SHERIF & SHERIF

The case of *Sherif & Sherif* concerned parenting and property settlement disputes between a mother and father. The primary dispute involved the children's living arrangements and communication with the father, who had been diagnosed with a personality disorder, had been involuntarily admitted to psychiatric care, and had previously burned down the former matrimonial home, exhibiting homicidal ideation towards the children. The property settlement dispute centred on the valuation and division of the former matrimonial home, which had been damaged by the father's arson, and the inclusion of a statute-barred debt owed to the mother's grandfather.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, and if so, to make orders regarding the children's best interests, including with whom they should spend time and communicate. In relation to property, the court needed to ascertain the matrimonial asset pool, considering the diminished value of the former matrimonial home due to the father's actions and the insurer's refusal to indemnify. The court also had to decide whether to include the statute-barred debt as a matrimonial liability and, ultimately, how to make a just and equitable division of the parties' assets and liabilities, taking into account their respective contributions and future financial circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court found that the father's aggressive behaviour constituted family violence under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and that his personality disorder impaired his ability to prioritise the children's needs. Expert evidence indicated that the father posed an unacceptable risk of psychological and physical harm to the children, leading the court to rebut the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court determined that the repair cost of the arson damage to the former matrimonial home should be notionally added back to the asset pool against the father's share, while the statute-barred debt to the maternal grandfather was excluded as a matrimonial liability. Considering the mother's superior contributions and the father's limited capacity to pay child support, the court adjusted the property settlement in the mother's favour.

The court ordered that all former parenting orders be discharged and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, with the children to live with her. The parties were restrained from permitting the children to spend time or communicate with the father, and the father was further restrained from approaching within 100 metres of the mother's residence or the children's schools. The former matrimonial home was ordered to be sold, with the net proceeds of sale, after costs and the discharge of the mortgage, to be paid to the mother. The mother was also declared the sole owner of any insurance monies received in respect of the fire damage. Each party was to retain other assets in their possession and be solely liable for their respective debts.