Sometimes, even after a final parenting trial, the Family Court must revisit its decisions. In Wilkins & Wilkins (No. 2) [2023], the court reviewed and clarified parenting arrangements after new information emerged and both parties made further submissions.
This case highlights how the Court stays flexible—adjusting orders when needed to protect a child’s wellbeing and maintain stability.
Background Recap
In the original decision, the child—born in 2016—was ordered to live with the mother in regional New South Wales, while the father, who lived in Sydney, would have time during school holidays.
The court had refused to grant the father equal shared parental responsibility or school-term time due to:
- High conflict between the parties
- Poor communication
- The father’s past behaviour, including abusive messages and controlling tendencies
The child’s emotional safety and school stability were the top priorities.
Why the Court Revisited the Orders
After the initial orders were made, both parents requested clarification and adjustments. The court allowed further submissions on two key areas:
- Holiday arrangements
- Communication and transition between homes
This follow-up case was not a full re-trial—it focused on fine-tuning the original parenting orders to ensure they were clear, workable, and in the child’s best interests.
The Adjustments Made
1. Holiday Time Re-Defined
The father’s time with the child was clarified as follows:
- Specific dates for the April, July, September/October, and December/January holidays
- A rotating schedule to balance time fairly year to year
This created structure and predictability, especially important for a child adjusting to long-distance travel.
2. Transitions and Transport
The court introduced more detailed provisions around:
- Changeover locations and timing
- Responsibility for travel, with the parents to alternate who travels each holiday
- A firm requirement that neither parent expose the child to conflict during handovers
These steps aimed to reduce tension and prevent further disputes at drop-offs and pickups.
3. Communication Between Parents
Given the high conflict and history of abusive emails from the father, the court limited communication to essential matters—via email only.
The judge reinforced that:
- No negative comments should be made about the other parent in front of the child
- Both parents must act in the child’s best emotional interest, especially during transitions
Why These Changes Mattered
Even after a trial, the Court has the power to amend or clarify orders if it becomes clear that:
- The original orders are unclear or incomplete
- There’s a risk of renewed litigation or confusion
- A child’s wellbeing could be negatively impacted
In this case, the follow-up judgment helped reduce ambiguity and set a smoother path forward.
What the Court Emphasised
- Parenting orders must be practical and child-focused.
- The child had already experienced conflict between parents and deserved a stable routine.
- Frequent communication breakdowns meant the Court had to limit parental interaction to essentials only.
- Travel burden and emotional transitions were important factors, especially for a school-aged child with established routines.
What This Case Teaches Us
1. Parenting Orders Can Be Adjusted for Clarity
You don’t always need to go back to trial. If final orders need refining, you can apply for clarification—especially around logistics.
2. The Child’s Best Interests Remain Paramount
Even after judgment, if issues arise that could harm a child’s wellbeing, the Court can step in to fix or improve orders.
3. Court Communication Limits Help Reduce Conflict
Restricting how parents communicate can protect children from being caught in the middle—especially in high-conflict separations.
4. Travel Arrangements Must Be Realistic
In cases involving long-distance parenting, the Court is careful to prevent overburdening the child or either parent unfairly.
Final Thoughts
Wilkins & Wilkins (No. 2) [2023] is a great reminder that parenting orders aren’t just a set-and-forget outcome. The Court remains willing to step in where needed to ensure the child’s safety, clarity, and emotional wellbeing—even after final judgment.
If you’ve received parenting orders that aren’t working in practice, this case shows it’s possible to seek clarification—without reopening the entire case.