Parenting Matters

Reopening parenting proceedings: What is a material change in circumstances?

A commonly referred to parenting case, Rice & Asplund 179 FLC, set an important precedent that a finalised parenting case ought not be reopened unless the Court is satisfied that there has been a significant change in circumstances. The change does not need to be so significant that it would clearly result in a change to the orders, however the change or fresh circumstances must demonstrate a real likelihood of change being made to the orders.

So, in what circumstances has the Court found that there has been a significant change of circumstances?

  • The relocation, or proposed relocation of a parent is a common basis upon which the Court will permit reopening of proceedings. In the case of Stern & Colli [2022] FedCFam C1A 95, at the time that final orders had been made by the (then) Federal Circuit Court of Australia in 2017, the Father had been living approximately four hours from the child, who lived primarily with the mother. He sought to reopen proceedings in 2020, after he had relocated such that the distance between the Father and the child was reduced to a 40-minute drive. The Father’s application to reopen was dismissed, however on appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court found that the Father had demonstrated sufficient reasons to reopen the parenting case. The matter was remitted for hearing.

  • In the case of Shan & Prasad (2020) FLC, the Court at first instance dismissed the Father’s application to reopen proceedings. The Father had relied on new psychiatric evidence demonstrating the improvement in his mental health. On appeal, it was found that the evidence adduced by the Husband was sufficient to warrant the reopening of proceedings.

  •   In the case of Westlake & Westlake [2019] FamCA 563, the Father’s application to reopen proceedings was dismissed. Final Orders had been made providing for the Father to have only supervised time with the children. He subsequently relied on evidence obtained from a psychologist, asserting that such evidence demonstrated an improvement in his mental health such that a reopening of proceedings was warranted. The Father’s application was dismissed, with reference to other expert evidence which showed the Father’s “personality with obsessional and narcissistic traits which are very well developed which do not equate to being a mental illness which can be treated”. Those findings satisfied the Court that there was no change in the Father’s fixed views of the Mother to justify reopening the proceedings.

  • The change resulting from passage of time has been a circumstance in which the Court will consider reopening proceedings. A common example of this would be when orders are made for an infant, such that there is no provision for the child to have overnight time with one parent. Of course, over time, those orders become restrictive and no longer support the best interests of the child.

  • If there are allegations of physical or emotional harm or abuse, sufficient for the Court to be satisfied that there is risk of harm, the Court has reopened proceedings.

  • Parties may also make Orders by consent in recognition of a change in circumstance, however it remains open to the Court to refuse to reopen proceedings, or make further orders by consent, if there is not a sufficient change in circumstances.

Ultimately, the Court needs to determine whether it is appropriate to reopen a case based on the particular facts in each case. A change in a party’s geographical location or simply the passage of time may or may not demonstrate a change in circumstances adequate to justify the reopening of parenting proceedings.                                                                                                

For this reason, it is prudent to obtain advice tailored to your circumstances from a family lawyer, ideally as soon as possible after separation, in order to preserve your interests. Contact Robinson + McGuinness to make an appointment on (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Margot McCabe

Exploring the Proposed Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975

In early 2023, following reviews by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee into Australia’s family law system, the Attorney-General’s Department published an exposure draft of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 for public comment. The primary focus of the proposed amendments is ensuring that the family law system prioritises and recognises the best interests of the child.

 The amendment Bill contains a number of proposed changes. Some of the most significant are:

The Removal of the Presumption of Equal Shared Parental Responsibility

Currently, section 61DA of the Family Law Act applies a presumption that parents should receive equal shared parental responsibility unless a party can show the Court that it is not in the best interests of the child. The removal of this presumption could make the process for obtaining parenting orders simpler for parties, which would in turn allow the Court to better focus on understanding the best interests of the child.

An Overhaul of the Factors Considered by the Court when Determining the Best Interests of the Child

In its existing form, the Family Law Act provides two main factors and thirteen additional factors to be considered when determining what parenting arrangement would be in the best interests of the child. The suggested changes see this being simplified to six factors of equal weight. There is also a seventh factor to be applied when the child identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Requiring that the Independent Children’s Lawyer meet with the Child

Independent Children’s Lawyers are not presently required to meet with the child whose interests they are representing. It is being proposed that Independent Children’s Lawyers must meet with all children over the age of five, so that they are able to voice any views or concerns they may have in relation to the matter.

Restricting the Filing of Potentially Harmful Applications

The amendment Bill seeks to limit the filing of applications which may be especially harmful to the child and/or the respondent. Under the proposed changes, the Court would have the power to dismiss applications it believes are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

Notwithstanding these proposed changes, navigating the family law system can be complex and confusing. To make an appointment with one of our experienced family lawyers please contact our office on (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online.

Author: Hannah Gibson

What is the role of an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL)?

An Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) is a lawyer appointed by the Court to assist the Court in determining what parenting arrangements are in the child (or children’s) best interests.

ICLs are experienced family lawyers who have completed the national ICL accreditation program. Their fees are usually met in the first instance by the local Legal Aid authority, but parties are often requested to make a contribution to the costs of the ICL, and the Court may order that they meet the costs of the ICL.

An ICL is not appointed by the Court in every parenting matter. The Court can appoint an ICL on its own motion, or following an application by one or more of the parties. When considering whether to appoint an ICL the Court may take into account factors, including:

  • Any allegations of risk or family violence;

  • The age and maturity of the children;

  • Where there is significant conflict between the parties; or

  • Where one (or both) parties are not legally represented.

Once appointed, the ICL will read all of the documents filed by the parties, consider any relevant subpoena material, express their view (where applicable) to the parties about any issues that arise, and attend and participate in each listing of the matter before the Court.

Although the ICL may meet with the children to discuss their views and may communicate those views to the Court, they are not appointed to be a lawyer for the children or to act on their instructions. Instead, their role is to provide an independent view and assist the Court in working out arrangements that are in the children’s best interests. This may, or may not, be consistent with the children’s views or the views held by the parties.

The ICL also helps the Court by ensuring important evidence is available for the Court’s consideration, such as by issuing subpoenas to obtain relevant records from the children’s schools, the police or child protection bodies.

If the matter proceeds to a final hearing, the ICL will also ask each of the parties questions during cross-examination and, having read, heard and considered all of the evidence, make submissions to the Court about the final orders that they consider are in the best interests of the children.

The ICL plays an important role as an independent ‘honest broker’ between the parties and can help negotiate a settlement of their parenting matter without the need for a determination by the Court, such as by organising and participating in a mediation with the parties and their lawyers.

Although the ICL’s view is likely to carry some weight in the proceedings, the ultimate determination about the children’s arrangements rests with the Court.

If you think an ICL may need to be appointed you should seek legal advice from a family lawyer about whether this is appropriate in the circumstances of your matter.

Binding Child Support Agreement legislation changes

Binding Child Support Agreement legislation changes

Do you have a Binding Child Support Agreement? If so, do you ever review it? Do you remember what it says? The answer is probably no…