Hourd & Hourd

In the matter of *Hourd & Hourd*, the Applicant and Respondent, who are parents of two children, C and L, sought final parenting and property adjustment orders. The core of the parenting dispute concerned whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted and whether the children should live with the Applicant in Brisbane or Sydney, with consideration given to the children's relationship with each parent and the Respondent's time with them. The property adjustment aspect involved the weight to be given to the Respondent's financial contributions and relevant matters under s 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in determining a just and equitable property division.

The court was required to determine if the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, as stipulated by s 61DA(4) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), had been rebutted. Furthermore, the court had to consider what living arrangements for the two children would be in their best interests, specifically whether the Applicant should be permitted to reside with them in Brisbane. This involved assessing the benefit of a meaningful relationship with each parent and determining appropriate periods for the Respondent to spend with the children. In relation to property, the court needed to weigh the significance of the Respondent's financial contributions and consider other relevant factors, including financial resources, to make just and equitable property adjustment orders.

Justice Rose ordered that the parties retain equal shared parental responsibility for the two children, C and L. The children were ordered to live with the Applicant. The Respondent was granted specific periods of time to spend with and communicate with the children, detailed across school terms, holidays, and birthdays, with provisions for changeovers and communication. The court also made orders concerning the sale of the former matrimonial home, with proceeds to be distributed with 47% in favour of the Applicant and the balance to the Respondent. The Respondent was also ordered to transfer his shareholding and loan account in G Consultants Pty Limited to the Applicant and resign from his offices in that company. Each party was declared the sole owner of personalty in their possession, and specific arrangements were made regarding the division of wine stored at the former matrimonial home.