TUMLIN & TUMLIN

In the matter of *Tumlin & Tumlin*, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property disputes between a husband and wife. The primary parenting dispute concerned the level of parental responsibility to be afforded to each party, with the wife seeking sole parental responsibility and the husband proposing conditions on any order for parental responsibility. The parties agreed that the child would reside with the wife. The court also addressed property division, where the husband contended for a distinction between a main pool of assets and an inheritance pool, arguing the wife made no contribution to the latter.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders, particularly regarding parental responsibility, given a history of family violence, the wife's perception of that violence, the child's lack of contact with the father for four and a half years, the child's expressed wish not to have contact with the father, and the anticipated anxiety the child would experience at the suggestion of contact. In relation to property, the court needed to decide how to pool and divide the parties' assets, including an inheritance received by the husband, and to consider the wife's contributions as a homemaker and the husband's limited role as a parent. The court also had to assess whether the principles in *Kennon & Kennon* applied to the wife's contributions.

On parenting, the court found that the wife should have sole parental responsibility for the child, subject to conditions including the child's family name not being changed and the wife not changing the child's habitual residence without the husband's consent or the child residing outside the Sydney metropolitan area without further order or agreement. The court ordered that the child live with the wife and that the wife facilitate any contact the child seeks with the husband. The court also made orders regarding therapy for the child, injunctions against denigrating the other parent, and the holding of the child's passport. Regarding property, the court determined there was no need to isolate the inheritance assets and that the husband's redundancy package should not be viewed as an additional contribution solely by him. The court found the wife was the primary homemaker and the husband did not fulfil a meaningful parental role. The principles in *Kennon & Kennon* were deemed not to apply. The court ordered a division of assets as to 65 per cent to the husband and 35 per cent to the wife, after an adjustment of 7.5 per cent to the wife for matters under s 79(4)(d)-(g) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), reflecting contributions made by the wife's mother.