SALWAY & FEGLEY

In the matter of Salway & Fegley, McClelland J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between the parties. The parenting dispute concerned arrangements for their two sons, C and D, with allegations made by both parents regarding the risk of physical harm to the children. The property dispute involved the division of assets following an eighteen-year marriage.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the children, specifically addressing the allegations of risk and the ongoing conflict between the parents. In relation to property, the court needed to assess the parties' financial and non-financial contributions and consider relevant factors under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to determine a just and equitable distribution of their assets.

McClelland J found a lack of evidence to support the claims of physical harm to the children, but determined that the ongoing parental conflict posed a risk of psychological harm. Consequently, the court varied the parenting orders to reduce interaction between the parents, with each parent to have sole parental responsibility for the child living with them, subject to notification and consideration of the other parent's views. The court found the parties' financial contributions to be equal in the context of a long marriage, but made an adjustment of 5% in favour of the wife for non-financial contributions and a further 10% adjustment under section 75(2) factors.

The orders discharged previous parenting arrangements and established new orders for the children to live with the father (C) and the mother (D), with specific provisions for time spent with the non-resident parent, including consideration of the children's wishes. The property orders involved specific payments from a controlled monies account and the sale of NIB shares, with the net proceeds to be distributed 65% to the wife and 35% to the husband. Other property was declared to be the sole ownership of the party holding it, and the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer were to be shared equally by the parties.