ORTONA & PETERS

The case of Ortona & Peters concerned parenting and property disputes between the mother and father. The court was required to determine with whom the children should live, considering allegations of family violence and each parent's capacity to foster a meaningful relationship with the other parent. Additionally, the court addressed the just and equitable division of the parties' assets, which included their former home, garages, chattels, and superannuation, and whether to allow the mother to adduce further evidence.

The court was tasked with determining the presumption of shared parental responsibility and whether it was rebutted, and consequently, who should have sole parental responsibility for the children. It also had to decide on the specific arrangements for the children's time with each parent, including the extent and circumstances of that time. In relation to property, the court needed to ascertain the appropriate percentage division of the asset pool, considering the parties' agreement on the sale of the former home and garages and a superannuation splitting order, as well as an alleged third-party debt. The court also considered the mother's application for leave to reopen and adduce further evidence, assessing any prejudice to the father.

In its reasoning, the court found that the presumption of shared parental responsibility was rebutted, leading to orders for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the children, with specific provisions for the mother to be advised of and consider major long-term decisions. The children were ordered to live with the father and spend substantial and significant time with the mother, with detailed arrangements for holidays, birthdays, and communication. Regarding property, the court ordered a 55/45 per cent division of the asset pool in favour of the wife, with the parties to sell their former home and garages and distribute the proceeds accordingly after paying specified debts. A superannuation splitting order was also made. The mother's application to adduce further evidence was refused due to prejudice to the father.