In this matter, the trial judge placed significant weight on the childrenís wishes when making interim parenting orders that the mother may not initiate contact with the children. The trial judge was entitled to do so based on the evidence before him. Motherís appeal dismissed.
The mother successfully appeals a parenting order requiring her to return with her child to Sydney within 30 days. The father initially consented to her relocating the child to Dubai, but for a specified period only. The judgeís order was greatly based on her opinion of the mother.
This case revolved mainly around whether interim parenting orders should include supervision when the child visited the father. Although the mother succeeded in her appeal based on a legal error, the Court on re-determination upheld the interim orders made by the judicial registrar that no supervision was needed.
The parenting orders provide that the child will live with the mother in Dubai. The father argues that the order does not give sufficient consideration to the promotion of a meaningful relationship with both parents; it does not address equal or substantial and significant time with both parents and it is not reasonably practicable.
In this matter the fatherís child support assessment was reduced after he stopped working at his employer. The mother successfully appealed this reduced assessment. The Registrar of Child Support now appeals that decision arguing that the judge misconceived the Tribunalís process when changing the assessment.
The wife appeals a property settlement order. She argues that by including a certain debt in the asset pool calculation, she shares liability for the debt, which is actually the husbandís debt. The husband cross-appeals a company valuation and the weight given to his post-separation development of the company.
Some people are unwilling to negotiate, or they take provocative steps, with money and children, which leave the other party with no option but to go to court.Trying to find creative solutions can take many months of emotions and thousands of dollars spent on legal fees without advancing your case.
In making parenting orders the judge had to balance the risk of abuse to the children if they lived with their mother against the advantage to the children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. S 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 considered.
The trial judge found that the husband did not make a full and frank disclosure regarding his finances; he further found him to lack credibility. It is argued that he gave inadequate consideration to these findings when assessing s79(4)(e) matters. As a result, he erred in including certain assets and liabilities in the asset pool.
The husbandís misrepresentation that he would do so was intended to force his wife to sign the prenuptial. The court decided that the agreement was induced by a misrepresentation and was therefore not binding on the parties.
This is a dispute over the parenting arrangements for two children, aged ten and eight. Both children had suffered during the ongoing conflict. The court ordered both parents to take the recommended parenting courses, to understand the needs to have a loving relationship with each parent.
The family court ruled that there is no need for orders at all in relation to religious observation. There is no conflict between the parents in terms of parental responsibility that request a mechanism for conflict resolution.
The Court is satisfied that there is not a grave risk that the children will be exposed to physical or psychological harm or placed in an otherwise intolerable situation. They will simply be back in the same circumstances they were in for the two years before their removal to Australia.
The wife shall be entitled to 50 per cent of the conjugal property which is currently available. Despite the fact that the husband has better-earning capability than the wife, but the wife was the primary carer of the children during the marriage, hence, she is entitled to proprietary rights under the law.
In her appeal against the property settlement orders, the wife argues that the judge erred when deciding what to include or exclude in the non-superannuation asset pool; she erred in her overall assessment of contributions made by each party and therefore erred in making only a 15% adjustment.
The fatherís appeal against the parenting order is based on the judge erring in accepting specific facts and findings and using these in exercising his discretion to determine the best interest of the child when he made the parenting order permitting the mother to relocate the child.
The financial binding agreement provided that Mr Herold would deed his interest in a residence to Ms Kay and that Ms. Kay would refinance the mortgage on that residence to relieve Mr. Herold of responsibility for the mortgage debt. Ms Kay did not do so. Instead, she asked the court to make a property settlement.
Parenting orders can be made based on an agreement between you and your partner, or if you cannot reach an agreement, you can apply to the Court to make a parenting order after a court hearing. A parenting order is a set of orders made by the court about parenting arrangements for a child.
Will a personal injury payout be included in the divorce settlement? It will always depend on the circumstances of each case. The Court will consider the relationship as a whole and the post-separation circumstances of both parties when deciding whether to include it in the division of the property pool.
Often the lower income earner will become the homemaker and take care of the children. The court had to decide whether an adjustment should be made to the property division. The husband earned almost 10 times more than the wife whilst they were married and after they separated. The Court ordered an adjustment.
The High Court held that two almost identical agreements could be set aside for unconscionable conduct, and the majority of the Court agreed that the agreements could further be set aside for undue influence. The agreements in question are a prenuptial agreement and a post-nuptial agreement made under the Family Law Act 1975.
Decisions about which school to enrol your child at and getting ready for school often cause disagreement when parents are divorced or separated. It is important to remember however that your childís education remains your responsibility as the childís parents, even after separation and divorce.
If you are thinking of separating or are in the process of separating, you will know that it is a difficult time of your life. You have so many questions and so many decisions to make. Most people are not familiar with the legal process of separation, and many friends will offer advice.
Many would argue that it all depends on where you leave your child, how old the child is and how long you leave the child unattended. Letís consider a few scenarios. Can you leave your sleeping baby in the car while you run into the service station to pay for your fuel?