DARRETT & DARRETT

In the matter of *Darrett & Darrett*, Carew J considered applications concerning the parenting arrangements for the parties' children, child support, and property division. The dispute arose following a final parenting order made in December 2013, which had been significantly altered by the father's relocation in late 2015/early 2016, leading to reduced time spent with the children. The mother proposed continuing the current arrangement where the children live with her and spend alternate weekends, Wednesday afternoons, and half of school holidays with the father. The father alleged the mother posed an unacceptable risk of harm and sought orders for the children to live with him, with the mother having alternate weekend and Wednesday overnight time, and half school holidays, provided she lived within a reasonable distance of the children's school. Both parents also sought sole parental responsibility, acknowledging an inability to co-parent.

The court was required to determine whether the mother posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children, whether increased time with the father was reasonable and practicable, and what parenting arrangements were in the children's best interests. Additionally, the court had to consider applications for departure from the child support assessment, specifically whether the administrative assessment was unjust and inequitable due to the father's financial resources or earning capacity. The father also sought to set aside a previous property order, and the court had to determine the appropriate costs orders, including whether indemnity costs were warranted.

Regarding parenting, Carew J found that the evidence did not establish an unacceptable risk of harm posed by the mother and that increased time with the father was neither reasonable nor practicable. The court concluded that it was in the children's best interests to remain living with the mother under the current time arrangements. Consequently, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with an obligation to consult the father. On child support, the father's application for departure was dismissed for failing to serve the Child Support Registrar. However, the mother's contention that the administrative assessment was unjust and inequitable was upheld. The court made a departure order, requiring the father to pay $5,000 per child annually, plus 50% of school fees and $500 per annum towards extracurricular costs. The father's application to set aside the 2013 property order was summarily dismissed. Finally, due to exceptional circumstances, including the father's failure to withdraw inadmissible parts of his affidavit despite notice, the father was ordered to pay the mother's costs on an indemnity basis, fixed at $3,960, and to reimburse half of the single expert's fees.