RUNDLE & JAYNES

In the matter of *Rundle & Jaynes*, heard by Judge M Neville, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for a child. The father sought to vary existing consent orders made in 2017 to implement a week-about living arrangement for the child, commencing in 2022. The mother, who had re-partnered and had three children from that relationship, was resistant to this proposed change. The father had also re-partnered and had one child from that relationship.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the father's application to vary the parenting orders should be summarily dismissed, as sought by the mother. This required the court to consider the threshold established in *Rice & Asplund* for varying final parenting orders, particularly in circumstances where significant time has passed since the original orders were made and the parties' family circumstances have changed.

The court determined that the mother's application for summary dismissal should be dismissed. The reasoning applied was that the father's application raised arguable issues that warranted further consideration, and therefore did not meet the stringent threshold for summary dismissal. The court found that the changes in the parties' circumstances, including the birth of new children to both parents, were potentially significant enough to justify a re-examination of the existing parenting orders.

Consequently, the court ordered that the mother's application for summary dismissal be dismissed. Further, pursuant to s.11F of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the parties were directed to attend a Child Dispute Conference with a Family Consultant on 4 September 2020. This conference was to be reportable under s.11C of the Act, with parties advised that failure to comply with the order or the consultant's instructions would be reported to the Court.