Baglio & Baglio

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of *Baglio & Baglio* concerned a dispute between the mother and father regarding their child. The mother alleged that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child, citing his history of illicit drug dependence and abuse, and a claim of physical assault against the child. The father had not spent time with the child for over two years.

The court was required to determine whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child, and consequently, whether the father should spend time with the child. The court also had to consider the division of the parties' property pool, which was largely comprised of a property the wife brought into the relationship, and several investment properties acquired during the marriage that had been sold post-separation, resulting in shortfalls.

Regarding the children's matters, the court found insufficient evidence to support the mother's claim of physical assault. While acknowledging the father's past drug dependence, the court noted he had abstained from drugs for four years. The court concluded that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm, provided he continued to abstain from illicit drug use. Recognising the potential benefit to the child of a relationship with her father, the court made orders for graduated time, commencing with supervised contact and progressing to overnight stays, contingent upon the father undergoing regular drug testing and providing clear results. In relation to property, the court considered the husband's conduct post-separation, particularly his failure to apply rental proceeds to mortgage repayments, and applied the principles in *Stanford v Stanford* to adjust the contributions assessment. The wife's contributions were increased disproportionately to recognise the effect of the husband's conduct, and given her primary care of the child and current unemployment, the court assessed contributions at 72.5% in favour of the wife.