Of course. Based on the provided court judgment, here is the in-depth analysis structured according to your detailed instructions.

Is It a Loan or a Gift? How Secret Financial Transfers and Parental Conflict Determine Family Law Outcomes

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Elza & Chanan [2025] FedCFamC2F 467, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
• Presiding Judge: Judge O’Shannessy
• Cause of Action: Parenting Orders & Property Settlement under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
• Judgment Date: 10 April 2025
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: Family Law
  • Keyword 3: Parenting Orders
  • Keyword 4: High-Conflict Separation
  • Keyword 5: Property Settlement
  • Keyword 6: Add-backs
  • Keyword 7: Family Violence

Background

This case concerns the determination of parenting and financial matters following the breakdown of a de facto relationship of approximately eight years. The parties, the Mother and the Father, have two young children and are embroiled in a bitter dispute characterized by poor communication, allegations of family violence, and significant disagreement over financial dealings. The core of the matter requires the Court to craft orders that ensure the children’s best interests amidst high parental conflict while also delivering a just and equitable division of a modest asset pool complicated by claims of dissipated funds and sham family loans.

Core Disputes and Claims

The litigation involves two distinct but interrelated disputes:

1. Parenting Arrangements: The central conflict is the level of parental responsibility and the schedule of time the children will spend with each parent. The Mother seeks sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions regarding the children’s health and education, proposing a continuation of a “5/9 nights” fortnightly arrangement. Conversely, the Father seeks equal shared parental responsibility and a progressive move towards a week-about, equal-time arrangement. His case is predicated on the belief that such an arrangement is essential for his relationship with the children, while the Mother argues that the Father’s behaviour and the high level of conflict make it unworkable and contrary to the children’s best interests.

2. Property Settlement: While the asset pool is relatively small, its division is complicated by the Mother’s assertion that the Father improperly disposed of several hundred thousand dollars shortly before and after separation. She claims these funds, transferred to his parents and others, were attempts to defeat her claim and should be notionally “added back” into the asset pool for division. The Father counters that these transfers were legitimate repayments of loans from his family, supported by loan agreements, and therefore should not be considered part of the asset pool.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The Mother and Father commenced their de facto relationship in late 2013. Their family grew with the birth of their son, X, in 2015, and their daughter, Y, in 2020. The relationship, however, was fraught with conflict, culminating in their separation on or around 25 September 2021.

Following the separation, the acrimony between the parents did not subside; it intensified. The dispute over the care of their children and the division of their property became the central battleground. The Mother alleged a history of family violence, describing the Father’s behaviour as controlling, intimidating, and abusive. These allegations were serious enough to lead to the Court issuing an Intervention Order to regulate the Father’s conduct and communication.

Financially, the situation was equally complex. During the relationship, the Father had received substantial funds from his parents overseas, totalling over $250,000, which he did not disclose to the Mother. Around the time of separation, he transferred a total of $350,000 back to his parents, claiming it was the repayment of these loans plus a significant amount of interest. He also made other payments to his brother and friends. The Mother, who had been the primary homemaker and caregiver while also working, was left with very limited personal assets. She viewed the Father’s large-scale transfers not as the repayment of legitimate debts, but as a deliberate strategy to place the majority of the relationship’s assets beyond her reach and that of the Court.

This combination of intense personal conflict, allegations of violence and financial misconduct, and fundamentally different views on parenting created an impasse that the parties could not resolve. Consequently, the Mother initiated proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in September 2023, seeking orders that would provide stability for her children and a just division of the property she believed she was rightfully entitled to.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s (The Mother’s) Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Affidavit Evidence: The Mother provided detailed accounts of multiple incidents she characterized as family violence, including verbal abuse, intimidation, and controlling behaviour. She described the Father’s communication as harassing, citing an instance of receiving over 70 phone calls in a single day.
• Financial Records: She presented evidence of the Father’s transfer of approximately $433,894 out of the relationship assets to his parents, brother, and friends, arguing these were not legitimate repayments but a deliberate dissipation of the asset pool. She also gave evidence of her own financial misfortune, having been “scammed” out of $17,000 in a cryptocurrency investment.
• Expert Reports: The Mother relied heavily on the Family Report prepared by Ms B, a family consultant, and the evidence of Dr C, the children’s therapist. These reports highlighted the negative impact of the parental conflict on the children, particularly the older child, X, who felt “stuck in the middle.” The reports noted the Father’s “problematic” approach to cooperation and his tendency to involve the children in the dispute.
• Third-Party Evidence: The testimony of a friend, Ms G, was used to corroborate one of the alleged incidents of family violence.

Respondent’s (The Father’s) Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Affidavit Evidence: The Father denied the allegations of family violence or, alternatively, explained his behaviour as a “cultural difference,” stating that what might be considered unacceptable in Australia was normal in his country of origin. He denied significant drug use, admitting only to cannabis use until July 2023.
• Loan Agreements: The Father’s primary financial evidence consisted of two documents (Exhibits F1 and F2) purported to be loan agreements between himself and his parents for the funds they had advanced him. He also tendered a document (Exhibit F3) that he claimed was an English translation of one of the agreements.
• Parenting Capacity: He argued that the Mother was a “gatekeeper” who unnecessarily restricted his relationship with the children. He presented himself as a loving father whose capacity to parent was not impaired, and who believed an equal time arrangement was in the children’s best interests.
• Financial Claims: He argued the payments to his family were legitimate loan repayments and should be recognised as liabilities, thereby reducing the net asset pool. He initially alleged the Mother was hiding assets in cryptocurrency and overseas bank accounts, though these claims were later abandoned.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Credibility and Family Violence: Was the Father’s conduct family violence as defined by the Family Law Act 1975? Was his explanation of “cultural differences” a credible defence or a minimization of his behaviour?
2. Parental Capacity and Communication: Could the parents communicate effectively enough to sustain a shared parental responsibility arrangement? Was the Father’s communication style harassing and controlling, and was he negatively influencing the children by involving them in the conflict?
3. The “Add-Backs” and Financial Genuineness: Were the loan agreements genuine, legally enforceable documents created at the time, or were they a recent fabrication designed to defeat the Mother’s property claim? Should the $350,000 transferred to the Father’s parents, the $50,000 spent on legal advice, and other funds be notionally “added back” into the asset pool?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The affidavits of the Mother and Father presented starkly contrasting narratives of the same events, forcing the Court to deconstruct their statements to find the truth.

The Mother’s affidavits painted a picture of a relationship characterized by the Father’s controlling behaviour, verbal aggression, and a dismissive attitude towards her role as a parent. For example, regarding an incident on 30 December 2021, she detailed how the Father, in a fit of anger, blocked her car at her workplace and verbally abused her in front of the children. Her account was precise and corroborated in its essential details by the evidence of a third-party witness, Ms G.

In stark contrast, the Father’s affidavits consistently sought to minimize or reframe these events. His explanation for his aggressive communication was that it was simply a “cultural difference,” suggesting a more “assertive” and “straightforward” communication style was normal in his country of origin. This attempt to normalize behaviour that is legally defined as family violence in Australia was a central theme.

Regarding the crucial financial dispute, the Father’s affidavit presented the $350,000 transferred to his parents as a simple contractual obligation—the repayment of loans formalized by written agreements. He attached copies of these agreements. However, under the scrutiny of litigation, this narrative began to unravel. The Mother’s legal team pointed out that she had never been told about these “loans” during the relationship, and the timing of the large repayments—coinciding with the relationship’s breakdown—was highly suspicious.

The Judge’s ultimate task was to weigh these competing affidavits. The credibility of each party’s sworn statement was tested not just by their demeanor in the witness box, but by its consistency with objective, contemporaneous evidence such as emails, text messages, and bank records, and its overall logical plausibility.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing, the Court made several crucial interim orders and directions that shaped the proceedings:

• Interim Parenting Orders: Following the release of the Family Report by Ms B, the parties consented to interim orders that largely reflected the report’s recommendations. This established a temporary “5/9 nights” fortnightly arrangement, providing a degree of stability for the children while the final issues were litigated.
• Intervention Orders: The Court noted the existence of a Final Intervention Order against the Father, which restrained him from certain communications and proximity to the Mother. This order underscored the Court’s formal recognition of the risk associated with the Father’s conduct.
• Men’s Behaviour Change Program: An earlier order had required the Father to attend a Men’s Behaviour Change Program. However, the evidence revealed he had not completed it, claiming he was assessed as “unsuitable” because he did not believe he had used family violence—a position that demonstrated a significant lack of insight.
• Drug Testing: Orders were made for the Father to undertake drug testing, which became a point of contention and further evidenced his history of illicit substance use.
• Subpoenas and Disclosure: The Court facilitated the process of issuing subpoenas and ordering disclosure of financial documents to allow the Mother to investigate the Father’s claims regarding the alleged loans and his financial dealings.

These procedural steps were essential in bringing all relevant evidence before the Court, allowing for a thorough examination of the parties’ conduct and credibility ahead of the final determination.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The four-day final hearing became the crucible where the parties’ competing narratives were tested under oath. The cross-examination process was pivotal, particularly in exposing the weaknesses in the Father’s case.

The Father’s performance in the witness box was described by the Judge as “argumentative” and evasive. He repeatedly failed to directly answer questions, instead attempting to deflect or provide self-serving explanations. This behaviour reinforced the image of a person unwilling to take responsibility or show insight, a critical failure in parenting matters.

A defining moment was the cross-examination regarding the “loan” agreements. The Father had produced what he claimed was an English translation of a loan document. However, under questioning, it was revealed that this “translation” was riddled with inconsistencies. It included headings like “Collateral” and bracketed notes like “(Should collateral be included?)” that were absent from the original foreign-language document. His explanation for this discrepancy shifted, first blaming “Google Translate” and then “ChatGPT.” This attempt to explain away what appeared to be a draft document rather than a final translation severely damaged his credibility. His failure to call his parents or brother—the other parties to these alleged loans—to give evidence was noted by the Court as a significant omission that weakened his case.

The expert witnesses, Family Reporter Ms B and therapist Dr C, provided crucial, independent perspectives. Their evidence, which the Judge accepted, painted a clear picture of two children caught in the crossfire of parental conflict. Dr C’s testimony was particularly powerful, describing how the older child, X, used adult language like “equal parental care” and felt a profound guilt and frustration from being “stuck in the middle.”

The Judge’s reasoning consistently circled back to an assessment of credibility weighed against objective evidence. The Father’s narrative was found to be inconsistent and implausible, particularly when compared to contemporaneous records and the testimony of independent experts. In assessing the Father’s credibility, the Court observed:

I accept the Mother’s evidence about this incident on the essential points. That is, that the Father without notice attended the car park of the Mother’s work and whilst angry, abused and intimidated her in the presence of the children.

This finding, along with similar credibility assessments on other key issues, demonstrated how the Father’s conduct and lack of candour ultimately undermined his entire case. The Court’s decision was not based on a simple “he said, she said” analysis, but on a meticulous process of testing sworn evidence against the established facts and the logical probabilities of the situation.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Having weighed all the evidence, the Court made the following final orders:

Parenting Orders:

1. Parental Responsibility: The Mother was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues relating to the children’s education and health. For all other major long-term issues, the parents are to retain joint parental responsibility and must consult each other.
2. Living Arrangements: The children will live with the Mother.
3. Time with Father: The children will spend time with the Father on a “4+1/9” fortnightly cycle during school terms. This will transition to a 5-night block in 2027. School holiday time will gradually increase from 4-night blocks to 7-night blocks by 2027.
4. Special Occasions: Detailed orders were made for time-sharing on birthdays, Mother’s/Father’s Day, and four significant religious/cultural holidays, with a mechanism for alternating these occasions annually.
5. Restraints and Conditions:
   • Both parents are restrained from using illicit drugs or consuming excessive alcohol while the children are in their care.
   • Both parents are restrained from denigrating each other in front of the children.
   • The Father is required to undergo random Hair Follicle Testing for illicit substances once per year at the Mother’s request and expense.
   • Both parents are ordered to complete a “Tuning into Kids” parenting course.
6. Travel: The Mother will retain the children’s passports. Both parties are permitted to travel overseas with the children, subject to providing notice and itineraries, but not before December 2027 for the Father.

Property and Financial Orders:

1. Add-Backs: The Court notionally “added back” to the asset pool $100,000 transferred by the Father to his parents as purported “interest,” $14,500 transferred to his brother, and $50,000 he spent on legal fees. The primary sum of $250,000 was not added back on the basis it was a return of funds to their source.
2. Property Division: The Mother is to receive all funds currently held in the parties’ joint bank accounts.
3. Lump Sum Payment: The Father is ordered to pay the Mother a lump sum of $28,213 within 60 days.
4. Superannuation Split: The Court ordered a superannuation split creating a 70/30 division in the Mother’s favour, requiring a base amount of $59,349 to be transferred from the Father’s superannuation fund to the Mother’s.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

The jurisprudential value of Elza & Chanan lies in its methodical application of judicial discretion in a high-conflict family law matter involving complex factual disputes. It serves as a powerful illustration of how modern courts move beyond a simple “he said, she said” stalemate. The judgment demonstrates that a party’s credibility is not assessed in a vacuum but is tested against a matrix of objective evidence, inherent plausibility, and expert opinion. The Court’s handling of the “add-back” claims is particularly instructive. By adding back some funds (the purported “interest” and legal fees) but not others (the “principal repayment”), the judgment reinforces the principle that this is not a punitive measure but a discretionary tool used to achieve a just and equitable outcome, based on the specific circumstances and intent behind each transaction.

Judgment Points

• Staged Parenting Orders: The Court structured a staged increase in the Father’s time with the children, contingent on their increasing age and maturity. This approach acknowledges the children’s current needs while providing a future pathway, balancing the benefit of a meaningful relationship with the need for stability.
• The “Unsuitability” Trap: The Father’s failure to complete a Men’s Behaviour Change Program because he was assessed as “unsuitable” (due to his denial of any wrongdoing) was a critical error. It provided the Court with objective evidence of his profound lack of insight, a key factor in denying him equal shared parental responsibility.
• Conditional Travel Orders: By delaying the Father’s ability to travel overseas with the children until 2027, the Court imposed a de facto “probationary” period, implicitly linking his future privileges to a sustained period of improved conduct and co-parenting.

Legal Basis

The judgment was fundamentally anchored in Part VII (Children) and Part VIIIAB (Financial Matters for de facto relationships) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

• Section 60CC: The Court meticulously worked through the “best interests” factors, placing primary weight on the need to protect the children from the psychological harm of parental conflict.
• Section 4AB: The Judge applied the broad definition of family violence, recognizing that the Father’s conduct—including yelling, intimidation, and harassing communication—fell within its scope, even without allegations of significant physical assault.
• Section 90SM(3): The Court’s entire property analysis was predicated on the threshold requirement that any order must be “just and equitable,” a principle affirmed in the High Court case of Stanford v Stanford.
• Section 90SM(4): The assessment of contributions was global and holistic, but the judgment clearly identified the significant initial financial contribution from the Father’s parents as a key factor before considering the add-backs and future needs adjustments.

Evidence Chain

The Mother’s victory was built on a strong, corroborated chain of evidence that systematically dismantled the Father’s narrative.

1. Expert Evidence: The reports and testimony of the Family Reporter and the children’s therapist provided an independent, professional assessment of the family dynamic and the harm being caused by the conflict. This evidence was treated by the Court as highly persuasive.
2. Contemporaneous Communication: The Father’s own emails and text messages—such as the “70 missed calls” and the email where he accused the Mother of “neglecting her child”—served as irrefutable evidence of his harassing and denigrating communication style.
3. Financial Implausibility: The lack of original loan documents, the secrecy surrounding the transfers, the convenient timing of the repayments, and the illogical “translation” of the purported loan agreement created an overwhelming inference that the transactions were not genuine.

Judicial Original Quotation

In assessing the Father’s credibility regarding his claims of family violence, the Judge delivered a determinative finding that dismissed his primary defence:

I do not accept the assertion of the Father that his complained of behaviour is ‘cultural’… I come from [Country E]. In cultural differences, things that I’ve done here with my ex would never even considered as domestic violence [in Country E]. It’s a much more straightforward, even you can call it so-called much more assertive, straightforward. You say what you want, you show it. It’s a cultural difference…

This passage was critical. The Judge’s rejection of this explanation showed that the Court will apply the standards of Australian law as defined in the Family Law Act, and that attempting to excuse controlling or intimidating behaviour by referencing different cultural norms is an argument that will not succeed.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Father’s case ultimately collapsed under the weight of his own lack of credibility. His failure was multi-faceted:

• Lack of Insight: He consistently failed to demonstrate any understanding of how his own behaviour—his communication style, his unilateral financial decisions, his involvement of the children in the conflict—contributed to the family’s problems.
• Implausible Narrative: His explanation for the $350,000 transfer was not only uncorroborated but was actively contradicted by the suspicious nature of the “evidence” he produced.
• Demeanour in Court: His argumentative and evasive performance as a witness reinforced the Mother’s portrayal of him as a controlling and difficult individual, making it easy for the Judge to prefer her evidence on contested facts.
• Misunderstanding the Law: He fundamentally misunderstood that “family violence” is not limited to physical assault and that his conduct, even if culturally acceptable to him, fell squarely within the Act’s definition of controlling and coercive behaviour.

Implications

1. Credibility is Your Most Valuable Asset. In family law, where disputes often hinge on competing versions of past events, how you present your evidence is as important as the evidence itself. Consistency, frankness, and a willingness to take responsibility will always be viewed more favourably than evasiveness and blame-shifting.

2. “Loans” from Family Are Not Assumed; They Must Be Proven. If you intend to argue that funds from family were a loan and not a gift, you must have clear, contemporaneous documentation. A simple IOU drafted after separation begins will likely be seen as a self-serving attempt to reduce the asset pool and will be rejected.

3. Do Not Involve Your Children in the Dispute. The Court’s primary duty is to protect children from the harm of parental conflict. Evidence that a parent is discussing litigation, coaching a child on what to say, or pressuring them to “choose a side” is one of the fastest ways to lose the trust of the Court and face restrictive parenting orders.

4. Behaviour Has Consequences. A history of controlling communication, intimidation, or a failure to comply with court orders (like attending a behaviour change program) will have a direct and negative impact on the final parenting orders. The Court looks for demonstrated capacity to co-parent respectfully.

5. Understand What “Family Violence” Really Means. The legal definition of family violence is broad and includes financial control, emotional abuse, and patterns of coercion. Attempting to excuse such behaviour by claiming it is “cultural” or not physically violent will not succeed in an Australian court.

Q&A Session

Question 1: Why did the Court not order equal 50/50 time if both parents clearly love the children?

Answer: Because the paramount consideration is the children’s best interests, which includes protecting them from harm. The Court found that the high level of conflict, the Father’s poor communication, and his lack of insight into his own behaviour made an equal time arrangement “contra-indicated.” Such an arrangement requires a high degree of trust and cooperation, which was completely absent. The frequent handovers and necessary communication would likely expose the children to more conflict, which is detrimental to their well-being.

Question 2: The Father returned the money to his parents, so why was some of it still “added back”?

Answer: An “add-back” is a notional exercise where the Court treats dissipated funds as if they were still part of the asset pool. The Judge found the $250,000 repayment of “principal” was a return of funds to their source, so it was not added back. However, the additional $100,000 claimed as “interest” and the $50,000 spent on legal fees were seen differently. The Court was not satisfied there was a genuine legal obligation to pay this “interest,” viewing the payment as a deliberate attempt to reduce the asset pool available for division. Similarly, using relationship funds to pay for legal fees while self-representing was deemed a unilateral disposition of assets that should be notionally included in the Father’s side of the ledger.

Question 3: Why does the Mother have to pay for the Father’s drug test?

Answer: This is a practical measure to prevent the system from being abused. By placing the financial cost on the parent requesting the test, the Court discourages frivolous or harassing requests. It ensures that the Mother will only trigger a test if she has a genuine and serious concern about the Father’s sobriety, as she will have to bear the expense. This balances the need for a protective safeguard with the need to prevent the drug testing mechanism from becoming another tool in the parents’ conflict.

---

[Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines]

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: High-Conflict Parenting and Property Settlement Dispute
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Core Test (Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 4AA):

While not in dispute in this case, a Court assesses the existence of a de facto relationship by examining a range of factors holistically. No single factor is determinative.

• Duration of the relationship: The general rule is a minimum of 2 years, although exceptions exist. In this case, the 8-year relationship far exceeded this threshold.
• Nature and extent of common residence: This involves assessing whether the parties lived together on a genuine domestic basis.
• Whether a sexual relationship exists: The existence of a sexual relationship is an indicator, though its absence is not fatal to a finding.
• Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: This looks at whether parties pooled financial resources, had joint bank accounts, or if one party financially supported the other.
• Ownership, use and acquisition of property: How property was acquired and owned (jointly or separately) during the relationship is a key factor.
• Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: This assesses whether the parties presented and behaved as a committed couple.
• The care and support of children: The existence of children of the relationship is a very strong indicator.
• Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: This considers whether family, friends, and the public viewed the parties as a couple.

Property Settlement – The Four-Step Process:

The Court follows a well-established four-step process to determine a just and equitable division of property.

1. Identification and Valuation: The first step is to identify all assets, liabilities, and superannuation of both parties and assign a current market value to them. This creates the “net asset pool.” In this case, this step also involved the crucial question of whether to “add-back” funds the Father had transferred away.
2. Assessment of Contributions: The Court assesses the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party to the acquisition, conservation, or improvement of the property. This includes initial contributions brought into the relationship, income earned, inheritances or gifts received (like the funds from the Father’s parents), and non-financial contributions such as homemaking and parenting. In this case, despite the Father’s higher income and initial financial contribution from his family, the contributions were assessed as roughly equal, acknowledging the Mother’s significant role as primary caregiver.
3. Adjustment for Future Needs (s 90SF(3) / s 75(2) Factors): The Court considers a list of “future needs” factors to see if an adjustment to the contribution-based assessment is warranted. Key factors in this case included the Mother’s ongoing primary care of two young children, her significantly lower income-earning capacity compared to the Father, and her need to re-establish a home. The Court determined a 7.5% adjustment in her favour was appropriate.
4. Just and Equitable: The final step is a “sanity check” where the Court looks at the practical outcome of the proposed percentage split in real dollar terms and asks whether it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.

Parenting Matters (Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975):

The Court’s sole focus is the best interests of the child, which is determined by considering two tiers of factors.

• Primary Considerations:
  • The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
  • The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. The Act explicitly states that this consideration is to be given greater weight. In this case, the Court weighed the benefit of the children’s relationship with the Father against the harm caused by his conflict-driven behaviour and family violence.
• Additional Considerations:
  • The views of the child: The Court considers any views expressed by the child and the level of weight to be given to them, taking into account their age and maturity. Here, the Court was cautious, noting that the older child felt conflicted and had likely been influenced by the Father.
  • The nature of the child’s relationship with each parent: The Court acknowledged the children’s established attachment to both parents.
  • The capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs: The Judge found both parents had capacity, but the Father’s was impaired by his lack of insight and ongoing conflict.
  • The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with a parent.
  • The impact of any change in circumstances.
  • Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family. This was a critical factor in the Court’s decision to grant the Mother sole parental responsibility for certain issues and to restrain the Father’s communication.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

• Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust: While not explicitly argued in this property case (as the Family Law Act provides the primary path), these equitable principles are highly relevant in financial disputes between de facto partners, especially concerning property held in one party’s sole name. If, for example, the Father had used the “loan” money to purchase a property solely in his name, the Mother could have argued that it would be unconscionable for him to retain the full benefit, given her contributions as a homemaker and parent. The Court could impose a constructive trust, declaring that she holds a beneficial interest in the property, to prevent his unjust enrichment.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds:

• To bring a de facto property claim under the Family Law Act, a relationship must generally have lasted for at least two years.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial):

• Family Law: The two-year cohabitation rule does not apply if:
  • There is a child of the de facto relationship (as was the case here).
  • The applicant made substantial contributions and a failure to make an order would result in serious injustice.
  • The relationship was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory.
• Suggestion: Do not assume you cannot make a claim if your de facto relationship was less than two years. If you have a child together or can demonstrate substantial contributions that would lead to a serious injustice if unrecognised, you may still have a valid claim.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:

• It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
  • The assessment of credibility in high-conflict parenting matters.
  • The principles for “adding back” unilaterally dissipated assets, particularly sham loans and legal fees.
  • The circumstances in which a court will decline to order equal shared parental responsibility despite both parents having capacity.
  • The use of staged parenting orders that evolve as children mature.

Citation Method:

• As Positive Support: When your client is facing an opponent whose credibility is questionable due to implausible financial explanations, Elza & Chanan can be cited to support the argument that such conduct warrants adverse findings and justifies an “add-back.”
• As a Distinguishing Reference: If an opposing party argues for an immediate move to equal shared time, this case can be used to distinguish the situation by highlighting that high conflict, poor communication, and a lack of insight are all factors that make such an arrangement contrary to a child’s best interests.

Anonymisation Rule: The case should be cited as Elza & Chanan, using the procedural titles of “the Mother” and “the Father” as used in the judgment.

Conclusion

Elza & Chanan is a powerful reminder that in the emotionally charged arena of family law, the Court’s decision-making is a disciplined process of weighing evidence against legal principle. It demonstrates that credibility is paramount; a party who is evasive, lacks insight, or presents an implausible narrative will find their case collapsing, regardless of their love for their children. The judgment underscores that financial dealings, especially with family around the time of separation, will be intensely scrutinized, and actions designed to defeat a legitimate claim will have significant consequences.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Elza & Chanan [2025] FedCFamC2F 467), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.