BARROW & BARROW-NEWMAN

In the matter of *Barrow & Barrow-Newman*, Justice Austin of the Family Court of Australia considered disputes concerning the welfare of a child and the parties' property settlement. The proceedings involved allegations of physical abuse by the father, the child's expressed desire to spend time with the father despite a significant period of no contact, and a property dispute that the parties indicated was settled but had not been formally finalised.

The court was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it needed to assess whether a relationship of value existed between the father and the child, particularly in light of a 16-month separation and the child's stated wishes. Secondly, the court had to consider the risk of harm to the child arising from the father's past use of corporal punishment, which had resulted in injury, and how such risks could be managed. Finally, the court addressed the property settlement, which the parties claimed was resolved but had not been properly documented and filed with the court.

Regarding the child's welfare, Justice Austin found that despite the separation and the father's past conduct, a meaningful relationship existed, and the child wished to spend time with the father. However, the court also acknowledged the risk of harm from the father's physical abuse, noting that both parents had engaged in corporal punishment, with the father using implements and causing injury. The court concluded that the child was at a similar risk of harm from the father's physical abuse. In relation to the property dispute, the parties admitted non-compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements for finalising a superannuation splitting order and other property settlement orders.

Consequently, Justice Austin ordered that all former orders relating to the child be discharged, with the mother having sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues and the child to live with the mother. The father was granted supervised time with the child for one day twice per month, with specific arrangements for handover and communication. Crucially, both parties were restrained from inflicting corporal punishment on the child, and the father was further restrained from leaving the child unsupervised until the age of 16 and from having the child in the presence of two named individuals without the mother's consent. All applications for property settlement orders were dismissed for want of prosecution due to the parties' failure to comply with procedural requirements.