FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where the mother relocated from Sydney to Melbourne with the parties’ children – where the father continues to reside in Sydney – where the mother contends the father consented to her relocating – where the father denies ever providing his consent – where the father currently sees the children on three weekends per month – where the father seeks an order that the children live in Sydney with their mother – where the effect of that order, if granted, is to force the mother to return to Sydney – consideration of the power to make a “coercive” order – where “[t]he proper exercise of such a power is likely to be rare” – whether such an order should be made in this case – where there were incidences of family violence during the parties’ relationship – where the parties’ children witnessed that violence – consideration of the children’s best interests – where it is in the children’s bests interests to remain living in Melbourne with the mother and to spend overnight time with the father on two weekends per month.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – de facto relationship – where the parties were in a relationship for five years – where the father brought three properties into the relationship, two of which continue to form the vast majority of the pool – where the father also brought significant liabilities into the relationship – where those liabilities are included in the “pool” – where the father, through his parents, also contributed a significant amount of property and funds during the marriage – where the mother has had the primary care of the children post-separation and will continue to do so – where the father will be solely responsible for the costs associated with spending time with his children – where the father will be solely liable for the significant liabilities included in the “pool” – where orders made that property be distributed in the proportion 80:20 per cent, in favour of the father.