CHAPMAN & CHAPMAN

This case concerned parenting and property adjustment orders made by Forrest J in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved the father and mother of two children, B and L, and related to the children's living arrangements, parental responsibility, and the division of the parties' assets. The court also considered the impact of family violence on the children's best interests.

The primary legal issues before the court were: firstly, whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted due to ongoing family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, and the children witnessing this behaviour; and secondly, how the parties' property should be divided in a just and equitable manner, considering the mother's significant contributions to the care of the father's children from a previous relationship and the appropriate treatment of superannuation interests.

Forrest J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the father's violence and the children's exposure to it, concluding that it was in the children's best interests to live with the mother and for her to have sole parental responsibility. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* concerning the best interests of the child, particularly in circumstances involving family violence. In relation to property, the court ordered a significant division of joint assets, including a substantial payment from the husband to the wife and a split of the husband's superannuation interest in the parties' self-managed fund, acknowledging the wife's contributions.

The court made detailed parenting orders, including that the children live with the mother and she has sole parental responsibility, with limited communication rights for the father and significant restraining orders against him. Property adjustment orders were made to divide joint bank accounts, a property, and superannuation interests, with specific provisions for the transfer of assets and indemnities for debts. The wife's application for spousal maintenance was dismissed.