Boxall & Boxall

In the matter of *Boxall & Boxall*, Justice Mullane of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between a husband and wife. The primary dispute concerned the living arrangements and time spent with the parties' two children, born in 1999 and 2001, with the wife residing in New South Wales and the husband in Western Australia. The parties also sought resolution regarding their property interests, including superannuation.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting orders for the children, specifically addressing the extent of time each parent would spend with them, and whether to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility. In relation to property, the court needed to consider the parties' respective contributions, both financial and non-financial, and make orders for the division of their assets, including a superannuation splitting order.

Justice Mullane applied the paramount consideration of the children's best interests as mandated by section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court considered the primary considerations under section 60CC(2), including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the children from harm. Additional considerations under section 60CC(3) were also weighed, such as the children's views, the nature of their relationships with each parent, and each parent's ability to facilitate a relationship with the other. Given the "appalling" nature of the parties' relationship, the court found that equal shared parental responsibility would be unworkable and contrary to the children's best interests, leading to an order for the wife to have sole parental responsibility.

The court made detailed consent orders regarding the children's living arrangements and time spent with each parent, reflecting the agreement that the children would live with the wife. Specific provisions were made for the husband's time with the children during school holidays and summer vacations, including travel arrangements and notice periods. The court also ordered the husband to pay the children's airfares and to ensure direct flights. Further orders addressed the husband's parental responsibility for day-to-day care when the children are with him, and the wife's sole parental responsibility otherwise. Property orders included the wife receiving funds held by solicitors and a superannuation splitting order in favour of the wife, calculated at $48,506. The husband was also ordered to return the wife's engagement ring.