Tarelli & Langley

The case of Tarelli & Langley involves a dispute between the mother and father of a child, primarily concerning the child's primary care and the extent of the mother's involvement in the child's life. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The mother has been unable to spend time with the child since 2017 due to her PTSD, which is triggered by the father's continued involvement and primary care. The father has pleaded guilty to multiple counts of assault and was sentenced to an Intensive Correction Order. The mother has been successful in obtaining an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order, which expired in mid-2022. The father seeks sole parental responsibility, for the child to live with him, and for the mother's time with the child to be supervised. The mother initially sought the child to live with her and spend four hours per month with the father, but now seeks the child to spend time with the father as determined by the Court.

The court was required to decide on the division of property between the parties and the best interests of the child concerning parental responsibility and time spent with each parent. The court had to consider the mother's PTSD, the father's history of family violence, and the child's best interests in determining whether the mother should have primary care or if the father should retain it. The court also had to consider the child's relationship with each parent and the potential harm or benefit of contact with each parent.

The court found that the father had not supported the child's relationship with the mother and had not informed the child that he would be living with the mother. The court accepted the evidence of the mother's PTSD and found that the father was not disposed to supporting the child's relationship with the mother. The court considered the primary and additional factors in s 60CC of the Act that are applicable to the circumstances of each case. The court found that there was a tension between the potential risk to the child of him remaining in his father’s home and the potentially damaging sequelae that the child may experience if he is removed from the father’s primary care to the mother’s care.

The court decided that the property of the parties should be divided as 90/10 in favor of the mother. The father was entitled to 10% of the net pool, which amounted to $106,808. The court ordered the mother to pay a settlement sum of $51,308 to the father. The mother was to have 60 days to pay the settlement sum to the trust account of the father's solicitor. The court made orders for the mother to refinance the mortgage and pay out the outstanding council and water rates to the exoneration of the husband. If the mother was unable to refinance, the court conceded that the Suburb C property was to be sold.

In conclusion, the court decided in favor of the father retaining primary care of the child, with the mother having supervised contact. The court ordered the division of property between the parties as 90/10 in favor of the mother, with the mother paying a settlement sum to the father. The court considered the best interests of the child in making its decision, taking into account the mother's PTSD, the father's history of family violence, and the child's relationship with each parent.