Harold & Raymond

In the matter of MLC 2003 of 2021, Ms Harold (the Applicant Mother) sought adult child maintenance from Mr Raymond (the Respondent Father) for their adult child, Mr B. The application was heard by Judge Bender.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the provision of maintenance for Mr B, who was over 18 years of age, was necessary to enable him to complete his undergraduate studies at C University, as required by section 66L of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court was also required to determine the appropriate amount and duration of such maintenance, considering the relevant factors outlined in sections 66J and 66K of the Act.

Her Honour applied the principles established in *Paul & Paul* and *KEK & BK*, which interpret "necessary" under section 66L not as absolutely indispensable, but rather as a base level of necessity established by balancing the child's reasonable needs for education against the parents' financial circumstances and the child's own capacity to earn. The court considered factors such as the child's age, educational expectations, any special needs, and the child's income, earning capacity, property, and financial resources. The court also had regard to the parents' financial capacity and commitments.

The court ordered the Father to pay $225.00 per week for the adult child maintenance from 18 February 2021 until Mr B completes his full-time undergraduate studies. Specific payment arrangements were detailed, including a lump sum for arrears and fortnightly payments thereafter. The maintenance obligation was to cease upon Mr B commencing full-time employment (outside of university holidays), deferring or ceasing studies, discontinuing enrolment, or completing his degree. The order also included a provision for annual review of the maintenance amount based on the Consumer Price Index for Canberra. The Mother and/or Mr B were required to provide proof of Mr B's full-time enrolment each semester.