Cavaretta & Lanzi - [2023] FedCFamC1F 864

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Cavaretta & Lanzi [2023] FedCFamC1F 864

File number: SYC 245 of 2022

Judgment of: REES J

Date of judgment: 16 October 2023

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where the parties were separated under one roof for a period of time – Where the children currently live with the mother and spend time with the father – Where the mother makes allegations of abuse by the father against the mother and the children – Where reports were made to the Police and the Department of Communities and Justice – Where the mother denigrates the father and the paternal family in front of the children – Where the mother has excluded the father from information regarding the children - Where the Single Expert recommends the children live with the parent which is more likely to facilitate time with the other parent – Where the father is more likely to facilitate time between the mother and the children – Where the Court finds the father is not a perpetuator of family violence - Orders for the children to live with the father and spend time with the mother – Orders for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where the mother made more income than the father – Where the mother came into the relationship with nominal assets and liabilities – Where the father removed funds from the mortgage offset account to pay for his legal fees – Where the father made a greater initial contribution to the purchase of the matrimonial property –– Where a property adjustment is made in favour of the father – Where the father is to retain possession of the matrimonial home – addbacks - Orders for a property division in favour of the father

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Div 12A, ss 60CC, 69ZT, 90SM

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 262

Date of hearing: 28 & 29 September 2023; 4 & 5 October 2023

Place: Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr McCallum, Uther Webster & Evans

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hart

Solicitor for the Respondent: Colin Daley Quinn

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Reeves

Independent Children's Lawyer: Hillcrest Family Lawyers Pty Ltd
ORDERS

SYC 245 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR CAVARETTA

Applicant

AND:
MS LANZI

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

REES J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 OCTOBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS:
PARENTING
1.That, the children X born 2016 and Y born 2017 ("the children") live with the father.
2.That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
3.That the children spend time with the mother as follows:
(a)during the school term, from the conclusion of school or 2.45pm on Thursday until before school on Monday, (or 9.30am if a non-school day), each alternate weekend;
(b)during the Terms 1, 2 and 3 school holidays, from after school on the last day of school to 5:30 pm on the second Saturday;
(c)during the Term 4 school holidays, for one half of each New South Wales holiday period as agreed between the parties and failing agreement for the first half of all such holidays in 2023 and each alternate year thereafter and for the second half of all such holidays in 2024 and each alternate year thereafter;

4.That each parent is restrained from attending or being at the children's school at any time when the children are being delivered to school or collected from school by the other parent.
5.That, during school terms, the children have contact with the mother by telephone, FaceTime or Skype on Wednesday afternoon at a time agreed and in the absence of agreement at 7pm.
6.That during school holidays, the children have contact with the parent with whom they are not living by telephone, FaceTime or Skype on Wednesday afternoon at a time agreed and in the absence of agreement at 7pm.
7.That each parent be entitled to travel overseas with the child/children upon provision to the other party of:
(a)at least six (6) weeks written notice of their intention to travel and requesting the other parent's written consent and the terms of the written notice are to include an accurate itinerary of the departure and return dates and times and the location/s that the child/children will be travelling to;
(b)a copy of the e-ticket itinerary showing all outbound and return flights and any in-between flights in respect of each of the children to be provided 4 weeks prior to departure and notification as soon as practicable following any change with respect to flights, times or accommodation relating to the itinerary;
(c)the details of where the child/children will be staying each night during the holiday period and the address of the accommodation/s and a contact telephone number;
(d)a telephone or other form of electronic communication on which the child/children can be contacted while she/they are out of Australia.

8.That for the purpose of Order 7, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the parties are restrained from travelling with the child/children to such countries that are:
(a)considered "Advice Level 3 countries" and above in accordance with the travel advisories prior to the time of travel pursuant to the Commonwealth of Australia Government Smart Traveller website; and
(b)countries that are not party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS BY CONSENT:
9.That changeover shall occur:
(a)at the children's school / before and after school care; or
(b)changeovers on a non-school day shall be at Suburb C MacDonalds.

10.That notwithstanding any other parenting Orders, the children shall spend time:
(a)with the father on the father's birthday, from after school or 3pm to 6.30pm if the father's birthday falls on a school day, or otherwise from 10am to 6.30pm;
(b)with the mother on the mother's birthday, from after school or 3pm to 6.30pm if the mother's birthday falls on a school day, or otherwise from 10am to 6.30pm;
(c)time as agreed between the parties on the children's birthdays, and if not agreed:
(i)the children shall spend time with the father from 3pm to 6.30pm if either of the children's birthday falls on a day that the children are in the mother's care;
(ii)the children shall spend time with the mother from 3pm to 6.30pm if either of the children's birthday falls on a day that the children are in the father's care;

(d)with the father on Father's Day, from 10am to 6.30pm, if Father's Day falls within a period when the children would otherwise be spending time with the mother;
(e)with the mother on Mother's Day, from 10am to 6.30pm, if Mother's Day falls within a period when the children would otherwise be spending time with the father;
(f)during the Easter long weekend as follows:
(i)in the years ending in an odd number, with the father from 10am on Good Friday to 10am on Easter Sunday and then with the mother from 10am on Easter Sunday to before school on Easter Tuesday or 10am if the Tuesday after Easter Sunday is not a school day;
(ii)in years ending in an even number, with the mother from 10am on Good Friday to 10am on Easter Sunday and then with the father from 10am on Easter Sunday to before school on Easter Tuesday or 10am if the Tuesday after Easter Sunday is not a school day;

(g)during the Christmas period as follows:
(i)in years ending in an odd number with the father from 10am on 22 December to 10am on 26 December, and then with the mother from 10am on 26 December to 10am on 30 December;
(ii)in years ending in an even number with the mother from 10am on 22 December to 10am on 26 December, and then with the father from 10am on 26 December to 10am on 30 December.

11.That other than in the event of a medical emergency, the parties shall communicate only via the 'Our Family Wizard' application.
12.That both parents be permitted to liaise directly with the children's school and sporting bodies to receive school notices, information, newsletters, school reports, school photographs and any other necessary information about the children's progress.
13.That each parent is at liberty to attend at the children's schools or after school activity for the purposes of any function or activity normally attended by parents, including but not limited to weekend team sports or activities.
14.That each parent shall ensure that the other parent is notified as soon as practicable if, while in their care, either of the children:
(a)has needed to consult a General Practitioner, and the details for such person and the reason for the consultation;
(b)is admitted to hospital, and the details for the hospital and the doctor in charge together with the reason for admission; and
(c)is involved in a medical emergency and the details of the emergency.

15.That each parent shall notify the other of any change in residential address as soon as practicable, and in any event at least thirty days prior to any change.
16.That each parent shall notify the other of any change in telephone contact numbers, such notification to be made in writing and within three days of any change.
17.That without admissions, each parent be and is hereby restrained from:
(a)relocating the children outside the Sydney Metropolitan area;
(b)physically disciplining the children;
(c)making any recording of the other parent during phone calls or changeovers without the other parent's prior written consent;
(d)interrogating the children or either of them in relation to events and or conversations that have occurred in the home of the other parent; and
(e)discussing these proceedings (or any allegations made in the course of these proceedings) or making critical or derogatory remarks about the other party or members of the other party's family in the presence or within the hearing of any of the children.

18.That each parent shall do all things reasonably necessary to ensure that no other person discusses these proceedings (or any allegations made in the course of these proceedings) or make any critical or derogatory remarks about the other party or members of other party's family in the presence or within the hearing of any of the children.
19.That each parent shall within 21 days of these Orders contact B Organisation for the purposes of enrolling in the Parenting Orders Program ("the Program") to assist the parents to implement these orders and maintain a cooperative and child focussed approach to co-parenting and communication:
(a)in the event B Organisation assess the family as not suitable for participation in the Program, the parents shall engage with such alternative course or program or service provider as recommended to them by B Organisation;
(b)each parent shall attend all sessions, complete all coursework, provide all consents and pay all fees required to successfully compete all components of the Program; and
(c)each parent shall ensure the children attend for any appointments or sessions requested in the course of engagement in the Program.

20.That in the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument, a Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia at Sydney is appointed pursuant to Section 106A of the Act, to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation to the deed or instrument.

PROPERTY
21.That the applicant and the respondent do all acts and things required to sell the property at D Street, Suburb E in Victoria and to disburse the net proceeds of sale, after payment of selling costs as follows;
(a)in payment of Capital Gains Tax assessed on the sale,
(b)in payment of the balance as to 45 per cent to the respondent and the remainder to the applicant.

22.That within three calendar months of the date of these orders, the applicant pay to the respondent the sum of $696,210 and upon receipt of that sum the respondent shall do all things required to transfer to the applicant her interest in the property at F Street, Suburb G in New South Wales ("the Suburb G property") being the land in Folio … and give vacant possession of the property to the applicant and the applicant will indemnify the respondent in relation to any liability pursuant to the mortgage to the Westpac Bank ("the mortgage") secured over the Suburb G property at the date of this Order.
23.That in the event that the amount of $696,210 is not paid to the respondent by the due date, then the parties shall do all things required to sell the Suburb G property and to divide the proceeds of sale, after payment only of the mortgage, the agent's commission and the costs of sale, as follows;
(a)45 per cent to the respondent,
(b)a further sum of $68,905 to the respondent,
(c)the balance to the applicant.

24.That other than as provided by these orders, each party will retain the personal property and superannuation entitlements in his or her possession at the date of these orders.
25.That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those particulars are included in these Orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Cavaretta & Lanzi has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REES J:

Mr Cavaretta ("the father") and Ms Lanzi ("the mother") are the separated parents of two children, X born 2016 and Y born 2017 ("the children").
They lived together in a de facto relationship from 2003, according to the father, or 2006, according to the mother. Nothing turns on the dispute.
These proceedings concern the parenting arrangements for their children and the distribution of their property.
The father was born in Country H and came to Australia in 1995. The mother was born in Country J and came to Australia in 2000. They both have extended family in Australia.
In 2007 they moved from Melbourne to live in Sydney, initially in a unit which the father and his sister owned at Suburb K. They moved into the home they bought at Suburb G in 2010.
They both worked, subject to the mother's having maternity leave.
The relationship came to an end in 2020 but they remained living in the Suburb G property until late 2021 when the father moved into separate accommodation. The mother and the children then remained in the Suburb G property.
It is the father's case that, in early 2020, the mother formed a relationship with Mr L and that Mr L has both threatened the father and interfered in the relationship between the father and the children. The mother denies that she and Mr L are in a de facto relationship.
The mother asserts that the father was violent during the relationship.
THE HEARING
The father relied on an affidavit sworn by him on 21 September 2023, a Financial Statement sworn the same day and an affidavit of his sister Ms M sworn 25 September 2023.
The mother relied on an affidavit sworn by her on 21 September 2023 and a Financial Statement sworn 22 September 2023. She also relied on affidavits by a neighbour, Ms N, by X’s psychologist Ms P and by Y’s psychologist Ms Q. None of those witnesses was required for cross-examination.
An Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") was appointed for the children and a report was prepared by a single expert psychologist, Ms R who was cross-examined.
I propose to deal firstly with the parenting proceedings.
PARENTING
The father sought an order for sole parental responsibility for the children and an order that the children live with him and spend time with the mother on alternate weekends from after school on Thursday until Monday morning. He proposed that holidays be equally shared. He also sought orders for overseas travel with each parent and time on special occasions.
The mother sought equal shared parental responsibility. She sought orders for the children to spend alternate weekends with the father from 4pm on Friday until 8.15am on Monday and on Monday afternoon in the intervening week from 4pm until 6.30pm. The mother also proposed equally shared holidays but sought an order that the father be restrained from travelling overseas with the children. She also sought orders in relation to special occasions.
At the commencement of the hearing, the parents advised that they had resolved all of the ancillary parenting issues except overseas travel.
Thus the significant issues to be determined were with whom the children would live and what time they would spend with the non-resident parent.
In submissions, counsel for the mother was asked to concede that, if the children were to live with the father, then her objection to overseas travel, based only on her fear that he would take the children to Country U and not return, fell away. While counsel did not make that concession, he did concede that the proposition had some validity.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHILDREN'S THERAPISTS
Y began seeing Ms Q in February 2023. Ms Q reported that Y "tends to report positive comments about her family overall" and that "[t]here have not been any concerns raised by [Y] during the therapy sessions about her current family situation".
Y's teacher told Ms Q that the school had no concerns about Y. Ms Q concluded that Y is progressing well in all areas and had no concerns about her emotional and psychological well‑being.
In mid-2023, Y told Ms Q that she had seen her father hurt her mother and that made her feel scared. She provided no detail or context as to time or place.
X has been seeing Ms P since August 2022. Ms P did not identify any problems and said that X "does not present in session with any ongoing psychological distress or impairment". She stated that X loves her father and enjoys spending time with him.
EVIDENCE OF THE SINGLE EXPERT
Ms R, a clinical psychologist, prepared a report dated 1 May 2023, following interviews which she conducted in April 2023.
At the time of the interviews, the children were spending time with the father on alternate weekends from Friday afternoon until Monday morning and on the intervening Monday between 4pm and 6pm. The children were attending before and after school care and both parents were engaged in full time work.
Ms R noted that each parent made allegations in relation to the past behaviour of the other and she reviewed the records produced by the police and the Department of Communities and Justice ("DCJ"). She stated,
The report writer will not be revisiting those allegations for the purpose of this report and the focus will be on the parents' current level of functioning and how that relates to their capacity to identify and meet the needs of the children.

In relation to her interviews with the father, Ms R reported that he described the mother as controlling the information referable to the children and that she "makes all the decisions concerning the girls, regardless of where he might stand on an issue." He referred specifically to Y's starting school. Ms R reported,
He gave the example of [Y's] school enrolment, noting that both he and the school counsellor, [Ms S], had pointed out that [Y] was too young to be starting Kindergarten in 2022, given that she would only turn 5 [later in the year]. The mother had simply overruled them, insisting that [Y] be enrolled and dismissing their concerns, suggesting that she could always repeat Kindergarten. [The father] said that [Y] was so tiny when she started school that she could hardly stand upright with her backpack on. He said that he would have preferred to leave [Y] in preschool for another year. [Note: the material provided by the school indicates that 'Mum was determined that [Y] should start school in 2022 while Dad wanted to wait until 2023'. The notes go on to say that on the 3 May 2022, the mother informed the class teachers that 'reports to be supplied to her only', despite Orders made by Judge Smith on the 18 March 2022 to the contrary. S5 [T School] pages 318-329/887.]
The father complained that the mother does not provide him with medical information about the children, that she lied to him about whether they had been vaccinated, that she screens invitations that the children receive for functions when they are with him and that she provides little information about the children.
Ms R wrote,
[The father] said that he believes that the mother's intention is to marginalise his role in the children's lives as well as well [sic] as to present him to others as someone who is dangerous or who likely to cause problems.
Despite these criticisms made by the father, Ms R reported,
[The father] described the mother as quite capable of looking after the children and said that they seem to enjoy being with her. He said that the problem is that she doesn't seem to believe the same of him, which puts the children in a difficult position.
In relation to her interview with the mother, Ms R reported that she was "highly critical" of the father in relation to a number of matters. The mother suggested to Ms R that the father was "showing signs of schizophrenia". Ms R documented the extensive criticisms the mother made of the father. Significantly, the mother said that she regrets that she went through the fertility treatments by which the girls were conceived with the father and that she regrets not using a sperm donor.
The mother told Ms R that X had complained that "on the weekend, Dad was controlling me".
The mother told Ms R that she would prefer to make all the decisions about the girls without having to involve the father and that "it would also make it easier for her if she didn't have to get the father's consent when making arrangements for the girls to see other professionals". She also told Ms R that she would prefer that the children's time with the father be professionally supervised. Ms R reported,
She said that she understands that his mother is performing that role at present and hopes that having her around will ensure that the father is less likely to walk around naked in front of the children but feels that there is still an ongoing risk to the children because "if anything should happen, his family won't report it". She described the [paternal] family as "a pack of hyenas".
In relation to the mother's account of Mr L’s involvement with the children, Ms R stated,
[The mother] made a point of saying that [Mr L] is not her partner and that they are "just friends". She said that [Mr L] offers her "support" and "never sleeps over". She said, "he just comes over and goes away". [The mother] said that the father keeps stating that [Mr L] is her partner when he knows it isn't true. She suggested that [the father] "is doing this, for financial benefit". The report writer asked her why [Mr L] would be present during the girls' Facetime calls with their father and whether she thought it appropriate for [Mr L] to make comments during the calls, knowing how the father feels about him. [The mother] said, "[Mr L] is not there for the calls unless we are all going out for dinner". She said that if a call happens to take place when they are driving or eating out and [Mr L] is there, "then it can't be helped". [The mother] did not feel that it would be of benefit to interview [Mr L] for the Single Expert report given that he is not her partner and does not live with her and the children.
Ms R reported,
The report writer again asked [the mother] to consider which arrangements might suit the children's needs. [The mother] said that she would like to "maintain the status quo". She said, "look, he is seeing the girls".
The mother told Ms R that the children would be "devastated" if their time with the father were increased against their wishes and that they were "already at risk of harm in his care".
Ms R observed the children with their mother and reported that they were "very relaxed" and "demonstrably affectionate". She noted,
Immediately before the father's session commenced, both girls began saying to their mother in the report writer's presence that they didn't want to have to see dad. This conflicted with what [Y] had said to her mother during the earlier observation session and to the report writer during her interview. Both girls looked at the report writer when making these statements.
Ms R continued,
The report writer asked the girls if they wanted to accompany her to the waiting area to collect the father and show him where the playroom was. Both agreed and [Y] ran on ahead, flinging herself with some force onto her father's lap and hugging him tightly with both arms around his neck. He immediately burst into tears. This was ignored by the girls.
Ms R noted that Y sat on her father's lap and cuddled him and that "Everyone seemed quite relaxed and the mood was cheerful."
When Ms R returned the children to their mother's care, the mother asked Y if she were "okay".
Ms R then spoke to Y alone. She reported,
[Y] volunteered to be interviewed first. She seemed very eager to tell the report writer all about the events that had occurred on the night that the father left the family home. The narration seemed well rehearsed ([Y] has shared this story with many other professionals on a number of different occasions) and [Y] didn't take too well to being interrupted in mid-flow. When asked if she was remembering something that she saw happen or something that she had heard about, [Y] said, "I was awake and [X] was asleep". The report writer thanked [Y] for sharing this with her and asked if there was anything else she needed to tell her. [Y] volunteered that she "sort of likes going to see Dad" but doesn't think they should go "more times". The report writer said, "Why is that?" and [Y] just shrugged and said, "I don't know".
Ms R reported,
[Y] said that she likes playing games with her father and was able to name his family members. She said that she likes her paternal grandmother and gets on well with "Dad's sisters" and her cousins. [Y] said, "we have so many toys at Dad's place that he says, not buying you any more toys". [Y] mimicked her father's accent and laughed as she said this.
…
The report writer asked [Y] if there was anything she didn't like about being at either parent's house or if she had any worries or concerns to share with the report writer. [Y] said that she doesn't have any worries. She said that she seldom has bad dreams and doesn't have a problem getting to sleep in either household.
Ms R raised the subject of Mr L with Y and noted,
The report writer asked [Y] who belongs to her mum's family. [Y] started off by naming [Mr L], calling him [by his first name]. She said, "Dad says he is not our dad, so we shouldn't call him that". The report writer asked [Y] who [Mr L] is to her. [Y] said, "He is Mum's boyfriend". The report writer asked [Y] how she gets on with [Mr L]. She shrugged and said, "Okay, I guess".
Ms R reported,
The report writer asked [Y] whether the amount of time she currently spends with each of her parents suits her. [Y] said that her father had told her that he wants more time, "one week with each" and that it would be up to the report writer to make that decision. The report writer told [Y] that her job is to write a story about their family and that she doesn't get to make those sorts of decisions and asked [Y] if she had any advice for either parent. [Y's] advice was, "Don't fight, don't be mean, be nice". She added as an aside, "They always fight". The report writer asked [Y] how that makes her feel. [Y] said it makes her feel "scared and sad".
The report writer asked Y whether she had any suggestions concerning the parenting arrangements. Y said, "more, no stay the same". The report writer asked if that included the school holidays. Y said, "no, I want more time with Dad".
X told Ms R that she didn't want to go into the observation session with her father and, when asked, explained that she "needed to keep her mother company". X told Ms R,
… she really enjoys spending time with each of her parents. She described her mother as "fun", saying "we do lots of fun things together". She said that her dad "can be fun, but sometimes he gets sad or angry". The report writer asked [X] what happens then. [X] said, "He either cries or he talks loudly and he shouts at us if we do something wrong". The report writer asked what happens in mum's house if the children do the wrong thing. [X] said, "we get yelled at there too". She said, "[Y] always cries".
Ms R reported,
[X] then brought up the iPad incident, saying that she had been asleep when it all happened and when she woke up in the morning her dad "wasn't there anymore" and she found out "everything that had happened". The report writer said, "everything?" and [X] said, "Mum told me and showed me her arm". [X] said that this made her feel "scared and sad" and she was worried that her dad would go to gaol and she would never see him again.
[X] said that her mother often says mean things about her father. She said that her mother also calls her paternal grandmother "the nasty woman". The report writer asked if [X's] grandmother is nasty to [X] and [X] said, "No, she is nice".
[X] said that her mother doesn't like her father's sisters either. [X] said that she does because they are nice to her. At this point, [X] looked worried and asked if the report writer would put that in the report. The report writer said, "Why, don't you want me to?" and [X's] response was that her mother wouldn't like it.
X told Ms R that her parents should "stop arguing and learn to share us". Asked if she had any suggestions about the arrangements, X said that week about would be "better". Pressed, X said, "It should be okay. We could do it and it would be fair". X then stated that she had "had enough of talking about it" and the report writer suggested they talk about something else.
X told Ms R that she believed her mother intends to move with them to Melbourne because she had overheard her mother talking about it. X said,
I have family there but I also have family here and I would miss them too. Mum says it is only like a one hour plane ride so it doesn't matter where we live". [X] then became quite concerned that her mother would be upset with her for bringing this up during the interview, asking that it not be disclosed.
Finally, X was asked if she wanted to give any message to the judge and said "No thanks".
Ms R assessed the children as having warm and loving relationships with each of their parents. She wrote,
It is of considerable concern that the children are being exposed to the mother's negative views about the paternal grandmother and other paternal family members. The report writer does not share the mother's view that the children have a 'toxic' relationship with their father and strongly suggests that she refrain from speaking negatively about him or his family members, either to the children or in front of them.
In relation to the parents' respective capacities, Ms R wrote,
Both parents appear more than capable of identifying and meeting the children's needs. The problem for the children is that their parents have a tendency to prioritise their own needs and wishes over and above the needs of the children (for example, by restricting the children's relationships with certain family members because they don't get along with them). This has resulted in the children being exposed to ongoing, acrimonious parental conflict and they have been repeatedly drawn into that conflict, including being interviewed by the Police, the Department of Communities and Justice, Health workers, School Counsellors, Psychologists, Social Workers etc. Even after arriving at Interim Orders, the conflict has continued unabated, causing harm to the children. Both parents appear equally responsible for this and it is suggested that a more child-focused approach needs to be adopted by each of them. It appears that attending Parenting after Separation courses has done little to change their behaviours to date. Perhaps a Parenting Coordinator will have more success.
Ms R said that this does not appear to be a family suited to a shared care arrangement. She wrote,
This is a high conflict matter where the adults have been observed to prioritise their own needs and wishes over and above the needs of the children, with little to no insight or consideration of the consequences for the children. There seems to be a lack of trust, poor communication and a very rigid approach to following Orders, even where this is clearly not in the best interests of the children and a more flexible approach seems warranted. An equal time, shared care arrangement would make life very difficult for [X] and [Y], especially if the parental conflict were to be ongoing.
What is likely to happen, if such an arrangement were to be implemented, is that the parents would continue to argue and criticise one another and the children would find themselves subject to intolerable loyalty demands being increasingly made of them by each parent, until it reaches the point where the children have to take a stand by aligning themselves with one parent and rejecting the other parent. The worst case scenario would be if the siblings were to pick opposing teams and become estranged from one another as well as from one of their parents.
In relation to the orders proposed by the mother, Ms R wrote,
The impact of the mother's proposed orders would be to marginalise the father's role in the children's lives. The mother is suggesting that consideration be given to having a professional organisation supervise the father's time with the children. This is not supported by the Single Expert, given that the children do not appear to be at risk in the father's care and because it would make it even more difficult for them to have any semblance of a normal relationship with their father and his family.
She recommended that the children have block holiday time with the father, to allow then to spend time with him and extended family, and said,
… it is unclear as to why the mother (who has family in Melbourne and overseas) would oppose this, unless it is to prevent the children from sharing those experiences with their father.
In relation to the issue of parental responsibility, Ms R wrote,
If the mother's proposal for sole parental responsibility is implemented, there is little doubt that the father's views will be given any weight when it comes to making decisions about the children's future. She is already making all the decisions and awarding her sole parental responsibility will only serve to legitimise this behaviour; however, the Court may need to consider this option in order to minimise conflict going forward, if the mother is to remain the primary carer.
Ms R warned,
At the moment, the children are spending relatively little time with the father. Given that they appear to have a good relationship with their father, it is likely that they will become increasingly dissatisfied with the parenting arrangement as time goes on. They may vote with their feet and self-place with their father, particularly if they come to believe that the arrangement is unfair or not in accordance with their wishes. They may become estranged from their mother. Alternatively, they may choose to align themselves with their mother and become estranged from their father. Either situation would not be in the children's best interests.
Ms R wrote,
The children have shared their feelings with their therapists and with the report writer. They don't like it when their parents argue or say bad things about the other parent. It makes them feel sad and upset. It is time for their parents to do things differently.
Ultimately, Ms R opined that the children should live with the parent assessed as most likely to support their relationship with the other parent. That assessment was not challenged in cross‑examination.
ISSUES
The issues to be determined and which were addressed in submissions were:
·The mother's allegation that the father was a perpetrator of family violence against her, both by physical violence and by controlling behaviour.
·The mother's allegation that the father posed a risk of physical violence to the children.
·The mother's allegation that the father posed an emotional and psychological risk to the children.
·The father's allegation that the mother was controlling of his relationship with the children.
·The father's allegation that the mother did not support the children's having a relationship with him and with the paternal family.
I propose to deal with those allegations in order.
IS THE FATHER A PERPETRATOR OF FAMILY VIOLENCE AGANST THE MOTHER?
The mother deposed,
In 2017, I was the victim of domestic violence by [the father]. [X] was [less than one year old] at the time. [The father] and I were fighting because he wanted his mother to look after [X], however I did not agree …
I note that, in late 2017 when this incident occurred, X was nearly two years old and that the mother had returned to work, part time, in early 2017. X was in childcare when the mother worked. Y was an infant.
The mother deposed that the father grabbed X from her arms and "pushed me into the fridge". He left the house with X. The mother made a complaint to the police. The mother does not assert that she was injured or hurt.
The mother's affidavit implies that the father intended to remove X, at least temporarily, from her day to day care and place the baby in her grandmother's care. That is not an accurate description of what happened.
Asked whether the father was intending to leave X in the care of the paternal grandmother, or to visit the grandmother with X, the mother said that she did not remember.
The father denies that he pushed the mother on that occasion.
Records produced by the police give a contemporaneous version of the event. The police recorded that the parents were in the process of separating and noted,
[The mother] does not allow the [father’s] mother to look after the two children without being supervised this has caused heated arguments in recent times …
The mother told the police that the father telephoned her at about 6pm on his way home from work and said "I'm going to my mum's place. I'm going to take [X] with me whether you like it or not. I don't care what happens after that".
When the father arrived home, the mother was in the kitchen holding X on her hip. He said to the mother "I'm taking her" and removed X from the mother. He walked down the steps to the back door. "In doing so [the father] used his right shoulder to push [the mother] into the wall next to the fridge". The mother called the police who arrived at 7.30pm and arrested the father. The mother complained to the police that her shoulder and her knee were sore "from being pushed into the wall".

The father was taken to the police station and interviewed. The father denied that he had assaulted the mother saying that he was holding X with both hands.
The police concluded,
From where [the mother] was standing in the small doorway it is possible that [the father] has knocked into her as he left with the child.
The father was charged with assault but the charges were discontinued.
I do not accept that the father threatened to take X to his mother "to look after [X]". The father wanted to take X to visit his mother. I do not accept that the father pushed the mother into the fridge "using the weight of his body" as the mother alleged although I accept that he may have "knocked" her as he left the house.
The mother exaggerated the seriousness of that event.
In late 2017, after an incident between the mother and the paternal grandmother in early 2017, an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) was issued against the paternal grandmother for the protection of the mother. The evidence does not establish whether the paternal grandmother defended that application. The police records of the event were not tendered.
The mother deposed that, in 2019, the father yelled at her and "cornered me in our walk in wardrobe". She asked him to move out of her way and she "grabbed [her] phone and fled towards the laundry and through the gate". The mother texted her neighbour, Ms N "I am really scared for my safety. If something happens call my dad".
Ms N deposed that she heard the father's raised voice on that occasion but could not hear what was said. After receiving the text from the mother, Ms N called the police.
The father deposed to a different version of that event which he said took place on his birthday in 2019. He deposed that a number of friends were at his home, having a drink to celebrate his birthday and there was no argument with the mother at all.
Records produced by the police suggest that the father's version of that event is more accurate.
The police recorded Ms N, in her initial call, saying that, having received the mother's text, she went to the house and knocked at the door but no-one answered. She said that earlier two men had arrived at the house and she identified them as friends of the father. Ms N said that she heard "a lot of yelling".
The police noted,
About 11.30am, police attended and spoke with [the mother] in the driveway of her house after she was seen by police sitting with [the father] and other family members and friends at the rear of the home. … [The mother] told the police that she had been arguing with [the father] and that he had told her that he was going to leave and take the children back to [Country U]. [The mother] told the police that she had sent the text message to [Ms N] in case anything had happened. When questioned on what she thought might have happened to make her feel she had to send the text message to the neighbour she repeated she was scared [the father] would leave with the children.
The police record states,
[The mother] did not say that [the father] had harmed her in any way. [The mother] made no allegations of any assault.
The record states, "[The mother] was adamant that [the father] had not committed any offence".
The police also spoke to the father who said nothing had happened "and could not understand why police would have been called".
I do not accept the mother's version of those events and I do not accept that there was any incident of violence on that day.
The parents separated under the one roof in August 2020, the mother having commenced a relationship with Mr L earlier that year.
The mother deposed that, in late 2020, when they were separated but still living in the Suburb G property, she and the father argued and he "grabbed the top of my arm tightly". She deposed that her arm was bruised. The mother deposed that she told Mr L about this event. Mr L did not give evidence although the mother agreed in cross-examination that he was available. Having regard to the mother's exaggerations in relation to the two previous allegations, and the fact that the only person who was able to corroborate her evidence did not do so, I do not accept that the mother was assaulted on that occasion.
The mother deposed that, in mid-2021 and again two days later, the father threatened "If I don't get what I want with the separation, I am going to kill myself and frame you".
The mother told Ms R about these conversations and told Ms R that her response was, "I said, do as you see fit and off I went to work".
On 15 July 2021, the father's solicitors wrote a letter to the mother, introducing themselves as acting for the father and proposing, inter alia, that the mother move out of the house. The letter was sent by email to the mother at 1.21pm. At 1.28pm, the mother contacted the police. The record of the mother's initial call ("CAD message") was in evidence and noted, inter alia,
[The mother] believes [the father’s] mental health has declined recently has seen him sleeping in bushes … taking children to remote locations and disappearing for days on end etc …
The mother requested that the police do a mental health assessment/welfare check on the father.
The police recorded,
… The two are still living at [the home] together with their two children, however, [the mother] has a new partner and there is conflict within the home over the separation and the dissolution of their relationship. Neither [the father] or [the mother] want [sic] to move out of the family home and this, and other financial issues regarding the separation have caused the two parties to have on-going verbal disputes. [The mother] believes [the father] to have mental health issues as he has a family history of [mental illness]. When pressed on the information given in the CAD message, [the mother] admitted that it had been several years since he had displayed this behaviour.
The police attended the home at about 5pm and spoke to the father. They recorded,
Police spoke with [the father] and he appeared rational and fully capable of caring for his two young children. [The mother] stated she didn’t want an AVO and had no fears for her safety. [The mother] was asked what happened to make her contact police today and she kept telling police that [the father] needed to be assessed for mental health problems.
There is no evidence in the mother's affidavit about the father's sleeping in bushes, taking the children to remote locations or disappearing for days on end. This complaint was fabricated.
The mother deposed that, in mid-2021, she saw the father in X's bedroom. "Her underwear was off and he was touching her genitals". The father told her that X, then five years old, had complained she was sore and he was putting cream on her genitals. The mother said, "[X] is big now so if she has any issues with her genitals I should be the one to assist". In cross‑examination the mother said that it was inappropriate for the father to touch X's genitals and that if a parent touched the genitals of a child aged four or five years or older, that was sexual abuse.
In mid-2021, a report was made to the Department of Family and Community Services ("DFCS") by a mandatory reporter in the following terms,
… [the mother] stated several days ago she woke up at approx. 3am and found [the father] in [X’s] room. [The mother] stated that [the father] was rubbing cream on [X’s] vagina. [The mother] stated she asked why [the father] was doing this. [The mother] stated when she asked what [the father] was doing he became extremely angry at her.
…
[The mother] stated she suspects [the father] is experiencing paranoia and delusions. [The mother] has stated [the father] is behaving in very “strange” ways such as disconnecting all the fire alarms and locking [the mother] and the children in the house …
[The father] has not allowed [the mother] or the children to see any of her family for 5 years stating that [the mother’s] father and her brothers are “paedophiles”.
The report noted, "[The mother] has a supportive new partner".
The mother conceded that there is no mention in her trial affidavit of the father becoming very angry on this occasion. She did not give evidence that she and the children had been prevented from seeing her family for five years. Further, the maternal grandfather was present in court for the first two days of the hearing and he did not give evidence to corroborate that allegation. I note that, to the contrary, the mother, in her trial affidavit, deposed,
[The father] would not let me purchase tickets as often as I would like to travel to Melbourne with the girls to spend time with other family members including my parents.
As a result of the report, the children were interviewed by the Joint Response Unit. The file was closed.
There was a further incident in late 2021. Throughout the incident, the mother was talking to Mr L on her phone, using earphones. The mother had locked Y's iPad. The father asked her to unlock the iPad. She refused. They scuffled over the iPad. The mother deposed,
I was still holding [Y’s] iPad. [The father] grabbed me from behind and held my body close to his. He was trying to grab [Y’s] iPad with his right hand. I did not let go of the iPad because I wanted to use it to defend myself if needed. I managed to push my left elbow into [the father’s] abdominal area”.
The mother ran outside, still talking to Mr L who called the police. The police records of the event were not tendered.
The father deposed that the mother pushed him on that occasion, speaking on her phone to Mr L and saying "… he grabbed me, he grabbed me". The father said "I didn't touch you".
Again, Mr L was not called to corroborate the mother's allegation.
The father was charged with common assault and an ADVO was issued. The father left the home and the mother and the children have since lived there.
The father's conviction for assault was set aside on appeal and the ADVO was also set aside.
I am not satisfied that the mother's allegations in relation to family violence have been made out. I prefer the version of events contained in the contemporary police records. The mother has exaggerated or fabricated complaints.
I accept that the relationship was heated during the period when the parties were separated under the one roof and the mother was openly in a relationship with Mr L but I do not accept that the father was violent as the mother asserts.
The mother also asserted that the father was controlling during their relationship. There was no cross-examination of the father in relation to this issue. Since the affidavits of each of the mother and the father were sworn and filed simultaneously, there can be no criticism of the father because he did not deal with the assertion on controlling behaviour in his affidavit.
The mother asserted in her affidavit that:
·The father monitored expenses and yelled at her if she spent too much.
·Prevented her from travelling overseas to visit her relatives.
·Would not let her travel to Melbourne as often as she would have liked to spend time with her family.
·Asked her where she had been during the day when she was on maternity leave.
·Was the account holder for her mobile phone until separation.
·Did not register their new car in her name in 2017.
In relation to the first allegation, the mother gave no specific evidence of any incident or event. The extent of her evidence is the assertion together with the statement "He knew where all our joint money was being spent and I had to justify these purchases/expenses".
I am conscious that these are proceedings governed by Division 12A and section 69ZT of the Family Law Act 1975(Cth), ("the Act") but a bald assertion, absent evidence, does not carry sufficient weight to enable a finding to be made.
As to the father's preventing the mother from travelling overseas, she resiled from that assertion in cross-examination.
In relation to the assertion that the father restricted her travel to Melbourne, again, she gave no evidence in support of that assertion.
As to his asking here where she had been during the day when she was on maternity leave, there was no evidence which enabled me to make any finding that this was other than a normal exchange between the couple.
The mother did not suggest that she objected to her mobile phone being in the father's name before they separated or that she could not, at any time, have opened an account in her own name.
In relation to the new car, she agreed that, after a week, the registration was changed to her name.
It is a matter of some concern that, in cross-examination, the mother said that by seeking to spend time with the children, the father was exhibiting controlling behaviour.
The mother has not established that the father's behaviour was controlling such as to come within the definition of family violence.
WAS THE FATHER VIOLENT TOWARDS THE CHILDREN?
The mother asserts that the father smacked the children on occasions. The father asserts that the children have told him that the mother smacks them. I accept that it is likely that each parent has smacked the children.
WAS THE FATHER NEGLECTFUL?
The mother cited three specific instances where she asserts that the father was neglectful in his care of the children.
The first occurred in late 2021. The mother deposed that X returned home from spending time with the father with an "injury to her eye". She deposed,
She said that she had hit herself with a broomstick. [X] was not taken to the doctor by [the father] nor was any treatment such as ice given. [The father] did not advise me of this injury.
The mother was cross-examined about the exchange of text messages on the following day. The mother texted a photo of X with a bruised eyelid and said,
[X] said she had incident at yours where she hurt her eye? Picture attached did you het [sic] her eye checked?
The father responded,
Yes they both wanted to use the broom and [X] got accidentally hit with it. It wasn’t a big deal at the time. I looked it over and she seemed fine, she wasn’t complaining about it. If it hurts now on the next day, then take her to the doctors. Have a look at the eye. – if it has become bloodshot, you an [sic] get her checked out or I can take her wen [sic] I pick them up today. If its just a little bruise or a scratch on the skin, I’m sure it will heal. Happy for [X] to be seen by a doctor.
The mother took the children to sports and took X to the doctor later that day. She does not assert that X was in need of treatment or that the doctor diagnosed any injury.
The father texted "I assessed the injury at the time and it appeared superficial". Nothing in the evidence established that his assessment was not correct.
The mother deposed that on another occasion, for which no date was given, X "hit her face causing a tooth to dislodge". The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the father should have taken X to the dentist on that occasion.
The mother asserted that, in early 2023, the father left the children unattended at the swimming pool.
The father was cross-examined about this incident by counsel for the ICL. He said that the children were in their swimming suits and he took them into the pool and spoke to a staff member, explaining that he had to park the car and would be "just a second'. He parked the car and when he returned, the children were still waiting for him at the entrance to the centre. He agreed that he should not have left the children alone at the pool and said that he has not done so since.
I am not satisfied that the father's behaviour is neglectful such as to place the children at risk.
DOES THE FATHER POSE AN EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK TO THE CHILDREN?
The mother relied primarily on the undisputed evidence that the father cries in front of the children.
The father readily conceded that he cries, particularly if the children cry. He cried when he spent time with the children observed by Ms R. In her report, Ms R noted that when the girls went into the room with their father and Y ran ahead and flung herself onto his lap and hugged him, he burst into tears. She reported, "This was ignored by the girls". She reported,
The first think [Y] said to her mother when entering the room was “He cried again!” This statement was delivered with the child placing her hands on her hips and appearing exasperated.
Ms R was asked about the father's crying in cross-examination. She said that the children would be stressed by the father's crying and that they would wonder if they were to blame. However, she said,
I don’t think I would term it abuse unless it was being done with intention. If he – if he recognized the impact that it was having and he took steps to help to control his emotions or to explain to them what was going on or sort some strategies … to be able to manage it a little better, and remembering that this only occurs in very stressful situations, and that family report interview was very stressful for him… He knew there was a lot riding on it and he was stressed before he even walked in. So I’m not saying that this is something that happens all the time. It’s probably something that happens less often than is being made out.
In cross-examination by counsel for the ICL the father said, "sometimes we all cry on separation… usually they start crying before me".
I do not accept that the fact that the father cries on occasions in front of the children poses an emotional risk to them.
HAS THE MOTHER CONTROLLED THE CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER?
The father complained that the mother had withheld information about the children's school and medical issues and that she had refused him access to relevant web sites.
The mother in cross-examination, said that she was not aware that the father was not able to access information from the school. She deposed that she had transferred the children to her own Medicare card and that the father had no access to information relating to medical attendances.
In late 2021, shortly after the father left the home, a member of the school staff sent an email to a number of staff, including the school counsellor stating that,
I have received a telephone call from [the father] requesting that he receive all copies of communication and updates on [X], as they are separated.
I told him it is best to get the Skoolbag app, for him to get regular communication of what is happening at school and a copy of her academic report will be sent to him at the term [sic] on the term.
A file note produced by the school, dated 3 May 2022, states that X's class teacher, "… had spoken to [the mother] who said reports to be supplied to her only".
The mother conceded that she did not give the father log-in codes for the before and after school care service. On 12 March 2022, the mother blocked the father's access to the sporting organisation portal and it was not-reinstated.
In cross-examination the mother agreed that each of the children's most recent school reports referred to learning difficulties. She had a meeting with X's teacher who gave the mother some ideas about how to support X's learning. The mother agreed that she did not provide a copy of the school reports to the father. She assumed the school had done so. She also agreed that she did not share with the father the information that she had been given by X's teacher. In relation to Y, the mother was "not sure" that she had spoken to him about Y's learning difficulties. Since they have only communicated by text since separation, and I was not referred to any specific text, I am satisfied that she had not communicated with the father about this issue.
I accept the father's assertion that the mother removed the children's readers from their school bags on occasions before they went into his care.
The father gave evidence in relation the mother's texts during times the children are with him. Solicitors for the father put to the mother that the texts were threatening, harassing, intrusive and controlling. The mother did not accept that proposition.

Some of the mother's text messages undoubtedly fit that description. On 9 January 2021, when they were still both living in the Suburb G property, the mother texted,
Bring kids by 3.30 so we i can have access to kids or I will call the police like I did with your mum
Later, on the same day, she texted,
Bring kids home … bring them back sont [sic] push me to call police. When you come home pack your things or I will pack you up
On the weekend of 3 April 2022, there was a barrage of texts from the mother demanding to talk to the children, starting at 4.22pm on Friday afternoon.
On 3 April 2022, the mother texted,
If I don’t hear from you by 8.45pm to see how the girls are I will contact police to check on girls safety.
The father sent a photograph and a message stating that the girls were "safe and sound" and had gone to bed. The mother responded,
I want a photo of girls sleeping now or I will call the police to check on girls safety. If I don’t get a photo of girls sleeping or I don’t talk to girls by 9.15pm going to police station to check on girls safety.
On 28 February 2023 the mother texted the father,
Its way pass [sic] face time if you don’t stop calling will have to report it to authorities.
All of the texts that have passed between the parents between October 2018 and 14 September 2023 were available. The father's tone is uniformly polite and respectful. The same cannot be said of the mother's texts.
The mother would not allow the father to attend for X's first day at school. She refused to allow him to attend parent/teacher meetings at the same time as she did.
She insisted that the father not collect the children from school on the afternoons when they were to spend time with him, requiring him instead to collect them at 4pm from after school care. She also required him to deliver the children to before school care rather than to school. The effect was that the children spend a little less time with their father. When asked in cross‑examination to explain why that was necessary, she said that she had concerns about the father's ability to care for the children. Pressed to explain how her concerns were allayed if he collected the children at 4pm rather than 3.15 pm, she could not.
DOES THE MOTHER SUPPORT THE CHILDREN’S HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER AND THE PATERNAL FAMILY?
The mother's negative views of the father have been conveyed, at least, to X who told Ms R that her mother often says mean things about her father". X told Ms R that she knew "everything" about the incident in late 2021, although she had not been awake or seen anything, because, when she woke the next morning, her mother told her what had happened "and showed me her arm".
The mother told Ms R that X had recently complained that her father had been "controlling". Ms R agreed that it is unlikely that X, then aged seven, understood the concept of controlling behaviour which was a constant theme of the mother's evidence. Ms R said, in cross‑examination that she had never "heard [a child] talk about controlling behaviour without that having actually been spoken about either to them directly or in front of them."
I do not accept the mother's denial, in cross-examination, that she denigrates the paternal family. She referred to them as “a pack of hyenas” to Ms R. X told Ms R that her mother calls the paternal grandmother "the nasty woman". X told Ms R that her mother doesn't like her father's sisters either. The father's evidence that the mother has referred to the paternal grandmother as a "witch", "maleficent" and "nasty woman" was not challenged.
As a result of the ADVO against the paternal grandmother in late 2017, the children did not spend time with the extended paternal family until the parents separated in 2021. However, the mother's attitude to the children's paternal aunts remained hostile. On 27 June 2021, she sent a text message to the father's sisters stating, inter alia,
Stay away from my girl. I fear for [X’s] and [Y’s] Safety when girls are in your presence …
If you want and like to have contact with [X] and [Y] you can take me to family court and we can fight through family court when and how you can see and have contact with girls. Until then girls and I stay away from all of you and I demand and I am repeating DEMAND respect in return.
There was nothing in the mother's affidavit about any behaviour on the part of the father's sisters which may have given rise to the mother' attitude towards them. In cross-examination Ms R agreed that the mother's attitude towards the paternal family was entrenched.
Ms R, in cross-examination, agreed that the mother would have trouble shielding the children from her opinions about the paternal family. She said,
… they are very aware of their mum’s feelings towards the paternal family members. You know, not only their dad but also their grandmother and their aunt, because she really doesn’t pull any punches. She didn’t during an interview, perhaps a little lacking when it comes to having a filter. If she felt comfortable talking to me referring to them as [hyenas], one does wonder how she talks about them to the children and in front of the children. And that would be very stressful for them.
…
… she is a very passionate person who has very strong views, so I think that she would struggle to contain herself if she felt very strongly about something.
I do not accept the mother's denials that she has denigrated the paternal family in the presence or hearing of the children and it is likely that she will continue to do so.
The mother told Ms R in interview that "the girls have a toxic relationship with their father". In cross-examination, the mother said that, when she read Ms R's report, she did not believe Ms R's assessment that the children enjoyed spending time with their father.
The mother told Ms R that she regrets that the children were conceived with the father rather than a sperm donor, that his time with them should be supervised and that she should not have to consult him about the children.
The mother had not read the report of Ms P but conceded that Ms P had told her, some three or four months ago, that X loves her father and enjoys spending time with him. The mother conceded that, when she swore in her trial affidavit on 21 September 2021 that "[The father] and the children do not have a very close relationship" she had known what X had told Ms P (and also Ms R) but that she based her view on her observation of the children.
Despite the mother's evidence in her affidavit that, since she read Ms R's report, she has "been working towards enhancing my encouragement and facilitation of the children's relationship with [their father]" nothing in her oral evidence demonstrated that this was either truthful or accurate. To the contrary, she told counsel for the ICL that, by way of encouragement, she tells the children, when they say they don't want to spend time with their father, "As hard as it is - you still have to go".
Although the mother denies that Mr L is her partner and insists that he is a friend, she does not dispute that he frequently spends time with the children. He is present from time to time when the children are on FaceTime with their father. More relevantly, Mr L has entered into text correspondence with the father and visited the father at his work place. Whether he acted in consultation with the mother or of his own volition is not known. He did not give evidence and she was not asked.
The father deposed that, in August 2020, X told him that "We spent the day with [Mr L]".
The father deposed that, between early and mid-2021 Mr L sent a number of threatening messages to him. In cross-examination, the mother was shown the messages sent by Mr L and she agreed that she would have felt intimidated had she been the recipient of the messages.
In mid-2021, the father took the children to a park in Suburb V. The mother sent a text asking where they were and he responded. The whole text exchange is in evidence. The father deposed that he then saw both the mother and Mr L at the park. He sent a text to the mother saying,
Please stop following me. I have seen you following me and stalking me all morning and [Mr L] is following me too. I feel threatened. I have asked you to leave already on the phone. Please leave and I will see you at home later on.
The mother replied,
Don’t go in paranoia I am around for the kids safety that’s all. Stay calm …
A few days later, the father asked Mr L not to contact him or come to his place of work and Mr L replied, inter alia, "I'll come when I need to speak to you." The father's evidence that, later that month, he had heard the mother say, on the telephone, to Mr L "you need to come and sort [the father] out", and that Mr L had then come to the home, was not challenged.
In cross-examination by counsel for the ICL the father said that the children have, on a couple of occasions, referred to Mr L as "Dad". The father told Ms R that one of the parents at the children's sport was shocked to find he was the children's father as the mother had previously introduced another man, I infer Mr L, as their father.
On 10 May 2022, the father's solicitors wrote to the mother's solicitors asking her to agree to an order that she would not allow Mr L to speak to the children while they are in their father's care and that she would not refer to or introduce Mr L as the children's parent. She refused.
The father tendered a number of screen shots that showed Mr L interacting with the children when the father was talking to them on FaceTime. His evidence of Mr L talking to the children and to the mother when he tried to contact the children was not challenged.
In cross-examination, the mother agreed that Mr L’s intervention in the children's communication with their father was disrespectful.
Ms R, in cross-examination, was asked about the effect on the children of the involvement of Mr L in being present when the father FaceTimed the children and denigrating the father. Ms R said,
From – from the children’s perspective, it would be very difficult for them and I think they made that pretty clear as well. So from a – looking at emotional harm, I think it would be very stressful for them to continually be put in that position to see their father’s reaction to that happening as well. So I would like to see some boundaries put around that behaviour by the mother.
Ms R said that the mother's failure to place boundaries around Mr L engagement with the children was "very disappointing".
She said,
… they were very aware that their father didn’t like [Mr L] and made comments to them to the effect that he was not their dad and that they were not to call him that. I – I recall [X] talking about that during the interview. They also made it very clear that they knew that [Mr L] or they considered him to be their mother’s boyfriend or partner and they also found it very difficult to be in the middle of that argument between their parents over [Mr L] and his involvement in their lives.
Asked if she agreed that it was the mother who permitted that involvement, Ms R agreed. She said,
I would have liked to have seen her and I would still like to see her put some boundaries around his interaction with the children, particularly when the father is talking to them or making some rules about what [Mr L] can say or – or can’t do when it comes to disciplining the children or – or – or even his level of interaction with the father.
Ms R was aware of the request to the mother that Mr L not be introduced as the children's father and that he not contact the children while they were in the father's care. She said,
Yes. And I did talk to her a bit about that during the interview as well. I was aware that the father had asked her those things and he had also been upset when he had taken the children to [sport] and somebody had made a comment about how she had led them to believe that [Mr L] was the children’s father and I spoke to her a little bit about how she could deal with that and – and how she could do things a bit differently but she wasn’t particularly receptive.
There is no evidence that Mr L would encourage the mother to support the children's relationship with their father.
The mother has disparaged and denigrated the paternal family. She has kept the children from having a relationship with them between 2017 and 2021.
I accept that the tone of the mother's communications with the father has improved since the release of Ms R's report but nothing in the evidence of the mother suggests that, when these proceedings are over, that improvement will continue. To the contrary, Ms R, in cross‑examination, said that she expects that, when the litigation is completed, the current level of conflict will continue.
I do not accept that the mother will support the children's having more than a minimal relationship with their father.
CONSIDERATION
I am required to balance the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect them from physical or psychological harm as a result of being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or physical violence.
Each parent proposes that the children spend time with the other during school terms and each parent agrees that they should spend a block of half of the school holiday periods with the other. Neither, in those circumstances, can maintain that the behaviour of the other presents a risk to the children.
I have already dealt, earlier in these reasons, with my evaluation of the mother's allegations of physical violence towards her by the father.
Each parent asserts that the other has smacked the children and I accept that this is so.
I accept the unchallenged evidence of Ms R that the children should live primarily with the parent who is most likely to promote their relationship with the other parent.
any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
The children were not asked by Ms R with whom they wanted to live but each of them told her she wanted more time with her father.
the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
I accept Ms R's unchallenged assessment that they have a warm and loving relationship with each parent.
the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;
The mother has not applied for a child support assessment. There are numerous instances in the text exchanges of the mother asking him to deposit funds in her account and of his confirming that he had done so.
the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
There is no evidence that the father has done anything to prevent or hinder the children's having a relationship with their maternal family. However, the mother has prevented the children having a relationship with the paternal family between at least 2017 and 2021.
Ms R was extensively cross-examined about the effect on the children of a change of residence. In answer to questions posed by counsel for the ICL she said,
From my findings, the children have a good relationship with each of their parents. I couldn’t see any reason why the father would not be able to meet the children’s needs. I think that either parent would be able to meet their needs equally as well, and as I said in the report, what it is likely to ultimately come down to is a question as to which parent is more likely to facilitate the children’s relationships with the other parent.
Ms R recommended that the children spend a block of four nights with the non-resident parent. She did not support their spending a night in the intervening week. She said that there should be fewer transitions and less disruption for the children and that was particularly so during the school week. Ms R said the children might benefit from an uninterrupted block of ten nights with the resident parent.
She did not support a block of five nights, saying,
Anything five nights plus is shared care, and my position has been that these aren’t parents who will cope very well with shared care. It really should be that they live primarily with one parent and spend time with the other parent.
the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
The present orders provide for the children to have FaceTime contact with each parent every second day. The complaints of each parent about the interference of the other, and of Mr L, in the FaceTime calls were the subject of both affidavit evidence and of cross-examination and the only possible conclusion is that the FaceTime calls have been a source of stress for the children and conflict for the parents.
Ms R recommended weekly calls to the non-resident parent. That recommendation was supported by the ICL.
the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs; and
the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
I give no weight to the complaints that each allege have been made by the children about the other parent. Each parent has involved the children in their dispute.
I do not accept the evidence of the mother that she understands the importance to the children of their relationship with their father and I do not accept that she will support that relationship beyond a bare compliance with court orders.
I accept the evidence of Ms R that both parents can meet the children's intellectual needs and that the parent who can best meet their emotional needs is the parent who will genuinely support their relationship with the other parent.
In this case, that parent is the father.
the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
These children have a Country H, Country U and Country W heritage. They have relatives living in Europe. It would be in their interests, at the appropriate time, for them to be able to travel to the countries where their parents were raised and where they have relatives and experience those cultures and families.
There is no evidence that either parent is likely to abscond with the children.
any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
I have considered the evidence in relation to family violence earlier in these reasons.
CONCLUSION
The children will live primarily with their father and spend a block of four nights in each fortnight during the school term with the mother. All term time changeovers will occur at school and each parent will be restrained from being at the school at a time when the other is dropping or collecting the children.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
I accept the evidence of the father that, once they separated, the mother did not involve him in making decisions about the children.
However, there is no evidence that the father has refused or determined not to consult with the mother or that he would not consider her views.
The decisions which fall to be made are those which have long term consequences and are limited to:
(a)the child's education (both current and future); and
(b)the child's religious and cultural upbringing; and
(c)the child's health; and
(d)the child's name; and
(e)changes to the child's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.

There are no decisions to be made about the children's education until X, now aged seven years, is ready for secondary school.
There is no issue about their religious and cultural upbringing.
There have been no issues about their medical treatment.
Their names are agreed.
In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that the parents are incapable of reaching an agreed position in relation to those aspects of the children's care should the need arise and it may be helpful to the children to know that both their parents are actively involved in the decisions about their future care.
PROPERTY
In this portion of the reasons, the parties are referred to as "the applicant" and "the respondent."
The significant assets of these parties are jointly owned and were acquired by them jointly. It is just and equitable to adjust the ownership of those assets so that they can now be severally enjoyed.
There is a dispute about when their de facto relationship commenced. The applicant asserts that they began living together in 2003 in the home of the respondent's father at Z Street, Suburb AA in Victoria. The respondent agrees that they purchased property together in 2003 but she asserts that they did so as business partners, not as a couple about to be in a de facto relationship.
The applicant deposed that he worked for the respondent's father in his business until 2007 and he tendered a number of documents addressed to him at the Suburb AA address.
The respondent was studying and living at home with her parents. She finished her studies in 2004 and her internship in 2005. She deposed that they commenced their relationship in 2006. The respondent's father was in court for the first two days of the hearing. He did not give evidence. His evidence could have established whether his daughter and the applicant lived together in his home from 2003. I infer that his evidence would not have supported the respondent's version of the relationship.
However, nothing turns on this dispute.
They commenced their financial relationship in 2003 with the purchase of the property at D Street, Suburb E in Victoria ("the Suburb E property"), for $175,500. The fact that they purchased as joint tenants suggests that they were more likely in a romantic relationship rather than just business partners. It is agreed that they each contributed half of the deposit and the balance was borrowed and secured by mortgage. The Suburb E property was rented and the rent applied to the mortgage payments, as remains the position.
In 2003, the respondent had no significant assets or liabilities.
The applicant owned a unit at Suburb K jointly with his sister which had been purchased in 2002. There is no evidence to establish what his equity may have been. He had superannuation entitlements he estimated to have been worth $30,000. He had been working since 1995.
In 2007, the respondent obtained employment in Sydney and they moved to Sydney. They lived in the Suburb K unit, sharing with the applicant's sister Ms M and her husband.
In 2009 they purchased a property at Suburb G for $570,000. The applicant deposed that they contributed $114,000 from their joint savings. It is the applicant's unchallenged evidence that his mother gave them $30,000. The balance was borrowed. They lived in the Suburb G property.
In 2015, the applicant sold the Suburb K unit and received $172,000 which he paid into the Suburb G mortgage offset account.
Both parties worked. The respondent took time off and did some part time work when the children were born. By the time of the hearing, they were both in full time employment.
The applicant seeks 60 per cent of the net property. The respondent seeks 65 per cent. Each wants to retain the Suburb G property.
Neither seeks a superannuation splitting order.
At the commencement of the hearing, they tendered a joint Balance Sheet. I will deal with the disputes arising on the balance sheet using the numbering from the document which is reproduced below:

Ownership Description Wife's value Husband's value (AUD)

ASSETS

1.Joint F Street, Suburb G NSW $1,450,000 $1,450,000

2.Joint D Street, Suburb E VIC $595,000 $595,000

3.Joint Westpac offset account #...33 (Suburb G loan) $1,933 $1,933

4.Husband BB Company NK NIL

5.Husband Workshop tools $40,000 $5,000

6.Husband ANZ Account #...69 $2,605 $2,605

7.Husband Westpac Account #...95 $6,737 $6,737

8.Husband Westpac Account #...06 $1,999 $1,999

9.Husband Motor Vehicle 1 $35,000 $35,000

10.Husband Recreational vehicle $6,500 $6.500

11.Wife NAB Account #...25 $1,395 $1,395

12.Wife NAB Account #...14 $5,048 $5,048

13.Wife NAB Account #...91 $0 $0

14.Wife Motor Vehicle 2 $16,000 $16,000

15.Wife Household contents $5,000 $5,000

16.Husband Addback: family expert fees paid by the wife $12,970 $12,970

17.Husband Addback: withdrawal by applicant in July 2021 from parties’ joint mortgage account $100,000 $100,000

18.Husband Addback cash in safe $80,000 $40,000

19.Wife Addback cash in safe $0 $40,000

Total $2,360,187 $2,325,187

LIABILITIES

22.Joint Westpac loan secured by Suburb G property #...17 $55,990 $55,990

23.Joint CC Bank loan secured by Suburb E property $67,144 $67,144

24.Joint Capital Gains Tax on sale of Suburb E property NK NK

25.Husband Loans from Mr DD $0 $128,000

26.Husband Westpac Mastercard $0 $0

27.Husband Westpac Mastercard $0 $0

28.Wife Loan from Mr L (legal fees) $250,000 $0

Total -$373,134 -$251,134

SUPERANNUATION

28.Husband Superannuation Fund 1 $65,296 $65,296

29.Wife Superannuation Fund 1 $122,709 $122,709

Total $188,005 $188,005
Item 4 – the applicant’s business

There is no evidence of value. The applicant conducts a business as a labourer. He works alone. There is no evidence that the business has any value. This item will be removed from the balance sheet.
Item 5 – the applicant’s tools
The tools have not been valued. The respondent has brought no evidence to support her assertion of value. They will be included in the balance sheet at the applicant's estimate as an admission against interest.
Item 16 – expert fees paid by respondent
The respondent has paid the whole of the fee and it is agreed that the applicant will repay half from his share of the property. This item will be removed from the balance sheet and orders made accordingly.
Item 17 -money removed from mortgage account by applicant
The applicant deposed that, in July 2021, there was $230,000 in the mortgage offset account. He withdrew $130,000 and paid $100,000 into his own account and $30,000 into their joint account, leaving $100,000 in the offset account. The respondent then paid the $100,000 in the offset account and the $30,000 from the joint account off the mortgage.
The applicant deposed that he used the funds to pay legal fees and living expenses. He does not dispute that his actions constituted a distribution to himself of joint funds and that the amount should be added back to the asset pool.
Item 18 and 19 – cash in safe
There is no dispute that, at about the time of physical separation, the parties had $80,000 in cash in a safe in their home. Each asserts that the other has taken the cash. There is no evidence to support either assertion and I am unable to make any finding about the whereabouts of the money.
This item will be removed from the balance sheet.
Item 24 – capital gains tax
It is agreed that the Suburb E property will be sold and capital gains tax ("CGT") will accrue. It is appropriate that the orders provide for the payment of the CGT before distribution of the balance.
This item will be removed from the balance sheet.
Item 25 – loan from Mr DD
The applicant deposed that he operates his business out of premises owned by Mr DD and that, until these proceedings commenced, he paid $800 per week in rent to Mr DD. After he started paying legal fees he was unable to afford to pay rent. He deposed that the rent was $41,600 per annum. In his tax returns for the financial years ended 30 June 2023 and 2022, he claimed a deduction for rent of $15,600 in each year. In the year ended 30 June 2021 he claimed a deduction for rent of $29,100.
In cross-examination, he said that he had paid no rent since September 2021 but agreed that on 12 November 2021 he had paid Mr DD $9,800. He was unable to say whether that amount had been deducted from the amount owed to Mr DD and he was unable to explain how he had calculated the amount owing except to say that it was based on rent he owed and tools that Mr DD had left in the premises and other bills that he owed.
Mr DD did not give evidence in the proceedings. There is no evidence that supports the existence of an enforceable loan.
Further, the applicant has not established that he is unable to pay rent to Mr DD of $128,000 because he had to fund the balance of his legal fees (after the application of $100,000 from the mortgage account).
This item will be removed from the balance sheet.
Item 28 – loan from Mr L
The respondent has borrowed $250,000 from Mr L which she specifies was for payment of her legal fees. She does not seek to add back the paid legal fees.
The respondent is entitled to make whatever arrangements she chooses in relation to her legal fees but she is not entitled to visit the consequences of her decisions on the applicant.
This item will be removed from the balance sheet.
I therefore find that the assets and liabilities are:

Ownership Description Value

Joint F Street, Suburb G NSW $1,450,000

Joint D Street, Suburb E VIC $595,000

Joint Westpac offset account #...33 (Suburb G loan) $1,933

Applicant Workshop tools $5,000

Applicant Bank accounts $11,341

Applicant Motor Vehicle 1 $35,000

Applicant Recreational vehicle $6,500

Respondent Bank accounts $6,443

Respondent Motor Vehicle 2 $16,000

Respondent Household contents $5,000

Applicant Money removed from mortgage account $100,000

Total $2,232,217

LIABILITIES

Joint Westpac loan secured by Suburb G property #...17 $55,990

Joint CC Bank loan secured by Suburb E property $67,144

Total -$123,134

SUPERANNUATION

28.Husband Superannuation Fund 1 $65,296

29.Wife Superannuation Fund 1 $122,709

Total $188,005

The parties have net assets of $2,109,083. Excluding the real estate and superannuation, the applicant has, or has had, personal property worth $157,841 and the respondent has personal property worth $27,443.
CONTRIBUTION
The applicant made a greater initial contribution and his equity in the Suburb K unit of about $170,000 was eventually contributed towards the mortgage over the Suburb G property. There is no evidence of the value of that initial contribution in 2003. The applicant's mother contributed $30,000 to the purchase of the Suburb G property.
Thus the applicant's financial contribution was about $200,000 or 10 percent of the value of the net property.
Both parties worked as they were able during the relationship and both contributed to the care of their children and the welfare of the family.
After separation, when the respondent and the children occupied the Suburb G property to the exclusion of the applicant, she paid the mortgage payments of about $500 per week but she also received the net rent from the Suburb E unit.
SECTION 90SM(4)(E)
Both parties will have substantial care of the two children and will have to provide accommodation for them.
The applicant has contributed towards the children's expenses as the parties agreed. The respondent has chosen not to apply for a child support assessment and gave no evidence that she intends to do so.
It is likely that, in the future, because the children will live primarily with him, the applicant will bear a greater share of the children's living costs than will the respondent.
The respondent has superannuation entitlements of $122,709 and the applicant's entitlements are $65,296.
The applicant's taxable income for the 2023 tax year was $40,936. The respondent's income for the same period was $96,787. The respondent acknowledged in her affidavit that she earned the greater income of the two during the relationship.
A small adjustment of 5 per cent in favour of the applicant is warranted.
CONCLUSION
The parties' property, excluding superannuation interests, will be divided as to 55 per cent to the applicant and 45 per cent to the respondent.
Each wants to retain the Suburb G property. The applicant deposed that the Suburb G property includes a large garage which he designed to enable multiple cars to be parked and that, if he retained the property, he would be able to conduct his business from home. Further, the children will spend most of their time living with the applicant and there would be less disruption if they remained in the home with which they are familiar.
The respondent conceded that the parent with whom the children spend the majority of their time should be given the opportunity to remain in the home.
The Suburb E unit will be sold and the capital gains tax paid.
The applicant has personal property worth $157,841 and the respondent has personal property worth $27,443, a total of $185,284. The respondent should receive 45 per cent of that amount or $83,378. Therefore the applicant must pay the respondent $55,935 so that they each receive their share of their personal property. He must also pay her $12,970 to reimburse her for half of the costs of the expert's report. The total which the applicant must pay the respondent in relation to those adjustments is $68,905.
The Suburb G property has a net value of $1,394,010. The respondent will pay the applicant 45 per cent of the value of the Suburb G property or $627,305 plus $68,905, a total of $696,210. In default, the Suburb G property will be sold and the proceeds divided.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and sixty-two (262) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees.
Associate:
Dated: 16 October 2023

File number:	SYC 245 of 2022
Judgment of:	REES J
Date of judgment:	16 October 2023
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where the parties were separated under one roof for a period of time – Where the children currently live with the mother and spend time with the father – Where the mother makes allegations of abuse by the father against the mother and the children – Where reports were made to the Police and the Department of Communities and Justice – Where the mother denigrates the father and the paternal family in front of the children – Where the mother has excluded the father from information regarding the children - Where the Single Expert recommends the children live with the parent which is more likely to facilitate time with the other parent – Where the father is more likely to facilitate time between the mother and the children – Where the Court finds the father is not a perpetuator of family violence - Orders for the children to live with the father and spend time with the mother – Orders for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where the mother made more income than the father – Where the mother came into the relationship with nominal assets and liabilities – Where the father removed funds from the mortgage offset account to pay for his legal fees – Where the father made a greater initial contribution to the purchase of the matrimonial property –– Where a property adjustment is made in favour of the father – Where the father is to retain possession of the matrimonial home – addbacks - Orders for a property division in favour of the father
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Div 12A, ss 60CC, 69ZT, 90SM
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	262
Date of hearing:	28 & 29 September 2023; 4 & 5 October 2023
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr McCallum, Uther Webster & Evans
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Hart
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Colin Daley Quinn
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Reeves
Independent Children's Lawyer:	Hillcrest Family Lawyers Pty Ltd

SYC 245 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR CAVARETTA Applicant
AND:	MS LANZI Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	REES J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 OCTOBER 2023

Ownership	Description	Wife's value	Husband's value (AUD)
ASSETS
1.Joint	F Street, Suburb G NSW	$1,450,000	$1,450,000
2.Joint	D Street, Suburb E VIC	$595,000	$595,000
3.Joint	Westpac offset account #...33 (Suburb G loan)	$1,933	$1,933
4.Husband	BB Company	NK	NIL
5.Husband	Workshop tools	$40,000	$5,000
6.Husband	ANZ Account #...69	$2,605	$2,605
7.Husband	Westpac Account #...95	$6,737	$6,737
8.Husband	Westpac Account #...06	$1,999	$1,999
9.Husband	Motor Vehicle 1	$35,000	$35,000
10.Husband	Recreational vehicle	$6,500	$6.500
11.Wife	NAB Account #...25	$1,395	$1,395
12.Wife	NAB Account #...14	$5,048	$5,048
13.Wife	NAB Account #...91	$0	$0
14.Wife	Motor Vehicle 2	$16,000	$16,000
15.Wife	Household contents	$5,000	$5,000
16.Husband	Addback: family expert fees paid by the wife	$12,970	$12,970
17.Husband	Addback: withdrawal by applicant in July 2021 from parties’ joint mortgage account	$100,000	$100,000
18.Husband	Addback cash in safe	$80,000	$40,000
19.Wife	Addback cash in safe	$0	$40,000
Total	$2,360,187	$2,325,187
LIABILITIES
22.Joint	Westpac loan secured by Suburb G property #...17	$55,990	$55,990
23.Joint	CC Bank loan secured by Suburb E property	$67,144	$67,144
24.Joint	Capital Gains Tax on sale of Suburb E property	NK	NK
25.Husband	Loans from Mr DD	$0	$128,000
26.Husband	Westpac Mastercard	$0	$0
27.Husband	Westpac Mastercard	$0	$0
28.Wife	Loan from Mr L (legal fees)	$250,000	$0
Total	-$373,134	-$251,134
SUPERANNUATION
28.Husband	Superannuation Fund 1	$65,296	$65,296
29.Wife	Superannuation Fund 1	$122,709	$122,709
Total	$188,005	$188,005

Ownership	Description	Value
Joint	F Street, Suburb G NSW	$1,450,000
Joint	D Street, Suburb E VIC	$595,000
Joint	Westpac offset account #...33 (Suburb G loan)	$1,933
Applicant	Workshop tools	$5,000
Applicant	Bank accounts	$11,341
Applicant	Motor Vehicle 1	$35,000
Applicant	Recreational vehicle	$6,500
Respondent	Bank accounts	$6,443
Respondent	Motor Vehicle 2	$16,000
Respondent	Household contents	$5,000
Applicant	Money removed from mortgage account	$100,000
Total	$2,232,217
LIABILITIES
Joint	Westpac loan secured by Suburb G property #...17	$55,990
Joint	CC Bank loan secured by Suburb E property	$67,144
Total	-$123,134
SUPERANNUATION
28.Husband	Superannuation Fund 1	$65,296
29.Wife	Superannuation Fund 1	$122,709
Total	$188,005