Hopper & Hopper
Case
•
[2016] FCCA 84
•19 January 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hopper & Hopper [2016] FCCA 84
[2016] FCCA 84
19 January 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Hopper & Hopper*, heard by Judge Harman, the court considered competing parenting and property adjustment applications between Ms Hopper and Mr Hopper concerning their children, X and Y, and their marital assets. The central dispute in the parenting proceedings involved the future care arrangements for the children, including whether they should resume spending time with their father, Mr Hopper, given the mother's assertion of family violence and the children's exposure to parental conflict. In the property proceedings, the parties contested the division of their assets, with the husband seeking to preserve his post-separation superannuation contributions.
The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, in relation to parenting, the court was required to determine whether it was in the best interests of the children, X and Y, for them to resume spending time with their father, Mr Hopper, and to assess the risk associated with such an arrangement, particularly in light of conceded family violence and the children's exposure to parental conflict. Secondly, concerning property adjustment, the court had to determine the appropriate division of the parties' assets, including how to treat the husband's post-separation superannuation contributions and whether to make any adjustments under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*.
On the parenting matter, the court considered the unacceptable risk posed by the father's conduct and the influence of the mother's views on the children's recollections of their father. The court found that the children should live with their mother and spend time with their father under supervised contact for an initial period. In the property proceedings, the court noted that the preservation of post-separation superannuation contributions could not be mathematically calculated and settled, and found an equality of contribution between the parties. Applying section 75(2) factors, the court made an adjustment in favour of the wife. The orders reflect these findings, granting shared parental responsibility, stipulating that the children live with the mother, and outlining a phased approach to supervised time with the father.
The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, in relation to parenting, the court was required to determine whether it was in the best interests of the children, X and Y, for them to resume spending time with their father, Mr Hopper, and to assess the risk associated with such an arrangement, particularly in light of conceded family violence and the children's exposure to parental conflict. Secondly, concerning property adjustment, the court had to determine the appropriate division of the parties' assets, including how to treat the husband's post-separation superannuation contributions and whether to make any adjustments under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*.
On the parenting matter, the court considered the unacceptable risk posed by the father's conduct and the influence of the mother's views on the children's recollections of their father. The court found that the children should live with their mother and spend time with their father under supervised contact for an initial period. In the property proceedings, the court noted that the preservation of post-separation superannuation contributions could not be mathematically calculated and settled, and found an equality of contribution between the parties. Applying section 75(2) factors, the court made an adjustment in favour of the wife. The orders reflect these findings, granting shared parental responsibility, stipulating that the children live with the mother, and outlining a phased approach to supervised time with the father.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hopper & Hopper [2016] FCCA 84
Most Recent Citation
Darzi and Alinejad [2018] FCCA 2962
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
7
Marvel & Marvel
[2010] FamCAFC 101
Aytugrul v The Queen
[2012] HCA 15
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles
[2001] NSWCA 305