DAGAN & SADDLER

In the matter of DAGAN & SADDLER, heard before Judge Small, the court was required to determine parenting orders concerning the child X and property orders concerning the division of the parties' assets. The parenting dispute centred on whether the parties should retain equal shared parental responsibility, where changeovers should occur, and the quantum of time the child would spend with her father. The property dispute involved a short marriage, the equitable alteration of property interests, and the status of a factory owned by the husband, including a loan from his father and issues relating to contributions.

The court was tasked with determining the best interests of the child, X, in accordance with section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering various factors, including the child's views (though given little weight due to her age), the nature of her relationships with her parents and grandparents, and the extent to which each parent had participated in major long-term decisions and spent time with and communicated with the child. The court also had to address the extent to which each parent had fulfilled their obligations to maintain the child. In relation to property, the court needed to decide whether it was just and equitable to alter the parties' interests, considering the short duration of the marriage and the specific circumstances surrounding the husband's factory and the alleged loan from his father.

In its reasoning, the court noted that X, being young, had not expressed a considered view on her living arrangements that would be given significant weight. The evidence indicated X had positive relationships with both parents and her grandparents, with a closer bond to her paternal grandparents due to regular contact during her father's care. The court observed that the parties separated shortly after X's birth, limiting their co-parenting opportunities. The mother alleged the father showed little interest in X in the initial month and was critical of her parenting, while the father denied this. A significant point of contention was the mother's unilateral decision to baptise X, which the father criticised as a major decision made without his consultation. The court acknowledged the mother as X's primary carer, as X had never spent a night away from her. The father, however, had actively sought time with X since the separation.

The court made detailed parenting orders, discharging previous orders and granting the mother sole parental responsibility for decisions regarding the child's health, religion, and education, while maintaining equal shared parental responsibility in other areas. Specific provisions were made for the child's living arrangements, time with the father, communication, and changeovers, with particular attention to the child's schooling and holidays. Injunctions were also issued to prevent the removal of the child from Australia and to restrain criticism of the other party in the child's presence. Regarding property, the court declared the husband held his interest in a factory as trustee for himself and his siblings in equal shares, meaning he owned a quarter share. The husband was ordered to pay the wife a sum of $42,750 within 60 days. If this payment was not made, the property was to be sold, with proceeds disbursed first to sale costs, then to the wife to ensure she received 30% of the parties' property plus interest, and the remainder to the husband for distribution to himself and his siblings. Provisions were also made for the division of other property and liabilities.