BEASON & WEBBER

In the matter of BEASON & WEBBER, Cleary J determined parenting and property matters between the parties concerning their child, X. The dispute involved the allocation of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the division of the parties' assets. The child currently resides with the mother and spends four nights a fortnight with the father, with both parents having a meaningful relationship with the child. Previous unsubstantiated allegations of sexual harm were not a factor in the decision, with both parties agreeing there was no risk to the child in either household.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted and, if not, to make orders reflecting this. It also needed to establish the child's living arrangements and the time the child would spend with each parent. In relation to property, the court had to consider the parties' agreement for the wife to retain the former matrimonial home and for the husband's superannuation to be split in the wife's favour, while also acknowledging the husband's greater financial contribution and the wife's role as primary carer. The court also had to address the disparity in income between the parties and ensure a just and equitable adjustment of interests.

Cleary J found that the presumption for equal shared parental responsibility was not rebutted and ordered accordingly. The child was ordered to live with the mother and spend time with the father as agreed, with specific provisions for alternate weeks during school terms, school holidays, and Christmas holidays, progressing to half of the Christmas holidays once the child attained nine years of age. The court also ordered regular communication between the child and the non-resident parent. For property, the court ordered the wife to retain the former matrimonial home and pay a sum to the husband, reflecting his greater financial contribution and acknowledging the wife's role as primary carer and the ongoing income disparity. The court also ordered a division of the husband's superannuation in the wife's favour.