LOWTHER & LOWTHER

The case of *Lowther & Lowther* concerned parenting and property disputes between a husband and wife. The primary parenting dispute involved the children's time with each parent, with the wife seeking nine nights per fortnight and the husband seeking equal time. The husband also alleged the wife had an enmeshed relationship with the daughter and was undermining his relationship with the children. In the property proceedings, the parties disagreed on the percentage adjustment of non-superannuation assets, with the wife seeking 62.5% and the husband seeking 51%. The court was also required to consider the wife's cessation of employment post-separation and her receipt of significant family trust distributions during the marriage. A procedural issue arose when the husband sought the trial judge's disqualification mid-hearing due to an incomplete expert report, which was later rectified.

The court was tasked with determining the best interests of the children in relation to time spent with each parent, considering the daughter's expressed views and the impact of any perceived enmeshment. In the property division, the court needed to assess the contributions of each party, including initial contributions, homemaker and parenting roles, and the impact of the wife's earning capacity and post-separation financial conduct. The court also had to address the husband's application for the trial judge's disqualification, considering issues of procedural fairness and potential bias arising from the late provision of an updated expert report.

In its reasoning, the court found that an equal time arrangement was not in the children's best interests, despite the parties' agreement on equal shared parental responsibility. The court noted the daughter's strong views, supported by the expert, that an order not recognising them would not be in her best interests, and that the son accepted his sister's views. Regarding property, the court found the homemaker and parenting contributions to be equal and awarded the wife a 55% adjustment of non-superannuation assets based on her substantial initial contributions, while also considering her post-separation financial position. The court dismissed the husband's application for disqualification, finding that any damage to procedural fairness could be rectified and that the circumstances did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged and that the husband and wife have equal shared parental responsibility. The children were to live with the wife, with specific arrangements for time spent with the husband, including alternate weeks and half of school holidays. In property, the court ordered the sale of the parties' property, with proceeds to be divided, allocating 58.6% to the wife and 41.4% to the husband, subject to adjustments based on the sale price. The court also made detailed orders regarding the division of superannuation interests, other assets, and liabilities, aiming for an equitable distribution.