Borah & Manderville (No 3)

In *Borah & Manderville (No 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property matters between Mr Borah (the applicant father) and Ms Manderville (the respondent mother). The dispute primarily concerned the living arrangements and parental responsibility for the parties' two children, X (born 2008) and Y (born 2012), and the division of property. The mother sought a payment of $100,000 from the father and for each party to retain their own property, while the father submitted that no property adjustment was required due to the absence of joint assets and the nature of individually held assets.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, specifically whether a shared care arrangement was appropriate given the parents' history of conflict and poor communication. Additionally, the court had to consider the mother's application for property settlement and spousal maintenance, and the father's application for an injunction restraining the mother from attending certain locations. The court also had to decide on arrangements for holidays, international travel, and the holding of the children's passports.

Judge Cassidy found that a shared care arrangement was not in the children's best interests due to the parents' ongoing conflict, hostile relationship, poor communication, and mutual low opinion of each other's parenting capacity. The court noted the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents but gave greater weight to the need to protect the children from harm. The court concluded that the father's proposal, which involved the children living with him and spending time with the mother, was in the children's best interests, citing the benefit of the siblings remaining together, reduced exposure to the mother's emotional dysregulation, and a single decision-maker for health and education. The court also granted an injunction restraining the mother from entering the children's residence and certain school premises without prior written consent, deeming it necessary for the children's welfare given past incidents.

On the property division, the court ordered that each party retain their own property and financial resources, finding that no adjustment was just and equitable given the parties had kept their financial affairs separate during the relationship and the significant assets comprised of after-acquired real property and a UK pension fund. The mother's applications for spousal maintenance and child support were dismissed. The court also made detailed orders regarding the children's living arrangements, time with each parent, special occasions, changeovers, schooling, international and interstate travel, communication protocols, medical issues, and dispute resolution. The court also ordered that the children's names be removed from the Family Law Watchlist and made specific provisions for the holding and use of their passports.