JILLET & SULLIVAN

In the matter of Jillet & Sullivan, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between the husband and wife. The central dispute in the parenting proceedings concerned the welfare of the parties' two children, a son and a daughter, who were suffering from a delusional disorder induced by the wife's own diagnosed Delusional Disorder. The wife had withdrawn allegations of sexual abuse and family violence against the husband and his family. The daughter had a significant attachment to her mother and had been alienated from her father for over two years, experiencing serious problems including not attending mainstream school since 2012. The son was also becoming resistant to spending time with his father.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, particularly in light of a single expert's recommendation to separate the daughter from her mother's influence to facilitate her transition to mainstream schooling. The court also had to consider the serious risk to the children's mental health within the wife's household, balanced against the potential risks of the daughter's reaction to a move to her father's residence. In the property proceedings, the court was tasked with dividing the net assets of the parties, which were to be split 55 per cent to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife, and to make orders for the payment of money and property transfers.

Watts J reasoned that it was not in the children's best interests to remain living with their mother. The court applied principles of child welfare and the paramountcy of the children's best interests in making parenting orders. The court noted that the Department of Family & Community Services had declined a request to become a party to the proceedings, despite the children's induced mental illnesses and the risks associated with the expert's recommendations. In relation to property, the court applied section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to divide the assets.

The court ordered that the husband have sole parental responsibility for the children, with specific provisions for informing the wife of major long-term decisions. The children were ordered to live with the husband, and face-to-face contact with the wife was suspended for three months to allow for the children's transition and the wife's engagement with psychiatric treatment. Following this period, supervised contact was to commence for six months, with the possibility of unsupervised contact thereafter, contingent on the wife's continued treatment and stabilisation. The property orders included the husband having exclusive occupancy of one property for two years, during which time he would pay the mortgage, water rates, and insurances on the wife's property. At the end of the two-year period, the wife was to transfer her interest in the husband's property, and the husband was to pay the remaining monies owed to the wife, calculated based on a specified formula.