SCARLETT & BRADSHAW

In the matter of *Scarlett & Bradshaw*, Johnston J of the Family Court of Australia made final orders concerning the parenting and property of the parties. The parenting dispute involved a five-year-old child, X, who was living with the mother and spending supervised time with the father. Both parents sought equal shared parental responsibility and an increase in the father's time with the child following his completion of an anger management course, though they differed on the proposed timeframes for this increase. The court also considered the father's history of impulse control issues and perpetrating family violence, as well as the mother's over-protective tendencies. The property dispute concerned the division of assets accumulated during the parties' seven-year relationship, with a separate asset pools approach adopted.

The court was required to determine appropriate parenting orders that would promote the child's welfare, considering the father's past family violence and impulse control issues, and to make final property orders dividing the parties' assets and liabilities. Specifically, in relation to property, the court had to decide whether to adopt a global approach or a separate asset pools approach, and how to treat a property acquired by the wife post-separation and her unvested share interests.

Johnston J ordered that the husband and wife have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the wife. The father's time with the child was to increase gradually and cautiously, commencing with supervised time and progressing to unsupervised time upon completion of an anger management course. The court also made detailed orders regarding the father's time with the child during school terms, school holidays, and on special occasions, with a phased increase in the duration and frequency of unsupervised time. In relation to property, the court adopted a separate asset pools approach, treating the wife's post-separation property and unvested shares as separate from the main asset pool. The court ordered a division of the joint Westpac accounts and allocated the wife's interest in a superannuation fund. The husband was to indemnify the wife against liabilities relating to certain business entities and his interests, while the wife was to indemnify the husband against liabilities relating to her sole name property. Each party was to retain their other property not specifically dealt with in the orders.