QUAILE & BARODIN

In the matter of *QUAILE & BARODIN*, Rees J considered parenting, property, and child support disputes between the husband and wife. The husband sought an equal time arrangement for the children, while the wife sought sole parental responsibility for medical and allied health matters, otherwise seeking equal shared parental responsibility. The parties also had significant disagreements regarding initial and ongoing contributions to the matrimonial asset pool, with the wife being a beneficiary of a substantial estate and having received an interest-free loan of $1.2 million from her parents. The wife also applied for a departure from the current child support assessment, arguing the history of applications constituted "special circumstances."

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting orders for the three children, considering their strong relationships with both parents and their current settled arrangements, while also giving significant weight to the children's wishes. In relation to property, the court had to assess the contributions of each party to both the matrimonial asset pool and the estate pool, and consider whether an adjustment under s79(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) was warranted, particularly in light of the interest-free loan. The court also needed to decide whether "special circumstances" existed under the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) to justify a departure from the child support assessment, and if so, whether such a departure would be just and equitable.

Regarding parenting, Rees J ordered equal shared parental responsibility, with each parent having sole responsibility for day-to-day decisions when the children are in their care. The children were ordered to live with the wife, with significant and substantial time to be spent with the husband, detailing specific arrangements for school terms, holidays, birthdays, Mother's Day, and Father's Day. The court also made orders regarding medical interventions and extracurricular activities. In the property division, a "two pools" approach was adopted, with contributions to the matrimonial pool assessed at 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband. The court considered the $1.2 million loan as a contribution on behalf of the wife and a financial resource under s75(2), ultimately ordering the wife to pay the husband $1,365,024 and indemnify him regarding the loan. The wife's application for a child support departure order was dismissed, with consent orders made for the husband to provide non-periodic child support by paying 50% of compulsory school fees.