HARSTEAD & HARSTEAD

This matter concerned parenting and property disputes between a husband and wife, with the court being Judge Betts. The parenting dispute involved three children aged 17, 13, and 10, and was characterised by high parental conflict, the husband's undermining of court orders, and the alignment of children with the father, which was impacting them, particularly the eldest. The parties consented to final parenting orders that granted the mother sole parental responsibility and stipulated that the children live with her, with specific provisions for the father's time with the children. The property dispute arose after an interim division of modest remaining assets following an 18-year relationship, with issues including debates about contributions and alleged debts to the husband's parents, all within the context of achieving a just and equitable outcome.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in light of the parental conflict and the specific circumstances presented. This involved considering the impact of the parents' relationship on the children, particularly the eldest, and the father's past conduct. In the property proceedings, the court needed to address the division of remaining assets, the husband's alleged debts to his parents, and ensure a just and equitable distribution.

In relation to parenting, the court discharged all prior orders and made new orders reflecting the consent of the parties. These orders stipulated that the children live with the mother, who would have sole parental responsibility, with specific procedural requirements for the mother to consult the father on major long-term decisions. The father was granted specific time with the children during school terms and holidays, with detailed provisions for Christmas, Father's Day, and Mother's Day. The orders also included injunctions restraining the father from opening internet accounts for the children and from consuming illicit substances or permitting the children to be in the presence of others under the influence of illicit drugs. Both parties were restrained from denigrating each other, discussing court proceedings with the children, or discussing the fairness of the orders with them. The court also directed the Independent Children's Lawyer to explain the orders to the children and addressed the costs of the ICL.

For the property division, the court ordered the immediate payment of funds held by Powe and White Family Lawyers, with a specified amount to the wife and the balance to the husband, subject to the ICL costs order. The husband was ordered to indemnify the wife against any claims from his parents regarding alleged debts. Each party was to retain property and chattels in their possession and indemnify the other against liabilities attaching to retained property. The court also provided for the Registrar to execute documents if a party refused to do so. The court reserved the question of costs for the substantive proceedings.