NSW Significant change in circumstances - parenting orders

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Harmony003

Active Member
14 October 2020
12
0
31
Yes I can't see a successful application to vary coming out of this ......only the applicant needs a s60I certificate, so you won't have to bother getting one anyway if it comes to that
Can new orders be put forward via an initiating application to Family Court by the other party without even acknowledging or revising the current orders?
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
1,326
205
2,394
Can new orders be put forward via an initiating application to Family Court by the other party without even acknowledging or revising the current orders?
An initiating application doesn't alter any current orders... Only a new order can do that... An applicant submits an application with 'orders sought', ie, what orders they want, along with a supporting affidavit. The application (if made) is likley to be rejected anyway going by the circumstances you have mentioned
 

Harmony003

Active Member
14 October 2020
12
0
31
An initiating application doesn't alter any current orders... Only a new order can do that... An applicant submits an application with 'orders sought', ie, what orders they want, along with a supporting affidavit. The application (if made) is likley to be rejected anyway going by the circumstances you have mentioned
Thanks Atticus - I am stressing a little. The orders that the other party are seeking to put forward does not even take into account the current orders. It goes against everything that is in the current orders. I cannot fathom why a legal representative would entertain this if they were aware of current orders. At this stage I think it is just a thought - not yet lodged, however Legal rep has been employed
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
1,326
205
2,394
I cannot fathom why a legal representative would entertain this if they were aware of current orders. At this stage I think it is just a thought - not yet lodged, however Legal rep has been employed
Keep in mind the legal rep has only heard one side of the story, & have they actually even seen current order? who knows
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harmony003

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,323
631
2,894
In order to meet the threshold of significant change of circumstance the OP would need to meet a threshold that is pretty high. Read up on Rice and Asplund. So hypothetical. I have my kids half school holidays because after separation I moved 6 hours away. But I have now moved back to the same location as the ex. I'm seeking significant change of circumstance. I reckon I've got a chance. MAYBE....

But what you're talking is a situation where one parent has had parental responsibility removed. That is bloody serious. What ever caused that situation to arise isn't one that is likely to change enough to meet the def of significant change of circumstnace....
 

Harmony003

Active Member
14 October 2020
12
0
31
But what you're talking is a situation where one parent has had parental responsibility removed. That is bloody serious. What ever caused that situation to arise isn't one that is likely to change enough to meet the def of significant change of circumstnace....
Thanks for your advise Sammy01. Circumstances that lead to the sole PR were serious with undeniable evidence. However this does not seem to be of any concern or consideration from the other party - it seems that if the OP can forget and disregard past traumas then they expect the children and court system will possibly forget too? I am not sure how this will progress - if it would even get to a court hearing? I would have thought being granted sole PR would have protected us from demands from the OP regarding their rights to information / visits etc. Threats and ultimatums are being received via a third party at this stage, nothing via any legal avenues as yet - although I am advised legal rep has been employed. As another member has advised - 'possible the legal rep has not been given the true history.'
 
Last edited:

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,323
631
2,894
So just outa interest. If the ex has no parental responsibility. Does he still have to pay child support? Just interested. Not gonna judge. BTW i think he should.

Look bs from third parties. Smile and nod. Stress less. He's got nothing and he knows it so has to stoop to some internet trolling, chinese whispers and wasted $ on solicitors by not providing original court orders to try to play silly games because the legal system is done with him. Stress less. Smile and nod and move on with your life.
 

Harmony003

Active Member
14 October 2020
12
0
31
So just outa interest. If the ex has no parental responsibility. Does he still have to pay child support? Just interested. Not gonna judge. BTW i think he should.

Look bs from third parties. Smile and nod. Stress less. He's got nothing and he knows it so has to stoop to some internet trolling, chinese whispers and wasted $ on solicitors by not providing original court orders to try to play silly games because the legal system is done with him. Stress less. Smile and nod and move on with your life.
No the OP doesn't pay any CS. Legally the OP is required to pay CS until children are 18 - I was advised of this in the early days. OP used to offer between $30 and $50 a month a while back to support 3 x children. Anything offered from OP would require a million things in return. Needless to say it was not worth me pursuing as it would only open doors that need to be kept shut.
Thank you, the more feedback I receive regarding this matter seems to point in the direction of a misdirected solicitor that has not been informed of the accurate history and current facts. I will smile and nod and await part 2 of the bs storyline - it will come.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,323
631
2,894
yeah makes for an interesting ethical argument. For my two bob's worth if you've been deemed to have lost the privledge of parental responsibility it is because a court has determined it is not in the best interest of the kids to spend time with that parent. That is due to poor choices by that parent. Doesn't negate the fact that kids cost $ and it isn't the kid's fault that one of their parents is a twit...

That said, I agree with you. Not worth the stress, especially if the other parent has the capacity and desire to hide income from CSA