Handley & Tranter

In this case, the Family Court of Australia was asked to make parenting and property orders concerning a child and the division of the parties' assets. The dispute involved significant conflict between the parents, stemming from personality differences and an inability to communicate effectively, which impacted their decision-making regarding their daughter. The property proceedings focused on the division of their home and the husband's superannuation entitlements.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in relation to parental responsibility and time spent with each parent, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and whether it should be rebutted. Additionally, the court had to assess the parties' contributions and relevant factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* to make just and equitable property orders, including whether to split the husband's superannuation.

Justice Moore found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted due to the parents' profound inability to communicate and cooperate, concluding that sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues should rest with the mother. The court ordered that the child live with the mother and spend regular time with the father, with specific arrangements for school terms and holidays, and that the father have sole responsibility for decisions regarding the child's surname. In relation to property, the court ordered the husband to pay a sum to the wife and to split his superannuation entitlement, aiming for an equal division of their net assets.