RYVES & WANTWORTH

This matter concerned parenting and property proceedings between the mother and father of an 11-year-old child, B. The Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) was also involved in the parenting proceedings. The primary dispute in the parenting proceedings revolved around the specific days and nights the child would spend with the father, given the father's history of mental health issues and a level of risk posed to the child by her maternal grandfather. In the property proceedings, the dispute concerned the division of a modest property pool following a 12-year marriage, where the mother had made the overwhelming financial contributions.

The court was required to determine appropriate parenting orders that would ensure the child's best interests, particularly in light of the identified risks. This included establishing a schedule for the child to spend time with the father, considering his mental health history, and implementing specific restraints to protect the child. In relation to property, the court needed to assess the contributions of each party to the marriage and the welfare of the family, including post-separation contributions, to determine a just and equitable division of the assets, including superannuation. The court also had to consider an application by the ICL for costs in the parenting proceedings.

Johnston J made detailed parenting orders, granting the mother and father equal shared parental responsibility, with the child to live with the mother. The orders established a specific schedule for the child to spend time with the father during school terms and holidays, including provisions for telephone communication and special days. Crucially, the court imposed restraints on the mother, preventing unsupervised contact between the child and her maternal grandfather and prohibiting the relocation of the child's residence out of the Sydney metropolitan area until she completes Year 10. The father was also required to authorise his treating psychiatrist to communicate with the mother regarding his mental health stability. In the property division, the court found that the mother's contributions were 70 percent and the father's 30 percent, and ordered a superannuation splitting order allocating $74,726 to the father. The application by the ICL for costs against the father was dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs in relation to the ICL's application.