Redmond and Stolz (No 3)

In the matter of Redmond and Stolz (No 3), Forrest J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning parenting arrangements for a child and the adjustment of property interests between the parents. The father sought sole parental responsibility, that the child live with him, and removal from her current school, while also pursuing property adjustment orders. The mother sought a vexatious proceedings order against the father. The trustee in bankruptcy for the father, who was an undischarged bankrupt, intervened in the property proceedings.

The court was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, regarding parenting, the court had to assess the best interests of the child, considering allegations of family violence by the father and the child's risk of emotional and psychological harm in his unsupervised care. Secondly, in relation to property, the court needed to determine a just and equitable division of the property pool, taking into account the father's bankruptcy and the trustee's interest. The court also considered whether superannuation splitting orders were appropriate. Finally, the court had to decide whether to grant the mother's application for a vexatious proceedings order against the father.

Forrest J's reasoning led to significant orders in favour of the mother. The court found that the father had engaged in family violence and posed an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the child, and that the child was thriving at her current school. Consequently, the court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility, that the child live with the mother, and that any time spent with the father be supervised. Regarding property, the court ordered a division of 75 per cent in favour of the mother and 25 per cent in favour of the father, with the father to receive a further payment of $3,500 which would immediately vest in the trustee in bankruptcy. No order was made for superannuation splitting.

Finally, the court made a vexatious proceedings order prohibiting the father from instituting further proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) against the mother or in relation to the child without first obtaining leave of the Court. The father was also restrained from attending within 100 metres of the child's school and the mother's home or place of work, and from publishing certain information online. The court also made detailed orders regarding communication between the parents and the child, and the retention of specific property by each party.