SEGAN & BACHRICH

In the matter of SEGAN & BACHRICH, Ryan J considered property settlement, spousal maintenance, child support, and parenting orders. The dispute involved a mother and father with significant income and assets, where the mother had considerably more assets at the commencement of their less than one-year cohabitation. The mother was the primary carer of the child and had demonstrated a capacity to earn a higher income than the father.

The court was required to determine the appropriate assessment of contributions for property settlement, considering the parties' financial positions at the commencement of cohabitation and at the date of hearing, as well as the mother's sole responsibility for the child's care and her superior earning capacity. Additionally, the court had to decide whether there was "just cause" under section 83 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to discharge the interim spousal maintenance order, given the father's period of unemployment and the mother's return to full-time work and increased earning capacity. The court also addressed a child support departure application by the mother, seeking to have the father contribute to daycare and school fees, and determined parenting orders for the child, considering the father's residence and work in Singapore and the limited contact between him and the child.

Regarding property settlement, the court found that an adjustment in the mother's favour was just and equitable, reflecting her greater initial assets and her role as the primary carer, despite both parties having fewer net assets at the hearing than at the commencement of cohabitation. For spousal maintenance, the court found that "just cause" was established for discharging the interim order and arrears, as the mother had returned to full-time work and represented she could support herself, and the father had experienced unemployment and used his assets and borrowed funds for living expenses. In relation to child support, the mother successfully established grounds for a departure application, requiring the father to pay half of the child's daycare and school costs. For parenting, the court granted the mother sole parental responsibility, acknowledging the father's location in Singapore and the limited contact, and made detailed orders for incrementally increasing contact between the father and the child, commencing with supervised time and progressing towards overnight and holiday time, subject to certain preconditions.

The court ordered that prior parenting orders be discharged, with the child to live with the mother and the mother to have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions. Specific orders were made for the child to spend time with the father, initially supervised, with a progressive increase in unsupervised time, including overnight stays and holiday periods, commencing from February 2012 and extending to alternate years thereafter. The father was also ordered to pay half of the child's daycare and school fees as non-periodic child support. The father's obligation to pay interim spousal maintenance was discharged as at the date it had been paid, and he was ordered to pay outstanding child support arrears from his December 2011 bonus. Further orders addressed superannuation splitting, with the mother entitled to 100% of splittable payments from the father's MLC Masterkey Superannuation Fund. All outstanding applications were dismissed.