The Parenting Planner has a dedicated readiness check called Rice v Asplund readiness. It scores how well your plan is positioned for the day someone needs to vary it — and tells you where the gaps are while the plan is still being drafted.Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
The legal framing
In Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia held that final parenting orders should not be reopened unless there has been a “significant change in circumstances” since they were made. The principle has been the threshold for varying final parenting orders for over four decades. The Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) codified this principle into the statute. Effective 6 May 2024, section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that a court must not reconsider final parenting orders unless satisfied that there has been a significant change in circumstances since the orders were made. The threshold is real. A parent dissatisfied with existing orders cannot simply ask the court to reconsider — they must first satisfy the s65DAAA threshold. Plans that anticipate the threshold up-front survive future change without expensive re-litigation. Plans that don’t, generate disputes whenever change happens.What the readiness check does
The readiness check looks at:Review windows in clause 11
Does the plan name specific review points (children’s milestones, fixed dates, future events) that anticipate change rather than fighting it?
Anchor language
Are review points anchored to objectively-verifiable triggers (start of secondary school, age 12 birthday, parent’s relocation beyond 50km) rather than subjective triggers (“if the children are unhappy”)?
Variation pathway
Does clause 10 (Dispute Resolution) include a structured pathway for variation — direct conversation → written request → FDR → court? Or does it default straight to court?
Cultural connection windows
For ATSI children, does the cultural-connection clause anticipate culturally-significant transitions (initiation, language acquisition, return to Country events)?
FV evolution
Where there’s family-violence overlay, does the plan anticipate that an existing FVO may expire, vary, or be discharged during the plan’s life — and what happens to the safety overlay if it does?
Schooling transitions
Does the plan anticipate primary→secondary school transition (typically the most-common variation trigger)?
The readiness score
The check produces a score in three tiers (matching the Plan readiness framework):| Tier | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Anticipates change | Plan has named review points + clear variation pathway. A future variation would proceed by following the plan’s own structure, not fighting it. |
| Partially anticipates | Some review points named, others missed. Variation possible but more contested. |
| Doesn’t anticipate | No review structure. Any future variation will be a fresh contest, requiring full s65DAAA threshold satisfaction without the plan’s help. |
Common gaps
The most-common findings:| Gap | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| No fixed-date review | Plans that say “we’ll review when needed” rarely get reviewed. A fixed date forces the conversation. |
| No milestone-anchored review | Children’s milestones (school start, age 12, secondary school, end of high school) are predictable variation points. Naming them in the plan reduces re-litigation when they happen. |
| No relocation threshold | Many plans don’t address what counts as a relocation that triggers review. A 50km / interstate threshold is a typical default. |
| Variation pathway defaults to court | A pathway that goes direct → written → FDR → court is far less expensive than one that defaults to court. |
| Reviewable matters undefined | Some plans say “we’ll review the plan” without saying what’s open to review. Clarity now reduces drift later. |
Anticipating, not pre-deciding
A pattern worth being clear on: anticipating change is not the same as pre-deciding what change will happen. A plan that says “in 2032, when Sophia starts secondary school, we’ll move to a 5/9 routine” is pre-deciding. The platform discourages this. Children at 12 are different from children at 6; pre-deciding their routine is brittle. A plan that says “we’ll review the routine when each child starts secondary school, with the goal of a routine that supports their developmental needs at that stage; if we cannot agree the review will proceed via FDR” is anticipating. The platform supports this. The trigger is defined; the outcome stays open. The check evaluates the distinction. Plans that pre-decide too much score lower than plans that anticipate well.The s65DAAA threshold (significant change in circumstances) is not waived by including review points in the plan. A future court will still need to be satisfied that change has occurred. What the review points do is reduce the friction — the parties have already agreed that this triggers review, so the conversation can start there rather than from cold.
Sample structure that scores well
A clause 11 (Review windows) that scores well typically includes:- A fixed time-based review — every 24 months by default, or sooner if either party requests
- Children’s milestone reviews — start of school for each child, end of primary school, start of secondary school
- External-trigger reviews — relocation beyond 50km, change of school region, change of either parent’s working pattern affecting care availability, expiry or variation of any FVO in force
- A structured variation pathway — direct conversation → written request → FDR → court, with clear timing at each step (e.g. 30-day direct, 30-day written, 60-day FDR, then court)
- A statement that review does not by itself reopen the orders — “the parties acknowledge that section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) governs the threshold for any application to vary final parenting orders, and that the agreed review points below are intended to anticipate, rather than replace, that threshold”
How the check fits with other surfaces
- Plan readiness ribbon — the Rice v Asplund check is one component of the overall readiness score
- Strategic briefing (Beyond the Plan) — the briefing references the Rice v Asplund check in its risk analysis
- Section 63C explained — the underlying legal framework
- Family Law Act in five minutes — broader context including the May 2024 amendments
Re-running the check
The check regenerates automatically when:- You edit clause 11 (Review windows) or clause 10 (Dispute Resolution)
- You change ATSI / FV disclosure in the Master Case File
- You add or remove children
What the check will not do
- It will not draft your review windows for you. It evaluates what you’ve drafted; the drafting is yours.
- It will not predict whether a future court will accept your review structure. The check is informational, not predictive.
- It will not stop the s65DAAA threshold from being applied. No drafting choice waives the threshold; what the check optimises is how much of the threshold’s friction your plan reduces.
What’s next
Section 63C explained
The s63C framework + what changed in 2024 + how s65DAAA interacts with parenting plans.
Strategic briefing
Beyond the Plan — the wider strategic synthesis of which Rice v Asplund readiness is one component.
The eleven clauses
Clause 11 (Review windows) in detail.
Plan readiness — three tiers
Overall readiness scoring framework.