Parker and Parker

In *Parker and Parker*, Watt J of the Family Court of Australia determined parenting and property settlement orders concerning the parties' only child, a son born in July 2003. The dispute involved significant conflict between the parents regarding the child's living arrangements and the division of their assets, including the net proceeds from the sale of their former home. The court was required to consider the impact of recent amendments to the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly concerning the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.

The primary legal issues before the court were: first, to determine the most appropriate parenting orders that would serve the child's best interests, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the factors outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act*; and second, to divide the parties' non-superannuation assets in a just and equitable manner, taking into account their contributions and other relevant circumstances under section 79 of the *Family Law Act*. The court also had to address allegations of controlling behaviour, mental instability, and historical incidents between the parties, which were relevant to the parenting and property determinations.

Watt J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act* to establish orders for equal shared parental responsibility, reflecting the presumption that this is in the child's best interests. The court carefully considered the child's age, his relationship with each parent, and the need to protect him from parental conflict. While acknowledging the child's capacity to spend time with his father, the court adopted a cautious approach to increasing the time spent with the husband, ensuring the child's primary relationship with his mother was not significantly undermined. In relation to property, the court followed a four-step approach, identifying and valuing assets, assessing contributions, considering other relevant factors under section 75(2), and finally determining a just and equitable distribution. The court ordered a division of non-superannuation assets 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband, taking into account the child's primary care arrangements and the husband's greater earning capacity.

The court discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders for equal shared parental responsibility. The child was to spend time with the husband on an alternating weekly basis, with specific arrangements for weekdays, weekends, public holidays, birthdays, and school holidays. The wife was to have the child live with her at all other times. The court also ordered the distribution of the net proceeds from the sale of the former matrimonial home, with the wife to receive $47,320 and the husband $17,680, in addition to their respective shares of the remaining assets, including cars, Telstra shares, and a painting.