Dear Member,

The question you ask unfortunately can't be answered in any meaningful way without fully understanding the full background and circumstances of the couple (e.g. how long they were living together, who is driving the separation and why, what other assets the parties own (including other residential property), the respective incomes and employment of the parties etc.

However, in very broad terms, mere occupation of the home at this stage won't make any material difference to the entitlements of the parties upon a final property settlement. The house is a "joint" asset and the entitlement to keep it (or be paid out of their share, or receive a share of any sale proceeds) will depend on various other factors such as the contributions the parties made to the house and their respective current and future financial circumstances, care of the children etc.

On the other hand, as a matter of practicality it can be very useful to remain in the home and live is often harder for a party who decides to vacate, especially if they will remain primary carer of a young child. For example they may need to pay rent, or move in with parents/friends, and generally re-establish themselves in another place for a period which can be difficult in already stressful circumstances. The party who remains in the home may be more comfortable and have less incentive to deal with issues quickly and therefore will gain some leverage in negotiations.

Again however I stress that these are general considerations and may or may not be applicable to the particular facts you describe.