Malcher & Malcher

In *Malcher & Malcher*, heard by Le Poer Trench J, the court considered a range of family law matters concerning the three children of the marriage and the parties' property settlement. The children resided with the wife, while the husband was living overseas with his partner and child. The wife had made allegations of family violence, which the court accepted. The proceedings also involved applications concerning child support, superannuation, and costs.

The primary legal issues before the court included determining the parenting arrangements for the children, specifically considering the factors outlined in s 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and making orders for parental responsibility and time spent with each parent. The court was also required to determine an adjustment of the parties' property interests pursuant to s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), taking into account the parties' contributions and financial circumstances, including the husband's earning potential and dealings through various entities. Further issues involved an application for a superannuation splitting order, applications for child support departure orders, and the admission of up-to-date evidence prior to judgment.

Regarding parenting, the court found a lack of cooperation between the parties and made orders for the wife to have sole parental responsibility, with specific arrangements for the children to spend significant time with the husband during school terms, holidays, and special occasions, with differing orders for each child. The court also ordered the children to continue attending therapy. In relation to property settlement, despite the husband's unemployment, his considerable earning potential and extensive dealings were considered. The court found the husband made greater contributions to the asset pool excluding superannuation, but after considering s 75(2) factors, an adjustment was made in the wife's favour, resulting in a 70/30 split of assets. The wife retained the former matrimonial home and was ordered to pay the husband his entitlements less child support arrears and other liabilities. The husband's application for a superannuation splitting order was dismissed as the parties' contributions were found to be close to their respective entitlements. The court also made a lump sum child support order in favour of the wife due to special circumstances and arrears, to be held in a controlled monies account. The hearing was re-opened to admit updated asset and liability evidence and a new valuation of the former matrimonial home. Finally, the parties were ordered to each pay half of the costs incurred by the Independent Children's Lawyer for a portion of the hearing.