Alexander & Hooper

This matter concerned child issues and property settlement between a husband and wife, heard by Strickland J. The dispute involved the terms of parental responsibility, living arrangements, and holiday schedules for the parties' child, as well as the division of assets and liabilities.

The court was required to determine the specific orders regarding the child's residence, including weekday and weekend arrangements, school term and holiday periods, and special occasions such as birthdays and public holidays. Additionally, the court needed to address communication protocols between the parents, handover arrangements, and the return of personal property. In relation to property, the court had to decide on the retention of assets and the allocation of debts.

Strickland J applied the principles of Section 60CC of the *Family Law Act*, which outlines the considerations for determining the best interests of the child. These considerations include the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, the need to protect the child from harm, the child's views, the nature of the relationship with each parent and other significant persons, and the parents' ability to facilitate a relationship with the other parent. The court also considered the practicalities of spending time with each parent, their capacity to provide for the child's needs, the child's background and characteristics, and any relevant family violence.

By consent, the parties were granted equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The court made detailed orders regarding the child's living arrangements during school terms and holidays, including specific times for birthdays and public holidays. Provisions were also made for telephone contact and handovers. In terms of property, each party was to retain the assets currently in their possession, with the husband remaining solely liable for his credit card debts and HECS debt. The husband was also ordered to provide the wife with copies of videos of the child. All applications were dismissed, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.