Short and Short

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms. Short (the applicant wife) sought final orders against Mr. Short (the respondent husband) concerning parenting and financial matters. The husband did not appear at the final hearing, and the wife was granted leave to proceed on an undefended basis.

The court was required to determine issues of parental responsibility and the child's residence, as well as the division of the parties' property, including superannuation. The court also considered whether to make a child support departure order and spousal maintenance, though these were ultimately not pursued or dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Justice Cronin applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections concerning the best interests of the child (s 60CA and s 60CC) and the just and equitable division of property (s 79). The court noted the husband's lack of involvement in the proceedings and his prior agreement to sole parental responsibility and the child living with the wife. Regarding property, the court found that the husband's superannuation was the only significant financial resource. Applying the principles from *Coghlan and Coghlan* (2005) FLC 93-220 regarding superannuation as a form of property, and considering the contributions of both parties and the future circumstances under s 75(2), the court determined that an adjustment in favour of the wife was warranted.

The court made final orders granting the wife sole parental responsibility for the child B and that the child live with her. The wife was also awarded $37,000 from the husband's CBUS Superannuation Fund, with corresponding orders for the trustee and a reduction in the husband's entitlement. Other assets were to be retained by each party, and each party was to be liable for their own liabilities. The husband was granted liberty to apply to set aside the orders within 21 days of service if he could demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the proceedings. The application for a child support departure order and spousal maintenance was dismissed for want of sufficient evidence.