Ireland and Maine (No 2)

In *Ireland and Maine (No 2)*, Young J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property matters between the parties. The central dispute in the parenting proceedings concerned the mother's application to relocate the children to the Gold Coast, Queensland, with the father seeking shared parental responsibility and specific time arrangements. The property proceedings involved the just and equitable division of the net proceeds from the sale of a property, as well as the apportionment of loans to parents and superannuation entitlements.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in accordance with the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically considering the factors outlined in section 60CC, including the children's relationship with each parent, the likely effect of any proposed change on the children, and the capacity of each parent to provide for the children's needs. The court also had to consider the principles relating to shared parental responsibility and the practical implications of a relocation order, including the time the father would spend with the children and the associated travel arrangements. In relation to property, the court was tasked with making a just and equitable division of the parties' assets and liabilities, taking into account relevant factors under section 79(4) and section 75(2) of the Act.

Young J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to the evidence presented, including the family report and the parties' affidavits. The court found that it was in the children's best interests to live with their mother and to be relocated to the Gold Coast, while also ordering equal shared parental responsibility. The court carefully detailed the time the father would spend with the children, including regular weekends and school holidays, and established specific arrangements for travel and communication. In the property division, the court ordered that each party retain their superannuation and motor vehicles, and that the net proceeds of the sale of the H property be apportioned 58% to the father and 42% to the mother. The parties were also ordered to be responsible for any loans or debts owed to their respective parents.