IRVINE & IRVINE

In the matter of *Irvine & Irvine*, Tree J considered applications by the mother for relocation of the child and by both parties concerning property settlement and spousal maintenance. The mother sought to relocate with the child from Town A to Town B, a proposal the court found to be reasonably practicable for the mother to undertake, but not for the father. The father opposed the relocation, asserting the mother's inability to co-parent without his assistance due to mental health issues, a claim unsupported by evidence. The court also addressed the division of property and the father's proposal for spousal maintenance.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to permit the mother's proposed relocation of the child, the appropriate orders for equal shared parental responsibility and the child's living arrangements, and the division of the parties' property, including the quantum of spousal maintenance. The court was required to consider the best interests of the child in determining the parenting orders and to apply the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to the property and maintenance claims.

Tree J determined that relocation was not in the child's best interests, finding it reasonably practicable for the mother to remain in Town A. Consequently, the court ordered equal shared parental responsibility and established a phased approach to the child's living arrangements, ultimately leading to equal time with both parents. The court also ordered that the child spend six months living in Germany, subject to specific conditions. In relation to property, the court found the mother's contribution-based entitlement to be 20% and ordered the father to pay the mother $125,342.85. Additionally, the father was ordered to pay the mother spousal maintenance of $250.00 per week for six months.