VAN HOUSEN & ANALKA

[2017] FamCA 388

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VAN HOUSEN & ANALKA [2017] FamCA 388

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Relocation – With whom the child should live – Where the mother seeks to relocate with the child to New Zealand – Where the Family Consultant was clear to say that the best option was for the child to grow up in close proximity to both parents – Where the mother has provided a high standard of care for the child in every way – Where the child presented as confident and secure child with attachments to both parents – Where the father is likely to be a source of fun and learning outdoors for the child – Where the attitude of the mother to the father is critical and tends to undervalue his role – Concluded that there can be no confidence the mother would ensure the relationship between child and father is sustained as there is no confidence the mother values that relationship – Ordered the child lives with the mother in Australia

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility – Where both parties propose equal shared parental responsibility – Where the parties are able to communicate well by text about the child – Concluded the parties have the capacity to work out between themselves a way of raising long term issues – Concluded there is no risk to the child being exposed to family violence – Ordered the parties share parental responsibility

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Just and equitable –Where the parties lived together for four years – Where the family home was purchased by the wife and the purchase funded by her parents through a family trust – Where the wife’s parents assert the funds provided are a debt to the trust – Where the wife made repayments to the trust whereas the husband’s payments to the wife were categorised as rent – Where the alleged indebtedness equates to 90 per cent of the value of the property – Concluded that in circumstances where debt levels are determined by the wife’s parents there would be a risk of injustice of applying the asserted debt levels – Concluded the asserted debt levels should not be bought into account – Declared that each party retain those assets and be responsible for those liabilities currently in his and her possession

FAMILY LAW – SPOUSE MAINTENANCE – Where the wife has a proven capacity to work and will likely do so for three or four days per week – Where the wife is currently unemployed – Where the husband earns approximately $2,000 gross per week – Concluded additional $500 per week is sufficient to cover a period for the wife while she seeks employment – Ordered the husband pay the wife $500 per week as spouse maintenance for a period of six months

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CC, 61DA, 64B, 75, 79, 90UC

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
In the marriage of Bitloft (1995) 19 Fam LR 82
Stanford…