BABRAY & BABRAY

In this matter before Judge A Kelly, the parties, referred to as the applicant and respondent, brought applications concerning both property settlement and parenting arrangements for their child, X. The property dispute arose from the applicant's financial dealings during and after the parties' cohabitation, particularly in relation to a prior property settlement with a former de facto partner and subsequent borrowings from the respondent's parents. The parenting dispute centred on the practicalities of child changeovers, specifically who would be responsible for transportation during different periods of the year and who could attend to these changeovers.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make an order adjusting the property interests of the parties under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), considering the applicant's contributions and financial activities. In relation to parenting, the court needed to make orders regarding the arrangements for the child's changeovers, addressing the specific concerns raised by the parties regarding driving responsibilities and authorised attendees.

On the property application, the court applied the principles established in *Stanford & Stanford*, considering the applicant's contributions during and after the relationship, and whether any adjustment to property interests would be just and equitable. The court found that the applicant's financial activities, including the acquisition and sale of property and subsequent borrowings, did not warrant an adjustment of property interests under section 79. Consequently, the application for an adjustment of property interests was dismissed. For the parenting application, the court made orders varying existing arrangements, specifying that the applicant father would be responsible for collecting and delivering the child during the Australian Rules football season, while the respondent mother would be responsible for deliveries on alternate Friday evenings for the remainder of the year. The court also authorised the applicant's eldest child to undertake changeovers upon reaching the age of 22.