MAVROS & MAVROS

In the matter of MAVROS & MAVROS, the husband sought sole parental responsibility for the parties' two children, that the children live with him, and spend time with the wife under his supervision. The proceedings were heard undefended, as the wife did not file any material or attend the hearing. The court was informed that the wife is a habitual user of "ice," the children had been exposed to family violence, and there was a strong risk of the children being exposed to drug use and dangerous behaviour if left unsupervised in the wife's care.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the parenting arrangements that would be in the best interests of the children. This involved considering the wife's drug use, the history of family violence, and the potential risks to the children's safety and well-being. The court was required to decide whether to grant the husband's request for sole parental responsibility and specific living arrangements, and whether equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate.

Watts J concluded that it was not in the children's best interests to have equal shared parental responsibility. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the best interests of the child, the court found that the living arrangements proposed by the husband were in the children's best interests, given the identified risks associated with the wife's drug use and the exposure to family violence. The court also made orders restraining both parties from certain behaviours, including abusing or denigrating the other parent or the children, and from consuming illicit drugs or exceeding a blood alcohol limit of 0.05 percent when the children are in their care.

Consequently, the court ordered that the husband have sole parental responsibility for the children, and that the children live with the husband. The children were to spend time with the wife as agreed or as otherwise ordered, with the husband indicating his intention for supervised contact on Wednesdays and Saturdays. The court also made property settlement orders, declaring the wife to be the sole owner of certain funds and assets, and the husband to be the sole owner of other funds, bank accounts, and household contents, with no orders for superannuation splitting.