The applicant mother sought to change an existing shared parenting and joint decision-making regime, requesting primary residence and sole decision-making authority.
The mother argued that the father had historically been financially oppressive and that the children, particularly the 13-year-old, had expressed a preference to live primarily with her.
The court relied heavily on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report which recommended maintaining the status quo.
The court found that the children's hearsay statements via text message were not sufficiently reliable to establish a change in preference.
The court dismissed the mother's claims for primary residence and sole decision-making, maintaining the week-about shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making, while ordering counselling for the eldest child to ascertain her views and preferences going forward.