CAREW & CAREW

This case involved a dispute between Ms Carew (applicant) and Mr Carew (respondent) concerning property settlement and final arrangements for their twin children, aged 11. Both parties were unrepresented. While there were few practical issues regarding the children's care arrangements, the proceedings were characterised by high conflict, particularly concerning the funding of the children's education and the overlap of child support issues with parenting and property matters. The asset pool was small, with the only significant asset available for division being the respondent's superannuation.

The court was required to determine how the costs of the children's education were to be funded, given the limited asset pool and the overlap with child support and parenting issues. Additionally, the court had to address the division of the parties' superannuation interests, considering the principles of justice and equity in the context of a small asset pool and high conflict. The court also needed to make final orders regarding the children's living arrangements, time spent with each parent, communication, and other welfare-related matters.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* to the property proceedings, specifically section 90MT concerning superannuation splitting. The court ordered a base amount of $30,000 to be allocated to the applicant from the respondent's superannuation interest, with detailed provisions for payment splitting and the trustee's obligations. The court also made comprehensive orders regarding the children's equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the mother and spend significant time with the father, including detailed arrangements for school terms, holidays, birthdays, and communication. The parties were restrained from denigrating each other in the presence of the children and from discussing the proceedings with them. The father was made solely responsible for the children's tuition fees at their college, while other costs related to medical treatment, extramural activities, and school expenses were to be shared equally.

The court ordered that the applicant retain her motor vehicle, personal effects, and any other property in her possession. Similarly, the respondent was to retain his motor vehicle, furniture, and furnishings, along with his superannuation interest subject to the payment split orders. All other applications were dismissed.