DERBY & MORCE

In this matter before Judge Terry, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for a three-year-old child, property settlement, and spousal maintenance between the father, Mr. Derby, and the mother, Ms. Morce. The father sought for the child to primarily reside with him, arguing that otherwise, the child would not develop a meaningful relationship with him. The child was strongly attached to her mother and was not at risk of harm in her care. While the mother had previously been obstructive regarding the father's time with the child, she proposed gradually increasing unsupervised time at trial. The father, however, persisted with his application for a change of residence, which the court considered would be distressing and potentially damaging for the child.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in relation to her residence and time with each parent, considering the paramount importance of protecting the child from harm. Additionally, the court had to address the division of the parties' limited assets and superannuation, and whether spousal maintenance was payable by the father to the mother. The court also had to consider the impact of past family violence allegations made by both parties, although the mother did not submit that the child would be at risk of harm in the father's unsupervised care.

Judge Terry reasoned that a change of residence for the child would be premature and potentially harmful, given the child's strong attachment to her mother and the significant disruption such a change would cause. The court acknowledged the mother's past obstructiveness but also noted her proposed increase in unsupervised time. The father's persistence in seeking a change of residence, despite the potential harm to the child, was weighed against his demonstrated patience and commitment to forming a bond with his daughter. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, prioritising the child's safety and well-being, and the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents. Regarding property, the court ordered the majority of non-superannuation assets to the mother, who was out of the workforce caring for the child, and a small superannuation split. The father's application for spousal maintenance was dismissed due to his lack of capacity to pay, given his legal costs.

The court ordered that the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the mother. The father was granted gradually increasing unsupervised time with the child, progressing from supervised visits to significant overnight and holiday periods as the child aged. The property settlement involved the mother receiving $70,000 from funds held in trust and a small superannuation split, with the remaining assets to the father. The mother's application for spousal maintenance was dismissed.