Gerard & Santino

The case of Ms Santino v Mr Gerard involved significant disputes over both international relocation of a child and property division within a de facto relationship. Ms Santino sought permission to relocate to the United Kingdom with their child, while Mr Gerard opposed this move. Additionally, Ms Santino claimed that Mr Gerard held an equitable interest in a residential property, which he denied. The court had to determine whether the relocation was in the child's best interest and the validity of Ms Santino's claim regarding the property.

The legal issues centred on the best interests of the child concerning relocation, the existence of an equitable interest in the property, and the just and equitable division of assets between the parties. The court had to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to make a decision in line with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In terms of relocation, the court considered the potential impact on the child’s relationship with both parents, taking into account the mother’s allegations of family violence and her lack of support in Australia. For the property division, the court examined the contributions of both parties and the nature of the father’s alleged interest in the property.

The court found that relocating to the United Kingdom was in the best interests of the child, considering the mother’s primary caregiving role, her allegations of family violence, and her stronger support network in the UK. The court also determined that Mr Gerard held a 50% equitable interest in the property, and ordered an adjustment in favour of Ms Santino. Consequently, Mr Gerard was ordered to pay Ms Santino $36,000 within 60 days to achieve a just and equitable division of the assets. The court dismissed the application for spousal maintenance and any consequential orders regarding the property not binding the father’s parents.

The final orders permitted Ms Santino to relocate to the UK with the child, outlined detailed arrangements for the child’s time with Mr Gerard, and mandated the payment of $36,000 from Mr Gerard to Ms Santino. The court also declared that Mr Gerard held a 50% equitable interest in the property for the purposes of the proceedings.