PROCTOR & PROCTOR

In the matter of *Proctor & Proctor*, Judge Harman considered competing parenting and property adjustment applications between a husband and wife. The parenting dispute involved allegations of significant family violence, exposure of the children to such violence, and the father's alleged enlistment of the elder children as "co-conspirators" against the mother, thereby undermining their relationship with her and contributing to their enmeshment in parental conflict. The court also addressed allegations of child abuse, which were found to be unsupported by evidence, and issues concerning the credit of the parties. In relation to property, the court considered applications for leave to proceed, contributions, and the assessment of section 75(2) factors, noting a failure by one party to adduce evidence proving liabilities and to provide proper disclosure.

The court was required to determine the future care arrangements for the children, assessing the unacceptable risk posed by the father's conduct and the need to protect the children's emotional health and their right to a relationship with the mother. Evidential issues arose concerning the admissibility and weight of evidence, particularly in light of section 69ZT(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, and the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence presented, including its impact on the recommendations of a family report. The court also had to resolve competing property adjustment applications, including the distribution of funds held in trust by the wife's solicitors and the declaration of sole ownership of various assets.

Judge Harman reasoned that the father's conduct presented an unacceptable risk to the children, particularly in his inability to support their relationship with the mother and his role in their enmeshment in parental conflict. The court found that the mother's relationship with the children needed protection, and while allegations of child abuse were unsubstantiated, significant issues of credit arose. The court ordered that the younger child, Y, live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for her, while the elder child, X, would live with the father, who would have sole parental responsibility for him. The father was restrained from approaching or contacting Y. In terms of property, the court directed the distribution of funds held by the wife's solicitors, prioritising payment of the husband's debt to Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office, before distributing the balance to the wife and then the husband. Each party was declared the sole owner of assets in their possession and was ordered to indemnify the other against debts in their respective names. All prior parenting orders were discharged.