Guler & Kamara

In the matter of *Guler & Kamara*, Ms Guler (the applicant) sought various orders against Mr Kamara (the respondent) concerning their child, X, and the division of property. The applicant's primary requests included sole parental responsibility for X, that X live with her, and that X be permitted to travel internationally without the respondent's consent. Additionally, the applicant sought sole entitlement to the proceeds of sale of a property located at B Street, Suburb C, NSW, and a declaration of sole legal and beneficial ownership of various assets in her name.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included the appropriate arrangements for the child X, specifically regarding parental responsibility, living arrangements, and international travel. The court also had to consider the division of property, including the proceeds from the sale of the B Street property and other assets held in the parties' respective names. Furthermore, the court needed to address an application for a departure order under the *Child Support Assessment Act 1989* (Cth) and the matter of costs.

Justice Obradovic applied the paramountcy principle in determining matters concerning the child, considering the evidence of the parties' roles during the relationship and since separation. The court noted the applicant's primary role as homemaker and caregiver for X, the respondent's limited and infrequent contact with the child since 2018, and the respondent's history of alcohol dependency and illicit drug use. These factors informed the court's decision regarding parental responsibility, living arrangements, and international travel. The court also addressed the property division by declaring each party the sole legal and beneficial owner of assets in their respective names, with specific orders regarding the proceeds of the B Street property.

The court made orders granting the applicant sole parental responsibility for X, with X to live with the applicant. The child was permitted to spend time with the respondent as agreed in writing and to travel internationally without the respondent's consent, with the applicant being the sole person with parental responsibility for passport purposes. The applicant was declared solely entitled to the proceeds of sale of the B Street property. Each party was declared the sole legal and beneficial owner of assets in their respective names, and they were to be solely responsible for their own liabilities. The application for a departure order under the *Child Support Assessment Act 1989* was dismissed, and there were no orders as to costs.