RITTMAN & RITTMAN

The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Barry J, considered a dispute between a mother and father concerning their two children, L (aged sixteen) and O (aged twelve), as well as property settlement. The primary disagreements revolved around the residency and parental responsibility for O, the schooling arrangements for L, and the division of marital assets. The mother sought residency and shared parental responsibility for O, with sole responsibility for medical decisions, while the father sought sole parental responsibility and for O to reside with him.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to assess the credibility of the mother, particularly in light of conflicting evidence regarding her primary place of residence and allegations of fabricated documents and attempts to discredit the father. Secondly, the court needed to make orders regarding the residency and parental responsibility for the twelve-year-old child, O, considering the differing views on his medical condition, tuberous sclerosis. Thirdly, the court had to address the schooling arrangements for the sixteen-year-old child, L, and the associated financial responsibilities. Finally, the court was tasked with dividing the parties' property, including the winding up of a company in which they were directors.

Barry J found the mother's credibility to be wanting, noting fabricated documents and evidence of her employing others to discredit the father. Consequently, no orders were made regarding the eldest child, L. For the younger child, O, the court ordered that he reside with the father and that the father have sole parental responsibility. The mother was significantly restrained from attending medical practitioners without the father's written consent, except in genuine emergencies, and was also prohibited from enrolling O in extracurricular activities without his consent. Regarding schooling, the mother was made solely responsible for L's boarding school fees if she continued at her current school, or the parties were to share the fees if L returned to a local private school. In the property settlement, the company was to be wound up with costs shared, and the property was divided 70:30 in favour of the mother, reflecting her contribution of the majority of assets to the marriage.