FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal from orders permitting the respondent to relocate the child’s residence to the USA – Where the primary judge did not overlook the close relationship with the appellant or his ability to care for the child – Where the primary judge’s conclusions are supported by the reasons – Adequacy of reasons – No error established – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY – Where the wife sought a stay of orders that are the subject of appeal – Where the husband opposed the stay application – Where the Court is not satisfied that the wife has discharged the onus that there is a proper basis to stay the orders – Application dismissed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where the husband sought an order for costs on the basis that the wife failed to comply with orders and sold and disposed of assets without notice such that he incurred costs in excess of $80,000 – Where the wife opposed the costs application – Consideration of factors under s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is not satisfied the circumstances justify the making of a costs order – No order for costs – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where application is brought by the mother and her partner – Where the mother is diagnosed with a terminal illness – Where the father has not seen the children for some time – Where the children have lived with the mother and her partner for several years -Where the father is provided with opportunities to be heard but does not engage with the proceedings - Where major long term decisions will be needed upon the mother’s passing – Where the Department and Police hold no child protection concerns with respect to the children living with the mother and her partner – Final Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Enforcement of final orders made by consent – Where wife made an oral application seeking discharge of the currently operating stay upon the receivers joined as parties – Where wife contends that the stay currently in force preventing the receivers from taking any further steps to carry out their duties should be discharged because there was no basis for it disclosed – Where the interests of justice and the overarching purpose outweigh the arguable basis for the stay to be lifted – Where the Court declines to make orders to discharge the stay.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – INJUNCTIONS – Where the wife seeks fresh injunctive relief against the husband – Where the wife seeks 14 days’ notice be given by the husband for modest transactions from personal and other bank accounts – Where the wife claimed there were deficiencies in the husband’s disclosure – Where an alleged deficit arose because of insufficient attention given by the wife to disclosed documents – Where there are existing injunctive orders in place – Where the proposed order by the wife is unnecessarily onerous – Where risk of dissipation of assets by the husband not clearly demonstrated – Where the wife does not establish on the balance of convenience that the injunctive relief sought should be imposed – No orders made for injunctive relief.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives and spends time with – Where the children live with the mother and spend day time only with the father – Where the father seeks time with the children each alternate weekend – Where the mother opposes overnight time – Consideration of risk – Where the father’s home is considered to be unsafe – Consideration of where time spending is to occur – Best interests – Order made for no overnight time.

PROPERTY – Where there is substantial agreement as to their property interests – contributions – where the father came in with a significant portion of the asset pool – Future needs – where the mother has the primary care of the children – Orders.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife sought an order for costs on the sole basis that various offers of settlement were made by her to resolve the proceedings – Where the husband sought the costs application be dismissed – Where a counter offer one per cent less than the offer made is not in all the circumstances a careful, serious and thoughtful consideration of the offer but instead just a position adopted to negotiate – A party who rejects an offer of settlement or makes such a counter offer does so at their peril – Consideration of factors under s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is satisfied that the offers made by the wife is a circumstance that justifies the making of a costs order – Costs ordered as assessed in a sum of $165,000 for the costs of the proceedings and fixed in the sum of $9,000 for the costs of the Application in a Proceeding.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCECURE – Where the husband seeks to join the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the wife’s mother contending that they are necessary parties to the proceedings pursuant to r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where the joinder of the Prothonotary is not necessary – Where the wife’s mother’s joinder is not put into issue by the wife – Wife’s mother joined as the second respondent to the proceeding.

FAMILY LAW – Application by the parties to adjourn the final hearing dates – Where the mother had indicated to the court on a previous occasion that she and a child of the relationship would return to Australia for the purposes of being interviewed by a nominated court child expert for the purposes of a report – Where the parties inform the court that the child is on the Watchlist in Country B and is unable to leave – Removal of child from Watchlist – Hearing dates vacated – Liberty to relist within 72 hours of mother and child’s return to Australia.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERIM APPLICATION – Where previous final orders have been made – Where the father seeks to relocate the elder child’s residence to Country B – Where the father’s new wife has been posted to Country B – Where it is agreed the younger child will remain living in Australia with the mother – Where the elder child has spent almost no time with the mother in over a year – Found there has been a significant change of circumstances and circumstances which necessitate reopening proceedings – Father permitted to relocate the elder child to Country B on an interim basis.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – School holidays – Where the father seeks specific periods of block time during school holidays to travel interstate with the children – Where the mother opposes the father’s application – Where there are already suitably protective measures in place to ameliorate risk – Where the mother has agreed to interstate travel and block time spending in the past – Where the father is permitted to travel interstate with the children – Where the paternal grandmother is to supervise the children’s time during such travel.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – leave to make application for strike out of report of family report writer – single expert witness – where application is without notice on the first day of trial which is estimated to take 8 days – where father submits the report is not compliant with rule 7.22 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 (Cth) and should be struck out – where procedure to clarify report not followed – where family report writer did not observe child with father – where family report writer explained this to the father at the time of both reports and father consented at the time – where child had not seen father for over a year and was aged 2 – where any errors in the report can be remedied by testing the report at final hearing – application dismissed.

CHILDREN – application for interim time – where father seeks reintroduction to child on supervised basis prior to final hearing – where father has not seen child since December 2021 – where child is aged 5 – where child has autism spectrum diagnosis – where there are serious allegations of family violence – risk to psychological wellbeing of mother and indirect impact on child considered – where Court has not yet found that it is in the child’s best interests to have a relationship with the father – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks to amend her claim against the ninth respondent on the first day of final property proceedings – Where the wife was given ample opportunity to amend her claim prior to the commencement of hearing – Where acceding to the wife’s application would necessitate the trial being adjourned – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where each parent says the other poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – Where father is unyielding in his view the mother has sexually abused two children – Where father’s evidence is inexact and indefinite – Where father has an unrelentingly negative view of the mother – Where father has involved the children in his views – Where father held over children contrary to orders for several years and on eve of trial – Where both parents have contravened domestic violence orders – Where children exposed to family violence endured by the mother in several relationships, including by the father – Where father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – Where mother does not – Where magnitude of the father’s risk unacceptable – Where mitigation not possible – Orders for no time and no communication with father.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks to reconsider final parenting orders – Where the father seeks dismissal of the mother’s application pursuant to s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where final orders were made in July 2023 – Where there has not been a significant change of circumstances – Where, in any case, it is not in the best interests of the children for the final parenting orders to be reconsidered – Where the mother largely seeks to reagitate issues that were raised in the initial proceedings – Where the mother has been unequivocal in her evidence that she will continue prosecuting applications until the orders she seeks are made – Application dismissed – Harmful proceedings orders made.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM FINANCIAL, INJUNCTIVE, AND PROCEDURAL HEARING – Where the parties have an appetite to repeatedly agitate interlocutory relief for selfsame subject matters – Where the wife seeks a plethora of interlocutory orders including as to interim or partial property settlement, spousal maintenance, expert evidence, injunctions, and disclosure – Where the husband cross-applies seeking orders in different terms, or opposing the relief sought by the wife – Where some of the orders sought had been previously made and relief was withdrawn, some issues were consensually resolved with orders made, and others remained in dispute – Where the husband seeks for the wife to liquidate her own real property and to restrain the use of the proceeds above a specified sum – Where the husband opposes an order for periodic spousal maintenance contending the wife has capacity to support herself adequately – Parties placed on notice as to their disclosure obligations – Order made as to partial property settlement, spousal maintenance, disclosure, and for each of the parties to file undertakings as to disclosure – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – IDENTIFICATION OF A WITNESS – Application by media organisation for approval of communication to the public of an account of proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that identifies an adversarial expert witness and the hospital at which the expert is employed – Consideration of s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where application is unopposed – Where it is in the public interest – Where there is no potential to impact on the best interests of the child the subject of the proceedings – Embarrassment not a basis for refusal of the application – Application granted.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INTERIM ORDERS – Wife’s capacity to participate in proceedings – Small asset pool of an unknown amount – Application for the sale of property and the distribution of proceeds of sale as a partial property settlement – Order made for the sale of property and partial property settlement to the wife.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband, his father who is the second respondent, and two non-party objectors seek costs for two applications brought by the wife – Where the wife did not file a Response to the applications for costs –Where the husband sought costs on an indemnity basis for the wife’s application and costs in a fixed sum for his application for costs – Where the father and the non-party objectors sought costs in a fixed sum – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful in her Amended Application in a Proceeding – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful in her Application for Review against one objector but partially successful against the second objector – Where the wife’s conduct and lack of success justify an order for costs in favour of the husband, the father and one objector – Where the circumstances of the wife’s conduct are exceptional and justify an award of costs on an indemnity basis in the husband’s favour – Where the husband failed to demonstrate a basis for injunctive relief against the wife – Order for the wife to pay costs of the husband’s application for costs in a fixed amount – Orders for the wife to pay the costs of the father and one objector in fixed amounts on a party/party basis.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment application – Where the applicants seek to adjourn the final hearing due to the unavailability of counsel – Where the evidence suggests the first applicant has a lack of funds for counsel – Where the financial position of the second and fourth applicants was unclear and they did not attend the hearing – Where the Court is not satisfied the position is likely to change if the hearing is vacated – Adjournment granted on a limited basis to enable parties to prepare to self-represent if necessary.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – INJUNCTIONS – Preservation of property – Where the applicant wife files an urgent application in a proceeding seeking in the first instance ex parte relief in relation to a cryptocurrency holding said to have been owned or dealt with by the first respondent husband – Where supporting material suggests the cryptocurrency holding might be worth in the excess of USD2,000,000 – Where the wife contends that the only source of potential payment of her relief sought in the Commonwealth of Australia would be the cryptocurrency holding – Where the wife seeks that the husband surrender his mobile phone and any other electronic devices to his solicitor for safekeeping – Where such order is too onerous even for a short period of time – Where orders are made for restraints to be placed upon the husband preventing him from accessing electronic devices for the purpose of dealing with cryptocurrency and appointing a trustee pursuant to r 5.16 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where one child aged 14 years has strained relationship with mother who lives overseas – where parties reached agreement on a number of issues but orders were not reduced to a consent minute – where parties were at odds as to specific arrangements for time while the mother is in and outside of Australia – orders made for child to live with father and spend time with mother – orders made for continuation of family therapy between the child and the mother – injunctions and restraints on each parent.

COSTS – costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – parties’ financial circumstances – where the father deposes to expenses exceeding income – where the mother has current child support debt – order made for the payment of the ICL’s costs by the mother.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – weekly directions hearings ordered in the three month lead up to trial – first of such directions hearings – applicant seeking compliance with existing discovery orders – second respondent and represented third parties seek further time to comply with disclosure requests – held, the second respondent and represented third parties have had sufficient time to comply with the disclosure orders made 8 December 2023 – further time allowed for second respondent and represented third parties to make disclosure in relation to requests made in January and February 2025.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where mother seeks relocation to Country B with son aged three – where final hearing concluded on 21 January 2025 with written submissions to follow – where mother did not file written submissions on time – where mother wrote to father after final submissions to inform him she had given birth – where neither father nor Court aware of pregnancy despite five days of in person hearing in January – oral application to re-open evidence opposed by the mother – where matter set down for a further five days of hearing – costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks an order that the husband’s Initiating Application be dismissed for want of prosecution – Where the husband is in default of orders – Where the husband has failed to pay outstanding costs orders – Where the husband was provided with sufficient notice that his Initiating Application would be dismissed if he failed to further prosecute his case – Where the wife has incurred significant and unnecessary costs as a result of the husband’s indolence – Consideration of the overarching purpose – Husband’s substantive application dismissed, with costs awarded to the wife on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by the single expert under r 7.19 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) for the payment of his fees – Where the expert was asked to value entities up to June 2024 – Where the expert had concerns about the accuracy of the 2024 accounts and relied on the 2023 accounts – Where the court has found the 2024 accounts were not a true reflection of the value of the entities – Where the husband relied on the report – Where the husband disputes the charge of interest – Husband to pay the single expert’s fees including interest.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM HEARING - self represented litigants- Where a respondent party to proceedings makes an application that the self-represented applicant have access to subpoenaed documents on conditions - Where injunction is sought to prevent self-represented applicant from disclosing certain information contained within the documents - Where past behaviour of applicant indicates that there is a risk unsupervised access to documents would be improperly used - Applicant permitted to view the documents in supervised setting only.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Objections to subpoenae – Where the Applicant objects to the issuing of subpoenae – Where these objections are based on claimed procedural unfairness due to an alleged lack of notice – Where these objections are based on safety concerns pertaining to personal information contained in the subpoenae – Applicant’s review is of no utility as she had an adequate notice period – Applicant’s review is also of no utility as the personal information sought to be witheld is already known to the respondent.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Subpoenae - Leave to inspect material produced on subpoenae – Leave granted.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal professional privilege – Where a party seeks to claim legal professional privilege over certain documents in order to prevent their inspection by another party – Party granted 3 days to identify the documents which are subject to legal professional privilege.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Gender dysphoria – Where the respondent father did not engage with the proceedings at any stage – Where the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the child seeking to undergo treatment (“the child”) is nearly 18 years of age – Where the child seeks a change of name – Where the Court accepts the diagnosis of gender dysphoria – Declaration that the child is Gillick competent to consent to stage 2 treatment for gender dysphoria – Orders made for a change of name.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – application for parental responsibility by the mother – competing application for parental responsibility by the father – children under the primary care of the father – mother suffers from poor mental health – mother an unacceptable risk to the children – father granted parental responsibility – mother to spend a gradual increase in time with the children on condition she undergoes psychological treatment.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – small pool the net assets of which are divided as to 50% to the mother and 50% to the father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Assessment of contributions – Consideration of what constitutes the disputed pool – Where the parties were unable to produce a joint balance sheet – Consideration of what value to attribute to two relocatable cabins – Uncertainty as to any likely Capital Gains Tax – Where a lack of evidence and submissions has left the Court to regard the ultimate finding of the pool as somewhat “notional” – Further submissions required as to what form of final property adjustment orders can be made to achieve justice and equity to both parties.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Interim orders - Father's application to vary interim orders - Where Father seeks to spend unsupervised time - Where Mother opposes this application - Where the Father’s evidence is insufficient to vary or discharge the existing parenting orders.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer do not seek any orders for time between the father and the child –Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility – Where time between the father and the child was previously supervised – Where supervised time between the father and the child was suspended on the fourth visit – Where the father has not spent time with the child for a significant period of time – Where the father has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – Where the psychiatrist assessing the father considers that the father will not be able to improve without therapeutic intervention – Where the father does not wish to attend upon any psychologist – Where it is not currently in the best interests of the child to spend time with the father – Orders made for mother to provide father with written updates regarding the child twice a year and to provide the father with a photograph a year of the child – No orders for time made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application to adjourn – Where the mother’s counsel and solicitor withdraw partway through the interim hearing – Where the mother’s counsel had completed final submissions – Where the mother seeks the matter be adjourned for her to secure alternative representation – Where the mother’s first language is not English and an interpreter is not present in Court – Application to adjourn refused.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment application – Where the applicant seeks to adjourn the final hearing to commence on 31 March 2025 to June 2025 due to a lack of legal representation – Inability to fund legal representation – Where the applicant has not yet sought Legal Aid representation – Where the Court is not satisfied that this position is likely to change, let alone change by 30 June 2025 – Application to adjourn the final hearing dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child has been living with the father for the past two years – Where the child has spent no overnight time with the mother in that time –Where on the final day of the hearing the father consented to orders for the mother to have sole decision-making authority and for the child to live primarily with the mother – Limited issues remained in dispute – Orders made for gradual increase in time with the mother as recommended by single expert and to spent time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Ex Tempore Reasons – Where the Court would have been unable to make the findings the parties sought based on the state of the evidence – Where the parties no longer seek those findings – Where final parenting orders were made by consent.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING – Where several issues settled by consent – Remaining issues for determination were remediation and sale of property – Part-heard trial – Where there was a previous order for wife to undertake remediation of property – Where wife has not taken sufficient steps to ensure compliance – Where parties agree to the sale of the property – Orders made for husband to be authorised to take necessary steps for the remediation and sale of the land.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Undefended hearing – child living with paternal grandmother - paternal grandmother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer seek the same orders – mother and father have failed to consistently engage in proceedings – threshold for an undefended final hearing met - evidence establishes paternal grandmother is child focused and has and will facilitate a relationship with both parents and the maternal grandparents as appropriate – Orders for child to live with the paternal grandmother - the paternal grandmother to have sole parental and decision making authority – ancillary orders.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request by a third party to inspect the court record – related proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in which the applicant for inspection is involved.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –applicant applying to adjourn the trial of the proceeding in this court – applicant for inspection’s interest in the proceeding is dependent upon the outcome of the Federal Court proceeding – application for inspection of the court file in this proceeding granted.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – EX TEMPORE – Property proceedings – Final hearing – Where the Court was informed on the second day of the final hearing that a receiver had been appointed for the fifth respondent 6 months previously – Where the proceedings could proceed no further until the receiver had been given an opportunity to consider the material filed in these proceedings – Where the applicant wife claims costs in the amount of $45,711.84 as scale costs or $112,200 as full indemnification – Where the Court is persuaded that it is appropriate to order the first to fourth respondents to pay the applicant wife’s costs thrown away by the adjournment of the final hearing, as agreed or assessed.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where a decree of nullity is sought – Duress claim – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where final parenting orders made in 2020 provided time between the father and the child graduating to five nights per fortnight and equal shared parental responsibility – Where the mother withheld the child and initiated proceedings following the child making disclosures regarding the father’s inappropriate behaviour – Where the disclosures were not investigated further by authorities – Where the mother did not seek a finding regarding the disclosures – Where the mother alleges that the child is at risk of emotional harm when in the father’s care –Where the parties are unable to cooperate together – Where the evidence is supportive of the child being at risk of emotional harm when in the father’s care – Where the child has behavioural issues – Where the father made significant and appropriate concessions during the hearing – Orders for time between the father and the child graduating to a single overnight.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where the matter was listed for final hearing in relation to parenting matters – Where the parties reached agreement and Consent Orders were made – Where the applicant pressed an order of injunction – Where the respondent opposed the same –Where evidence was heard in respect of the discrete issue – Consideration of the evidence – Consideration of the legal principles – No evidence to support an injunction being made – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATON - Where mother seeks international relocation orders for the child - Where father opposes the relocation - Where mother’s and father’s move to Australia was agreed by them to be temporary for the mother to have the support of her parents when pregnant - Where mother is heavily reliant on her parents’ support - Where the maternal grandparents have committed to relocation out of Australia regardless of the outcome of these proceedings - Where the father has committed various acts of family violence on the mother during the relationship and post-separation, including threatening to withhold a document during parenting discussions thereby making the mother aa restricted woman – Where it is not in the child’s best interests for the agreed residential parent, the mother, to be exposed to the father’s conduct without the physical support of her parents – Relocation of child permitted.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – RE-OPENING - Where mother sought to adduce further evidence about supports available to the child if relocation was permitted - Where application opposed by father and Independent Children’s Lawyer - Where the evidence sought to be adduced is of limited probative value and was available for the trial - Application to re-open dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – EX-TEMPORE – EVIDENCE – Expert evidence – Whether single expert should be discharged – Where respondent contends single expert was biased and failed to read all the relevant documents –Where report does not address the applicant’s criminal history – Whether child should be reintroduced to applicant through family therapy – Single expert report to be provided to family therapist – Application to discharge single expert dismissed – Interlocutory injunction granted – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – Recusal application.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – BANKRUPTCY – Where the husband is bankrupt and the trustees in bankruptcy are parties – History of proceedings in the Supreme Court – Where there is a shortfall in funds required to annul the bankruptcy – Whether the trustees improperly distributed proceeds of sale – Where the dispersed sale proceeds do not form part of the pool of assets – Where there is one real property available for division – Where the wife made substantial contributions – Where there should not be any adjustment between the wife and the trustees – Property to be sold – Wife to retain 50 per cent of proceeds of sale – Trustees to retain 50 per cent of the proceeds of sale and repay to the wife any surplus following annulment of the bankruptcy.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant seeks indemnity costs against the third respondent – Where the third respondent failed to comply with various orders –Party-Party costs in a fixed sum ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final Orders – Where each party seeks sole parental responsibility and primary care with the other to have time each alternate weekend and half school holidays – Where the mother contends that the father perpetrated family violence – The father accepted that he had perpetrated some acts of family violence but denied any instance of physically assaulting the mother – Where the mother had contended that the father posed a risk of sexual abuse including an allegation that the father had engaged in ‘grooming’ the child – Despite such a contention the mother proposed that the father spend unsupervised time with the child – Where the mother’s orders changed over the course of the hearing with no explanation provided as to their change - Where the ICL submitted that the mother’s allegations were irreconcilable with her changing positions and submitted that she has conducted litigation to frustrate the father’s relationship with the child – Where the father contended that the mother posed a risk of psychological and emotional harm to the child by her failure to facilitate a relationship between the father and the child –The Court is satisfied that the father does not pose a risk of harm to the child – Change of residence with sole parental responsibility to the father.

PROPERTY – Final Orders – period of cohabitation was approximately six years – Where the mother’s contributions, as a victim of domestic violence, would have been made more onerous- The Court is satisfied that the contributions of the father exceed those of the mother due and that but for his financial contribution the parties would have almost no assets to divide – Contribution based finding favouring the father as to 55 percent – Future needs adjustment of 10 percent in favour of the father due to limitations on his earning capacity and the majority care of the child – Property of the parties divided as to 65 percent to the father and 35 percent to the mother.