TOOHEY & TOOHEY

In *Toohey & Toohey*, decided by Hannam J, the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between a mother and father concerning their children and property. The father had disengaged from the proceedings, leading to the matter proceeding on an undefended basis.

The court was required to determine issues relating to the children's best interests, including whether the father should have any time with them, and the appropriate division of the parties' property. Specifically, the court had to assess the impact of the father's disengagement and alleged behaviour on parenting orders, and how to make a just and equitable property settlement given the father's lack of transparency regarding his assets.

Regarding parenting, the court noted the father's disengagement, significant period of no contact with the children, and history of aggressive and erratic behaviour, including convictions for trespassing and breaching domestic violence orders, as well as concerns about his mental health. Despite these issues, the court found that the children had a meaningful relationship with the father and that the benefit of this relationship was not outweighed by the need to protect the children from harm. Consequently, the court made orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the children to live with her, with the father to spend time with the children as agreed in writing. In relation to property, the court inferred the husband's assets due to his deliberate non-disclosure. Considering the parties' equal pre-separation contributions and the wife's significantly greater post-separation financial and non-financial contributions, coupled with the husband's lack of child support payments and unlikely future contributions, the court ordered that the husband pay the wife 100 per cent of his superannuation. Other orders addressed the division of other assets and liabilities, with each party to be solely entitled to property in their possession and to indemnify the other against liabilities.