Hopman & Shu

This case concerned parenting, property, and child support disputes between the parents of a child named T. The primary dispute involved proposals for T to live either with his father in North Queensland, where he had been the primary caregiver, or with his mother in Melbourne. The court was also required to consider ex-parte orders previously made for T to live with his father due to the mother's absence from the country, the reasons for which were disputed.

The legal issues before the court included determining T's best interests under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975, specifically considering the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect T from harm. The court also had to assess the extent to which each parent had fulfilled their responsibilities, including participation in major long-term decisions, spending time with T, communicating with T, and facilitating the other parent's involvement. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA was a key consideration, as was whether this presumption should be rebutted due to concerns about family violence or the child's best interests. Additionally, the court addressed property division, where the mother's contributions were assessed, and child support, where an application for departure was adjourned due to insufficient evidence.

The court found that the father had thwarted the mother's attempts to obtain a visa after persuading her to leave Australia, and his concerns about her removing T to China were not substantiated. Insufficient evidence was presented by either parent to make findings regarding family violence. Applying section 60CC, the court determined that equal shared parental responsibility was not in T's best interests, and T would live primarily with his mother, spending specified time with his father. The court also made orders regarding decision-making responsibilities, communication, travel arrangements, and the father's ability to send materials related to African culture. Further orders included restraining both parents from removing T from Australia and placing T on the Airport Watch List. The property division involved an adjustment of six percent in favour of the mother for her long-term care of T, reflecting her contribution of approximately 14-18 percent.