THURLOW & AMBER

This case concerned parenting and property adjustment proceedings between Mr Thurlow and Ms Amber. The dispute involved the allocation of parental responsibility for their children, X and Y, the arrangements for the children's time with each parent, and the division of their assets, particularly the marital home. A significant issue raised was the impact of the parents' lack of communication, parental conflict, and the husband's gambling losses on the children and the property settlement. The matter was heard by Judge Harman.

The court was required to determine the primary issue of parental responsibility for X and Y, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* and the impact of the parents' history of unilateral decision-making and communication breakdown. Additionally, the court needed to address the specific living arrangements for each child and the detailed time spent with the non-resident parent. The court also had to resolve the division of the marital home, including the husband's gambling losses and the wife's post-separation contributions to the mortgage, and make orders regarding other assets and liabilities. Finally, the court considered an application for costs by the independent children's lawyer.

In relation to parenting, the court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with Y to live with Ms Amber and X to live with Mr Thurlow, and detailed specific time arrangements for each child with the non-resident parent. The court also made orders to facilitate communication and cooperation between the parents regarding the children's health and education, and imposed an injunction preventing Mr Thurlow from attending Ms Amber's home except for changeovers. For the property settlement, the court ordered Ms Amber to pay Mr Thurlow $225,000 within eight weeks, which would result in him releasing his claim to the marital home, with Ms Amber to be declared the sole owner. Alternatively, if payment was not made, the property was to be listed for sale, with proceeds distributed after discharging the mortgage and sale costs, with a division of the balance as to 37.5% to the husband and 62.5% to the wife. Other assets were declared to be the sole property of the party in possession. The application for costs by the independent children's lawyer was dismissed, and the court discharged the lawyer with thanks, requesting they explain the orders to the children.