FINLEY & PRESCOTT

In the matter of Finley & Prescott, Judge Terry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between the parties. The parenting orders addressed sole parental responsibility, living arrangements, and communication between the father and the children, [X] and [Y]. The property orders dealt with the division of assets, including funds held in trust from the sale of Property A, the winding up of a partnership known as Company M, and the allocation of personal property and liabilities.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to parenting arrangements, considering factors such as the children's views, their relationships with each parent and other significant persons, and each parent's fulfillment of their parental obligations. Specifically, the court had to assess the weight to be given to the children's limited expressed views, the nature of their bonds with both parents, and the extent to which each parent had participated in major long-term decisions and spent time with the children. In relation to property, the court's task was to declare ownership of specific assets and liabilities and to facilitate the division of the parties' financial interests.

Judge Terry's reasoning focused on the paramountcy of the children's welfare. While the children, aged six at the time of interviews, did not express clear views on future parenting arrangements, they related well to both parents, displaying more excitement with the father but a secure attachment with the mother. The court noted the father's significant efforts to maintain contact until supervised time was suspended and his subsequent application for increased contact, which was dismissed. The court also considered the mother's current relationship with Mr. K, with whom the children related reasonably well. The court applied principles from the *Family Law Act 1975*, including considerations for children's views and the extent of parental involvement, to make its determinations.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the mother, and that the father have no time or communication with the children. An injunction was granted restraining the father from various forms of contact and proximity to the mother and children. The mother was permitted to travel internationally with the children without the father's consent. In property matters, the mother was declared the owner of funds from Property A, and the parties were ordered to wind up Company M. Each party was to retain possession of other assets and liabilities, with provisions for indemnification. The court also appointed a Registrar to execute documents if a party failed to do so.