ELFORD & ELFORD

In this matter before Austin J, the court considered parenting and property settlement disputes between the parents of a child born in 2004. The primary dispute concerned the child's living arrangements and parental responsibility, with the mother seeking sole parental responsibility and the child to live with her, citing the father's past family violence and lack of insight into the impact of parental conflict on the child. The parties also sought orders regarding the division of their property, including superannuation interests.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given the father's history of family violence. Additionally, the court needed to assess the parties' respective contributions and future needs to make just and equitable property settlement orders. The court also had to consider the impact of the intense parental conflict on the child and whether an embargo on face-to-face contact with the father was necessary.

Austin J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to the father's past family violence, and that the parties had agreed it would be impossible for them to share parental responsibility. The court determined that the child's best interests were served by the mother having sole parental responsibility and the child living with her, noting the mother's superior parenting capacity and the need to protect the child from harm. The court also ordered an initial two-month embargo on face-to-face contact between the child and the father, followed by a re-introduction to longer visits. In relation to property, the court found that while the father's capital contributions were superior, the parties' overall contributions of income and labour were comparable, and the mother's future needs far exceeded the father's. Consequently, the court ordered that the mother be entitled to 40 per cent of the parties' property and financial resources, and the father to 60 per cent.

The court made detailed parenting orders, including that the mother have sole parental responsibility and the child live with her, with specific provisions for the child's time with the father, commencing after an initial embargo period. Property settlement orders were made, requiring the father to pay the mother a sum of $236,174 within two months, and declaring him the sole owner of the parties' real property upon compliance. The court also made orders regarding the father's shareholding in F Pty Ltd and other assets, and provided for the sale of the property in the event of default. Costs were reserved for 28 days.