Walker and Pliego

This matter concerned parenting and property orders made by Johnston J in the Family Court of Australia. The parties, identified as the husband and wife, sought to resolve disputes concerning the children M Walker, L Walker, and S Walker, and their shared assets.

The court was required to determine the terms of parenting orders, including arrangements for the children's residence, parental responsibility, communication, and attendance at school and other events. Additionally, the court needed to make orders regarding the division of the parties' property, specifically a business known as "P Company," a Northern Suburbs property, two motor vehicles, and a bank account, as well as addressing outstanding liabilities and claims.

The parenting orders were made by consent, establishing equal shared parental responsibility and outlining a detailed schedule for the children to live with the wife and the husband on a fortnightly cycle, including specific provisions for school holidays, birthdays, Mother's Day, and Father's Day. The orders also mandated daily communication between the non-resident parent and the children, and stipulated that both parents could attend all events involving the children. Further orders addressed the exchange of school reports, medical information, and communication with the children, and included restraints against derogatory remarks in the children's presence and against removing the children from Australia without consent. The parties were also directed to attend counselling or mediation if disputes arose regarding the interpretation or enforcement of the orders, and to participate in a post-separation parenting program.

Regarding property, the court ordered the transfer of "P Company" to the wife, who would indemnify the husband against its liabilities. The Northern Suburbs property was to be sold by private treaty, with proceeds disbursed to cover sale expenses, a mortgage to CBA, specific payments to Ms V and Ms W (with indemnities for further claims), and the net balance divided with a majority share to the husband. If the property did not sell within three months, it was to be sold by auction with a similar disbursement plan. The wife was to continue mortgage and rate payments on the property until sale. The wife was to receive the Volvo motor vehicle, indemnifying the husband against its debts, and the husband was to discharge the associated hire purchase contract. The husband was to transfer his interest in the Honda motor vehicle to the wife, who would indemnify him against its debts. The husband was also to transfer his interest in a St George Bank account to the wife. All other property and superannuation were declared to be the sole property of the respective parties. The property orders were to commence operation from 30 June 2011, and interim orders from 25 November 2009 were discharged. The parties were granted leave to re-list the proceedings for submissions on the form of orders only by 29 June 2011.