TAHA & TAHA

In the matter of TAHA & TAHA, Stevenson J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by both the father and the mother concerning their two children, G and H. The dispute involved variations to existing consent orders regarding the children's time with their father during religious holidays and the location for changeovers, as well as the father's contribution to the children's private school fees. The mother also sought spouse maintenance and a superannuation splitting order.

The court was required to determine whether the existing arrangements for religious holidays should be varied to allow the children to spend an hour with their paternal family during celebrations, and whether the changeover location should be altered. Furthermore, the court had to consider the father's obligation to contribute to the children's private school fees, given the mother's financial circumstances. In relation to property matters, the court was asked to decide whether a superannuation splitting order should be made in favour of the wife and whether the wife should receive ongoing spouse maintenance, considering the husband's gambling of the net proceeds from the sale of the former matrimonial home.

Stevenson J reasoned that it was in the children's best interests to vary the existing arrangements to allow them to spend time with their paternal family during religious holidays, ordering that they would spend time with the father from 10:00 am to 3:00 pm on such days. The court also ordered that each party would pay one half of the children's school fees, and that the mother was restrained from enrolling the children at any school other than Q School without the father's written consent. The changeover location was not varied, with the court ordering that parties would effect changeovers at McDonalds Restaurant at Suburb R when not taking place at the children's school. Regarding spouse maintenance, the court found the wife unable to adequately support herself but unable to find that the husband had the capacity to pay the amount sought. Consequently, the husband was ordered to pay $100 per week in spouse maintenance for a period of three years. A superannuation splitting order was made in favour of the wife, entitling her to 90 per cent of the balance of the husband's interests in his CBus Superannuation fund whenever a splittable payment becomes payable.