Homewood & Parkinson

In *Homewood & Parkinson*, Berman J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia determined parenting and property settlement matters between the mother, Ms Homewood, and the father, Mr Parkinson. The dispute concerned the children's living arrangements, time spent with each parent, and the division of their modest property pool. The mother alleged family violence, including physical assault and controlling behaviour by the father, which she contended posed a risk to the children and had negatively impacted her mental health. The father sought a resumption of time with the children, initially supervised, and with one child's attendance to be subject to their wishes. The mother also sought leave to file an application for property settlement out of time, having previously discontinued similar proceedings.

The court was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, regarding parenting, the court had to decide whether shared parental responsibility was in the children's best interests, particularly in light of the allegations of family violence and the mother's concerns about the father's conduct. Secondly, the court needed to determine the specific arrangements for the children to live with and spend time with each parent, considering the children's views and the impact of any proposed arrangements on the mother's ability to parent. Thirdly, the court had to consider whether to grant the mother leave to initiate property proceedings out of time, assessing the potential hardship and prejudice to either party. Finally, if leave was granted, the court was required to determine the contributions of each party and their future needs to divide the property pool.

Berman J found that a consensus approach to the children's ongoing care was not possible and that shared parental responsibility would not be in the children's best interests due to the father's low regard for the mother and the resulting anxiety and fear experienced by her. Consequently, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with the father to be contacted in writing regarding long-term issues. The children were ordered to live with the mother. Time spent with the older child, X, was to be as he wished, facilitated by the mother. Time spent with the younger child, Y, was to commence with supervised contact and gradually increase, contingent on the father engaging in therapeutic intervention focused on impulse control, anger management, and respectful communication. Regarding property settlement, leave was granted to the mother to proceed out of time, finding that hardship would be caused if leave were not granted and that the father would not be prejudiced. In settlement, the father was ordered to pay the mother $87,855 within 90 days, with provision for the sale of a property if payment was defaulted. The mother was to retain her separate savings, vehicle, furniture, clothing, jewellery, and any benefits from a deceased estate, while the father was to retain the Suburb C property, his separate savings, furniture, clothing, jewellery, and any benefits from a deceased estate.