provision of documents to the Family Consultant and the confirmation of interview dates.