TABBERT & TABBERT

The case of *Tabbert & Tabbert* concerned final orders made by Kent J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia concerning both parenting and property matters. The parenting dispute involved allegations of family violence by the father against the mother, and unsupported allegations of sexual abuse by the father against the mother and her daughter. The mother had unilaterally changed the child's residence and school, and had a history of failing to facilitate time or communication between the child and the father. The property dispute arose in circumstances where the parties were self-represented at trial, with limited cross-examination on property issues, and where non-superannuation assets were in deficit. The primary asset for division was the father's superannuation entitlements, including those under the *Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973* (Cth).

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in light of the allegations and the parents' conduct, and to make final parenting orders. Specifically, the court needed to decide where the child would live, the extent of each parent's responsibilities, and the time the child would spend with each parent. In relation to property, the court had to determine how to divide the parties' assets, particularly the father's superannuation entitlements, considering the impact of s 49B of the *Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973* (Cth) and the significant increase in these entitlements during and after the relationship.

In making its parenting orders, the court found that the father did not present an unacceptable risk to the child. The court ordered that the child live with the mother and have equal shared parental responsibility for decisions regarding the child's residence. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for other major long-term issues, subject to a notice and consultation process with the father. The child was ordered to spend unsupervised time with the father on alternate weekends, half of school holidays, and on special occasions, with detailed provisions for communication and changeovers. The court also made orders for the child's ongoing schooling and counselling.

Regarding property, the court determined that a global approach was appropriate given the net deficit in non-superannuation assets. The court ordered the transfer of specific vehicles and chattels, and otherwise ordered that each party retain their remaining property. Crucially, the court made superannuation splitting orders in relation to the father's H Super Scheme and Mr I Tabbert Super Fund, with specific dollar amounts to be paid to the respondent from splittable payments, subject to the trustees' rights to be heard. The court also provided for the execution of documents by the Registrar in the event of a party's default.