Poisat and Poisat

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Poisat (the mother) applied to dismiss an application by Mr Poisat (the father) to vary existing consent orders concerning the parenting arrangements for their two children. The original orders, made in September 2010, stipulated that the children live with the mother and spend time with the father on alternate weeks. The father sought to vary these orders to provide for equal shared time between the parents and also raised issues regarding the children's schooling.

The court was required to determine whether there were changed circumstances sufficient to justify revisiting the final parenting orders made by consent. This involved considering the principles established in *Rice & Asplund* (1979) and subsequent authorities, which emphasise the need to avoid endless litigation and protect children from the psychological harm of repeated court proceedings, unless there is a significant change in circumstances that demonstrably requires a fresh consideration of the children's welfare. The court also had to consider the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration, including their expressed wishes and the potential detriment of further litigation.

Justice Rees applied the principles from *Rice & Asplund*, noting that an application to vary final parenting orders should not be entertained lightly. The court found that the changes relied upon by the father, such as his de facto relationship, stable accommodation, and more flexible work arrangements, were primarily changes in his own circumstances and not of sufficient significance to warrant revisiting the parenting arrangements. While the father also referred to the children's counselling and speech therapy, the court considered these to be natural developments in children's lives and not indicative of a need to alter the existing orders. Crucially, the court gave significant weight to the children's expressed wishes to maintain the current arrangements, with both children indicating they were content with the status quo and did not support the father's proposal for equal time. The court concluded that the children's best interests, particularly their interest in finality and avoiding further litigation, outweighed any potential benefit of a fresh hearing.

Consequently, the father's application to vary the parenting orders was dismissed.