Eltham and Eltham

This case concerned parenting arrangements and the division of property between a husband and wife. The primary dispute regarding parenting involved the wife's desire to relocate with the child to Western Australia, which the husband strongly opposed, seeking to maintain the existing week-about care arrangement in Melbourne. The property proceedings addressed the division of significant assets, including contributions from an inheritance and a lottery win, and the impact of the husband's depressive illness on the wife's contributions. An Independent Children's Lawyer participated throughout the proceedings.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, S, born in 1999, in relation to his living arrangements and the division of the parties' substantial property pool. Key legal issues included whether to permit the child's relocation to Western Australia, the application of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and the assessment of contributions and financial resources for the property settlement. The court also had to consider the impact of the parties' volatile relationship, the husband's mental health, and the wife's new relationship on the child's welfare and the parenting orders.

Justice Cronin applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly focusing on the paramount consideration of the child's best interests as outlined in section 60CA. The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to findings of family violence and the unsuitability of equal shared responsibility given the parties' inability to communicate. The court determined that relocation to Western Australia would not be in the child's best interests, as it would significantly diminish his relationship with his father and was unlikely to be encouraged by the wife. In relation to property, the court assessed contributions, including the husband's inheritance and the parties' lottery win, and considered section 75(2) factors. The court ultimately ordered a division of assets reflecting a 60% entitlement to the husband and 40% to the wife, taking into account their respective contributions and future economic prospects.

The court ordered the discharge of all existing parenting orders and established a new parenting arrangement where the child would live with each parent on a week-about basis in Melbourne. Specific orders were made regarding communication, decision-making for long-term issues, school arrangements, and the division of property, including the former matrimonial home and share portfolio. The court also ordered the husband to pay a significant sum to the wife and addressed the tax liabilities arising from the property division. The Independent Children's Lawyer's role was to conclude on a specified date, and the court made orders to minimise direct contact between the parents to reduce conflict.