BAGHTI & BAGHTI

In the matter of *Baghti & Baghti*, Fowler J of the Family Court of Australia considered disputes between a husband and wife concerning parenting arrangements for their child and the division of their property. The parenting dispute involved issues of the child’s welfare, including the husband’s alleged paranoid personality, his use of surveillance, and the child’s health concerns such as obesity and medical conditions. The property dispute encompassed the valuation of the wife’s business, the husband’s company, and claims by interveners regarding a verbal loan agreement with the wife.

The Court was required to determine the best interests of the child in establishing parenting orders, specifically addressing with whom the child should live and spend time. In relation to property, the Court needed to make orders for the alteration of property interests, including the sale of the former matrimonial home and the wife’s business, and to resolve claims made by interveners.

Fowler J applied the paramount consideration of the child’s best interests in making parenting orders. The Court ordered that the wife have sole parental responsibility, with specific provisions for the husband to be informed of major decisions and for mediation in case of disagreement. The child was ordered to live with the wife, with defined periods of time to be spent with the husband, including alternate weekends, school holidays, and specific public holidays. The Court also made detailed orders regarding the child’s medical care, diet, and extra-curricular activities, requiring parental cooperation and adherence to professional advice. Furthermore, orders were made to restrain certain behaviours, such as surveillance and denigration of a parent, and to ensure the child’s safety and well-being. In property matters, the Court ordered the sale of the former matrimonial home and the wife’s business, with specific directions for the sale process and the distribution of proceeds. The wife was ordered to pay a sum to the husband, and interveners were to be repaid loans related to the purchase of a property. The husband’s application for spousal maintenance was dismissed.