POWELL & CHRISTENSEN

In the matter of *Powell & Christensen*, Gill J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between the parties. The parenting dispute involved allegations of serious family violence, including assault and deprivation of liberty, within a long-term context of coercion and control. The court also addressed property division, including issues related to cryptocurrency valuation and non-disclosure.

The primary legal issues before the court were: first, whether it was in the best interests of the children for them to live with the Mother and for her to have sole parental responsibility, given the father's alleged family violence and its potential impact on his parenting capacity; and second, how to achieve a just and equitable division of the parties' property, taking into account unequal contributions post-separation, future economic positions, and the father's failure to disclose certain assets, specifically cryptocurrency.

Gill J's reasoning in relation to parenting focused on the significant risks posed by the father's conduct, drawing an analogy to the discretionary considerations in sentencing. The court found that the factual basis for the risks associated with the father's behaviour was established, and that these risks eroded any potential benefits of a meaningful relationship between the father and the children. The court also considered the assessment of expert evidence and applied the "no opinion rule" in evaluating the evidence presented. In property division, the court considered unequal contributions and future economic positions, and addressed the valuation of cryptocurrency where there had been a failure to disclose, relying on the best available evidence of purchase value.

The court ordered that the children live with the Mother and that she have sole parental responsibility. Contact between the father and the children was significantly restricted, limited to the father sending letters, cards, and gifts to a designated parcel locker, with no other orders for time or communication. The court also made detailed orders for the division of property, including the retention of specific assets by each party, a payment of $100,000 from the father to the mother in instalments, and a superannuation splitting order in favour of the mother. The father was also ordered to transfer his interest in certain companies and trusts to the mother, and to facilitate her resignation as a director and the removal of her interest in a trust. Each party was ordered to indemnify the other against specific liabilities.