CAVOUR & CAVOUR

In the matter of CAVOUR & CAVOUR, Johns J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing applications concerning the children of the marriage and the division of property. The wife sought a change of residence for the children, alleging parental alienation by the husband, while the husband sought the children to spend time with the wife subject to their wishes. The proceedings were complicated by allegations of family violence from both parties, the wife's absence from the children's lives for over 16 months, and the children's expressed wishes not to spend time with the wife, including a history of absconding when in her care. Expert evidence indicated that maintaining the status quo in the wife's relationship with the children could have severe psychological effects.

The court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for the children, specifically whether to grant the wife's application for a change of residence and how to address the children's wishes and the allegations of family violence. In relation to property, the court needed to make a just and equitable distribution of the parties' assets, considering their contributions and relevant factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of the husband having the primary care of the children.

On the parenting issues, Johns J found that the children's wishes were paramount and that it was not in their best interests to order them to spend time with the wife against their will, especially given the expert evidence regarding potential psychological harm. The court ordered equal shared parental responsibility but stipulated that the children live with the father and spend time with the mother only as they wished. The court also made orders for communication and notification between the parents and restrained them from denigrating each other or discussing the proceedings with the children. Regarding property, the court found equal contributions and, after considering the s 75(2) factors, adjusted the property pool by 54 per cent in favour of the husband and 46 per cent in favour of the wife, with specific orders for the division of properties and superannuation entitlements.