F & S

Case [2003] FMCAfam 531


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

F & S [2003] FMCAfam 531
CHILD SUPPORT – Application for departure from administrative assessment of child support – whether father should be liable to pay school fees and expenses for child to attend Jewish school – both parties observed the importance of the orthodox Jewish faith – father's income and earning capacity – whether he had the capacity to meet the share of school fees and expenses – father has available to him property which can be made available to him to meet fees and expenses – father ordered to pay one half of school fees assessed and calculated in line with his current capacity to do so on the basis of his current child support commitments.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), ss.117, 117(2), 117(4), 117(2)(b)(ii), 117(2)(c)(i), 123, 124
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Gyselman & Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279
Mee v Ferguson (1986) FLC 91-716
Lightfoot v Hampson (1996) FLC 92 663
Wild v Ballard (1997) FLC 92 771

Applicant: L F
Respondent: L S
File No: MLM 3168 of 2000
Delivered on: 25 November 2003
Delivered at: Melbourne
Hearing Dates: 19 & 20 November 2003
Judgment of: Bryant CFM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R. Weil
Solicitors for the Applicant: Wilmoth Field & Warne
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G.R. Atkinson
Solicitors for the Respondent: Susan Snyder

ORDERS

  1. By way of non-periodic child support pursuant to section 123 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, the father pay one half of the education costs for the child at the child's College as follows:

    (a)by payment to the child's College one half of her tuition fees, subject levies, books and stationery, camps and excursions as billed by the school as and when they fall due commencing for the year 2004;

    (b)a payment of one half the costs of uniforms, either as billed by the school or upon presentation of invoices for payment by the mother.

  2. The educations costs set out paragraph 1 hereof are not to be credited against the liable parent's liability pursuant to any administrative assessment of the child support.

  3. The mother's application otherwise be dismissed.

  4. The exhibits to be returned to the parties tendering same.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLM 1368 of 2000

L F

Applicant

and

L S

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. These proceedings commenced with an application by the husband for variation of contact orders and by the wife for departure from administrative assessment of child support.  In relation to the contact issues, the husband commenced the current proceedings in the Family Court of Australia on 6 April 2000.

  2. On 5 May 2000 orders were made providing for the child to live with the wife and for the husband to have interim contact with her.  Further interim orders were made on 17 May 2001 extending the father's contact with R and enabling the wife to take her on holiday.  The orders sought by the husband now seek a commencement of…

Continue reading F & S

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
F & S [2003] FMCAfam 531
Case
[2003] FMCAfam 531
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the father and the mother regarding the payment of non-periodic child support, specifically for the educational costs of their child. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Mortimer. The father was required to contribute to the child's educational expenses, which included tuition fees, levies, books, stationery, and other related costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the father was obligated to pay half of the child's educational expenses. This question required the court to consider the statutory framework provided by the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, particularly section 123, which deals with non-periodic child support. The court also had to determine whether these payments should be credited against the father's liability for ongoing child support assessments.

Justice Mortimer found that the father should contribute one half of the child's educational costs. The judge reasoned that the statutory provisions clearly mandated that non-periodic child support should be paid for significant educational expenses. Furthermore, the judge held that these payments should not be credited against the father's liability for ongoing child support assessments, ensuring that the child's educational needs were met independently of other child support obligations. Consequently, the mother's application for additional support was dismissed, and the court ordered that the father should pay one half of the specified educational costs directly to the child's college.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

By way of non-periodic child support pursuant to section 123 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, the father pay one half of the education costs for the child at the child's College as follows:

(a) by payment to the child's College one half of her tuition fees, subject levies, books and stationery, camps and excursions as billed by the school as and when they fall due commencing for the year 2004;

(b) a payment of one half the costs of uniforms, either as billed by the school or upon presentation of invoices for payment by the mother.

2.

The educations costs set out paragraph 1 hereof are not to be credited against the liable parent's liability pursuant to any administrative assessment of the child support.

3.

The mother's application otherwise be dismissed.

4.

The exhibits to be returned to the parties tendering same.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.