Sladin and Scabel (No 2)

In Sladin and Scabel (No 2), Carter J of the Family Court of Australia determined parenting and property matters arising from the dissolution of a 20-year marriage between the husband and wife. The dispute concerned the living arrangements and time spent with the parties' three children, aged 15, 12, and 10, and the division of their asset pool, which was valued at just over $1 million. The court also considered the husband's history of non-compliance with previous parenting orders, his denigration of the wife, and the youngest child's alignment with him.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to their living arrangements and time with each parent, and whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted. Specifically, the court had to assess if equal time was reasonably practicable and in the children's best interests, particularly given the husband's alleged unwillingness or inability to facilitate the youngest child's relationship with the wife. In relation to property, the court needed to ascertain the asset pool, assess the parties' contributions, and consider the factors under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to make a just and equitable distribution.

Regarding parenting, Carter J found it appropriate to order that all three children live with the wife, with the youngest child to have supervised time with the husband. Despite concerns about joint parental responsibility, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not rebutted, though equal time was deemed not to be in the children's best interests. The court noted the husband's adverse impact on the youngest child's emotional well-being due to his failure to encourage the child's relationship with the wife. Substantial and significant time was considered practicable for all children, but for the youngest, it would be postponed to allow for therapeutic processes. The court reserved further consideration of the youngest child's time and communication with the husband. In the property division, the court found the parties' contributions to be equal, with the wife having made vastly superior homemaker contributions. Applying section 75(2) factors, including the wife's limited earning capacity and the husband's greater capacity for employment, a 15 per cent adjustment was made in favour of the wife, resulting in a 35:65 per cent split of the asset pool.

The court made detailed property orders, including the transfer of certain properties, payment of sums between the parties, and the sale of other properties, with the proceeds to be applied in a specific manner. The wife was appointed to conduct the sales of certain properties and given broad authority to do so. The husband was ordered to indemnify the wife in respect of certain liabilities, and vice versa for capital gains tax. The court also made orders regarding the occupation of properties pending sale and the removal of caveats. The husband's application was dismissed, and parties were given liberty to apply for costs. Parenting orders included supervised parenting for 18 months and a specific, limited arrangement for the youngest child to spend time with his father and siblings during December 2007.