AHSAN & AHSAN

In the matter of *Ahsan & Ahsan*, decided by Hannam J, the court addressed disputes concerning both the parenting arrangements for five children and the division of the parties' property. The parenting proceedings were undefended, with the father having failed to comply with trial directions and disengaging from the proceedings. The court also considered findings of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother and the father's alienation of the three oldest children from the mother, which an expert opined constituted psychological abuse. In the property proceedings, the wife sought 80% of the asset pool, while the husband sought 40%. The husband's inadequate disclosure, including the source of his legal costs, and the existence of a valuable financial resource available to him were also relevant factors.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in establishing parenting orders, specifically addressing the living arrangements and time spent with each parent, while also considering the continuation of joint parental responsibility. Regarding the property division, the court needed to ascertain an equitable distribution of the asset pool, taking into account the husband's non-disclosure and unilateral disposal of assets.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principle that the best interests of the children are paramount. For the three oldest children, the court made the least detrimental order by ordering they live with the father, while allowing them to spend time and communicate with the mother according to their wishes. For the two youngest children, the court ordered they live with the mother and granted her sole parental responsibility, with specific, phased arrangements for the father to spend time with them, commencing with supervised contact. The court also made orders to facilitate sibling contact and imposed restraints on the father's behaviour towards the children and the mother. In the property division, the court made orders for the wife to receive 65% and the husband 35% of the asset pool. This outcome reflected the husband's unilateral disposal of matrimonial assets, with funds added back and credited to him to account for this. The court also made detailed orders regarding the sale of a property, the discharge of liabilities, and the division of superannuation entitlements. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the proceedings.