ELIAS & ELIAS

In the matter of ELIAS & ELIAS, Johnston J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between a husband and wife. The parenting dispute concerned the best interests of the child, X, born in 2012, in circumstances of a poor relationship between the parents, both of whom had serious mental health issues, and findings of family violence. The property dispute involved the division of assets and liabilities between the parties.

The court was required to determine, in relation to parenting, who should have sole parental responsibility for the child, where the child should live, and the nature and extent of time the child should spend with the father, considering the risks each parent posed to the child and the child's established living arrangements. In the property proceedings, the court needed to make orders that were just and equitable under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), assessing the contributions of each party to the marriage and considering relevant section 75(2) factors. The court also granted the wife leave to reopen her case to provide evidence regarding the proceeds of the sale of her property, the discharge of a mortgage, and the repayment of a loan.

Regarding parenting, Johnston J found that the child would be at an unacceptable risk in the unsupervised care of the father. Consequently, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with the mother. The father was ordered to spend supervised time with the child, with specific arrangements detailed for the initial period and thereafter, including the involvement of professional supervision services and the husband's sister. The court also made orders for both parents to continue attending psychological counselling and for the husband to complete a program addressing responsibility. In the property division, after assessing contributions during cohabitation and post-separation, the court found that the wife's contributions were significantly greater. Applying section 75(2) factors, including the wife's role as primary caregiver and the parties' mental health conditions, an adjustment of 10% was made in favour of the wife.

The final property orders stipulated that the wife would receive 67% of the available property and superannuation, and the husband 33%. Specific orders were made for the transfer of funds and interests in property, including the M Street property, with provisions for the wife to act as Trustee for Sale if the husband failed to comply with payment obligations. The court also ordered the husband to pay one half of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, which he had already done. The wife's application for costs related to reopening her case was dismissed.