HOWELL & HOWELL

This case concerned a dispute between a husband and wife regarding parenting arrangements for their child, B, and the division of their property. The parties sought orders concerning parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the distribution of assets, including their primary residence and the husband's business.

The court was required to determine issues of sole versus equal shared parental responsibility, particularly in relation to the child's health and schooling, and whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted. It also had to consider with whom the child should live, assessing factors such as parental conflict, the child's primary attachment, and the relevance of the parents' differing religious and lifestyle choices. Furthermore, the court needed to address the property settlement, including the division of the main asset, a residential home, and the valuation of the husband's business, while also considering the parties' contributions and future earning capacities.

In relation to parenting, the court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility for the child, B, with the wife having sole responsibility for health decisions. The child was ordered to live with the wife, with specific time arrangements for the husband, including alternate weekends and significant portions of school holidays. The court also made detailed orders regarding communication, school matters, and medical treatment, emphasising the need for parents to consult the child's general practitioner and to avoid denigrating each other or involving the child in their conflict. For the property division, the husband was ordered to pay the wife a lump sum of $408,375 within ninety days, allowing him to retain the family home. The husband was also made solely responsible for certain liabilities, including a significant debt to a third party and a mortgage on the home. The husband retained his business, while each party kept their respective motor vehicles, personal possessions, and household contents. The court also ordered that each party retain their superannuation benefits.