CARSON & WALTERS

In the matter of *Carson & Walters*, Benjamin J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications for property settlement, spousal maintenance, and child support arising from the dissolution of a de facto relationship. The parties, Ms Carson (the de facto wife) and Mr Walters (the de facto husband), had been in a de facto relationship from December 1999 until their separation on 1 February 2014. While the parties agreed that their contributions during the relationship should be treated as equal, the de facto husband's significant post-separation earnings and financial gains from changing professional firms, contrasted with the de facto wife's primary responsibility for the parties' three children, formed the crux of the dispute.

The court was required to determine whether it would be just and equitable to make adjustments to the parties' current legal and equitable interests in their property pool. Further, the court had to consider the de facto wife's application for spousal maintenance, assessing her reasonable needs against the de facto husband's financial capacity. Finally, the court was asked to consider an application by the de facto wife to depart from the administrative assessment of child support, seeking an order for the de facto husband to pay a higher amount for the three children.

Benjamin J found that it was just and equitable to make an adjustment to the property pool, acknowledging the de facto husband's significant financial contributions post-separation. The court reasoned that while contributions during the relationship were equal, the financial disparity that arose after separation warranted a redistribution. In relation to spousal maintenance, the court granted the application, finding that the de facto wife had established her reasonable needs and the de facto husband had the capacity to meet them. The court also varied the child support assessment, ordering the de facto husband to pay a substantial monthly sum for the three children, in addition to specific expenses such as private school fees.

The court ordered a property pool distribution of 65% in favour of the de facto wife and 35% in favour of the de facto husband. Specific orders were made regarding the sale of a property, the division of proceeds, the transfer of frequent flyer points, the ownership of artwork, and the return of personal effects. The de facto husband was ordered to pay $988,681 to the de facto wife, to be paid contemporaneously with the settlement of the sale of the L property. The de facto husband was also ordered to pay $923 per month in spousal maintenance until the sale of the L property, and $1,174 per month thereafter until 31 December 2025. Child support was ordered at $3,400 per month per child, totalling $10,200 per month, with annual indexation and reimbursement for specified educational and medical expenses.