VAN HOUSEN & ANALKA

In the matter of *Van Housen & Analaka*, heard by Cleary J, the court considered applications concerning children, property settlement, and spouse maintenance. The primary dispute involved the mother's application to relocate with the child to New Zealand, which was opposed by the father. The court also addressed the division of property and the wife's claim for spouse maintenance.

The legal issues before the court included determining with whom the child should live, considering the mother's proposed relocation, and whether the parents should share equal parental responsibility. The court was also required to determine a just and equitable property settlement, specifically addressing an asserted debt related to the family home, and to assess the wife's entitlement to spouse maintenance.

Regarding the parenting orders, the court found that while the mother had provided a high standard of care and the child was confident and secure with attachments to both parents, the mother's critical attitude towards the father and her undervaluation of his role raised concerns about her ability to sustain the child's relationship with him. Despite the mother's relocation proposal, the court concluded that the best interests of the child were served by remaining in Australia with the mother, with equal shared parental responsibility ordered due to the parties' capacity for communication and the absence of family violence. In relation to property, the court declined to account for the asserted debt to the wife's parents, deeming it a risk of injustice, and ordered each party to retain their current assets and liabilities. Finally, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $500 per week in spouse maintenance for six months, acknowledging her capacity to seek employment.