Sceterra and Sceterra

In the matter of Sceterra and Sceterra, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia made orders concerning the children and property of the parties. The dispute involved the living arrangements and parental responsibility for the child, N, as well as the division of various assets and liabilities.

The court was required to determine the primary residence of the child, the allocation of parental responsibility, and the nature and extent of contact the husband would have with the child. Additionally, the court had to make orders regarding the division of specific properties, including real estate, a motor vehicle, shares, and a superannuation fund, and to address the indemnification of each party in relation to existing debts and liabilities.

Watts J ordered that the child, N, live with the wife and that the wife have sole parental responsibility. The orders established a communication protocol for major decisions regarding the child's education, allowing the husband to provide his opinion. Specific telephone contact and alternate Saturday visitation arrangements were detailed for the husband. The court also imposed restraints on the husband attending the child's school and on both parents denigrating each other to the child, with specific prohibitions for the husband regarding the wife's sexual activity. Furthermore, the husband was restrained from attending the wife's residence and place of employment.

In relation to property, the wife was to retain sole interest in the L and G properties and a 1996 Toyota Celica, along with the contents of the L property. The parties were to divide NRMA shares equally. The wife was to indemnify the husband in respect of mortgages on the L and G properties, a judgment debt from New Zealand, and her own taxation debt to the Australian Taxation Office. The Sceterra Family Superannuation Fund was to be divided, with the wife receiving 78.3 percent and the husband 21.7 percent. The orders also included provisions for a Registrar to execute documents if a party failed to comply with the orders and discharged a previous interim order regarding the child's passport.