MALBERG & MALBERG

In the matter of *Malberg & Malberg*, Judge Morley considered interim parenting and property orders. The dispute involved the parents' arrangements for their two children, born in 2009, and a request for a superannuation flagging order. The court also noted the existence of reasonable grounds to believe family violence had occurred, which ordinarily would preclude the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether equal shared parental responsibility was in the children's best interests, despite the presumption not applying due to family violence allegations, and how to structure parenting arrangements to mitigate risks. Additionally, the court was required to determine the terms of a superannuation flagging order under section 90XU(1)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Despite the family violence concerns, the court found that equal shared parental responsibility was the best outcome for the children, provided certain risks were mitigated. The reasoning involved establishing a detailed schedule for the children's time with each parent during school terms and holidays, including specific arrangements for birthdays and Christmas. The court also made orders restraining the mother from driving the children and requiring her to comply with her health treatment, and imposed restrictions on derogatory remarks and discussions about the proceedings in the children's presence. A superannuation flagging order was made to prevent the trustee of the father's superannuation fund from making splittable payments without court leave and to require notification of future payments.

The court ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, with specific time arrangements detailed in the orders. Further orders included provisions for holiday periods, special occasions, and communication between parents. The superannuation flagging order was made effective four business days after the trustee received a copy of the sealed orders. Liberty was granted to apply to chambers regarding the implementation of the superannuation orders or if the trustee objected. The court also noted that the mother should not unreasonably withhold consent if the father needed to access his superannuation for the children's medical needs.