Corrichio & Corrochio

Coleman J considered parenting and property matters between the husband and wife. The primary dispute concerned the parenting arrangements for the child of the marriage, with the wife seeking to relocate with the child. The court also addressed the division of the parties' property, including a jointly owned property and superannuation interests.

The legal issues before the court included determining the best interests of the child under sections 60CA, 60CC, 61C, and 65DAA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in relation to the wife's relocation application. The court was also required to consider how to treat superannuation interests within the asset pool, whether to make notional add-backs of funds withdrawn by the wife, the division of contributions to the marriage, and the application of section 75(2) factors in determining final property adjustments.

In relation to parenting, the court found that the child's best interests were served by the child residing with the wife and spending significant and substantial time with the husband, referencing the cumulative requirements of "significant and substantial" as per *Eddington & Eddington (No 2)*. The relocation application was dismissed, with the court applying principles from *AMS & AIF*. For property, superannuation was treated as part of the asset pool, and notional add-backs were not ordered as the wife had not recklessly used the funds and the husband had greater financial resources post-separation. Contributions were agreed at 60 per cent to the wife and 40 per cent to the husband, with section 75(2) factors favouring the wife by 15 per cent due to her primary care responsibilities and limited future employment capacity, contrasted with the husband's financial resources from cohabitation.

The court ordered equal parental responsibility, with the child to reside with the wife and spend time with the husband on alternate weekends and two weeknights during the other week, as well as half of all school holidays. The child's usual residence was to remain within a 20-kilometre radius of M Town Hall. The jointly owned property was to be held as tenants in common in shares of 78 per cent to the wife and 22 per cent to the husband, with the wife having an option to acquire the husband's interest by a specified date. If the option was not exercised, the property was to be sold and the proceeds divided according to the beneficial interests. Parties were to otherwise retain their own property and debts, and costs were reserved.