Withers & Russell

The parties, the wife and the husband, were in dispute regarding the residency and parental responsibility of their two children. The wife sought for the children to live with her in the United States, while the husband sought for them to reside with him in Australia. The wife made serious allegations of family violence and child abuse, which the court found were largely unsubstantiated. The court also considered applications relating to property settlement and the application of Californian matrimonial law, which were dismissed.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to their residence and parental responsibility. This included assessing the risks posed by each parent to the children's relationship with the other parent, and considering the impact of any proposed relocation. Additionally, the court had to consider the provisions of the *Australian Passports Act 2005* (Cth) regarding the ability to apply for passports and travel documents for the children, and whether an order for sole parental responsibility was sufficient for this purpose. The court also addressed applications to remove an Independent Children's Lawyer and to reopen the parenting hearing, both of which were dismissed.

Watts J found that the risk posed by the wife to the children's relationship with the husband was significantly greater than any risk posed by the husband to the children's relationship with the wife. Consequently, the court determined that it was in the best interests of the children to reside in Australia with the husband, with provisions for them to spend time with the wife and maternal grandparents. The court also found that an order for sole parental responsibility was not sufficient to grant exclusive responsibility for passport applications and exercised its power under the *Australian Passports Act 2005* (Cth) to make specific orders regarding this. In relation to property, the court found that while the wife had made a significant initial contribution and equal contributions during the marriage, and greater contributions as a parent since separation, there should be a 5% adjustment in her favour for contributions. However, a further 5% adjustment was made in favour of the husband based on other factors under s 79(4)(d)-(g) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), resulting in an even division of assets and liabilities.

The court ordered that the husband have sole parental responsibility for the children, subject to specific conditions requiring consultation with the wife on major long-term issues. The children were to live with the husband from 22 September 2016, with detailed provisions for the children to spend time with the wife in Australia. The court also made specific orders regarding the children's medical treatment, surname, schooling, and immunisation, and restricted the children's travel outside Australia with their mother until December 2017. Specific orders were also made regarding the application for passports and travel documents for the children.