BAUDIN & ROSE

In the matter of *Baudin & Rose*, Forrest J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between a father from the United Kingdom and a mother from France, who had both resided in Australia for a significant period. The primary dispute concerned the mother's application to relocate with the parties' child to France, which the father opposed. The property dispute involved the division of assets and liabilities, including claims regarding money borrowed from the husband's parents and the valuation of a motor vehicle.

The court was required to determine whether the relocation of the child to France was in the child's best interests, considering the mother's expressed desire to return to France due to suffering from depression, and the father's opposition to the move. In relation to property, the court needed to assess the evidence regarding the repayment of money borrowed from the husband's parents, including any claim for interest, and to determine the value of a motor vehicle for transfer to the husband. The court also had to consider the overall division of the net property and superannuation interests, taking into account the short duration of the marriage and the existence of one child.

Forrest J reasoned that the best interests of the child would be met by allowing the relocation to France, acknowledging the mother's mental health concerns. The father accepted that the child's best interests were met by living principally with the mother. In the property division, the court was satisfied that the money borrowed from the husband's parents was repayable but found insufficient evidence to support a claim for interest. The court also noted a lack of reliable evidence regarding the value of the motor vehicle to be transferred to the husband. Applying principles of property settlement in a short marriage with one child, the court ordered a division of net property and superannuation interests as to 75 per cent to the wife and 25 per cent to the husband, reflecting the wife's substantially greater initial financial contribution.

The court made detailed parenting orders, including discharging previous orders, permitting the child to live with the mother and relocate to France, and outlining specific arrangements for parental responsibility and time with the father, depending on his future residence. The property orders provided for the wife to retain the Sydney apartment, required the wife to discharge a mortgage liability, and ordered the transfer of a motor vehicle to the husband at his asserted value. The husband was to indemnify the wife against any liability to his parents. The remaining assets and superannuation interests were divided as specified, with each party retaining their personal possessions.