Peat and Northup (No 2)

In the matter of *Peat and Northup (No 2)*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered disputes between the parties concerning the children's living arrangements, parental responsibility, and property settlement. The wife sought for the children to live with her and for the husband to have limited time with them, citing a fractured relationship and the children's reluctance to spend time with him, with allegations of family violence and potential psychological harm if forced contact occurred. The husband sought a gradual increase in time with the children, ultimately aiming for five nights per fortnight, and also sought equal shared parental responsibility. In relation to property, the parties disputed "add backs" and the inclusion of distributions and interests from a trust established by the husband's late father.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to their living arrangements and the extent of time they should spend with each parent, as well as the nature of parental responsibility. Specifically, the court had to assess the fractured relationship between the husband and children, the children's reluctance, and the Family Consultant's view that the relationship needed support, while also considering the husband's lack of risk to the children and the benefit of maintaining a relationship. Furthermore, the court had to decide on the division of the parties' property pool, including the husband's inheritance and the treatment of partial property settlement sums, and whether to include the husband's interest in his late father's trust in the property settlement.

Berman J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding the best interests of the child, noting that while the wife did not actively promote the children's relationship with the husband, there was a benefit to the children maintaining a relationship with him, and the evidence did not support a finding that the husband posed a risk. The court ordered shared parental responsibility, with the wife having final determination on health and education matters in the absence of agreement, and that the children live with the wife. A phased approach to the children spending time with the husband was ordered, commencing with limited contact and gradually increasing over time, with the children's wishes to be considered upon reaching fourteen years of age. Regarding property, the court found it just and equitable to make orders pursuant to s 79 of the Act, considering the parties' contributions, future needs, and the wife's primary care of the children. The court determined that distributions from the husband's late father's trust were not to be included in the property pool, as the husband did not control the trust and there was no evidence he would act contrary to his father's testamentary intentions. The court ordered a specific distribution of funds from the sale of a property, with the husband retaining certain assets and the wife retaining others, and also made orders for the division of superannuation entitlements.