Conrad and Conrad - [2011] FamCA 832

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CONRAD & CONRAD

[2011] FamCA 832

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where both parties seek an order for equal shared parental responsibility - Relocation – Whether it is in the best interests of the children that they relocate interstate with the wife – Substantial and significant time with the husband – Where the husband’s relationship with one child has broken down – Where the other children would benefit from having a meaningful relationship with the husband – Whether the wife will promote the children’s relationship with the husband.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT –Assets and Liabilities; Contributions – Where the husband made the greater financial contribution – Where the wife made the greater non-financial and homemaker contributions – Where the husband’s contributions overall exceeded those of the wife; Adjustments – Where an adjustment is warranted in favour of the wife; Just and equitable
FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT DEPARTURE – Where both parties seek a departure order.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 61B, 61DA, 65DAA, 65DAC, 75 & 79.
Child Support (Assessment) 1989 Act (Cth) ss 3, 117, 123 & 124.

In the Marriage of Hickey (2003) 30 Fam LR 355; In the Marriage of Omacini (2005) 33 Fam LR 134; Mallett v Mallett (1984) 9 Fam LR 449; In the Marriage of Shewring (1987) l2 Fam LR 139; In the Marriage of Lenehan (1987) 11 Fam LR 615; In the Marriage of Norbis (1986) 10 Fam LR 819; FLC 91-712; In the Marriage of Zyk (1995) 19 Fam LR 797; In the Marriage of Coghlan (2004) 33 Fam LR 414; MRR & GR (2010) 240 CLR 461; A v A (Relocation Approach) (2000) 26 Fam LR 382; McCall and Clark (2009) FLC 93-405; Godfrey and Sanders [2007] FamCA 102; M and S (formerly E) [2006] FamCA 1408; Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518; G & C [2006] FamCA 994; Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93-407; M and S (2007) FLC 93-313; Sigley & Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439; McGuiness v Cowie (2002) 29 Fam LR 441; [2002] FamCA 461; Savery & Savery (1990) 13 Fam LR 812; (1990) FLC 92-131; Stein & Stein (2000) FLC 93-004.

APPLICANT:

Ms Conrad

RESPONDENT:

Mr Conrad

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

6912

2009

DATE DELIVERED:

28 October 2011

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Justice Loughnan

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

HEARING DATE:

29 August – 1 September 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT HUSBAND	Ms S. Christie
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Blanchfield Nicholls Partners

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT MOTHER:	Ms A. Rees SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Uther Webster & Evans
SOLICITOR FOR THE CHILDREN:	Ms K. Shea NSW Legal Aid

Orders

Parenting

All previous parenting orders in relation to the children, B, born … January 1997, C, born … August 1999 and D, born … August 2004 ("the children"), are discharged.
The wife and husband shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
The children shall live with the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Conrad and Conrad

Details

AGLC: Conrad and Conrad [2011] FamCA 832
Case: [2011] FamCA 832
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Conrad & Conrad*, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting, property settlement, and child support matters between Ms Conrad (the wife) and Mr Conrad (the husband). The primary dispute involved the wife's application to relocate the children interstate, the division of assets and liabilities, and a departure from the standard child support assessment. The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to the proposed relocation, the appropriate division of the parties' financial contributions and non-financial contributions to the marriage, and whether to grant departure orders for child support.

The court's reasoning on the parenting orders focused on the best interests of the children, as mandated by sections 60CA and 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). It considered the wife's proposal for relocation and the husband's desire for substantial and significant time with the children. The court noted a breakdown in the husband's relationship with one child but recognised the benefit to the other children of maintaining a meaningful relationship with their father. Crucially, the court assessed the wife's willingness to promote the children's relationship with the husband. In relation to property, the court acknowledged the husband's greater financial contributions and the wife's greater non-financial and homemaker contributions, finding that an adjustment in favour of the wife was warranted to achieve a just and equitable outcome.

The court ordered that both parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, who are to live with the wife. The wife was permitted to relocate the children's residence to within a 20 km radius of E Town, Victoria. Specific arrangements were detailed for the children's time with the husband, including alternate weekends, additional weekends, and half of school holiday periods, with provisions for travel and communication. The parties were ordered to sell their jointly owned property, with the proceeds to be applied to sale costs, outstanding rates, and then specific debts, with 98.9% of the remaining balance to the wife and the balance to the husband. The husband was to take sole responsibility for certain loans secured over the property and indemnify the wife in relation to them. The wife was declared the sole legal and beneficial owner of her superannuation and all property in her possession, and similarly for the husband. Finally, the court made specific orders regarding the husband's child support liability, including weekly amounts and responsibility for 80% of the children's independent school fees and private health insurance.

Orders