Herbert and Herbert (No 2)

This case concerned parenting arrangements for two children, X and Y, and a property adjustment between their parents. The primary dispute in relation to the children involved whether the younger child, Y, should live with his father or return to live with his mother. The mother also contended that the father's household posed an unacceptable risk of harm to Y. In relation to property, the wife sought a 70% share of the net property and 50% of superannuation, while the husband sought a 60% share of the net property.

The court was required to determine the final parenting orders for both children, with a particular focus on the living arrangements and parental responsibility for Y, and to make a just and equitable property adjustment between the parties. The court had to consider the best interests of the children, including their relationships with both parents and the capacity of each parent to promote such relationships, as well as the risk of harm. For the property division, the court needed to assess the contributions of each party and consider relevant factors under sections 79(4) and 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Forst J found that the older child, X, should continue to live with whichever parent he determined from time to time, with that parent having sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, except for decisions about X's name which would be shared. Regarding Y, the court determined that Y should live with his father and that the father would have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, again with shared responsibility for decisions about Y's name. The court found that the mother would not facilitate Y's relationship with his father and that Y would cease to have a meaningful relationship with his father if he returned to live with his mother. The court also found that Y was not at an unacceptable risk of harm in the father's care and that supervised time with his mother was in Y's best interests, to protect him from the mother's influence. The father was ordered to facilitate supervised contact between Y and his mother for two to three hours on one day of every second weekend at a contact centre. In relation to property, the court found that contributions during the marriage and post-separation were equal and ordered a division of 60% in favour of the wife and 40% in favour of the husband, representing a 10% adjustment in the wife's favour considering section 79(4) and 75(2) matters.