DEMOPOULOS & FULLARD

In the Family Court of Australia, McClelland J presided over proceedings involving an applicant and a respondent concerning parenting arrangements for their child and the division of property. The dispute arose from the respondent's disengagement from the proceedings, including failing to attend an appointment for an updated report from a single expert. The single expert expressed serious concerns regarding the respondent's mental health, suggesting she might be suffering from a delusional disorder, and noted her lack of engagement with therapeutic intervention. The court was satisfied that the respondent posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.

The court was required to determine appropriate parenting orders, considering the respondent's mental health concerns and the risk to the child. Additionally, the court had to address the property settlement, specifically the division of the proceeds from the sale of the former matrimonial home, which was the sole asset for division. The court also needed to consider whether any adjustments to the property division were warranted under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), particularly in light of the applicant having primary care of the child.

McClelland J reasoned that due to the unacceptable risk of harm posed by the respondent, the child should continue to spend supervised time with her. The court applied principles relating to the paramountcy of the child's welfare and safety, necessitating supervised contact until the respondent engaged with and received a certificate from a mental health professional confirming her fitness for unsupervised care. In relation to property, the court found that while the parties' contributions were otherwise equal, the applicant's significant direct contribution to the purchase of the home warranted a weighting of 55% in her favour. Furthermore, the court considered the section 75(2) factors, which favoured a 5% adjustment in favour of the applicant due to her having primary care of the child.

Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant have sole parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the applicant. The respondent was to have supervised time with the child weekly, at her own cost, until she obtained a certificate from a mental health professional confirming her fitness for unsupervised care. The proceeds of the former matrimonial home were to be distributed with a 55% share to the applicant and 45% to the respondent, with a portion held in escrow to cover the respondent's costs of the applicant's legal fees for specific court dates and the final hearing. The respondent was also restrained from attending the child's school and from discussing the proceedings or denigrating the applicant in the child's presence.