BECKERT & BECKERT

The case of *Beckert & Beckert* involved applications by both the wife and the husband concerning parenting and property matters. The wife sought sole parental responsibility for the three children of the marriage, while the husband opposed this. The dispute also encompassed the division of the parties' property interests. The matter was heard by Hartnett J.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. In relation to parenting, the primary issue was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) should be rebutted, and if so, what orders were in the best interests of the children, particularly in light of a history of family violence, breaches of intervention orders by the husband, and concerns regarding his alcohol consumption. Regarding property, the court had to assess the parties' contributions and consider the factors under section 75(2) of the Act to determine a just and equitable distribution of their interests, including spousal maintenance. Procedurally, the court also dealt with applications by the husband to set aside previous cross-examination orders and for the recusal of the trial judge, both of which were dismissed.

Hartnett J's reasoning led to significant orders being made. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, and by consent of the wife and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the wife was granted sole parental responsibility. The children were ordered to live with the wife, with specific provisions for time spent with the husband, which was made conditional on him not being affected by alcohol and undergoing breath analysis testing. The court also acceded to the wife's spousal maintenance claim, noting the husband's role as the sole income earner during the cohabitation, his control over corporate entities, and his withdrawal of financial support post-separation. The court considered the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure and comply with previous orders, and assessed contributions and section 75(2) factors, including the husband's greater earning capacity and the wife's role as primary carer. The property orders reflected the wife's claims, and indemnity costs were awarded against the husband.

The final orders included detailed parenting arrangements, with provisions for the children to live with the wife and spend time with the husband under strict conditions related to his alcohol consumption and participation in counselling. The property orders involved the transfer of assets and liabilities, the finalisation of trust and company matters, and substantial payments to the wife, including spousal maintenance and costs. The court also made orders concerning the parties' superannuation interests and provided for the husband to indemnify the wife against his liabilities.