PARENTING – Interim parenting – Where the father seeks passport and for child travel overseas for 16 days for paternal relative’s birthday – Where the mother seeks the child stay in Australia – Where the child has never travelled internationally – Where the paternal family is of Country B heritage – Where the entirety of the paternal family, save one individual, will be travelling to Country B for the occasion – Where the child has spent time with the father since birth on a frequent and regular basis – Where orders made for travel of a lesser period of time – Where orders are made for the father to obtain a passport for the child.

PARENTING – Where the mother has relocated to Western Australia and the children haven’t seen their father in two years – Where there are allegations of family violence – Where there are allegations that the father is actively seeking to undermine the children’s relationship with the mother – Where there is an order for no time and no contact between the children and the father – Where the father seeks for the children to be relocated to Melbourne and live in his primary care – Where the oldest child has expressed clear wishes to live with the father – Where the family report writer indicates the children’s wishes should not be given weight as they have been unduly influenced by the father

PARENTING – part-heard final hearing – where mother’s attendance at final hearing sporadic – where mother refused to attend Melbourne registry for final hearing – where mother appeared via videolink – orders requiring mother to file medical evidence of absence from final hearing – order permitting the mother to obtain legal advice from her legal representatives whilst under cross-examination – final hearing adjourned part-heard

PARENTING – Consideration of whether the wife posed unacceptable risk to children – Wife’s evidence contrary to diary notes and a draft affidavit in her former solicitor’s file, which was disclosed after a successful application of waiver of legal professional privilege – Findings sought as to the children’s sexualised behaviour – Compelling evidence from the family report writer about the risk which the wife posed to the children – Consideration of whether the wife’s conduct and relentless campaign of notifications to regulatory authorities and her behaviour in general significantly impacted on the husband’s capacity to parent the children – Expert evidence adduced on behalf of the husband as to the impact on him facilitating time between the children and the wife, in circumstances where expert considered husband’s fears and apprehensions entirely rational – Held the wife should spend no time with the children.

PROPERTY – Consideration of contributions of the parties in circumstances where the wife’s care of the children was compromised significantly by her mental health problems and substance abuse particularly, after the birth of the third child – Weight to be accorded to an inheritance received by the husband during the relationship – Extent of husband’s post separation contributions when the wife’s time was limited to supervised time with the children – Whether or not there should be an adjustment for the wife pursuant to s 75(2) factors – Held the non-superannuation assets should be divided 70% to the husband and 30% to the wife and the superannuation entitlements should be equalised, in accordance with the proposal of both parties – Limited spousal maintenance for a period of three months ordered.

PROPERTY – relationship of over 20 years – agreed equalisation of superannuation – non-superannuation pool consisting solely of proceeds of sale of matrimonial home assessed 85/15 in husband’s favour – husband’s earnings approximately three times those of wife – wife having predominant care of 3 children – 15% future needs adjustment in favour of the wife – 70/30 division just and equitable

PROPERTY – More than 400 items of personal property valued – very detailed evidence from Husband and Wife as to personal property – 2125 page court book – ownership and value of more than 149 items of personal property in dispute – allegation of gift of personal property by delivery – whether Husband or Wife had dismantled or removed personal property prior to valuation – fraud/theft allegations not proven – third party and other peoples claim of ownership accepted – whether Husband or Wife should retain FMH – long marriage – disparity of initial contribution – Husband brought in land unencumbered and machinery – Husband’s ill health significant aspect of Wife’s homemaker contribution – one child with special needs significant aspect of Wife’s parenting contribution – where each party sought sec 75(2) adjustment in his/her favour – NDIS entitlement – substantial part of NDIS not received but applied to administration – carer’s pension – continuing poor health of Husband – Wife with care of teenage child – finding of equal contribution – finding no section 75(2) adjustment – which party to obtain FMH – who should retain items of personal property – order for items to be delivered to adult child.

COSTS - whether section 102NA scheme is “legal aid” – whether unintended consequence of section 102NA scheme – order for proportion of scale costs to be paid by Wife to Husband – where Wife was unsuccessful in several claims – where Wife had rejected offers in writing which “beat” the amount she received at trial – order for scale costs to be paid by Wife to Second and Third Respondents – where Wife was wholly unsuccessful in her claim against Second and Third Respondents – orders for costs are by way of compensation, not punishment.

PARENTING – Where the father seeks sole parental responsibility – Where the mother seeks equal shared parental responsibility – Where the Court finds the mother does not have any desire to support the children’s relationship with the father – Where the father seeks a change of residence order – Where a change of residence order is made – Where there is family violence – Where the parties have a highly conflictual co-parenting relationship – Where there is parental alienation – Where the children’s best interests are promoted by a moratorium on their time with the mother – Where the father’s evidence is preferred – The father to have sole parental responsibility – The children to live with the father – The children to have no contact with the mother for 12 weeks – Changeover of the children to be enacted at the Melbourne Registry with attendance by the ICL and a Family Consultant.

The Court rejects the proposition that there is any general rule that where parents have a high conflict relationship this would preclude an order for equal time

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Where the issue for decision was parenting orders for a 6 year old child– Where in 2022 the child’s brother who was then 6 years old was killed in a car accident in which the Father was the driver – Where the Father was sentenced to over one year imprisonment to be served in the community following a plea of guilty to criminal charges resulting from the car accidentFAMILY LAW – Re Andrew – Where the Mother suffers from PTSD and linked disorders as a result of the child’s death – Whether there was an unacceptable risk of physical or emotional harm to the child if he spent time with the Father – Whether the child spending any time with the Father would cause the Mother to suffer psychological degradation so as to impair her parenting capacity and deleteriously affect the child – Whether severing the child’s relationship with the Father had the potential to damage the child’s future developmentFAMILY LAW – How competing considerations should be weighed – Held no unacceptable risk of direct physical or emotional harm to the child of him spending time with the Father – Held nonetheless the risk of a significant impact on the Mother’s parenting and therefore the child resulted in an order for no time being in the child’s best interests – Where the discernible impact on the Mother’s parenting could not be mitigated by the child’s time with the Father being supervised.FAMILY LAW – Orders made for the Father to be able to correspond by gifts and cards after a moratorium of 12 months so as to provide an opportunity of the child re-establishing a relationship with the Father

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the father appeals from final parenting orders – Where the orders make no allowance for the child to spend time with the father – Where the father caused a car accident which killed the child’s brother – Where the father pleaded guilty to criminal charges resulting from the car accident – Whether the primary judge failed to give sufficient weight to the child’s positive relationship with the father – Where the mother’s genuine belief the child was not safe with the father impaired her capacity as the residential carer – Where the primary judge expressly considered and weighed the factors which favoured the father’s case – Where the primary judge gave adequate reasons – Whether the primary judge made a discretionary error when making no order for the child to spend time with the father – Where the parties sought the cause be finalised and therefore no review mechanism could be built into the orders – Where the single expert psychiatrist and the court child expert gave uncertain prognostications as to the mother’s emotional recovery – Where the primary judge hoped to preserve a basal connection between the child and the father by making orders for the re-introduction of written communication between them after a moratorium of 12 months – Where refraining to make orders to restore or forbid the child’s future physical interaction with the father was neither an error of law, fact or discretion – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.The father subsequently sought Special Leave from the High Court of Australia. Special Leave was refused.