BATKIN & BATKIN

This case concerned applications by the father and mother regarding their three children and the division of their property. The children had not spent time with the father for four years, and there were allegations of domestic violence by both parties. The court was asked to determine whether contact between the father and the children was in their best interests. In relation to property, the dispute involved the division of assets accumulated during the relationship, including real property, plant and equipment, vehicles, and superannuation interests, as well as an inheritance received by the husband post-separation.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, concerning the children, the court had to determine the parenting arrangements, specifically whether contact between the father and the children was appropriate and in their best interests, given the history of non-contact and domestic violence allegations. Secondly, regarding property, the court was required to determine how the parties' combined assets and the husband's inheritance should be pooled and divided, considering the contributions made by each party during and after the relationship, and the wife's primary responsibility for the children.

The court's reasoning, as reflected in the orders made by consent, addressed both the parenting and property matters. For the children, the parties agreed to a phased approach to re-establishing contact, commencing with therapeutic intervention involving a therapist and the Independent Children's Lawyer, followed by supervised contact. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children's long-term welfare, and the children were ordered to live with her. In relation to property, the court adopted a "one pool" approach for the parties' combined assets, while treating the husband's post-separation inheritance as a separate pool. The court acknowledged the wife's greater contributions post-separation and her primary responsibility for the children.

The final orders were made by consent of the parties. In parenting, the children were ordered to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. Contact between the father and children was to be re-established through a structured therapeutic process, followed by supervised contact. In property, the wife was ordered to pay the husband $150,000, and the husband was to transfer his interest in specified real properties to the wife. The parties were to retain their respective superannuation interests and other specified assets in their possession. The orders also included provisions for the exchange of documents, the discharge of a mortgage, and the ongoing involvement of the Independent Children's Lawyer.