MIKONO & PEREZ

The case involved a dispute between a mother and father concerning parenting arrangements for their two children and a property settlement following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. The mother had relocated from Sydney to Melbourne with the children, while the father remained in Sydney. The father sought orders for the children to live in Sydney with their mother, which would effectively compel the mother to return. The court was also required to determine the division of property and liabilities accumulated during the five-year relationship.

The court was tasked with determining whether to make a "coercive" order requiring the mother to return to Sydney with the children, considering the children's best interests and the history of family violence during the relationship. Additionally, the court had to adjudicate the property settlement, taking into account significant assets and liabilities brought into the relationship by the father, contributions made by his parents, the mother's primary care of the children post-separation, and the father's sole responsibility for the costs associated with spending time with the children and significant liabilities.

In relation to parenting, the court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the children's best interests, particularly in light of the family violence they had witnessed. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, with specific obligations to consult the father, and sole responsibility for day-to-day decisions while the children are in her care. The children were ordered to live with the mother in Melbourne, with specific provisions for the father to spend time with them. Regarding property, the court ordered an 80:20 distribution in favour of the father, taking into account the significant assets and liabilities he brought into the relationship and his sole responsibility for certain liabilities.