Cornett and Hext (No. 4)

In *Cornett and Hext (No. 4)*, Williams J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property matters arising from the parties' relationship. The primary dispute in the parenting proceedings concerned the extent of time, if any, the wife should spend with the three children of the marriage, given allegations of risk posed by the wife to the children. In the property proceedings, the court was required to determine the division of assets and spousal maintenance, taking into account the parties' respective contributions and financial circumstances.

The court was tasked with determining whether the wife should have supervised time with the children, or no time at all, as sought by the husband. This involved assessing the wife's conduct, including evidence that contradicted her own prior statements and a draft affidavit, and considering findings sought regarding the children's sexualised behaviour. The court also had to evaluate compelling evidence from the family report writer regarding the risk the wife posed to the children, and the impact of the wife's actions, including a campaign of notifications to regulatory authorities, on the husband's capacity to parent. Expert evidence was considered regarding the rational nature of the husband's fears and apprehensions in facilitating contact. In the property proceedings, the court had to weigh the parties' contributions, particularly in light of the wife's compromised capacity to care for the children due to mental health issues and substance abuse, and consider the weight to be given to an inheritance received by the husband. The extent of the husband's post-separation contributions and potential adjustments under s 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) were also relevant.

Williams J found that the wife's conduct posed an unacceptable risk to the children and that her evidence was not credible. The court accepted the husband's evidence regarding contributions during the relationship, noting the wife's capacity to care for the children was significantly compromised by her mental health and substance abuse. The court found that the husband's initial contributions and inheritance, which facilitated the purchase of significant assets, carried greater weight. Considering the holistic assessment of contributions and the specific circumstances, the court ordered that the children live with the husband, that he have sole parental responsibility, and that the children spend no time with the wife, though she was permitted to send cards and gifts at Christmas and birthdays. In relation to property, the non-superannuation assets were ordered to be divided 70% to the husband and 30% to the wife, with superannuation entitlements to be equalised. Limited spousal maintenance was ordered for a period of three months.