Hampton and Temple - [2012] FamCA 681

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAMPTON & TEMPLE

[2012] FamCA 681

FAMILY LAW – MAINTENANCE – Child Bearing Expenses- application by mother for a lump sum payment - father ordered to pay mother a lump sum amount

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 67B, 67C(1),(2) and (3)

APPLICANT:

Ms Hampton

RESPONDENT:

Mr Temple

FILE NUMBER:

LNC

166

2012

DATE DELIVERED:

16 July 2012

PLACE DELIVERED:

Launceston

PLACE HEARD:

Launceston

JUDGMENT OF:

Benjamin J

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

The father pay to the mother the sum of three thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200) within twenty eight (28) days of the date of this order by way of child bearing expenses arising out of the birth of the child T born March 2011.
All outstanding applications be dismissed.
This matter be removed from the list of cases requiring determination.
IT IS DIRECTED
A copy of the reasons for these orders be taken out and placed on the court file.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hampton & Temple has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT LAUNCESTON

FILE NUMBER: LNC 166 of 2012

Ms Hampton

Applicant

And

Mr Temple

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application before me by Ms Hampton (“the mother”), seeking the sum of $19,847, being the maintenance expenses of the mother as a consequence of the birth of T in March 2011 (“the child”). That application is opposed by the father, Mr Temple, (“the father”) who says he should pay no money towards the cost of the mother’s child-bearing expenses.
There seems to be no issue that the child is a child of the parties, and the questions are, firstly, the period of time that the expenses to which the mother seeks should relate; secondly, the amount; and, finally, how that amount ought to be paid, if an amount is determined. The mother made it clear at the start that she is seeking maintenance for the period from four months prior to the birth of the child to the date of birth of the child. The father says that the period, if at all, should be limited to a two‑month period as he raises issues in respect of the mother’s employment and he says it should be for a shorter period.
The mother, in her evidence, indicated she does not seek medical expenses, but seeks, in essence, an amount to reimburse her for her loss of income over that period of time. The mother relied upon her application filed on 23 March 2012, an affidavit in support filed the same date, and a financial statement prepared by her filed the same date. She also gave some oral evidence and was cross‑examined by the father. The father relied upon his response…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hampton and Temple

Details

AGLC: Hampton and Temple [2012] FamCA 681
Case: [2012] FamCA 681
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an application by Ms Hampton (the mother) against Mr Temple (the father) in the Family Court of Australia. The mother sought a lump sum payment of $19,847 for child-bearing expenses incurred as a consequence of the birth of their child, T, in March 2011. The father opposed any payment, arguing he should not contribute to the mother's child-bearing expenses. The primary dispute revolved around the period for which expenses should be considered, the quantum of those expenses, and the method of payment.

The court was required to determine the appropriate "childbirth maintenance period" for which the father could be liable, considering the mother's claim for expenses from four months prior to the birth and the father's contention for a shorter, two-month period. Further, the court had to assess the quantum of the mother's loss of income during this period, as she was not seeking medical expenses but reimbursement for lost earnings. Finally, the court needed to consider the father's financial capacity to meet any ordered payment, and whether such payment should be a lump sum or periodic.

Justice Benjamin applied sections 67B, 67C(1), (2), and (3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Section 67B establishes the father's liability for the mother's maintenance during the childbirth maintenance period and her reasonable medical expenses. Section 67C outlines the factors to be considered, including the income, earning capacity, property, financial resources, and necessary commitments of both parents, while specifically disregarding the mother's entitlement to income-tested pensions or benefits. The court found that the mother was advised by a medical practitioner to cease paid employment for medical reasons related to her pregnancy in November 2010, establishing a four-month period of lost income until the child's birth in March 2011. Considering the father's income of approximately $98,000 per year and his necessary expenses, the court determined he had the capacity to pay.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother the sum of $3,200 within 28 days as a lump sum for child-bearing expenses. All other outstanding applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the court's list.

Orders