Olenghi & Salambo

In *Olenghi & Salambo*, Berman J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father to discharge and/or amend final parenting orders made in 2016. The mother sought the dismissal of the father's application. The original orders had granted the mother sole parental responsibility, with the child to live with her, and provided for a graduated reintroduction of supervised time between the child and the father, followed by psychological preparation for unsupervised time.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there had been a material change in circumstances since the final parenting orders were made in 2016, such that it would be in the child's best interests to revisit those orders. This required consideration of the rule in *Rice & Asplund*, which establishes that further litigation concerning a child's best interests should generally only be permitted if a sufficient change in circumstances has occurred since the making of existing orders. The court also had regard to principles under section 69ZN of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly the need to consider the impact of proceedings on the child and the court's role in managing proceedings.

Berman J applied the principles from *Rice & Asplund*, noting that existing orders reflect the child's best interests at the time of their making and that litigation itself can be contrary to a child's best interests. The court found that the father's proposed changes, which largely involved appointing a different psychologist for reunification counselling, did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances. Crucially, the court placed significant weight on therapeutic evidence indicating that the child continued to suffer from trauma, likely as a consequence of the father's conduct, manifesting in maladaptive behaviours. The court concluded that further litigation would likely exacerbate the child's traumatised presentation and would not be in the child's best interests.

Consequently, the father's Initiating Application was dismissed. The mother's response, seeking dismissal of the father's application, was also dismissed as a necessary consequence.