Saldowne and Reith

Stevenson J determined parenting orders concerning two children, A and L, and also made orders regarding the settlement of property between the parents. The primary dispute revolved around the proposed parenting arrangements for the children, with the father advocating for a week-about shared care arrangement and the mother seeking orders for the children to live with her.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in accordance with section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider the likely effect of any changes in the children's circumstances, including the impact of separation from either parent, and the practical difficulties and expense of the children spending time with and communicating with each parent. The court also had to assess the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuing relationship between the children and the other parent.

Stevenson J's reasoning was heavily influenced by the expert evidence of Dr M, a psychologist. Dr M expressed strong reservations about a week-about arrangement for A, predicting that he was likely to "decompensate, regress in his behaviour and become oppositional and aggressive" if moved from his mother's home. While Dr M indicated L might cope better with 50:50 care, she doubted L could handle it without A. The court found no expert evidence to support the husband's submission regarding the risk of depression or betrayal, and Dr M's general comments on father attachment and adolescent preferences for a single secure base did not outweigh her specific concerns for A. The court also considered the practical difficulties and expense of communication and contact, noting that the proposed arrangements were designed to facilitate regular contact.

The court discharged all existing parenting orders and made new orders. The children were to live with the mother at all times, except for specific periods when they would live with the father, including alternate weekends, some Wednesdays, public holidays, school holidays, and specific dates in April 2010. The orders also detailed specific arrangements for Christmas, Easter, birthdays, Father's Day, and Mother's Day, with provisions for parental agreement to vary these. The court also made orders restraining the mother from involving the children in further therapy with Ms C and requiring both parents to implement therapy as recommended by Dr M. Finally, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife a sum of $372,400 within three months, upon which the wife would transfer her interest in a property to the husband. The husband was also to indemnify the wife against liabilities related to a debt to his mother and liabilities attaching to the W property.