MILBRAND & MILBRAND

In the matter of *Milbrand & Milbrand*, the father applied for orders regarding adult child maintenance for their nineteen-year-old child, X. The father was employed full-time and well-remunerated, while the mother was unable to work for the foreseeable future due to her care responsibilities for X. The father retained the former matrimonial home, with the mother residing in a rental property. Crucially, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) fund was not contributing to X's living expenses.

The central legal issue before Judge Burchardt was the appropriate quantum and duration of adult child maintenance to be paid by the father. This involved considering the financial capacity of both parents, the ongoing needs of the adult child, and the extent to which external funding sources, such as the NDIS, were meeting those needs. The court was required to balance the father's ability to pay with the mother's inability to work and the child's continuing dependency.

Judge Burchardt reasoned that while the father had the capacity to pay, the order for maintenance should reflect a reasonable period, particularly given the child's age and the potential for future changes in circumstances. The court noted that the NDIS was not defraying any of the child's living expenses, thus placing a direct financial burden on the parents. Applying the relevant principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning adult child maintenance, the court determined that an order for a fixed period was appropriate.

Consequently, the father was ordered to pay adult child maintenance in respect of the child X in the sum of $200 per week for a period of five years from the date of the orders.