GABANON & FYFE

This case involved a final proceeding before Judge Brown concerning parenting and de facto property matters between Mr Gabanon and Ms Fyfe. The parenting dispute centred on significant issues of family violence and allegations of methamphetamine abuse by the father, who had recently been released from prison following a violent altercation. The father sought to spend time with the parties' two children, aged eight and five, with whom he had not interacted for approximately twenty months due to his incarceration. The property proceedings involved valuation issues, add-backs, and the assessment of contributions, with the overarching considerations being the best interests of the children and the principles of justice and equity.

The court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for the children, specifically addressing the father's application for contact in light of his history of family violence, drug abuse, and mental health concerns, and assessing the risk to the children. Concurrently, the court had to resolve the de facto property proceedings, including the division of a jointly owned property and the distribution of superannuation funds, considering the parties' respective contributions and the overall justice and equity of the situation.

In relation to parenting, Judge Brown ordered that the children live with the mother and that she have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, subject to her advising the father in writing of significant health or education issues. The father was significantly restrained from contacting or attempting to contact the children, or ascertaining the mother's address, with limited liberty to send cards and gifts. Crucially, the father was restrained from issuing further parenting proceedings until 1 January 2021, after which he could apply for parenting orders only if he satisfied stringent conditions, including providing evidence of sustained abstinence from illicit drugs, regular drug and alcohol counselling, and psychiatric and psychological reports assessing his mental health and capacity to safely interact with the children.

For the property settlement, the court declared a de facto relationship existed between January 2009 and July 2016. The jointly owned property was ordered to be placed on the market for sale, with the proceeds to be distributed with 75% to the respondent mother and 25% to the applicant father, after selling costs and certain debts were paid. A splitting order was made for $57,000 from the applicant's superannuation fund to the respondent. The court also made specific orders vesting certain personal property and debts absolutely in each party, and each party was released from further claims against the other. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs thrown away due to a previous adjournment.