ZAIDA & BADOURI

In this matter before Forrest J, the parties, Mr Zaida (the father) and Ms Badouri (the mother), sought opposing orders concerning parental responsibility and the time the child, X, would spend with each parent. The court was also required to determine property settlement issues and costs. The dispute involved allegations of harm to the child, a power imbalance in the parents' relationship, and the father's alleged attempts to defeat the mother's financial claims through cash transfers to his mother.

The court was tasked with determining the best interests of the child, including whether to grant equal shared parental responsibility, and the specific arrangements for X's time with each parent. Legally, the court had to consider the impact of a power imbalance on parental responsibility, the appropriateness of allegations of harm, and the definition of "major long-term issues" in the context of parental responsibility. Furthermore, the court was required to assess whether certain cash dispositions by the father to his mother were intended to defeat the mother's claims, and if so, to set them aside pursuant to section 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also needed to determine how the parties' respective contributions and the value of assets and debts should be considered in a just and equitable property settlement, and whether costs should be awarded given the findings of dishonesty.

Forrest J found that there was a distinct power imbalance in the parents' relationship and that the father had inappropriately alleged that the child faced an unacceptable risk of harm in the mother's care. The court concluded that it was not in the child's best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility, except for specific major long-term decisions. Consequently, the child was ordered to live with the mother and spend unsupervised time with the father, with specific provisions regarding intimate care and religious dress. In relation to property, the court found that the father had made cash transfers to his mother to defeat the mother's claims and set aside these dispositions under s 106B of the Act, ordering the father's mother to pay a significant sum to the mother. The father's debt to his mother for legal fees was excluded from the property pool, but the monies disposed of by the father to his mother were included. The court ordered an adjustment of 15 per cent in favour of the mother, taking into account the father's slightly greater contributions and the circumstances. Finally, the applications for costs by the father and his mother were dismissed due to findings of dishonesty and complicity.