MISSIAKOS & MISSIAKOS

This matter concerned parenting and property settlement orders made by consent between the Applicant and the Respondent. The parties had cohabitated for approximately 18 years, during which time the husband acquired a disability for the majority of the relationship, rendering him unable to work and receiving compensation for his disability. The wife had worked for periods during the relationship, and the parties had three children.

The court was required to determine issues relating to parental responsibility for the children, including the capacity of the parents. Additionally, the court was required to make final orders regarding the division of the parties' property, including the sale of their home, the distribution of proceeds, and the division of superannuation interests.

The court made extensive consent orders by way of final parenting orders, including that the children live with the Respondent and that each party have responsibility for daily decisions regarding the children's care while in their respective charge. The Respondent was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues concerning the children, including their education, religious and cultural upbringing, and health, with specific consultation requirements for the Applicant. The orders also detailed a phased approach to the children spending time and communicating with the Applicant, including provisions for telephone contact, letters, and attendance at school functions. Furthermore, the parties were ordered to ensure the children had access to therapeutic counselling, with costs shared equally, and to use a communication book. The Applicant was to have a support worker present during his time with the children, provided by the Transport Accident Commission. The court also made orders restraining the parties from denigrating each other in the presence of the children and from using physical discipline.

By way of final property orders, the court ordered the sale of the parties' property, with the proceeds to be applied first to sale costs, then encumbrances, then a specific credit card debt, and the balance to be divided with the Applicant receiving 67 per cent and the Respondent 33 per cent. Pending sale, the Applicant was granted sole use and occupation of the property. The orders also addressed the Applicant's father's estate and the Respondent's superannuation interests, including a base amount allocated to the Applicant and a reduction in the Respondent's entitlement. Each party was to retain property in their possession, forgo claims to each other's superannuation, and be solely liable for liabilities encumbering property they received. Joint bank accounts were to be divided equally. The court also included provisions for the enforcement of the orders and the appointment of a Registrar to execute documents if a party failed to comply.