Abramsson & Abramsson (No 9) [2026] FedCFamC1F 48 (4 February 2026)

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Abramsson & Abramsson has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The litigation between the Applicant Mr Abramsson now aged 45 years (who for these Reasons I shall call "the husband") and Ms Abramsson now aged 42 years (who for these Reasons I shall call "the wife") separated in April 2022 and have been engaged in Court proceedings continually since that time.
2. These Reasons for Judgment only relate to the issues of property adjustment, spousal maintenance and other financial issues. It is important for context to record that the procedural history is shaped by:

(a) The two children of the parties, X (born in 2018 - now aged 8 years) and Y (born in 2021 - now aged 4 years ), lived with the mother from separation until my interim Order dated 11 September 2024 (see Abramsson & Abramsson [2024] FedCFamC1F 658);

(b) A trial on parenting and property matters was conducted before me on 25, 26, 27 and 29 November 2024, culminating in Reasons for Judgment delivered 6 December 2024 (see Abramsson & Abramsson (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 912) and final parenting Orders for the children to live with the husband, and spend time with the wife. At the end of the hearing, Counsel for the wife gave oral submissions on property issues and I permitted the husband's solicitor advocate some time to file and serve written submissions and for the wife to respond (see Order dated 6 December 2024);

(c) On 3 January 2025, the husband's written submissions as to financial issues were filed, with the wife's submissions in reply filed 31 January 2025 - when the judgment was deemed reserved;

(d) By 3 January 2025, both parties had filed Notices of Appeal seeking to set aside the parenting Orders I had made, with the appeal heard on 29 April 2025. For Reasons delivered on 19 May 2025, the appeal and cross-appeal were allowed, with the final parenting Orders "set aside on and as from the date upon which further parenting orders are made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)" (see Abramsson & Abramsson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 86);

(e) Further interim Applications as to the parenting arrangements were filed, however the children were to remain in the father's care, with the children's time with the mother suspended by Orders of Jarrett J dated 29 May 2025. His Honour allocated the rehearing to Carew J and listed the rehearing for 28 July 2025 for seven days;

(f) Justice Carew commenced the rehearing on 30 July 2025 and for reasons not necessary to record, after ten days of hearing, which concluded on 3 November 2025, her Honour reserved her decision. On 17 December 2025, Carew J delivered her Reasons for Judgment (see Abramsson & Abramsson (No 8) [2025] FedCFamC1F 919) and pronounced Orders, the effect of which was that the children, X and Y, should live with the father and, by Order 4, the children would only spend time with their mother by agreement in writing between the parents and failing agreement - no time was to occur;

(g) On 5 January 2026, the mother filed a Notice of Appeal against the Orders of Carew J dated 17 December 2025, which remains undecided;

(h) Alert to the delays in delivering my Judgment for property/financial matters, I sought submissions from the parties as to whether Reasons should be delivered before the finalisation of the parenting rehearing. For Reasons published (Abramsson & Abramsson (No 7) [2025] FedCFamC1F 715) on 10 October 2025, I decided it was appropriate to wait until the result of the rehearing of the parenting proceedings was known;

(i) After the Reasons of Carew J were delivered on 18 December 2025, by chambers Order, I directed each party to file and serve any further written submissions in relation to property proceedings by 2 January 2026; and

(j) The wife's self-prepared written submissions filed 2 January 2026 again contended that as she has appealed the final parenting Orders and as the result of her appeal could have (if she is successful) a profound impact on the financial proceedings, judgment on the property/financial issues should be delayed again. The father's self-prepared submissions filed (late) on 5 January 2026, restates his position that judgment should be delivered.

1. With my imminent retirement, it would not be in the interests of the parties nor the proper administration of justice to further delay Reasons for Judgment which I now publish.
2. I accept, as the wife contends, that if she is successful in her appeal to set aside the parenting Orders, and then on any rehearing achieve what has always been her position - that the children live with her and spend little or no time with the father - that those different parenting orders may have an effect on the exercise of discretion - not only the property adjustment proposals, but importantly the wife's claims for spouse maintenance and child support departure.
3. In making a decision now however, I am satisfied that other remedies for long term relief for the wife if she is successful in her now appeal, exist at law. On balance, the father, who at least might think he has been "successful" at two separate hearings in obtaining orders for the children to live with him, is entitled to finality in this long and hotly contested litigation.

1. At [3] and [4] of the Reasons published 10 October 2025 (Abramsson & Abramsson (No 7)) (supra), I set out from the parties' submissions what each party proposed, and for ease of reference, I include that summary again now as follows:
   1. After the trial, and in circumstances where the solicitor advocate for the husband was given time to prepare final submissions in respect of financial issues (with the wife having a right to reply), the following submission were filed:

(a) On 3 January 2025 by the husband; and

(b) On 31 January 2025 by the wife.

4. Those submissions identified that:

(a) the wife sought orders in accordance with her case outline filed 18 November 2024, essentially:

(i) payment of a sum of $151,706.89 "representing the conyoutstanding maintenance, child support and cost orders";

(ii) spouse maintenance of $1,670 per week until March 2039 (being when Y turns 18 years old);

(iii) a child support departure order to a level of $900 per week, per child, until each child turns 18 years old;

(iv) transfer of ownership to her of the Motor vehicle 1 which she currently retains and retention of sundry personal items; and

(v) a superannuation splitting order in respect of 100% of the husband's present entitlement.

(b) the husband sought orders essentially for:

(i) the Orders made 17 October 2022 and 20 October 2022 relating to the interim spouse maintenance and child support be discharged with effect from 20 December 2022;

(ii) recovery of any spouse maintenance payments made by the husband since 20 December 2022;

(iii) return of the Motor vehicle 1 (currently retained by the wife) to the husband; and

(iv) access to, collection of and retention of personal property as identified.

1. I propose to deal with the contested issues individually, after providing a brief contextual history.

1. Statements of fact hereafter shall be construed as findings of fact.
2. Because of the extensive assessment of parenting issues in other Judgments, the following history limits itself essentially to financial issues.
3. The husband was born in 1980; the wife was born in 1983, and they met via a dating website in 2010 (when the parties were 30 and 27 respectively). At that time, the husband had completed his tertiary education and was on the journey to being a qualified medical professional. The wife, I infer, was a university student completing her tertiary education and graduating with a Bachelor's degree in 2012.
4. Although the parties commenced cohabitation in 2011 and married in 2013, I assessed the relationship as volatile - driven in the most part by the parties' very different personalities.
5. In 2014, the parties relocated from Adelaide to Melbourne to enable the husband to complete his professional training, which included a nine-month locum in Brisbane at FFF Hospital, in 2016. He completed his qualifications in 2017. The husband says, and I accept, that in early 2018, he obtained a basically unsecured loan of $500,000 from the ANZ Bank to enable him to purchase shares - as a wealth creation strategy. As I will soon discuss, any sale proceeds of shares have now been entirely spent - whilst the husband carries the personal burden of the obligation to repay the loan.
6. The parties' first child X was born in 2018.
7. In 2019, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Administrative Tribunal made a decision regarding a dispute between the husband and Mr GGG. The wife says the husband was required to pay around $40,000 to settle the claim and further claims that she paid out such claim, which could only have come from monies accumulated during the relationship.
8. Amongst continuing parental conflict, the parties' second child Y was conceived and was born in 2021.
9. Sadly, the parties were engaged in Court proceedings in 2021 and 2022 in the Magistrates Court, resulting in protection and ouster orders being made. Curiously, following those orders, the family moved, together, to Brisbane in January 2022.
10. In April 2022, the mother accessed funds from the husband's practice account, which he "reversed" - caused further arguments between the parties. Further, at this time, the wife had a car accident, she says, attempting to escape from the husband, resulting in the vehicle being damaged. The husband asserts (paragraph 239) that the wife received the proceeds of an insurance claim for the car totalling $43,219. That is not entirely correct.
11. As the parties lurched towards a final separation, I am satisfied the wife - seeking I infer to secure her financial security whilst the children were in her care, in mid-2022, sold $150,148 worth of shares, and unilaterally accessed the funds of that sale (see paragraph 237). A further $272,965 worth of shares were sold but the proceeds were frozen - that is they could not be accessed without the consent of both parties or order of the Court.
12. It seems to be agreed that the parties finally separated on 21 April 2022, with the children remaining in the care of the wife and the husband having limited or no contact with X and Y until the change of residence was ordered to occur, on an interim basis on 11 September 2024.
13. The father promptly commenced proceedings on 20 May 2022. It is not necessary to deal with all the procedural history that has transpired from such date, save to observe that many Court events related to the parenting applications alone. However, for context, the following events and orders are important to record:

(a) On 30 June 2022, a Senior Judicial Registrar ordered:

That within ninety (90) days the Father make payment to the Mother of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) representing her costs of and incidental to her Application in a Proceeding filed on 9 June 2022.

(b) On 23 August 2022, a Senior Judicial Registrar ordered the husband to pay the wife's then solicitors the sum of $10,949 which seems (according to Notation B) to be some quantification of the husband's potential liability for child support and spouse maintenance;

(c) Importantly, on 8 September 2022, the husband filed a Reply to the wife's Response, seeking orders:

1. The Application for Spousal Maintenance is Dismissed

2. The Application for Child Support Departure is Dismissed

(As per the original)

(d) Senior Judicial Registrar Best (as she then was) heard interim applications for spousal maintenance and child support departure on 9 September 2022 and delivered Reasons on 17 October 2022, for the following orders:

1. That the Husband forthwith pay or cause to be paid to the Wife, the sum of $1,670 per week as and by way of spousal maintenance.

2. The payments in paragraph 1 shall be made to the bank account of the Wife, the details of which shall be nominated in writing to the Husband, on or before each Friday and so as to be clear funds available for use that day, such payment to commence on or before Friday, 21 October 2022.

3. In the event that the Husband does not pay or cause to be paid to the Wife, the spousal maintenance referred to in paragraph 1 hereof, then the Wife is empowered and authorised by this Order, to do all acts and things as are necessary to realise by sale of shares and/or withdrawal from [HHH Investments] or holding or trust accounts maintained for the parties and their associated entities, any sum which is more than four (4) business days overdue.

4. That there be leave for the Mother to make a Child Support Departure Application before the Court.

5. That there be a Departure from the administrative assessment of child support for the children, made against the Father.

6. That the terms of the Departure be as follows:

   1. The annual rate of child support which the Father shall pay to the Mother for the benefit of the children, be set at $1,331 per week per child or such other amount as the Court deems meet;

   2. The period of the departure shall be from 15 July 2022 to 8 September 2023 or such further date as Ordered by this Court or otherwise ratified by the parties; and

   3. The relationship between the Departure Order and any assessment or possible review of assessment of child support shall be that the Departure is in substitution therefore.

   4. For the purpose of facilitating the Departure Order, the Father shall make payments of child support to the bank account nominated in writing by the Mother on each Friday and so as to be clear funds available for use that day.

   5. In the event that the Husband does not pay or cause to be paid to the Wife, the child support referred to in Order 6 hereof, then the Wife is empowered and authorised by this Order, to do all acts and things as are necessary to realise by sale of shares and/or withdrawal from [HHH Investments] or holding or trust accounts maintained for the parties and their associated entities, any sum which is more than four (4) business days overdue.

   6. That within seven (7) days, the parties do all acts and things and sign all documents to cause the sum of $8,800 to be paid from [Abramsson Family Trust] to the Trust Account of Legal Aid Queensland, such sum payable pursuant to Orders 6 and 7 of the order of 23 August 2022.

   7. That within seven (7) days, the parties do all acts and things and sign all documents to cause the following monies to be paid from [Abramsson Family Trust] to the wife or her nominee (should the relevant monies be yet to be paid):

      1. The sum of $8,000 payable to the Wife in accordance with the Order of 30 June 2022;
      2. The sum of $10,949 payable to the Wife in accordance with the Order of 23 August 2022;
      3. The sum of $25,992 reflecting payment in accordance with Orders 1 and 6 herein for the period 9 September 2022 to 20 October 2022.

   8. That within ninety (90) days of date of this Order the Husband shall personally reimburse [Abramsson Family Trust] any and all monies paid in accordance with Orders 9 and 10 herein.

   9. That the Wife's costs be reserved.

("the said interim financial Orders").

I have read the comprehensive Reasons of the Senior Judicial Registrar, which although the findings do not bind me (noting no testing of the evidence or other cross‑examination took place), they do provide some context as to why the Orders were made. At least at the time, based on documents submitted, some assessment of the husband's income was undertaken (see [35]-[50]) and after noting the husband's failure to provide a Response or to "meaningfully challenge the case carefully articulated the wife", it seems the Court was satisfied, at that time, the husband had in the range of $4,400 per week available from his estimated income of $9,071.57 (gross) per week;

(e) On 20 October 2022, Orders were made by consent as to how insurance proceeds from the sale of the damaged car should be distributed, being:

1. $4,400 to the Legal Aid Queensland Trust Account for [Mr S's] fee;
2. As the Wife may direct, the sum of $8,000 for the costs Order due and payable by the Husband to the Wife;
3. As the Wife may direct, the sum of $25,992 for the spousal maintenance and child support departure amounts due for the period 9 September until 20 October, 2022; and

i. To the Husband as he may direct, $2,413.62; and

ii. To the Wife as she may direct, $2,413.61

(f) Despite the husband's view that he had sought to vary the said interim financial Orders, no variations to those Orders were ever made before the matter proceeded to final hearing in November 2024.

1. The principles relating to property proceedings under s 79 are well settled. Shortly stated, but more concisely and elaborately described in the Full Court decision in Hickey & Hickey [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) FLC 93-143, in a property settlement case, the Court must adopt a well-known four-step process, essentially:

(a) to identify the pool of assets and liabilities generally, and usually at the time of hearing;

(b) to assess the relative contributions of both the financial, non-financial, direct and indirect nature as specified by s 79(4);

(c) to consider the factors as are relevant contained in s 75(2) of the Act; and

(d) finally, consider the ultimate analysis to determine whether the order the Court proposes to make is just and equitable to both parties.

1. To the extent both parties articulated for orders, I am satisfied that in this case, on the evidence, it is just and equitable to make orders (s 79(2)).
2. The first step in the process of analysis is to determine the parties' interests at the time of hearing in any property or any relevant liabilities. The husband's case outline document filed 19 November 2024, at Item 4C, identified in his case that:

1. On the husband's case, the only assets of any "significance" remaining were the cars in the possession of each party:

1. The wife's balance sheet (at Part D of the wife's case outline filed 18 November 2024), does not really challenge the factual situation that any assets are exceeded by liabilities. As much was conceded in the wife's reply submissions at 4(c), that "there are no real assets in the non‑superannuation pool save for the motor vehicles" having earlier asserted at paragraph 4(b) of the submissions that, even if the husband's liabilities for arrears of spouse maintenance and child support orders are excluded, as they should be, a nett deficit of over $1 million exists.
2. The husband calculated, in his balance sheet, that the child support debt was $150,190.73.
3. The property and financial proceedings occupied very little attention in the parties' material (the father a total of 23 paragraphs in an affidavit of 257 paragraphs; the wife a total of 61 paragraphs in an affidavit of 893 paragraphs). Total cross-examination of the parties on financial issues during a hearing over three days occupied less than 15 minutes total ‑ demonstrating the focus of the parents.
4. In my view, the answer to the question about what orders achieve justice and equity now, does not require a precise analysis of contributions and s 75(2) factors (with percentages for each step), as is the usual approach adopted. I do not accept, as the wife seeks, or a "two pool approach" - essentially of debt (over $1 million) and the superannuation.
5. In my view, the following factors and findings shape my final Orders:

(a) During the relationship, the parties adopted traditional roles - the husband being the primary earner and the wife committing to the role as homemaker and parent;

(b) Apart from the husband's earning capacity and some modest superannuation accumulated by the husband, few assets of significance were held at cohabitation;

(c) The couple did not benefit from any extraordinary direct financial contributions, such as significant gifts, inheritance, personal injury awards, lottery wins or the like;

(d) The husband has to manage the debt of over $500,000 owed to the ANZ Bank which was raised to accumulate shares as a wealth creation strategy. The parties did not own any real estate during the relationship;

(e) I accept, either by reason of Court Orders made for maintenance and/or child support, or because the wife accessed (without the husband's consent) the proceeds of shares sold, the wife, between 25 November 2022 and 16 January 2024, used $303,266 in whatever way she felt was appropriate. She had earlier accessed $150,148 in May 2022. The Order of Senior Judicial Registrar Best made on 17 October 2022 for the husband to pay:

(i) spouse maintenance of $1,670 per week; and

(ii) a total of $2,662 per week child support for the two children;

computes to a payment from 20 October 2022 to 11 September 2024 (when a change of residence was ordered by the Court - a total of approximately 98 weeks) of approximately:

(f) The wife received:

(i) the funds accessed totalling $453,414; and

(ii) other funds the wife had access to (see Order dated 20 October 2022 where accumulated arrears of $25,992 to 20 October 2022 were received by her from the car insurance payment). As she also admits, the wife, in my assessment, received a substantial part of her entitlements under the interim Orders of 17 October 2022.

(g) The change of residence ordered by the Court, first on an interim basis and now twice after final Orders, means the husband has had to meet the children's expenses solely since 11 September 2024 without any real financial contribution by the wife;

(h) The husband further has to solely meet both significant tax liabilities - some I infer that might be capital gains tax liabilities on the sale of shares, and particularly the debt to the ANZ Bank - without having any assets at all;

(i) The husband has a superior income but, on the basis of the most recent Orders of Carew J, he bears the financial obligations for all the needs of the children X (now aged 8 years) and Y (now aged 4 years ), which responsibility will extend for over 10 years;

(j) Any superannuation entitlements of the husband will not be accessible by him for many years;

(k) Although the wife has not been employed in the workplace for many years, she has tertiary qualifications and is extremely articulate. Whilst I accept she has been consumed by the parenting issues - most obsessively after the changes in September 2024 which are, on current Orders, to continue for the children's infancy, that is not of itself a reason why, in my view, the wife could not seek employment; and

(l) Both parties, not surprisingly, carry significant anxiety issues, but with treatment I am not satisfied the parties are unable to earn an income - although I accept the wife's income will always be less than the husband's.

1. In my assessment, it is just and equitable to make no property adjustment orders, which means:

(a) the husband will retain his superannuation but have no access to it for some years;

(b) the wife will retain the car in her possession - I will not order, as the husband seeks, she return Motor Vehicle 1 to him; and

(c) the husband will be solely responsible for debts of over $1 million. Whether the ANZ Bank and/or the ATO demonstrate commercial patience and do not seek to place the husband in bankruptcy (as they appear to be entitled to do), is uncertain. I find it is only possible to avoid bankruptcy if the husband negotiates an arrangement with both of his major creditors to pay off the liabilities over many years. As I discuss below, even on his income, but after meeting his obligations to the children and his own reasonable self-support, any modest balance (likely to be less than $1,000 a week after tax) means liabilities of $1 million will take some years to extinguish

1. The orders that are just and equitable for property adjustment appear at the commencement of these Reasons.

1. The wife, when the children were in her care, maintained an application for her spouse maintenance.
2. In my view, the landscape has significantly changed. The wife, on the evidence I heard in November 2024, was unable to adequately support herself - devoting herself full-time to the care of the children (and to the litigation), where the children were spending no time with their father (the husband).
3. However, even if the wife was able to satisfy the "threshold" test now, the issue of the husband's capacity to pay is relevant.
4. As I have already alluded to, with the full expenses of the children to meet, and his obligation to meet the repayment of joint debts, I am not satisfied on the brief evidence tested, that the husband now has the capacity to pay any spouse maintenance to the wife.
5. Whilst it may be that he can extinguish the debts within five years, by then I am satisfied the wife's skills will enable her to adequately support herself. I do not anticipate the wife will pay (even if she is working) anything other than modest child support to the husband, if at all.
6. The husband seeks that the spouse maintenance Order be discharged with effect from 20 December 2022. I do not regard that as proper. The wife, at that time, was in the same position as she was when Senior Judicial Registrar Best (as she then was) made Orders in October 2022. Although the husband could have reviewed that decision, he did not do so - and he even in a sense "reaffirmed" the Orders by his consent to the later Order distributing the proceeds of the insurance claim.
7. The material change occurred on 11 September 2024. I propose to make orders, considering the wife's use of joint funds, that:

(a) the Orders made 17 October 2022 for interim spouse maintenance, be discharged as of 11 September 2024;

(b) any arrears of spouse maintenance said to have accumulated to 11 September 2024, are discharged; and

(c) the wife's application for spouse maintenance is otherwise dismissed.

1. At the time the matter was before me in November 2024, the evidence does not probatively establish that the husband (as the carer) had made any application for an administrative assessment. On the evidence before me, where the wife (as mother) had limited income, seeking an administrative assessment would have probably been futile.
2. The issues of child support, in my view, should be considered in the same factual matrix as the findings in respect of property orders and spouse maintenance earlier recorded, create.
3. In my assessment, the child support departure order should be discharged from 11 September 2024. I note that the wife's final application for child support departure, sought a reduction to $900 per week per child - rather than seeking to maintain the ordered amount of $1,331 per week per child.
4. The evidence does not assist me in reconciling what might be owed by the husband, although he was having funds "garnished" from his wages. I am certain that, noting the wife's attitude to the husband, she had engaged the Child Support Agency in seeking to enforce and collect payments.
5. In my view of the findings earlier made, I will order that:

(a) the child support departure Order made 17 October 2022 be discharged as at 11 September 2024;

(b) any arrears of child support owed by the father are discharged;

(c) the wife's application for a child support departure order is otherwise dismissed; and

(d) the husband be at liberty to provide a copy of these Reasons for Judgment to the Child Support Registrar.

1. The Orders I now make conclude all remaining matters before me arising from the trial held in November 2024.
2. I note the wife had sought recovery of her costs Order made earlier for $8,000, however that sum was distributed to her in the Orders made 20 October 2022.

I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.