DANSON & DANSON

In *Danson & Danson*, Forrest J determined parenting arrangements, child support obligations, and property division between the parties. The primary parenting dispute concerned the time the children would spend with their father, following consent orders allowing their relocation to the USA with their mother. The child support issue involved the mother's application for non-periodic child support in addition to periodic assessments, which the father sought to have dismissed on the grounds of estoppel, arguing it was an abuse of process. The property settlement dispute centred on the appropriate division of the parties' assets, with the husband seeking an equal split and the wife seeking a 70:30 division in her favour, considering initial contributions and s 75(2) factors.

The court was required to determine the specific times the children would spend with their father, given the international relocation. It also had to consider whether the mother's application for non-periodic child support constituted an abuse of process, given a prior administrative review of child support assessments. Finally, the court needed to decide on the just and equitable division of the parties' property pool, assessing the weight to be given to initial contributions, equal contributions during the marriage, and the relevant s 75(2) factors.

Forrest J made orders for the children to spend specific periods with the father, including during school holidays and other times when the father visits the USA, with provisions for notice and attendance at school. Regarding child support, the court ordered the father to provide non-periodic support in the form of school fees and private health insurance premiums, calculated as 64% of the costs, up to specified maximums. These non-periodic payments were not to reduce the father's liability under existing administrative assessments. In relation to property, the court ordered an equal division of the net property pool, finding that while the wife made a greater initial contribution, the parties' equal contributions during the marriage and the s 75(2) factors did not warrant a further adjustment in her favour.