RUPERT & RUPERT

In the matter of *Rupert & Rupert*, heard by Judge M Neville, the father sought to vary existing consent orders concerning parenting arrangements for the child. The father had relocated closer to the child’s residence, and the mother alleged that the child’s educational, social, and developmental needs were not being met through home schooling, and that the existing consent orders were not being implemented. The mother applied for summary dismissal of the father's application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the father's application to vary the consent orders should be summarily dismissed, applying the threshold test established in *Rice & Asplund*. This required the court to determine if the mother's allegations, if proven, would be sufficient to warrant a variation of the existing orders, or if the father's application lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis to proceed to a full hearing.

Judge M Neville reasoned that the mother's allegations concerning the unmet educational, social, and developmental needs of the child, as well as the non-implementation of the consent orders, raised serious issues that warranted further investigation. The court found that these allegations, if substantiated, could constitute a material change in circumstances or demonstrate that the current arrangements were not in the child's best interests, thus meeting the threshold for a variation. Consequently, the court dismissed the father's Initiating Application filed on 27 February 2020.