MILBURN & MILBURN

In the matter of *Milburn & Milburn*, heard before Tree J of the Family Court of Australia, the father sought the dismissal of the mother's application, wishing to maintain existing orders for equal shared parental responsibility. The mother's application was brought to support a Family Report, amidst concerns of ongoing parental conflict and one child exhibiting self-harming behaviour. The mother had previously spent extended periods in the United Kingdom, leading to the father initiating Hague Convention proceedings, and had left the children in Australia to pursue employment overseas.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should apply, and whether historical or minor events of family violence should displace this presumption. Furthermore, the court considered the father's argument, based on the principles in *Rice and Asplund*, that the mother's application should be precluded from revisiting interim orders due to insufficient change in circumstances justifying re-litigation. The court also had to assess whether equal time with the children was in their best interests and was reasonable and practical, noting the mother's care of foster children.

Tree J reasoned that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should apply, and that historical or minor events that might satisfy family violence should not displace this presumption. The court found that the mother's application did not present sufficient change in circumstances to warrant re-litigation of interim orders, applying the principles established in *Rice and Asplund*. Ultimately, the court concluded that equal time with the children was in their best interests and was reasonable and practical.

Consequently, the mother's Application in a Case filed on 28 June 2016 was dismissed.