BIRKETT & HEMSLEY

In the matter of Birkett & Hemsley, Judge Halligan of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property settlement disputes between the parties. The primary dispute concerned the children's time with their father, given allegations of family violence and serious alcohol abuse by the father, which he denied. The mother's parenting capacity had been adversely affected during the cohabitation due to the father's conduct but had since improved. The court also addressed the division of the parties' assets, including the former matrimonial home, superannuation interests, and household contents, with consideration given to the impact of the husband's family violence on the wife's non-financial contributions.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, specifically whether unsupervised time with the father posed risks, balanced against the importance of a relationship with him. This involved assessing the father's alcohol abuse and anger management issues and their potential impact on the children. Furthermore, the court had to decide on the appropriate property settlement, considering the contributions of each party, including the wife's non-financial contributions which were affected by the husband's family violence.

Judge Halligan ordered that the children live with the wife and that she have sole parental responsibility. The father was granted supervised time with the children on the first Saturday of each month, with changeovers to occur at a designated contact service. The court imposed strict conditions on the father's contact, including a prohibition on alcohol consumption for 24 hours before and during his time with the children, and issued an injunction restraining him from assaulting, molesting, stalking, intimidating, harassing, abusing, or denigrating the wife, and from approaching or contacting the wife or the children's school or care facilities. In terms of property, the wife was ordered to pay the husband a sum of money and discharge the mortgage on the former matrimonial home, whereupon the husband was to transfer his interest in the home to the wife. The wife was also to be solely entitled to her superannuation interest, the contents of the former matrimonial home, and the parties' caravan, while the husband was to be solely entitled to his superannuation interest.