COLLINS & MOSMAN

In the matter of *Collins & Mosman*, heard by Judge Scarlett, the dispute concerned parenting and property orders. The primary parenting issue revolved around the practical arrangements for a child, aged 19 months, to spend time with his father, specifically the location and method of changeovers. The parties had largely agreed on final parenting orders, but the specific changeover arrangements remained a point of contention. A secondary issue related to property orders, where the respondent had not yet filed a Financial Statement.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate changeover arrangements for the child, considering the practical difficulties and expense involved for the father, and whether these factors would substantially affect the child's right to maintain a personal relationship with him, pursuant to section 60CC(3)(e) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also needed to address the respondent's non-compliance with filing a Financial Statement in relation to the property proceedings.

Judge Scarlett considered the evidence presented, including information about train services which was deemed to be common knowledge and readily available. The court noted that letters marked "without prejudice save as to costs" had been annexed to affidavits, indicating that settlement negotiations had occurred. Ultimately, the court made orders by consent. For parenting, until the child commenced school, the father was to collect and return the child to the mother's residence. From the commencement of school, changeovers were to occur at the [K] Railway Station, or another agreed location. The respondent was ordered to file a Financial Statement within 21 days, and the applicant was to file a Reply, a Financial Statement, and an affidavit in support of property orders within a further 21 days.