Herouz & Herouz

In *Herouz & Herouz*, heard by McClelland DCJ, the Court considered parenting, property, and child support matters between Ms Herouz (the Applicant) and Mr Herouz (the Respondent). The parenting dispute involved the mother seeking sole parental responsibility and the children to live with her, while the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought shared parental responsibility and equal time. The mother alleged risks to the children's emotional and psychological wellbeing in the father's extended care. In relation to property, the parties sought final orders adjusting their matrimonial pool. The child support aspect concerned the mother's application for departure orders regarding non-periodic payments for the children's school and medical expenses.

The Court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to parental responsibility and living arrangements, considering the mother's assertions of risk. In the property proceedings, the Court needed to assess the parties' contributions and consider relevant factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to determine an equitable distribution of the matrimonial asset pool. For child support, the Court had to consider the jurisdictional requirements of sections 116 and 117 of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) in relation to departure orders for non-periodic payments.

Regarding parenting, the Court found that the primary risk to the children was their continued exposure to parental conflict. Consequently, orders were made for shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the mother and spend substantial and significant time with the father. In the property division, the Court found the parties' contributions to be equal, but granted the father a 2.5% adjustment for greater initial contribution, which was offset by a 10% adjustment in favour of the mother under section 75(2) for her career sacrifices and homemaker/parenting responsibilities. This resulted in a 57.5% distribution of the matrimonial asset pool in favour of the mother. The child support departure application was dismissed, as the Court concluded that section 116(1)(b) of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) was a jurisdictional precondition that was not met.

The final orders reflected these determinations. Parenting orders established shared parental responsibility, with the mother having sole responsibility for decisions regarding the children's psychiatric and psychological counselling, and the children living with the mother. Specific arrangements were detailed for the children's time with the father, including alternate weekends and substantial time during school holidays, with detailed provisions for Christmas and Easter. Injunctions were imposed restraining the parties from denigrating each other or discussing parenting matters in the children's presence. Property orders directed the applicant to pay the respondent a sum of $188,711.80 within 60 days to retain the former matrimonial home, with alternative provisions for the respondent to pay the applicant or for the property to be sold and proceeds divided 57.5% to the applicant and 42.5% to the respondent. Each party was to retain their respective superannuation entitlements and other specified assets, with the joint bank account to be closed and the balance retained by the respondent. The child support departure application was dismissed.