BRACEWELL & BRACEWELL

In the matter of *Bracewell & Bracewell*, Judge Roberts of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered disputes between the husband and wife concerning both parenting arrangements for their two children and the division of their property. The parenting dispute involved an initial proposal by the husband to separate the siblings, which was opposed by the wife, and the court also noted issues of irresponsibility and hypocrisy from one parent, leading to mutual drug and alcohol injunctions. The property dispute arose when the husband withdrew consent to previously agreed property orders, necessitating an extension of time for the wife to provide valuations and for the court to consider the parties' contributions and relevant factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in establishing parenting orders, applying the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and considering whether equal or substantial and significant time with each parent was in the children's best interests and reasonably practicable. In relation to property, the court had to assess the contributions of each party, including the husband's initial significant contribution and inheritance, the wife's contributions to renovations, and the wife's greater post-separation contributions, as well as consider the section 75(2) factors to achieve an equitable distribution.

Judge Roberts applied the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, as outlined in Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* and section 60CC. The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was applicable, and after considering the relevant factors, ordered equal shared parental responsibility with the children living with the wife and spending time with the husband as agreed, or otherwise as specified in the orders. In the property division, the court preferred the wife's evidence over the husband's due to the husband's failure to provide requested documentation regarding post-separation debts. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $100,000 within 90 days, with provisions for the sale of a property if payment was not made.