SANE DARAMY & GUEYE SANE

In the matter of *Sane Daramy & Gueye Sane*, heard by Watts J, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements, property settlement, and child support for the parties' four children. The parenting aspect of the dispute involved determining parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, the time the children would spend with the husband, particularly in light of his potential overseas residence, and the specific needs of the eldest child who had a strained relationship with the husband and had not engaged with counselling. The property dispute centred on the division of the net asset pool, with considerations including the contributions of the parties and the husband's post-separation contributions, as well as the wife's role as primary caregiver and her health issues. The child support proceedings involved the wife's proposals to depart from the standard Child Support Assessment, including characterising property sale proceeds as lump sum child support and seeking reimbursement for past costs.

The court was required to determine the appropriate orders for parental responsibility concerning the children's education, passports, citizenship, and medical treatment, as well as other major long-term decisions. It also needed to establish the specific time the children would spend with the husband, both if he remained in Australia and if he resided overseas, taking into account the individual circumstances of each child, particularly the eldest. In relation to property, the court had to assess the respective contributions of each party and the maternal grandmother to the acquisition of property, and consider the impact of post-separation contributions and the husband's superior earning capacity. For child support, the court had to consider whether the wife had established grounds for departure from the standard assessment, particularly regarding the annual costs of the children and the characterisation of property sale proceeds as lump sum child support, and whether reimbursement for specific costs was warranted.

Watts J ordered that the children live with the wife and that she have sole parental responsibility for decisions regarding their education, passports, citizenship, and medical treatment, though she was required to consult the husband before making such decisions. The parties were to share parental responsibility for all other major long-term issues. Specific orders were made for the children to spend individual and group time with the husband in Australia, with alternative arrangements for block time if he resided overseas. Crucially, the eldest child was given a choice regarding spending time with the husband. In the property settlement, the court ordered a division of the net asset pool with the wife receiving 70 percent and the husband 30 percent, reflecting, in part, the maternal grandmother's non-financial contribution to property acquisition. The wife's applications to characterise property sale proceeds as lump sum child support were dismissed, but the husband was ordered to reimburse the wife for part of the specific costs she sought in relation to the children.