Iannello & Iannello (No.5)

In the matter of *Iannello & Iannello (No.5)*, Judge C E Kirton QC of the Family Court of Australia considered competing applications concerning the parenting and property of the parties, Ms Iannello (the Wife) and Mr Iannello (the Husband). The parenting dispute involved applications for sole parental responsibility, the children's living arrangements, and time spent with each parent, with the court's determination guided by the paramount consideration of the children's best interests. The property dispute arose in circumstances where the parties were unable to agree on an asset and liability statement, significant withdrawals had been made post-separation, and a substantial portion of the asset pool had been depleted, including a total and permanent disability payment received by the Husband.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. In relation to parenting, the primary issues were whether the Wife should have sole parental responsibility for the children, where the children should live, and the specific arrangements for the children's time with each parent, particularly in light of findings of psychological harm and emotional abuse, and the Husband's mental impairment affecting his capacity to care for the children. In relation to property, the court needed to ascertain whether it was just and equitable to alter the parties' property interests, and if so, to determine the appropriate division, including whether to notionally add back certain depleted assets to the pool.

The court's reasoning in parenting matters focused on the best interests of the children, acknowledging the findings of psychological harm and emotional abuse. Consequently, the Wife was granted sole parental responsibility, with specific provisions for the Husband to be kept informed and to provide input on significant long-term decisions. The children were ordered to live with the Wife, with detailed arrangements for their time with the Husband during term time, school holidays, and special days, including Christmas and Easter. Injunctions were also imposed to restrain certain communications and behaviours between the parents concerning the children. In property matters, the court addressed the depletion of assets by notionally adding back certain withdrawals to the asset pool. The proceeds of sale of a property were ordered to be paid to the Wife, and specific orders were made regarding the division of personal property, including motor vehicles and chattels. The parties were also directed to jointly wind up a company and to forgo claims to each other's superannuation benefits.

The final orders discharged prior parenting orders and established new arrangements for parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time spent between the children and each parent. Property orders were made to divide the parties' assets, including the proceeds of sale of a property, personal property, and the winding up of a company. The court also made orders regarding costs and adjourned the matter for a mention.