BOLTON & VERRENDER
[2018] FamCA 655
•29 August 2018
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BOLTON & VERRENDER | [2018] FamCA 655 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the parties consent to equal shared parental responsibility – Where the parties consent to the child living with Mother – With whom a child spends time – Best interests of a child – Where the parties consent on most of the arrangements – Where the child is aged three and will commence kindergarten in 2019 –– Where the child will continue to spend time with the Father each Tuesday – Where the child will spend two additional nights with the Father over the upcoming September school holidays FAMILY LAW – COUNSELLING – Family therapy – Where the parents may continue to engage with a specified family therapist to assist with any disagreement in exercising their parental responsibility FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Value of property – Where the Respondent alleged the Applicant did not make full and frank disclosure of his financial position – Where insufficient evidence to support such a finding - Where the net property of the parties has a negative value FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Superannuation – Where the Respondent sought a 50 per cent superannuation split which the Applicant opposed – Where the Respondent did not formally seek an order to split the superannuation – Where there was no evidence the self-managed superannuation fund was afforded procedural fairness – Where it would not be just and equitable to make a superannuation splitting order FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Just and equitable – Where the parties were in a short relationship of approximately three years – Where the negative value of the property pool meant there was no basis upon which to base a property settlement order other than to order the Respondent to transfer the registration of the vehicle and trailer to the Applicant – Where the parties will otherwise retain the property and superannuation in their own name or possession and Applicant will remain responsible for significant debt |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Bolton |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Verrender |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Robert Halliday |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 1288 | of | 2016 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 29 August 2018 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Carew J |
| HEARING DATE: | 23, 24 August 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Stoikovska SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Schetzer Constantinou |
| FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Self-represented |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Mr Hebblewhite |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Robert Halliday and Associates |
Order
Parenting
IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT
All previous parenting Orders be discharged, save the interim Orders dated 3 August 2017 which will be discharged on 1 October 2018.
The parties retain equal shared parental responsibility for the care, welfare and development of X born … 2014 (“the child”).
The child live with the Respondent.
The Applicant spend time with the child as follows:
(a)until 1 October 2018, pursuant to the Interim Orders dated 3 August 2017;
(b)from 1 October 2018:
(i)In week one:
IT IS ORDERED
A.9:00am to 4:00pm Tuesday; and
IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT
B.9:00am Thursday to the commencement of B Child Care (“BCC”) Friday;
(ii)In week two:
IT IS ORDERED
A.9:00am to 4:00pm Tuesday; and
IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT
B.from the conclusion of BCC Friday (being 2:00pm) to 4:00pm Sunday;
IT IS ORDERED
(iii)During the September 2018 school term holiday period, the week two weekend (during whichever week it falls) be extended by two nights so that the Applicant spends a total of four nights with the child, with changeover at 5:00pm on the day after the fourth night; and
IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT
(iv)For a five day period in the second or third week of January 2019 to be nominated by the Applicant by no later than 20 December 2018;
(c)From 4 February 2019;
(i)In week one:
IT IS ORDERED
A.9:00am to 4:00pm Tuesday; and
IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT
B.9:00am on Thursday to the commencement of BCC on Friday;
(ii)In week two:
IT IS ORDERED
A.9:00am to 4:00pm Tuesday; and
IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT
B.from the conclusion of BCC Friday (being 2:00pm) to 5:00pm Monday;
(iii)During the school term holiday periods, the Applicant’s week two weekend (during whichever week it falls) be extended by two nights so that he spends a total of five nights with the child, with changeover at 5:00pm on the day after the fifth night;
(iv)From noon on 31 December 2019 to noon on 6 January 2020;
(v)From noon on 16 January 2020 to noon on 23 January 2020;
(d)From the first day of the school year in 2020:
(i)In week one, from the conclusion of school Thursday to the commencement of school on Friday (or 3:30pm on those days if a non-school day);
(ii)In week two, from the conclusion of school Thursday to the commencement of school on Monday (or 3:30pm on those days if a non-school day);
(iii)For one half of the school term and long summer school holiday periods as agreed and failing agreement for the first half in even numbered years and the second half in odd numbered years, noting that his usual time in weeks one and two would be suspended;
(e)Otherwise:
(i)On the Applicant’s birthday, from 3:30pm the day prior to 6pm on his birthday;
(ii)During the Easter period in 2019 and each alternate year thereafter, from the conclusion of school on Thursday (or 2:00pm if a non-school day) to the commencement of school the following Tuesday (or 9:00am if a non-school day);
(iii)On the Father’s Day weekend, from 3:30pm on Saturday until 4:00pm on Sunday;
(iv)During the Christmas period:
A.in 2018 and each alternate year thereafter, from 11:00am on Christmas Day to 11:00am on Boxing Day;
B.in 2019 and each alternate year thereafter from 11:00am on Christmas Eve to 11:00am on Christmas Day;
(v)For the child’s birthday:
A.in 2018 and each alternate year thereafter, from 12:00pm noon on 30 December to 12:00pm noon on 31 December; and
B.in 2019 and each alternate year thereafter, from 12:00pm noon on 31 December to 12:00pm noon on 1 January; and
(vi)As agreed in writing, with the parties to give reasonable consideration to any request for additional time for the child to attend family functions and/or events
Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent spend time with the child:
(a)On her birthday, from 3:30pm the day prior to 6:00pm on her birthday; and
(b)During the Easter period in 2020 and each alternate year thereafter, from the conclusion of school on Thursday (or 2:00pm if a non-school day) to the commencement of school the following Monday (or 9:00am if a non-school day);
(c)On Mother’s Day weekend, from 3:30pm on Saturday until 4:00pm on Friday;
(d)During the Christmas period:
(i)in 2018 and each alternate year thereafter, from 11:00am on Christmas Eve to 11:00am on Christmas Day;
(ii)in 2019 and each alternate year thereafter from 11:00am on Christmas Day to 11:00am on Boxing Day;
(e)For the child’s birthday:
(i)in 2018 and each alternate year thereafter, from 12:00pm noon on 31 December to 12:00pm noon on 1 January; and
(ii)In 2019 and each alternate year thereafter, from 12:00pm noon on 30 December to 12:00pm noon on 31 December; and
(f)As agreed in writing, with the parties to give reasonable consideration to any request for additional time for the child to attend family functions and/or events.
In the event that either party would be unable to care for the child and would require him to be placed in long-day care, they offer the other party the first right of care during such time.
The parties be at liberty to speak with the child via telephone, Skype and/or any like communication once per week when he is not in their respective care, with the parties to facilitate it and afford the child reasonable privacy.
Changeover not occurring at kindergarten or school shall be at the café at B Child Care and if not open, the Respondent shall deliver the child to the Applicant at the commencement of his time and the Applicant shall return the child to the C Café or her home at the Respondent’s election.
Until he commences school, in the event that the child is not enrolled in the D Town Kindergarten, the child continue to attend BCC each Thursday and Friday from 9:00am to 2:00pm, save in the school holiday periods during which it is at the discretion of the party with whom he is spending time.
The parties do all acts and things and sign such documentation to enrol the child at E Town Primary School or any other such school as agreed.
The parties use the MyMob phone application to discuss all matters related to the child and ensure that they provide regular updates. In the event of an emergency or issue with respective changeover, the parties communicate via phone and/or text message.
Within 48 hours of any change to the parties’ phone numbers and/or residential address, they provide the other party with updated details of the same.
The parties keep each other informed about medical appointments scheduled for the child.
The parties immediately inform the other of any serious illness or injury sustained by the child, and provide particulars of any treatment received by him and the name and address of the treatment provider/s and/or location at which he is a patient.
The parties each make available to the other all medication prescribed for the child to administer during time periods and the other party shall administer it as prescribed or required and shall, at the conclusion of time, return the medication to the other party.
The parties each authorise and direct all current and future medical and health practitioners treating the child to provide both parties with all information as to his attendances and/or treatment at their own request and cost.
The parties each authorise and direct all school, educational facility and extra-curricular provider of the child to provide both parties with all information reasonably provided regarding his attendance, including but not limited to notices, information, newsletters, reports and/or photographs.
The parties be permitted to attend extra-curricular and like activities routinely attended by parents, including but not limited to parent-teacher interviews, functions, concerts and sporting events.
The parties be restrained from enrolling or committing the child to any activity during the other party’s time without first obtaining their written consent.
Without admitting the necessity for the same:
(a)the parties, their servants and/or agents are hereby restrained from abusing, insulting or otherwise denigrating the other party, their family, partner and or partner’s family in the presence of the child or in circumstances where that attitude could come to his attention;
(b)the parties are each hereby restrained from discussing these proceedings or any part of them with the child and/or involving him in any dispute between them; and
(c)the parties are each hereby restrained from committing family violence against the other and/or the child.
Without admitting the necessity for the same, the Respondent be restrained from audio and/or video recording the Applicant and/or the child at changeover.
The parties continue to engage Ms F for ongoing family therapy and to assist with any disagreement they may have in the exercise of equal shared parental responsibility. The parties follow her reasonable directions and recommendations and the Applicant pay her costs for the first six months.
The parties be at liberty to provide to Ms F a copy of all reports prepared in these proceedings.
PROPERTY
IT IS ORDERED
Pursuant to s 79 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):
Within 7 days, the Respondent do all acts and things and sign all such documentation to transfer to the Applicant the 4WD motor vehicle registration number … and the trailer registration number … currently in his possession.
Any outstanding Application or Response be dismissed.
IT IS NOTED:
A. That during all term and long summer holidays, the two week time cycle shall be suspended and then recommence each new term as if the holiday had not occurred.
B. In the event an Easter period falls within the first term holiday period, the parent who is to spend time with the child for that Easter shall incorporate the Easter period within their holiday time as provided for in these orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bolton & Verrender has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
FILE NUMBER: MLC 1288 of 2016
| Mr Bolton |
Applicant
And
| Ms Verrender |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Bolton and Ms Verrender are the parents of the child, aged three. They have been in dispute about what parenting arrangements best meet his interests for a significant part of his life. Fortunately, they have reached agreement on most parenting matters and an order will be made by consent reflecting that agreement.
The only issues about which agreement has not been reached are:
a)Whether or not the child should continue to spend every Tuesday with his father from 9.00am to 4.00pm given that the father’s overnight time is to increase from 1 October 2018 to three nights per fortnight rather than two nights; and
b)Whether the child’s time with his father should be extended by two nights in the upcoming September school holidays (not that the child is at school yet).
Initially there seemed to be some dispute about the wording of a particular paragraph (see second paragraph numbered 8 in exhibit 5) but the apparent disagreement by Ms Verrender was not pressed. Additionally, there also seemed to be some disagreement about the nature of the further counselling that the parties are to undertake with Ms F but in the end neither party sought for such counselling to be reportable.
Mr Bolton and Ms Verrender are also unable to agree about what property settlement order should be made. Mr Bolton contends that the parties’ debt exceed their assets. Ms Verrender proposes that there would be a division of property in her favour in the proportion 80/20 and that their respective superannuation entitlements should be equalised. Ms Verrender concedes her difficulty in identifying what property, if any, exists. The only alteration to property sought by Mr Bolton is for Ms Verrender to transfer the registration of a motor vehicle and trailer to him. The motor vehicle and trailer are in his possession and Ms Verrender does not seek an order for them to be returned to her.
background
By way of brief background I note that Mr Bolton is 53 and unemployed and Ms Verrender is 52 and unemployed. Mr Bolton and Ms Verrender lived in a de facto relationship from about 2012 to August 2015. They have one child together, X. Ms Verrender has another child, Y, aged 14. The child and Y live primarily with Ms Verrender.
The current arrangements for the child are that he spends every Tuesday from 9.00am to 4.00pm with his father and in week one he also spends Thursday from 9.00am to 4.00pm and from 3.30pm Saturday to 5.00pm Sunday and in week two he spends from 9.30am Thursday to 9.30am Friday. These arrangements have been in place for about a year.
The child has also spent extended time with his father for seven nights over Easter 2018.
Mr Bolton and Ms Verrender agree that the child should spend alternate Thursdays from 9.00am to commencement of day care on Friday with his father and alternate weekends from Friday after day care (2.00pm) to 4.00pm Sunday. They disagree about whether or not the Tuesday time should continue every week.
Mr Bolton and Ms Verrender have known each other since their teenage years. Mr Bolton had a close relationship with members of Ms Verrender’s family. They were each married to other people before commencing a relationship in 2011.
When Mr Bolton and Ms Verrender commenced cohabitation Mr Bolton ran a successful business with his former wife, Ms G. He and Ms G had been married for fifteen years when their marriage ended in May 2011. In a property settlement with Ms G, Mr Bolton transferred a number of properties to her and he retained the business which was at that time successful.
Mr Bolton also held an interest in two properties and an interest in a self-managed superannuation fund known as ‘H’. Mr Bolton and his former wife Ms G are trustees of the fund. In addition, Mr Bolton had cash of $90,000 and a boat.
Ms Verrender held an interest with her former husband in a property at and an interest in superannuation.
Ms Verrender contends that Mr Bolton has failed to make adequate disclosure. Mr Bolton contends that his disclosure has been extensive and points to the index of documents set out in exhibit 6 and the 1500 pages disclosed by him in the proceedings.
Mr Bolton has paid child support since separation and currently pays $150 per week.
Legal principles - parenting
Although the issues are confined, any decision involving a parenting order is governed by Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) which sets out the objects, principles and matters that must be considered when determining what parenting order is proper,[1] but such consideration will focus in particular on matters raised as significant issues by the parties and of course the Court.[2]
[1] See Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D.
[2] see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286; SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC 93-582; Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637.
The Court is not required to make findings of fact on every factual dispute raised by the parties.[3]
[3]Baghti & Baghtiand Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71.
The objects and principles of Part VII of the Act are set out in s 60B(1) and (2) and those sections make clear that the Court is concerned with children’s rights to be, among other things, cared for by both parents when it is safe for that to occur.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court is to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration (s 60CA).
The best interests of the child are determined by reference to primary considerations, namely, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, and additional considerations including any views expressed by the child, the nature of the relationship between the child and each parent, the past involvement of each parent with the child, the likely effect of any changes, the capacity of each parent to provide for the intellectual and emotional needs of the child etc. (s 60CC). In considering the primary considerations the Court must give greater weight to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence (s 60CC(2A)).
Section 60CG imposes a statutory imperative to ensure that a parenting order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and empowers the Court to include in the Order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the Order.
Each parent has parental responsibility (i.e. all the powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to a child), for a child subject to any Order made by the Court (s 61C).
Section 61DA provides that when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. The presumption does not apply where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family or where there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in family violence as defined in s 4AB. The presumption may be rebutted if the Court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests.
Where the presumption does apply, the Court is required to consider s 65DAA as to whether equal time or substantial and significant time is in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable.
Section 65DAC makes clear that an order for shared parental responsibility requires decisions about major long-term issues to be made jointly after consultation. Major long-term issues mean issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes issues about education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, changes to living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent (s 4).
Although I may not specifically discuss in these reasons each subparagraph of each relevant section in what is sometimes referred to as the ‘legislative pathway’ I have considered all sections as required when making my determination.[4]
[4]Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637.
Application of legal principles – parenting
Mr Bolton submitted that as the child has been spending each Tuesday with him for about a year now this should continue despite the increased time he is to spend with the child from October 2018. It was conceded that adjustments would need to be made once he commences kindergarten next year.
Ms Verrender submitted that as the child will be commencing kindergarten next year, the continuation of every Tuesday with Mr Bolton will limit the time she is able to spend with the child. I understood Ms Verrender to oppose only the Tuesday time being every week not alternate weeks. The independent children’s lawyer submitted that as this was a new regime the Tuesday time should cease altogether.
The child is well used to spending Tuesdays with his father. I see no reason for that to cease. The child’s attendance at kindergarten next year will impact on the actual time spent by the child with each parent.
In relation to the September 2018 holiday time, Ms Verrender made no submission against the proposed increase in the child’s time by two nights so that he spends four consecutive nights with his father. Having regard to the fact that the child spent seven nights with his father over Easter 2018 I see no reason why he should not spend the increased time proposed by Mr Bolton during the September 2018 school holidays.
Mr Bolton and Ms Verrender recognise the need to seek professional assistance when parenting issues arise in future. They each recounted the benefit of attending upon Ms F and have agreed to seek her assistance with parenting matters going forward. It was heartening to hear both parents expressing an intention to co-parent in a better way than they have in the past. The commitment of the parents to improve their parenting relationship was reflected in their consent to an order for equal shared parental responsibility. In the circumstances I consider such an order to be in the child’s best interests.
Legal principles - property
Section 90SM (1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) relevantly provides that:
In property settlement proceedings after the breakdown of a de facto relationship, the court may make such order as it considers appropriate … altering the interests of parties to the de facto relationship in the property.
Section 90SM (3) relevantly provides that:
The court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the order.
Section 90SM (4) prescribes matters that must be taken into account in considering what if any order is made under the section.
The High Court in Stanford v Stanford[5] dealt with a property settlement application involving a married couple but the propositions discussed by the High Court apply with equal measure to a de facto couple.[6]
[5] (2012) 247 CLR 108.
[6] Gao & Wang (2016) FLC 93-735 [19] as to the applicability of the Stanford principles to de facto relationships.
Those propositions are that in considering whether it is just and equitable to make an order it is firstly necessary to identify, according to ordinary common law and equitable principles, the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property. Secondly, the discretion of whether or not to make a property settlement order, although extraordinarily wide, must nevertheless be exercised in a principled way. Thirdly, there is no presumption that the parties’ rights to or interests in property are or should be different from those that currently exist. The consideration of whether it is just and equitable to make an order should not be considered by reference only to the matters in s 90SM (4). It is necessary to give separate consideration to s 90SM (3) and (4) and not to ‘conflate’ the two subsections.
Section 90MC provides that a superannuation interest is to be treated as property and this enables the Court to make an order that splits a party’s superannuation.
Application of legal principles – property
As best I can determine from the evidence, the following table sets out the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in property.
Mr Bolton’s property
Value
ANZ bank account #33
750.00
4WD
10,900.00
Trailer
1,000.00
Total Assets
12,650.00
Liabilities
ANZ Visa
(8,021.00)
Legal fees (debt to parents) *
(114,000.00)
Westpac
(870,099.00)
Total Liabilities
(992,120.00)
Net assets
(979,470.00)
Superannuation
M Super
22,995.00
H (self-managed super)
286,241.05
Total superannuation
309,236.05
Ms Verrender’s property
Value
T Bank #31
530.00
Motor vehicle
15,000.00
Household contents
5,000.00
Total Assets
20,530.00
Superannuation
K Super
69,824.00
Total superannuation
69,824.00
*While I have included Mr Bolton’s legal fees in the table, they would not be deducted if I could identify any net assets of the parties. I note Mr Bolton asserted that his legal fee debt to his parents is now in the order of $260,000 and that his parents have taken out a second mortgage to pay for his legal fees.
Mr Bolton discloses in his Financial Statement that he sold some property in the twelve months before separation and after separation totalling $164,924. Ms Verrender discloses in her Financial Statement that she has disposed of property totalling $92,611 since separation. These funds are not reflected in the property currently held by them.
Each party submits that a property settlement order ought to be made and that it is just and equitable to make an order. The common use of property ceased upon the parties’ separation. Accordingly I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to make an order.
Unfortunately for the parties there is no net property to divide. The parties’ financial circumstances nosedived when Mr Bolton’s business went into liquidation in 2014. Ms Verrender’s expectations of obtaining a house or even a third of a house have no prospect of success.
Mr Bolton’s association with L Pty Ltd has raised suspicion for Ms Verrender who believes Mr Bolton has been hiding assets from her. Her attempts to establish that as a fact have failed. While Mr Bolton seemed unclear about his ongoing obligations to make full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances, I am unconvinced, on the evidence produced by Ms Verrender, that anything of significance has not been disclosed. Sadly, for Ms Verrender, suspicion of a pot of gold is an insufficient basis upon which to base a property settlement order.
Turning to their respective contributions, it appears that each of the parties contributed to the best of their ability during their short relationship. Mr Bolton acknowledges that Ms Verrender has done a “terrific job” as a mother to young the child. Up until the failure of his business in 2014 Mr Bolton was the ‘breadwinner’.
At the end of the relationship in 2015 Ms Verrender retained the proceeds of sale of her interest in the J Town home (about $90,000) and her superannuation (now valued about $70,000). As noted above Mr Bolton also disposed of some property in the year leading up to the separation and subsequent thereto. He remains liable for a significant debt to Westpac and has no property of significance. He retains his half interest in his self-managed superannuation fund.
Despite putting out some feelers in the mining industry, Mr Bolton has not yet secured employment but intends to find work consistent with his commitment to co-parent the child.
Ms Verrender has worked in the past and intends to obtain part-time employment upon the conclusion of these proceedings.
Mr Bolton submits that each party should retain what they now have in their respective names or possession. He also proposes to be solely responsible for the remaining debt to Westpac. As the debt relates to his business and this was a short relationship, I consider that to be entirely appropriate. The 4WD and trailer are in his possession but not registered in his name. Ms Verrender did not oppose the transfer of the registration of the motor vehicle and trailer. The transfer of the registration is the only order Mr Bolton seeks apart from a catch all order that they each retain the property and superannuation in their own name. Absent an order to the contrary that will be the case.
Ms Verrender did not formally seek an order to split the superannuation and there is no evidence the other trustee of Mr Bolton’s self-managed super fund (Mr Bolton’s former wife, Ms G) has been afforded procedural fairness. Even if Ms Verrender had sought to split Mr Bolton’s superannuation I am not satisfied that such an order would be just and equitable in the circumstances. As noted in the table above there is no net property.
Neither party is currently employed. The child lives with his mother but spends substantial and significant time with Mr Bolton. Mr Bolton pays $150 per week by way of child support.
I consider that a just and equitable outcome is for each party to retain the property and superannuation in their respective names or possession as identified in the table above, and for Ms Verrender to transfer the registration of the 4WD and trailer to Mr Bolton.
I certify that the preceding forty-nine (49) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Carew delivered on 29 August 2018.
Associate:
Date:
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Procedural Fairness
0
2
0