Hamady & Mansour

This matter concerned final parenting and property settlement orders between Mr Hamady (the husband/father) and Ms Mansour (the wife/mother) concerning their child, X. The parties had a brief and acrimonious marriage. The primary dispute revolved around the mother's desire to relocate with X to Melbourne, which the father opposed, and the quantum and frequency of time X would spend with the father. The parties also sought final property settlement orders.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, in relation to the proposed relocation to Melbourne and to make final parenting orders accordingly. Additionally, the court needed to make just and equitable property settlement orders, considering the parties' assets and the circumstances of their marriage and separation.

In determining the parenting orders, the court applied the paramount consideration of X's best interests, referencing established jurisprudence on relocation cases. The court found that a delayed relocation, coupled with specific time with orders for the father, would ultimately benefit X and was in her best interests. The court also found it just and equitable to make property settlement orders pursuant to s79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering the marriage, separation, and ownership of assets.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife $145,133 by way of property settlement within 120 days. The parties were to retain sole title and interest in chattels and monies in their respective possession or sole name. All prior parenting orders were discharged, and the parents were to have equal shared parental responsibility for X. X was ordered to live with her mother, with specific time arrangements for the father, including a phased approach to the father's time with X and permission for the mother to relocate X to Melbourne after 30 June 2022. The orders also included provisions regarding communication, travel, and prohibitions against denigration.