TEASDALE & HILKER

In the matter of *Teasdale & Hilker*, heard by Judge Lapthorn, the dispute concerned an application to discharge existing consent orders made on 2 September 2015 regarding the parenting arrangements for a child. The original consent orders had stipulated the child's attendance at a particular school, despite the parents residing in different cities. The applicant sought to alter these arrangements, proposing a change in the child's residence and school, and a reduction in the child's time with the respondent father.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it was reasonably practicable for the parties to comply with the existing consent orders, particularly in light of the child's current living arrangements and the proposed changes. This required the court to consider the principles established in *Rice* and *Asplund*, which guide the discharge of consent orders in family law matters, and to assess the child's best interests in the context of these considerations. The court also had to determine if the circumstances warranted a departure from the previously agreed-upon arrangements.

Judge Lapthorn reasoned that the child was living in three households to accommodate the mother's wish to live in a different city from where the child attended school, indicating a degree of existing complexity in the arrangements. The court found that the proposed changes, which included a change of residence and school, and a reduction in time with the father, were not demonstrably in the child's best interests and that the existing orders, despite their complexities, remained reasonably practicable to comply with. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to discharge the consent orders. The court ordered that the Initiating Application filed on 16 August 2019 be dismissed and that both the applicant and respondent comply with the consent orders made on 2 September 2015.