Does completing a Rehabilitation Program Change your Parenting Orders?

Bello & Opeyemi [2025] FedCFamC1A 179

When a parent has previously been found to pose a risk to a child, and final parenting orders reflect that risk, what does it take to have those orders reconsidered? Completing courses and attending rehabilitation programs may demonstrate effort, but the Full Court has confirmed that effort alone does not meet the legal threshold required to vary final parenting orders.

This question was examined in Bello & Opeyemi [2025] FedCFamC1A 179, a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

This case concerned appeals against orders made by the Trial Judge. This included an order which dismissed the Applicant’s application for parenting orders in reliance upon s65DAAA of the Family Law Act.

Background

The original orders

Final parenting orders were made in 2021. Included in those orders, were provisions that the child live with the Respondent mother for her to exercise sole parental responsibility. Under those orders, the child was to live with the Respondent mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The Court also ordered that the Applicant father spend supervised time with the child, 4 times a year for 2 hour periods. This was ordered as the Applicant father had alcohol problems, mental health issues and was a perpetrator of family violence.

The Applicant sought final parenting orders in 2024 to substitute the original orders, so that he could have spent unsupervised time with the child. The Respondent opposed this, relying on s 65DAAA.

What is Section 65DAAA?

Section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) sets a threshold that must be crossed before a court will reconsider final parenting orders. A party seeking to vary those orders must first demonstrate a significant change in circumstances since they were made. If that threshold is not met, the court will not proceed to reconsider the orders, regardless of what the applicant is asking for.

The provision exists to provide stability for children and to prevent parties from repeatedly returning to court to relitigate parenting arrangements without a genuine basis for doing so. This threshold was examined and clarified by recent changes to the Family Law Act.

The Appeal

Leave to appeal was dismissed as all the grounds relied upon failed.

Ground 1: The finding that there was no significant change of circumstances, was not open on the evidence. The Applicant participated in various programs including a Circle of Security Program, behaviour change program and a residential rehabilitation program. He submitted that participation in these would significantly establish a change in circumstances.

The primary judge determined there was evidence concluding that the Applicant’s capacity to meet his child’s needs remained limited. Participation in a course and attendance at a rehabilitation facility is not predicative of a positive change and did not support a conclusion that the Applicant no longer abused alcohol. Judge Christie determined the Primary Judge’s reasoning was open on the available evidence and found this ground was not established.

Ground 2: In making the finding under section 65DAAA(1)(a) the primary Judge erred in principle by failing to determine the question on a prima facie basis and by failing to take the Father & #39;s evidence at its highest. Judge Christie relied upon the case of Searson & Searson to explain how evidence is taken at its highest. The evidence must:

• Be evidence and not mere submissions or assertions
• Not be countered in such a way that causes the Court to view it as inherently unreliable

Both at trial and on appeal the applicant placed too much emphasis on assertions he made about change and too little emphasis on whether the evidence itself established the accuracy of his assertions.

Judge Christie found there were inconsistencies in the assertions the Applicant provided as well as the evidence from his psychotherapist regarding alcohol use. This ground therefore, did not succeed.

Ground 4: In failing to find there had been a significant change of circumstances and in failing to find it was in the child's best interests to reconsider final parenting orders when  applying section 65DAAA as a threshold, the decision was unreasonable and plainly unjust, and a substantial wrong has occurred.

Similar to the reasoning for ground 1, Judge Christie determined it was not enough for the Applicant to demonstrate that completion of various courses had the potential to address the underlying risk issues that informed the earlier orders. The Applicant had the onus of demonstrating that his participation had actually addressed those risk issues. Thus, this ground was also not established.

What this means in practice

Completing a rehabilitation program or a behaviour change course does not automatically result in a variation to parenting orders. The court requires evidence that the underlying circumstances have genuinely changed, not evidence that steps have been taken that might lead to change.

Where a parent has a history of family violence, alcohol misuse, or other risk factors that informed the original orders, the threshold to vary those orders is a high one. Assertions made by the applicant about their own progress, without independent evidence to support them, are unlikely to satisfy the court that a significant change of circumstances has occurred.

The best interests of the child remain the court's primary consideration. Where risk factors identified in earlier proceedings have not been demonstrably resolved, the court will apply s 65DAAA to maintain the stability that final orders are intended to provide.

If you are considering applying to vary existing parenting orders or filing an appeal, understanding the threshold that applies and what evidence will be required is important before proceedings are commenced.

Key takeaways

This demonstrates that participation in rehabilitation courses will necessarily mean your parenting orders will change. You must show that these courses have genuinely changed your circumstances and behaviour. Your evidence must be substantial and cannot merely be assertions that your participation has changed your behaviour.

How we can help

Applications to vary final parenting orders involve both a legal threshold and an evidentiary one. As Bello & Opeyemi confirms, the court examines what the evidence actually establishes, not what a party asserts it establishes. Where a history of family violence, substance misuse, or mental health concerns has shaped earlier orders, that history remains relevant until the evidence demonstrates otherwise.

The Norton Law Group acts for clients in parenting disputes, including applications to vary existing orders and matters involving family violence, mental health, and substance misuse. If your circumstances have changed since final orders were made and you want to understand your options, contact our team to arrange a consultation.