Final parenting orders are meant to bring stability to separated families—but what happens when one parent wants to change them? In Lang & Elsie [2023], the Family Court considered whether a father could reopen final parenting orders that were made just a year earlier.
This case is a helpful example of how the court applies the Rice & Asplund principle, which says that final orders can only be reopened if there’s been a significant change in circumstances.
Let’s break down what happened, what the court decided, and what this means for other families navigating long-term parenting arrangements.
Background of the Case
- The parties were the parents of a child born in 2018.
- In 2022, the court had already made final parenting orders—the child was to live with the mother and spend time with the father on alternate weekends and during holidays.
- Just one year later, the father filed a new application asking the court to change those orders.
He wanted:
- Equal shared parental responsibility
- Equal time with the child
- A completely new parenting schedule
The mother opposed the application, arguing that there had been no material change in circumstances that justified reopening final orders.
What Is Rice & Asplund?
This legal test comes from a 1979 case that set an important precedent. The principle says:
Final parenting orders should not be reopened unless there has been a significant change in circumstances that would make it in the best interests of the child to reconsider the arrangements.
The idea is to prevent endless litigation and give children stability.
In Lang & Elsie, the court had to decide if the father’s application met this threshold.
The Father’s Arguments
The father said:
- He had moved closer to the mother’s home, reducing travel time
- His relationship with the child had improved
- He had a more stable living situation
- He was now better equipped to co-parent and make decisions jointly
He argued that these changes warranted a fresh look at the parenting orders.
The Mother’s Position
The mother said:
- There was no significant change—just small improvements on the father’s part
- The child was thriving under the existing arrangement
- The application was more about the father’s dissatisfaction than the child’s needs
She relied on Rice & Asplund, saying that nothing had happened that justified relitigating settled orders.
What the Court Decided
The court refused to reopen the parenting orders.
Key findings included:
- No Material Change in Circumstances
The father’s relocation, improved housing, and positive relationship with the child were commendable—but not enough to amount to a “significant change” under the Rice & Asplund test.
The judge noted that these were expected life adjustments and not a dramatic shift requiring court intervention.
- Existing Orders Were Working
There was no evidence that the current parenting arrangement was harming the child. On the contrary, the child was doing well, maintaining a positive relationship with both parents, and enjoying a stable routine.
- Final Orders Must Bring Certainty
The judge reinforced the importance of stability. Constantly revisiting final orders undermines the purpose of the court’s decisions and can create stress for the child.
Court’s Reasoning in Plain English
Even if a parent improves their circumstances, the court won’t necessarily change final orders. There must be:
- A genuine, significant shift that affects the child’s wellbeing, not just the parent’s wishes
- Evidence that the child’s current situation isn’t working
- A compelling reason that revisiting the orders would be in the child’s best interests
In this case, the father hadn’t met those criteria.
What This Case Teaches Us
1. Parenting Orders Are Final for a Reason
They’re designed to bring stability. Minor life changes—like a new job, home, or schedule—aren’t enough to reopen them.
2. The Rice & Asplund Test Sets a High Bar
Unless something major happens (like a risk to the child, a parent’s incapacity, or relocation that disrupts contact), the court won’t revisit settled orders.
3. The Child’s Needs Come First
The court doesn’t prioritise a parent’s desire for more time. It looks at whether changing the orders is genuinely in the child’s best interests.
4. Ongoing Disputes Can Hurt Your Case
Repeated applications without strong grounds can frustrate the court and create emotional strain for the child.
Practical Tip
Before filing to change final parenting orders, ask:
- Has something significantly changed that affects the child directly?
- Is the current arrangement not working for the child?
- Can I resolve this through mediation instead?
If the answer is no, the court is unlikely to entertain your application.