REDWOOD & DELACEY

In a family law matter before Judge Burchardt, the court considered a strenuous dispute between a mother and father concerning the best interests of their four-year-old son, a dispute exacerbated by significant financial disagreements. The mother sought a 10/3 parenting arrangement, while the father sought equal time. The proceedings were further complicated by allegations of the father's drug and alcohol abuse, and his refusal to undergo hair follicle testing. The court also addressed a property dispute arising from the parties' four-year relationship, where the wife sought to exclude all pre-relationship assets and the husband alleged the wife had engaged in overspending and siphoning of funds.

The primary legal issues before the court were: (1) what parenting orders were in the best interests of the child, particularly in light of allegations of substance abuse and the parents' lack of child focus; and (2) how the parties' property pool should be divided, including the treatment of pre-relationship assets and the assessment of contributions and future needs. The court was required to balance the competing interests of the parents while prioritising the welfare of the child.

Regarding parenting, the court ultimately made orders consistent with the recommendations of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, establishing equal shared parental responsibility but with the child living with the mother. The orders detailed specific time arrangements for the father, including a phased introduction of overnight stays and holiday time, and imposed strict conditions on both parents regarding alcohol and drug consumption while the child is in their care. Notably, the father was ordered to purchase and use a breathalyser device with photographic verification for a period of six months. In relation to property, the court excluded pre-relationship assets from the pool but considered them relevant under section 75(2)(o) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court found the husband's contributions to the matrimonial home were significant, assessing contributions at 55/45 in his favour, and determined future needs to be equal. Consequently, the court ordered a 55/45 division of the property pool in favour of the husband, with specific orders for the payment of a sum to the wife and the potential sale of the real property if payment was not made within 30 days.