KEDDY & KEDDY

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge Betts presided over proceedings involving the parties, referred to as the mother and father, and the wife and husband. The mother sought orders for sole parental responsibility and for the children to live with her, with no time ordered for the father. The wife sought property settlement orders. The proceedings were undefended by the father/husband, who had failed to properly participate in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine the parenting orders in the best interests of the three children, aged 16, 14, and 8, considering the father's admitted drug use, emotional instability, aggressive behaviour, and family violence. In the property proceedings, the court had to consider the parties' contributions, the husband's unexplained access to substantial funds from superannuation and a former business, his accrued credit card debt, and his failure to pay child support, to achieve a just and equitable outcome. The court also considered an application for costs.

In relation to parenting, the court found the mother's unchallenged evidence regarding the father's behaviour and its impact on the children to be compelling. The court applied the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, noting the father's history of family violence and drug use as significant factors. For the property proceedings, the court noted the husband's lack of disclosure and failure to participate, including not seeking a litigation guardian. The court considered the equal contributions at separation and the husband's unexplained post-separation financial activities and debts.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the mother, and that the father have no contact with the children. The mother was authorised to apply for and retain passports for the children and to travel outside of Australia with them. In the property proceedings, the wife was declared to have sole title to the former matrimonial home, and the husband was made solely liable for certain tax and credit card debts, while the wife was solely liable for specific school fees. The husband was declared to have sole title to a company, and each party was to retain their own property and forgo claims to each other's superannuation. The court also ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs fixed at $25,000.