Watson & Watson

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge A Kelly considered an application by a father to vary final parenting orders made by consent in 2012. The dispute concerned the time the children would spend with their father, with the father alleging the mother had refused any latitude regarding the existing orders. The parties' relationship since separation had been conflictual and entrenched, characterised by fraught communication and generalised, unsupported complaints by the applicant father, and intractable, goading communication from the respondent mother. The matter had been extensively litigated since 2009, involving significant expert evidence and considerable financial and emotional costs, which had a derivative impact on the children.

The court was required to determine whether there had been a significant change in circumstances since the final parenting orders were made in 2012, a threshold issue raised by the respondent mother who sought dismissal of the application with indemnity costs. The court also had to consider the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, applying principles from cases such as *Rice* and *Asplund*. This involved examining the wishes of the children, who were now adolescents with the ability and desire to express their views, and were aware of the tension between their parents. The court also had to assess the father's history of depression and alcohol abuse, which was now in remission, and the mother's alleged narcissistic personality disorder, which expert evidence did not support.

Judge Kelly found that a sufficiently material change in circumstances had been shown to re-consider the existing parenting orders. The court attached significant weight to the wishes expressed by the children, who wanted the status quo to be maintained, and noted that the children were not at risk of serious psychological or physical harm from either parent. While acknowledging the importance of the finality of litigation, the court was satisfied that it was in the children's best interests to vary the parenting orders to allow for a meaningful relationship and time spent with both parents. The court was not obliged to accept either party's proposal, and ultimately ordered that the consecutive time the children spent with their father over the summer holiday period be extended. The application was otherwise dismissed.