Koncz and Koncz (No 2)

This case concerned parenting, property, and spousal maintenance disputes between the parties, Koncz and Koncz. The primary dispute revolved around the best interests of the children, specifically whether equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate, given concerns about emotional abuse, the risk of the children being removed from Australia, and the nature of the father's time with the children. Additionally, the wife sought property settlement orders and spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, and if so, what parenting orders would be in the best interests of the children. This involved assessing the risk of psychological harm to the children and the risk of their removal from Australia. The court also had to consider the wife's application for property settlement under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including whether it was just and equitable to alter property interests and the relevant factors under sections 79 and 75(2) of the Act. Finally, the court needed to determine the wife's claim for spousal maintenance, considering her ability to support herself and the husband's capacity to pay.

Aldridge J found that there was an unacceptable risk of the children being removed from Australia and a risk of psychological harm, which rebutted the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. Consequently, orders were made for the children to live with the mother, with a graduated regime for the children to spend time with the father, commencing with supervised contact and increasing to alternate weekends. The children were also placed on the Airport Watch List. In relation to property, the court found that while financial and non-financial contributions up to separation were equal, an adjustment of 17.5 per cent in the wife's favour was appropriate under section 75(2). The court also ordered the husband to pay spousal maintenance to the wife for a period of four years, finding that she was unable to adequately support herself and the husband had the capacity to make modest payments.