MAURICE & BARRY

In the matter of *MAURICE & BARRY*, Carew J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning children's living arrangements, property settlement, and spousal maintenance. The applicant sought orders for the children to live with her and spend five nights a fortnight with the respondent. Conversely, the respondent sought sole parental responsibility, permission to relocate interstate with the children, and for the children to spend only occasional weekends and half of school holidays with the applicant. The court also addressed a property settlement arising from a 17-year same-sex de facto relationship and a claim for spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, regarding the children, the court had to ascertain where they should live and with whom, considering the alignment of the two eldest children with the respondent and the respondent's demonstrated lack of capacity or willingness to co-parent or foster the children's relationship with the applicant. Secondly, the court had to decide whether it was in the best interests of the children to permit an interstate relocation. Thirdly, concerning property settlement, the court needed to determine a just and equitable division of the parties' assets, taking into account initial contributions, significant gifts and inheritances received by the applicant, and other largely equal contributions during the relationship. Finally, the court had to assess the respondent's claim for spousal maintenance against the applicant's resistance.

In relation to the children's living arrangements, Carew J found that it was appropriate for the applicant to have sole parental responsibility and that an interstate relocation would not be in the best interests of the children. The court ordered that the children live with the applicant and spend five nights a fortnight with the respondent. For the property settlement, the court determined that an adjustment of 10% in the respondent's favour pursuant to s 90SF(3) was appropriate, resulting in a just and equitable division of the property in the proportion of 60/40 in favour of the applicant. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court ordered the applicant to pay periodic spousal maintenance to the respondent for a period of three months, to facilitate the respondent's re-entry into the workforce.