Vokic & Vlass

In the matter of *Vokic & Vlass*, the Honourable Justice Fowler of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning the living arrangements and time spent with the parties' two children, Y and M, as well as property adjustment and an application for disqualification of the judge for apprehended bias, which was dismissed. The central dispute revolved around the children's best interests, particularly in light of the wife's admitted drug use, which had resulted in positive drug test results.

The court was required to determine with whom the children should live and spend time, with the overarching consideration being the children's best interests. This involved assessing the risk posed by the wife's drug use to the children's safety and well-being when in her care. Additionally, the court addressed the division of the parties' property, including a significant inheritance received by the wife.

Justice Fowler applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to determine the children's best interests. The court noted that both children loved each parent and wished to spend time with them. However, due to the wife's positive drug test results, the court imposed strict conditions on her time with the children, including mandatory supervised urinalysis and hair follicle testing for a significant period. The court's reasoning reflected a concern for the children's safety, necessitating a gradual reintroduction of unsupervised time with the wife contingent upon consistently negative drug test results and engagement in counselling.

The court ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, but that the children live with the husband. The wife's time with the children was to be progressively increased over several school terms, subject to strict compliance with drug testing protocols and negative results. Further orders addressed property division, including the transfer of interests in real estate, a monetary payment from the wife to the husband, and the splitting of superannuation interests. The wife was also ordered to engage in counselling and a parenting education course.