RAMIREZ & RAMIREZ

This case involved a dispute between Ms J Ramirez (the wife/mother) and Mr Ramirez (the husband/father) concerning parenting arrangements for their child, E, and the division of their property. The child, born in 2001, has special needs due to mild cerebral palsy and a genetic condition, and has resided with the mother since the parties' separation in December 2009. Both parties sought property adjustment orders, with the mother seeking a significantly larger share of the property pool, while the father proposed an asset-by-asset approach or a lesser global share. The father also sought increased time with the child, including overnight stays.

The court was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, regarding parenting, the court had to assess whether the father's mental health condition, specifically bipolar disorder, impacted his parenting capacity and posed a risk of harm to the child. Secondly, in relation to property, the court needed to resolve disputes concerning the valuation of certain assets and the parties' respective contributions. A significant issue was the father's alleged failure to make full and frank disclosure of post-separation assets and income, and whether this warranted an adjustment to the property division under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), to ensure a just and equitable outcome.

The court's reasoning addressed both parenting and property matters. On parenting, the court made orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the child's day-to-day and long-term education and healthcare, with shared responsibility for other long-term decisions. The child was to live with the mother, and the father's time with the child was initially supervised by his paternal aunt, contingent on the father providing reports from his treating psychiatrist confirming his bipolar disorder symptoms were controlled and he was responsive to medication. The court outlined a phased approach to increasing the father's unsupervised time, subject to ongoing medical reports and compliance with treatment. Regarding property, the court ordered the husband to remove business stock from a property within two months. The wife was appointed trustee for the sale of this property, with detailed provisions for its preparation and sale. The net proceeds were to be distributed with 65% to the wife and 35% to the husband, after deducting costs, including those incurred by the wife due to the husband's failure to remove his stock. The wife was also ordered to pay the husband a specific sum simultaneously with the property sale distribution.

The final orders discharged all previous orders regarding the child. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the child's education and healthcare, with shared responsibility for other long-term decisions. The child was to live with the mother. The father's time with the child was initially supervised and subject to strict conditions related to his mental health management, with a progressive pathway towards unsupervised time. The court also made detailed orders for the sale of a property, with a 65/35 split of net proceeds in favour of the wife, and a specific payment to the husband. Each party was declared solely entitled to their existing property, and all outstanding applications were dismissed.