QLD Rice V Asplund

[Complex3]

The purpose of the Rice & Asplund test is to protect children from being exposed to ongoing litigation merely because of a change in a parents circumstances since the making of the final order.
If that test is met, there is then the usual 'best interests of child' test

As you rightly point out, the threshold is therefore high & must include a demonstrable material change in circumstances.. I can't see how a 35KM change of residence in & of itself would even come close to meeting the threshold for a review of orders.

Thank you. My ex does live closer to the school than I do. I have been at the same residence for a number of years and was at the time of the making of the orders. I didn’t think this would make a material change enough to review them. You’ve put my mind very much at ease thank you.

 

[Rod]

And keep in mind that with final orders having been made, then before a new application can be made, FDR will have to have been attempted and failed.

 

[Complex3]

And keep in mind that with final orders having been made, then before a new application can be made, FDR will have to have been attempted and failed.

I thought that this could be waived if the orders were less than 12 months old? Or am I reading that incorrectly? We have had the orders 12 months in October.

 

[sammy01]

My 2 cents.
You seem reasonable. The other parent? confrontational. So not legal advice. Just life experience.... My ex still pulls this BS. I'm not a solicitor and neither are you... BUT we've both been lurking on this site long enough to have learned a thing or two... Meanwhile my ex gets her advice from less reputable sources like mother's group, or her best friend's neighbours cousin who works at CSA....
When the ex tells you the'yre applying to court, or any other BS, you need to smile and nod... SMILE AND NOD....

Best therapy I have when the ex is causing my head to spin? I read my court orders. I read the bit that states "the children shall live with their father". I like reading that. It reminds me that an authority higher than my ex has determined that "the children shall live with their father"

 

[Atticus]

I thought that this could be waived if the orders were less than 12 months old? Or am I reading that incorrectly? We have had the orders 12 months in October.

@Rod might like to add something, but generally (apart from the usual, urgency, child abuse etc) that 12 month exemption only applies if there has been a contravention of the final orders within that 12 months

 

[Rod]

Or am I reading that incorrectly?

I think so. The 12 months exception is one of 4 conditions that have to be satisfied. Suspect the other party will fail on 2 of the other conditions being s.60I(9)(c) (iii) and (iv).