TEDD & TEDD

This case, heard in the Family Court of Australia, concerned property settlement and parenting orders between Ms Tedd (the wife) and Mr Tedd (the husband). The dispute arose following the breakdown of the marriage, with significant allegations of family violence perpetrated by the husband against the wife and her son. The wife sought sole parental responsibility for the parties' nine-year-old son, who had had no contact with the father for some time, and a significant majority of the matrimonial property. The husband sought to re-establish a relationship with his son and a different division of the property.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements for the child, considering the existing lack of relationship between the child and the father and the recommendations of the child's therapist. In relation to property, the court had to consider the contributions of both parties and their parents, the impact of the husband's conduct on the wife's capacity to parent, and the future needs of the wife as the likely sole carer of the child. The court also had to address financial advancements made by both sets of parents towards the acquisition and maintenance of the matrimonial home.

The court's reasoning acknowledged the husband's perpetration of significant family violence, which impacted the wife's capacity to parent and made her role more arduous. Applying principles from cases such as *Kennon v Kennon*, the court found that the husband's conduct warranted a departure from an equal division of property. The court also considered the financial contributions of the parties' parents, noting the wife's parents' advancements during and after the marriage. Given the wife's likely future role as the sole parent and the husband's superior earning capacity and superannuation, the court determined that the wife was entitled to 72.5 per cent of the matrimonial property.

The court ordered that the former matrimonial home be transferred to the wife, with her to pay the husband a sum of $265,489 within 90 days to finalise the property division. Alternatively, if the wife could not buy out the husband's interest, the property was to be sold by auction, with the net proceeds divided according to the 72.5/27.5 per cent split. The wife was also to provide the boat to the husband, who was to sell it and provide 72.5 per cent of the proceeds to the wife. Each party was to retain other assets in their possession, and the husband was to indemnify the wife for a loan from his mother, while the wife was to indemnify the husband for monies advanced by her parents. Parenting orders were made reflecting the agreement reached by the parties, with the child to continue living with the mother and the father to engage in therapeutic intervention.