FIRENTES & TEUNG

In the matter of *FIRENTES & TEUNG*, Foster J determined competing applications concerning the residence of the child B, born in 2008, and ancillary property matters. The parents sought sole parental responsibility, with each proposing time for the other parent. The mother sought orders for the child to live with her, while the father also sought orders for the child to live with him. The case also involved property division and costs associated with the Independent Children's Lawyer.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child B in relation to residence and time arrangements, considering the parents' respective capacities to promote the child's relationship with the other parent. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it was just and equitable to make property orders, taking into account the parties' financial contributions, assets brought to the relationship, and relevant factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Finally, the court was asked to determine the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer.

In relation to parenting, Foster J made orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with the child to live with the mother. The court found significant conflict in the parents' relationship and expressed reservations about the father's ability to promote the child's relationship with the mother, which weighed heavily in favour of the child living with the mother. On the property front, the court found it just and equitable to make orders, considering the father's significant pre-relationship assets and the mother's more modest contributions, including a property purchased post-separation. The court ordered the father to pay the mother a sum of $171,859. Regarding costs, the court ordered that each parent pay half of the Independent Children's Lawyer's costs, totalling $4,973 each.