Roussos and Vasco & Anor

In *Roussos and Vasco & Anor*, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning the parental responsibility and living arrangements for the parties' children, as well as property settlement orders. The wife sought sole parental responsibility and that the children live with her, while the husband sought equal shared parental responsibility and week-about living arrangements, or alternatively, that the children live with him. The wife also sought to change the children's school. The proceedings also involved a challenge to previous consent orders made in 2010 due to alleged material non-disclosure by the husband, and claims regarding a property held by the second respondent, Ms Gianakos, which the wife alleged was held on trust for the husband and was part of an attempt to alienate assets.

The court was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, regarding the children, the court had to decide what form of parental responsibility was in their best interests, considering the high level of conflict between the parents, the husband's animosity and poor communication with the wife, and instances of family violence. Secondly, the court had to determine the children's living arrangements and the specific times they would spend with each parent. Thirdly, in relation to property, the court had to consider whether the 2010 consent orders should be set aside pursuant to s 79A(1)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) due to a miscarriage of justice arising from the husband's alleged non-disclosure. Finally, the court had to determine the wife's claims concerning the property held by the second respondent, including whether purported loans were a sham and whether the property should be transferred to the wife or otherwise dealt with to satisfy her property interests.

On the parenting matters, the court found that due to the significant conflict and lack of capacity for joint decision-making, equal shared parental responsibility was not in the children's best interests. The court ordered that the wife have parental responsibility for major long-term issues, subject to specific conditions requiring her to consult with the husband in writing and make a genuine effort to reach joint decisions. If agreement could not be reached, the wife would have the final decision. The court also made detailed orders for the children to live with the wife and spend time with the husband on an alternate week basis, with specific provisions for holidays and birthdays. Regarding property, the court found that the husband had engaged in significant material non-disclosure in 2010, leading to objectively unjust and inequitable consent orders, and therefore set aside those orders pursuant to s 79A(1)(a). The court further found that the second respondent and the husband had colluded to alienate assets, that the purported loans were a sham, and set aside a related mortgage under s 106B of the Act. The second respondent was declared to hold the F property on behalf of the husband, and an order was made for the husband to transfer his entire interest in that property to the wife, reflecting her significant contributions and the husband's dissipation of other assets.