STONE & STONE

This decision concerns an application to vary parenting orders. The applicant sought to alter existing arrangements for the children, but the court was required to consider whether the threshold for such an alteration had been met.

The central legal issue before the court was the application of the "rule in Rice & Asplund," which concerns the circumstances under which previous parenting orders can be revisited. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient change in circumstances since the making of the original orders to justify a full hearing on the merits of the proposed variation.

The court, referencing the principles articulated in *Walsh & Sabey* and *SPS & PLS*, explained that the rule in *Rice & Asplund* is a practical application of the best interests principle, designed to prevent endless litigation that can be detrimental to children. It is not a technical rule but a determination on the merits, requiring a prima facie case of changed circumstances. If such a case is not established, the application is dismissed not for procedural reasons, but because the child's interest in avoiding further litigation outweighs the need to embark on a hearing. The court noted that this principle is particularly important in custodial disputes to avoid the psychological harm caused by "perennial football matches" between parents. The court posed the question, adapting the language from *SPS & PLS*, of whether, assuming the applicant's evidence is accepted, there is a sufficient change of circumstances to justify embarking on a hearing. This requires establishing a prima facie case of changed circumstances and then considering whether that change is sufficient to warrant a full hearing.