Ming & Leong
[2022] FedCFamC2F 973
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Ming & Leong [2022] FedCFamC2F 973
File number(s): CSC 81 of 2014 Judgment of: JUDGE COPE Date of judgment: 30 August 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – adult child maintenance – where adult child is 23 years of age undertaking university studies – the parties have a long history with the Court – where the First Applicant gave evidence that the Adult Child had a physical impediment which prevented him from working –Adult Child is a resident not a citizen and is required to pay university fees upfront – the First Applicant’s loans to assist in meeting living expenses found to be properly her responsibility – where Respondent has capacity to contribute. Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VII ss 66B, 66G, 66H, 66L, 66J, 66K
Cases cited: AR & AL [2004] FMCAfam 597
Cosgrove & Cosgrove (1995) FLC 92-700; [1995] FamCA 155
Everett & Everett (2014) 52 Fam LR 1; [2014] FamCAFC 152
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 192 Date of hearing: 18 & 19 May 2022 Place: Cairns Counsel for the first Applicant: The First Applicant represented herself Counsel for the Second Applicant: The Second Applicant represented himself Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent represented himself ORDERS
CSC 81 of 2014 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS MING
First Applicant
MR LEONG
Second Applicant
AND: MR B LEONG
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE COPE
DATE OF ORDER:
30 August 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Respondent, MR B LEONG pay or cause to be paid to the Second Applicant, MR LEONG (“the Adult Child”) by way of direct debit, Adult Child Maintenance in the sum of $155 per week, to commence as of 19 May 2022 and the following terms and conditions shall apply:
(a)Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order the Adult Child will nominate in writing addressed to the Respondent, to include by text or email, a bank account into which the adult child maintenance is to be paid (“the nominated account”);
(b)The Respondent cause to be paid the sum of $2,945 into the nominated account, on or before 30 September 2022, to consist of the first 19 weeks payment;
(c)As of 7 October 2022 the Respondent pay to the Adult Child by way of direct debit the sum of $155 per week; and
(d)Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order the Respondent provide to the Adult Child written confirmation of the direct debit arrangement from his banking provider.
2.The payment of adult child maintenance referred to in Order 1 above will cease upon the following:
(a)the Adult Child commencing full time employment; or
(b)the Adult Child submitting his final assessment for his current degree at D University; or
(c)the Adult Child ceasing to be enrolled in his current Bachelor of Business degree at D University; or
(d)as of the first University semester in 2023, the Adult Child ceasing to be enrolled full time in his current Bachelor of Business degree; or
(e)the Adult Child failing to pass two or more subjects in one semester forming part of his tertiary study course requirement; or
(f)31 August 2024; or
(g)the Adult Child or the Respondent dying;
whichever is the earliest.
3.The Adult Child shall provide to the Respondent within seven (7) days of the academic census date in each University semester, written confirmation from D University of the units of study in which he is enrolled.
4.All Outstanding Applications are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the List of Matters awaiting finalisation.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Ming & Leong has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE COPE
Introduction
This is an application by the mother Ms Ming (“the First Applicant”) seeking adult child maintenance payments from Mr Leong (‘the Respondent’). The First Applicant was assisted by an interpreter however often had to be reminded to wait on that process.
The Second Applicant is the adult child, Mr B Leong (“the Adult Child”). He is 23 years old and studies a Bachelor of Business at D University Australia (“D University”)
The Applicants’ Proposal
In the Amended Initiating Application filed on 20 April 2022, the First Applicant proposes as follows:
(a)The Respondent pay 50% of the Adult Child’s University education, specified as $32,000, into a bank account for the first Applicant.
(b)That a real property be transferred to her name so that she may collect the rental income from the tenants.
(c)Interlocutory Orders to freeze the sale, transfer or gift of three named real properties in the Respondent’s name until 30 December 2022 and rental income from the Suburb R property, Tasmania.
In her Affidavit filed on 13 May 2022, the First Applicant annexes a sheet of calculations in which the lump sum sought to be paid by the Respondent is increased to $78,963[1], covering expenses from July 2017 to August 2023, the expected conclusion date of the Adult Child’s tertiary study.
[1] Affidavit of the First Applicant filed 13 May 2022, page 32 of 36
The Adult Child did not file an Initiating Application, Response or Outline of Case document, but supports the Orders sought by his mother, and a similar table of calculations adding up to $78,963 is annexed to his Financial Statement[2].
[2] Filed 6 May 2022
The Respondent’s Proposal
The Orders sought by the Respondent are set out in his (Further) Amended Response filed on 10 May 2022. In that document he seeks Orders as follows:-
(a)The First Applicant ‘stop controlling’ the Adult Child and let him control his own bank account;
(b)The First Applicant ‘stop intervening’ between the Adult Child and the Respondent and the Adult Child directly contact and discuss his needs with the Respondent and accept practical support from the Respondent, specified to include teaching him to drive, casual job-hunting, pick and drop off for work and buying him a used car.
During the hearing, the Respondent agreed that the (First) Amended Response filed on 10 March 2021 reflected the Orders that he wished the Court to make – being that the Initiating Application be dismissed and any other Orders the Court deems appropriate.
In final submissions the Respondent’s position was that this Court should make such Orders as deemed appropriate.
Background
This matter has a long history with the Court.
The parties married in 1996 and separated in 2012, being about a 16 year relationship. They divorced in 2014. There is one child of the relationship, being the subject of this application.
Matrimonial property proceedings commenced in this Court in 2014. Final Orders were made by Judge Coker on 19 January 2017. Those Orders were then successfully appealed. The matter was remitted for hearing before Judge Coates. Final Property Orders were again made on 11 July 2019.
In 2020, the mother applied for an extension of time to appeal the Orders of Judge Coates. That application was dismissed.
The current proceedings for adult child maintenance were then commenced by the mother on 27 November 2020.
The Respondent filed a Response on 8 February 2021 however in that document he sought Orders about conduct rather than adult child maintenance. By Orders made on 23 February 2021, he was directed to file an Amended Response and a notation was made to the effect that the Response “fails to seek an order the Court is able to make and does not provide a response to the orders sought for adult child maintenance”. The (First) Amended Response was filed on 10 March 2021.
On 17 May 2021, procedural Orders were made. Notations on those Orders include the following:
The Court today has advised the parties that this is not a property settlement trial and that the Court will not be re-visiting the previous property matters NOTING that the parties have had two separate property trials by two different Judges. The first judgment was overturned on appeal about one issue only (overlooking a liability). The Wife appealed after the second trial, and did so unsuccessfully. The Full Court decision makes reference to the behaviour and conduct of each of the parties.
The Court has advised the parties that the adult child who is the applicant will need to attend Court for the trial, prepare documents as set out in these Orders and be ready to be cross examined.
IT IS NOTED for the record that the Court spend considerable time today mentioning this matter. The interpreter had significant difficulty getting the Mother to answer questions and to stop talking about irrelevant issues with lengthy replies.
Each of the parties have been encouraged to obtain legal advice as it has been explained to them that the Judge is not their respective lawyer.
The First Applicant filed an Amended Initiating Application on 20 April 2022 and a (Further) Amended Response was filed by the Respondent on 10 May 2022.
Agreed Facts and Uncontroversial Facts
The Adult Child is 23 years of age. He completed his high school education and has moved to study at D University.
The parties agree that the Adult Child did well at school and graduated from high school going straight to university. He lives with and is supported by the First Applicant. He studies hard and gets good results at university.
Both parents expressed pride in his achievements.
The First Applicant’s evidence is that the father and son discussed the son going to university but the Respondent would not agree to meet the fees. The Respondent gave evidence that he preferred to provide practical rather than financial support.
The First Applicant’s evidence is that the Adult Child is currently at university part-time because she cannot pay the fees required for him to attend full-time.
The First Applicant is on government benefits, though her evidence is that in the past she has worked as a cleaner and retail worker. Her evidence is that she lost that last job as a consequence of Court commitments.
The First Applicant and the Respondent have not given meaning and effect to the terms of the Final Property Orders made by Judge Coates on 11 July 2019.
The First Applicant gave evidence that the Adult Child had a physical impediment which prevented him from working. She conceded however that the medical certificate annexed to her Affidavit material states that “this has had no significant impact on his health or function”[3].
[3] Affidavit of the First Applicant filed 13 May 2022, annexure C
As the Adult Child is a resident and not a citizen he is required to pay university fees upfront.
There is no mortgage on the Suburb E property where the First Applicant and Adult Child live, although there are outstanding rates. Further, as noted above, the transfer of that property to the First Applicant’s name in accordance with Final Property Orders has not occurred.
The summary of expenses annexed to the First Applicant’s Affidavit filed 13 May 2022[4] was drafted by her on 25 April 2022. This reflects historical expenses from July 2017 to December 2021 in the sum of $49,799 and future expenses from February 2022 through to August 2023 in the sum of $29,164. The pre-existing expenses cover the university fees, bus tickets, taxi fees, laptop, lunch, council fees, food and airline tickets. The future expenses include university fees, internet, taxi, dental, council rates, food, electricity and loan from a Mr F. It is to be noted that the Respondent has not necessarily conceded all these expenses or future estimates of same.
[4] Affidavit of the First Applicant filed 13 May 2022, page 25 of the annexures
Although the First Applicant’s Financial Statement raises some questions, it is clear that her expenses far outweigh her government income. Her only significant asset is the home in which she and the Adult Child live, and that has not yet been transferred to her name.
The First Applicant has borrowed money from friends and family to enable her to meet the Adult Child’s university fees.
The Respondent conceded that he had not paid child support directly to the First Applicant since separation, and by that I mean he has not paid money to assist her to feed, clothe and educate their son. It is uncontested that the First Applicant has met all expenses for the child in the ten years post separation other than $480 paid by the Respondent to meet internet fees.
Although the First Applicant stated that Judge Coker ordered the Respondent to pay $30,000 in child support, the judgment and Orders in fact reflect a cash adjustment of $30,000 as part of the property settlement. In any event that decision was set aside by the Full Court and the subsequent Orders of Judge Coates require the First Applicant to pay $14,000 to the Respondent.
The relationship between father and son is far from ideal, with them having limited contact.
The relationship between the First Applicant and the Respondent is also far from ideal.
The Respondent accepted the evidence that third parties, Mr F and Ms G, had loaned money to the First Applicant to assist with living expenses and university fees.
It is also unchallenged evidence that at the time of the hearing the fees for the next semester in the sum of $3,760 were due in June 2022, however the Adult Child had only $1,100 in his bank account. The Adult Child’s evidence was that he had no plans how to pay that amount and his mother put it to him that she would need to borrow more money to keep him in university.
The evidence of the Respondent was that at almost 24 years of age the Adult Child needed to be more independent, work for at least a few hours per week to contribute to his own costs of living and learn to have more respect for money.
It is an agreed fact that the First Applicant has a diagnosis of a medical condition.
It is clear on the evidence of all parties that the First Applicant is a very protective and loving mother.
Facts in Dispute
Does the Adult Child have the capacity to work?
The First Applicant’s evidence is that the Adult Child has a physical incapacity to work and relies on a medical certificate which in fact says the opposite.
The Respondent’s evidence is that he found two casual jobs for the Adult Child but the First Applicant refused to allow the Adult Child to work due to physical impediment. There is however no evidence that the Adult Child does not have capacity to work.
What is the value of the Respondent’s business?
In her Financial Statement, the First Applicant has estimated the value of the Respondent’s business at $300,000. She says this is based on an internet search which states the cleaners earn between $70,000 and $100,000 per annum and she has tripled the annual amount to get that estimated value.
The Respondent’s evidence is this is a business that he set up himself, that it is not a franchise or other established business with contracts and that it has no intrinsic value.
What is the value of the Respondent’s real estate?
The Respondent challenged the First Applicant’s estimate of values for his real properties, however her evidence is that she paid $35 for a valuation from the Department of Housing.
The Respondent’s evidence as to those values are his own guesstimates, if I can call them that, with no independent basis.
Based on their Financial Statements, both parties estimate the value the Suburb R property at $300,000. The First Applicant estimates the value of the Suburb C property at $125,000 and the Respondent at $65,000. So that I do not over-estimate the Respondent’s financial resources and jeopardise the viability of Orders made, I have accepted his estimate.
The Respondent values his post separation asset at Suburb H at $230,000 being the purchase price.
Has the Respondent transferred cash overseas?
The Respondent disputes that he has transferred money overseas to China. The First Applicant produced bank statements from 2015 and 2016 which show funds in those accounts, but not where they went or for what purpose they were used. Those statements pre-date the property settlement and findings have already been made in those proceedings about those funds.
The First Applicant has only her own evidence of conversations with people at the bank as to the current values of those accounts. It would be most unusual for a bank teller to tell a third person the balance of an account.
What has the First Applicant contributed to living expenses?
The Respondent put it to the First Applicant that she had not paid any mortgage or rent since he moved out in 2012. The First Applicant’s evidence under cross examination was that she has paid about $50,000 in rates and had an outstanding amount of $9,338.
What if any amount should the Respondent pay towards the support of the Adult Child and how should that be calculated?
The First Applicant seeks that the Respondent pay the sum of $78,963[5]. She says this is one half of the funds she expended between July 2017 and December 2021 together with half of the funds that she expects to expend between February 2022 and August 2023.
[5] The Affidavit of the First Applicant filed 13 May 2022, page 25 of the annexures
Under cross examination, the Respondent accepts the figures for university fees, bus fees, the laptop, lunches, food, dental fees, electricity and the loan from Mr F.
He challenges however the funds already spent and expected to be spent on taxi fares, council rates for the home in which the Applicants live, the internet fees, and the airline tickets. The factors in dispute shall be addressed in greater detail below.
The EVIDENCE
The First Applicant filed an Outline of Case on 13 May 2021 and then an Amended Outline of Case on 16 May 2021 which sets out the material upon which she relied.
The Adult Child filed an Affidavit on 9 May 2022 and Financial Statements on 14 June 2021 and 6 May 2022.
The Respondent has filed and relies upon the (First) Amended Response filed on 10 March 2021, the Affidavit filed on 11 May 2022 and the Financial Statement filed on 11 May 2022.
I have read the Orders and Notations made in this matter. The parties and the witnesses were subject to cross examination. I have read the material relied on and tendered, heard the cross examination and submissions and considered the evidence of each of the parties, and their witnesses in these proceedings.
Where I have made statements of fact or expressed a view, those are to be read as findings. Where I have made findings, those findings are clear on the face of these reasons and have been made on the balance of probabilities as required by s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
The law
Part VII Division 7 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) deals with child maintenance Orders.
The objects of the Act[6] include ensuring that children have their proper needs met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both their parents and that parents share equitably in the support of their children. The Court may make such maintenance Order as it thinks proper.[7] Section 66H of the Act outlines the approach to be taken in proceedings for child maintenance.
[6] Section 66B (1) and (2)
[7] Section 66G
In summary, when deciding an application for child maintenance, the Court is required to consider the financial support necessary for the maintenance of the child and then determine the financial contributions to be made by each party.
Section 66L (1) of the Act provides:
A court must not make a child maintenance order in relation to a child who is 18 or over unless the court is satisfied that the provision of the maintenance is necessary:
(a) to enable the child to complete his or her education; or
(b) because of a mental or physical disability of the child.
The court may make such a child maintenance order, in relation to a child who is 17, to take effect when or after the child turns 18.
Section 66J (1) of the Act sets out that in considering the financial support necessary for the maintenance of a child, the Court must take into account these (and no other) matters:
(a)the matters mentioned in section 66B; and
(b)the proper needs of the child (subsection (2)); and
(c)the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child (subsection (3)).
Section 66J (2) of the Act provides when taking into account the proper needs of the child the Court:
(a) must have regard to:
(i) the age of the child;
(ii) the manner in which the child is being, and in which the parents expected the child to be, educated or trained; and
(iii) any special needs of the child; and
(b) may have regard, to the extent to which the court considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case, to any relevant findings of published research in relation to maintenance of children.
(Emphasis added)
Section 66J (3) of the Act provides that when taking into account the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child, the Court must:
(a)have regard to the capacity of the child to earn or derive income, including any assets of, under the control of or held for the benefit of the child that do not produce, but are capable of producing, income; and
(b) disregard:
(i) the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of any other person unless, in the special circumstances of the case, the court considers it appropriate to have regard to them; and
(ii) any entitlement of the child or any other person to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit.
Section 66K of the Act provides that in determining the financial contribution or respective financial contributions towards the financial support necessary for the maintenance of a child that should be made by a party or by parties to the proceedings the Court must take into account these (and no other) matters:
(a) the matters mentioned in sections 66B, 66C and 66D; and
(b)the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the party or each of the parties (subsection (2)); and
(c) the commitments of the party or each of the parties that are necessary to enable that party to support:
(i) himself or herself; or
(ii) any other child or another person that the person has a duty to maintain; and
(d) the direct and indirect costs incurred by the parent or other person with whom the child lives in providing care for the child (subsection (3)); and
(e)any special circumstances which if not taken into account in the particular case would result in injustice or undue hardship to any person.
Subsection 66K (2) of the Act provides that in taking into account the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of a party to the proceedings the Court must have regard to the capacity of the party to earn and derive income including any assets of, or under the control of or held for the benefit of the party that do not produce, but are capable of producing, income.
Subsection 66K (3) of the Act provides that in taking into account the direct and indirect costs incurred by the parent or other person with whom the child lives in providing care for the child, the Court must have regard to the income and earning capacity forgone by the parent or other person in providing that care.
Subsection 66K (4) of the Act provides that in determining the financial contribution or respective financial contributions that should be made by a party or by parties to the proceedings the Court must disregard:
(a)any entitlement of the child or the person with whom the child lives to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit; and
(b)the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of any person who does not have a duty to maintain the child or has such a duty but is not a party to the proceedings unless in the special circumstances of the case the court considers it appropriate to have regard to them.
Subsection 66K (5) of the Act provides that in determining the financial contribution, or respective financial contributions, that should be made by a party, or by parties, to the proceedings, the Court must consider the capacity of the party, or each of the parties, to provide maintenance by way of periodic payments before considering the capacity of the party, or each of the parties, to provide maintenance:
(a)by way of a lump sum payment; or
(b)by way of transfer or settlement of property; or
(c)in any other way.
Subsection 66K (6) of the Act provides that subsections (2) and (5) do not limit, by implication, the matters to which the Court may have regard in taking into account the matters referred to in subsection (1).
In Everett & Everett (2014) 52 Fam LR 1 the Full Court helpfully provided direction about the word “necessary” in section 66L as follows:
[76]… s 66L prohibits the making of an order for adult child maintenance unless the court is satisfied that such maintenance is necessary to enable the child to complete his or her education. Thus, the central focus of the inquiry is the question of whether the maintenance is necessary for that purpose.
[77] The construction of the word “necessary” has been well settled in this court for many years. In Tuck at 76, 227 Evatt CJ and Murray J said:
To define “necessary” as meaning “absolutely essential” is to give the adjective a most stringent definition. That stringency, in our view, is not warranted by the concept expressed very strongly by the Act that the Court shall regard the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. “Necessary” in this context means that the maintenance is needed by the child and that it is reasonable to require the parent to contribute, having regard to the parties’ financial circumstances and other relevant factors.
In this case the parties agree that the Adult Child and the Respondent do not have a good relationship. The Full Court however observed in the decision of Cosgrove & Cosgrove (1995) FLC 92-700 that:
·it is not a necessary element, before adult child maintenance can be ordered, that there be a warm relationship between the parent and the child; and
·there should not be a practice in adult child maintenance applications of conducting a detailed examination of the relationship between the child and the Respondent; however
·it cannot be said that the attitude or behaviour of the child to the Respondent could, to use the language of s 66K(1)(e), never be a special circumstance which, if not taken into account in the particular case, would result in an injustice or undue hardship to any person.
Discussion
I note firstly that I must do the best I can with the evidence before me. There were no current bank account statements provided or disclosed. There was no business valuation, no tax returns and no evidence or agreement as to each parties’ actual earnings or earning capacity.
The accounts which the Applicants ask me to ‘freeze’ are evidenced only by statements that predate the property trial – with dates varying from 2013 - 2016[8].
[8]Affidavit of the First Applicant filed 9 March 2022, annexure D
There are no current valuations of the real property, and I therefore can only work with the estimates provided by the parties as the best evidence before the Court.
The evidence of the Adult Child was that his mother had prepared his Affidavit material but that he had seen the documents before and signed the Affidavits. In comparing the language used in the emails to the Adult Child’s verbal testimony, I formed the view that the First Applicant had not only prepared the Adult Child’s Affidavits but also sent emails under his name[9], as the Adult Child’s grasp of the English language is far greater than is reflected in those emails, and also noting that he is a university student who has been educated in Queensland for most of his life.
[9]Affidavit of the Adult Child filed 9 May 2022, annexure M at page 73
The form that any financial contribution should take
The Applicants propose that I order the Respondent to make a lump sum payment by way of adult child support in the sum of $78,963. This includes historical expenses for a period of four and a half years and expenses from February 2022 to August 2023.
In accordance with s 66K(5) when determining the financial contribution that should be made by a party, the Court must consider the capacity of the party to provide maintenance by way of periodic payments before considering the capacity of the party to provide maintenance:
·by way of a lump sum; or
·by way of transferral settlement of a property; or
·in any other way.
In other words, the Court is required to first consider periodic payments before turning to the proposals of the Applicants for lump sum and/or property transfer.
The Financial Support Necessary for the Maintenance of the Adult Child
In determining what Orders to make to ensure that the Adult Child has his proper needs met from the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both of his parents while he is studying, and that the parents share equitably in his support, I will review the legislation and the evidence step by step.
The Proper Needs of the Adult Child
The Adult Child is 23 years old. He is part way through a Business Degree. He commenced tertiary study in about 2017 and he expects that will not be completed until 2024. I accept the unchallenged evidence of the Adult Child that he started with a diploma and other subjects prior to starting the Degree proper, and obtained some credits for those subjects.
I accept that he may not be able to complete his studies due to financial constraints. He is currently studying part-time only, again due to an inability to pay the fees.
His evidence, which was unchallenged, was that he had done well at school and as a young man had been encouraged to commit to his studies, not waste time and to get an education. His evidence, which was again unchallenged, was that he had expected that he would do well and go on to university. He gave evidence that he studies as much as he can as he cannot afford to repeat any subjects.
Both Applicants gave evidence that the Adult Child had a direct conversation with his father and there was another conversation between his parents where the Respondent said that he would contribute to the fees, and that the Adult Child believed that his father would do so. The Respondent concedes the conversations however does not recall agreeing to pay money.
Having heard the evidence I have formed the view that both the First Applicant and the Respondent, as parents, expected that the Adult Child would be educated to university level; to achieve his maximum potential.
Under cross examination, the Adult Child gave evidence that he had started the course and that he wanted to finish it. His evidence was that he felt that to stop now would be to waste the money paid and borrowed by his mother, and the time and effort that he had put in to his academic achievements. I formed the view that the Adult Child is committed to his studies and wants to finish this degree, and not waste the efforts of his mother in borrowing money or his own time and energy.
I consider each of these to be consistent with an expectation that the Adult Child would go on to tertiary education.
The Income, Earning Capacity, Property and Financial Resources of the Adult Child
The Financial Statements filed for the First Applicant and the Adult Child as regards assets and liabilities, and to a lesser extent expenses, were of limited utility as they included lump sum amounts for expenses such as university education, airline tickets and household expenses and also some of the Respondent’s assets, although with a NIL value. I have done the best I can with the limited information provided.
The financial position of the Adult Child as set out in his Financial Statement filed 6 May 2022 can be summarised (where relevant) as follows:
Particulars Amount Income (weekly) Government benefits ($310) Disregarded Other Income NIL Total Expenses (weekly) Rent NIL Food $150 Household Supplies $100 Gas NIL Electricity $10 Telephone $21 Motor Vehicle Maintenance NIL Taxi Fees $150 Clothing and Shoes $30 Medical, Dental and Optical $107 Entertainment/Hobbies $10 Holidays $40 Education Expenses $569 Chemist/pharmaceutical $10 Books and Magazines $27 Gifts NIL Toiletries $3 Other
- Council Rates
- Mr F (Loan)
- Laptop
$50
$50
$45Total $1,372
At the hearing of the matter a number of issues arose in cross examination with respect to the income and expenditure of the Adult Child.
Employment
Although he is studying part-time and commits only 22 hours per week to his studies, the Adult Child is not working, relying solely on government benefits and his mother.
The First Applicant’s submission was that the Adult Child is prevented from working by health issues. The Adult Child concedes that this is not the case though he gave evidence that his mother believes that it is. Certainly the medical certificate annexed to his Affidavit does not support any physical impediment.
The Adult Child’s evidence is that his mother wishes him to focus on his studies. Through her cross examination I also gained the impression that the First Applicant was fearful that the Adult Child may contact Covid and this may impact on his health and his studies. In fact the evidence of the Adult Child is that he has already had Covid.
The Respondent suggested in cross examination that the Adult Child could do some sort of training course, apprenticeship or government program to gain finances or in the alternative he could work in a supermarket or similar. No independent evidence of the availability and appropriateness of programs was provided.
The Adult Child gave evidence that he could work, that he had been looking for work but he was uncertain how to fit it into his studies.
There is in reality no impediment to the Adult Child working, for example, 20 hours per week whilst he is studying part-time, and perhaps less hours if he returns to full-time study.
His evidence was that about four years ago when he was at high school he worked part-time as a cleaner. He gave evidence that he stopped work because of his mother’s concerns for his health, and her wish for him to focus on his studies and the belief that the Respondent should accept some responsibility for the expense of his education.
The Respondent suggested that the Adult Child could take out a loan to meet his school fees. The Adult Child expressed some reluctance to do so given the uncertainty about when and how he would be able to repay it.
I am of the view a healthy 23 year old young man has the capacity to contribute financially to his own support whether he is studying full-time or part-time.
There is no evidence of incapacity and I find that the Adult Child has the capacity to work on at least a part-time or casual basis. To date he has simply chosen not to do so.
Education Expenses
In relation to University fees, I am assisted by the decision of FM Walters in AR & AL [2004] FMCAfam 597 where he stated:
[155] I accept that it may have been financially advantageous to the girls [or in this case, the Applicant] for their HECS fees to have been paid, and I accept that it would be a relief for them not to have a large liability when they complete their course. But the question is whether it is necessary that their HECS fees be paid. Clearly, it is not.
I therefore would not normally consider any amount of the University fees being claimed by the Applicant in these proceedings. In this case however it is an agreed fact that as the Adult Child is a permanent resident, and not a citizen, he is required to pay his university fees up front, failing which he will be unable to continue at university.
Documents annexed to the First Applicant’s Affidavit and which were not challenged provide that if the Applicant is not an Australian citizen then he is not eligible for a CSP or a HECS-HELP loan.[10]
[10] Exhibit W7
I therefore accept that the university fees are necessary to enable the Adult Child to complete his studies. The issue is whether in making my decision I should consider all fees including those that have already been paid by the First Applicant.
The evidence of the Adult Child was that he had $1,100 in his account, which was transferred from the First Applicant, but that $3,760 was due in university fees on 11 June 2021 and there was no plan in place to meet those fees, other than the First Applicant’s continued borrowings.
I accept the evidence of the Adult Child that most crucial for him is the payment of his university fees so that he can complete his education. His evidence is that both parents encouraged him to continue on to university, that it was a decision made with both parents. His evidence is also that his father promised him that when the time came he would be willing to contribute to those costs. I accept the Adult Child’s evidence about those matters.
The concern of the Adult Child is that now he is in danger of being unable to finish his degree due to lack of funds to cover his subjects, despite the fact that he has already put in time and effort and his mother has paid significant fees since the end of 2017.
Taxi fares
The Adult Child catches taxis to and from university as arranged by the First Applicant. This is an expense of $50 a day and currently $150 a week. She has negotiated a set fee and a significant reduction.
The evidence of the First Applicant and the Adult Child is that if he were to catch a bus there would be a three hour round trip to and from university there would need to start early in the morning to get there for 9:00am classes and 8:15am exams.
The First Applicant also expressed concern that if the Adult Child caught a bus he would be exposed to coronavirus risk, it would impact on his sleep and on his studies.
The evidence of the Adult Child is that he has already contracted coronavirus.
The Applicants claim $9,000 for taxi fares, being half for historical and half for future costs. In particular the First Applicant claims a $9,000 debt has been incurred for this expense, producing a hand written contract in support of that.[11]
[11]Affidavit of the Adult Child filed 9 May 2022, annexure G
The Respondent submitted that the First Applicant had called a witness to give evidence in relation to a $5,000 debt and yet had only annexed a handwritten document in relation to this much more significant debt. I accept the First Applicant’s evidence that the debt exists.
I do not however accept this is a reasonable expense or debt, particularly given that both the First Applicant and the Adult Child are on government benefits. I accept that there is inconvenience and time lost in public transport, however those are burdens that people with limited funds routinely bear and it is not unreasonable that the Adult Child should do so. I shall not include taxi fare costs in my considerations.
I do however consider that bus fares are a reasonable expense. I have not been provided with any evidence as to bus fares, but doing the best I can with what evidence I have been given I have estimated it at $50 per week.
Council fees/Rates
The Applicants propose that the Respondent pay one half of both historical and future Council rates for the home in which they live. The historical rates sought are $8,650 and the future rates of $4,669.
As the property is mortgage free, the rates are the only significant expense to be paid and the property is otherwise rent-free. I find that it is appropriate that the Adult Child be responsible for a portion of the rates where he has no rent or mortgage to pay.
In relation to the proportion applicable to the Adult Child, one half of this expense is appropriate, which I calculate as $195 per month or $49 per week.
The Internet fees
The Applicants seek a contribution from the Respondent for future internet fees of $3,306 over a period of some 18 months. This amounts to $184 per month which is, on the First Applicant’s evidence, one half of the cost. The Respondent challenges this expense as being over and above a reasonable amount giving evidence that he pays $50 per month.
The evidence of the Adult Child is that these expenses are a vital part of his studies as he is required to access lectures and noticeboards on line. He says he requires reliable internet as otherwise it would interfere with his studies. I accept that evidence.
I accept the submissions of the Respondent however that these are unreasonably high expenses. I also agree however with the Adult Child that internet fees are a necessity for a university student. I estimate a reasonable expense as $100 per month in total as a compromised amount.
The airline tickets
The Applicants seek that the Respondent contribute $6,065 for one half of airline fees. The evidence of the Adult Child was that these funds were for travel to Brisbane to renew his Visa. The evidence of the First Applicant was that this was for overseas travel to visit family who were seriously ill.
This expense was challenged by the Respondent as being an unreasonably high expense. I agree with the Respondent and in any event do not expect that he should have to contribute to cost of travel to visit family or renew a Visa.
Medical, Dental and Optical
Although this was not the subject of cross examination the amount claimed of $107 dollars per week is incredibly high, and is not supported by any documentary evidence.
The dental invoice is provided are for modest work done in the usual way.[12] I accept that evidence and not the higher and unsupported amount.
[12] Affidavit of the Adult Child filed 9 May 2022, annexure D at page 18 and 19
Education Fees
The Respondent accepted the amount for student fees on the basis of the statement annexed to the Adult Child’s Affidavit.
It is noted however that in the Adult Child’s Financial Statement he places the figure at $569 per week. This is $29,588 per annum. This far exceeds the claim set out in the annexure to the First Applicant’s Affidavit filed 13 May 2022, which has total school fees of 18 months at $15,000 or approximately $10,000 per annum. Her evidence was also that the fees have recently gone up to $1,800 per subject. Accepting that evidence, if the Adult child did four subjects per semester, then that would be $7,200 per semester and $14,400 per annum.
Accepting that latter figure I find that, were the Adult Child able to study full-time, the cost would be $277 per week, rounding up. An additional cost is appropriate for related expenses. I have no evidence of what that might be, so doing the best I can I round that figure up to $280 per week.
Loans
I find that while these loans may have been for the benefit of the Adult Child, they were taken out by the First Applicant and they are properly her responsibility.
Conclusion
Whilst there is little, and in some cases no evidence, to support many of the expenses the Adult Child’s seeks, and I further note that he is clearly not paying the majority of those expenses, I consider the following expenses to be reasonable and necessary for him to complete his tertiary education:
Particulars Amount Expenses (weekly) Food $150 Household Supplies $100 Electricity $10 Telephone $21 Bus Fees $50 Clothing and Shoes $30 Medical, Dental and Optical $20 Entertainment/Hobbies $10 Education Expenses $280 Chemist/pharmaceutical $10 Books and Magazines $27 Toiletries $3 Total $711
I find that the Adult Child has a capacity to earn or derive an income which he is not currently exercising.
Whilst I cannot possibly predict his hours or hourly rate, doing the best I can, in the event that the Adult Child took up paid work at $20 an hour for 20 hours each week he would have the capacity to contribute $400 per week to his own support. This would allow him to continue his studies and also take on some responsibility for the financial commitments relating to his support and those studies.
In accepting that as a reasonable sum for the Adult Child to earn, that leaves $311 per week in other expenses to be met.
The Contributions that are currently made by the First Applicant and the contributions that should be made by her in future
I accept the First Applicant’s evidence that she is reliant on government benefits.
I accept that the First Applicant is meeting the Adult Child’s expenses without any assistance from the Respondent.
I accept that the First Applicant cannot afford to meet the cost of the Adult Child’s University education, or indeed his other living expenses, and I accept that she has borrowed money from friends and family to meet day-to-day needs and enable the Adult Child to have the benefit of a tertiary education.
I accept that it is the First Applicant who does not want the child to work as she conceded that in cross examination.
I accept the evidence that the First Applicant has a diagnosis of a medical condition. There was no medical evidence about that however the Respondent acknowledged that he was aware of this condition. I do not know what this means as regards her future earning capacity, however aside from her elevated presentation in Court, I am unaware of any physical or other incapacity for paid work at the current time.
I accept that the First Applicant lives in a mortgage free property which is intended to be transferred to her sole name under the terms of Final Property Orders, although it appears that she has not paid the $14,000 required to be paid to the Respondent and so it appears that the property remains in joint names.
There can be no question but that the First Applicant is making contributions and supporting the Adult Child in terms of the legislation.
I find that the First Applicant has an earning capacity the extent of which is unknown. I have no evidence as to what she did earn when she worked or whether she worked full-time or part-time. There is no evidence as to the impact of her diagnoses other than observations at Trial which were unremarkable.
In those circumstances it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the level of the appropriate contribution to be made by the First Applicant.
The Contributions that should be made by the Respondent
The Respondent’s evidence is that he never intended to offer financial support but only practical support, which he described as driving the Adult Child to and from school to save taxi fares, assisting him to find casual employment and providing him with life advice. Given the agreed fact of a poor relationship between father and son, I am of the view that expecting the Adult Child to accept that practical assistance is unreasonable. Further such contributions are arguably not within the scope of the legislation.
It is the Respondent’s position that he should be respected as a parent and not viewed as an ‘ATM machine’. He made submissions that if the Applicants wish him to contribute they should consult him rather than just send him a bill. His position was that he would accept reasonable fees but only if they are reasonable. He had no preference, in the event that this Court makes an Order for adult child maintenance, whether it be in a lump sum form or by way of instalments. That said the legislation requires a consideration of the appropriateness of periodic payments to be the first step.
He submitted that the Adult Child would benefit from working; that it was not acceptable that he was not working to support himself at all. His submission was that by working even just three or four hours a week, the Adult Child would also be able to rest his brain and it would be good for his physical and mental health.
The Respondent submitted that it is more important for him to support the Adult Child to be independent. He gave evidence that he is 59 years of age and has an eye problem; that he will not be there to rely on for much longer. He gave evidence that his offers of practical assistance such as to buy the Adult Child his first car (a used car), to help him obtain jobs and to drive him to and from university is still open.
When challenged under cross examination, the Respondent’s position is that he would be prepared to pay some money to support the Adult Child, but it would depend on his other financial obligations. The First Applicant put it to him, but he did not accept, that he prioritised his other financial commitments over the child of the relationship.
Under cross examination, it was put to the Respondent that he had not fully recovered from his retina surgery and that he may not be safe on the road. The Respondent’s evidence that he had a current valid driver’s licence and he drives daily.
The Respondent is the owner of three real properties, one of which, being the J Street property, he purchased post separation. He conceded that the J Street property was worth about $230,000. That property has a mortgage of $164,855. His evidence was that property was purchased with funds saved post separation. His evidence is that he worked 50 hours a week to be able to obtain the loan to buy his home.
The Respondent gave evidence that he lives in the J Street property, and that it has equity of $65,145. Of his two investment properties the unit in Suburb C is now mortgage free and he estimates the value at only $65,000. The Suburb R property he estimates is valued at $300,000 and less the mortgage of $53,812, there is equity of $246,188. His evidence was that the mortgage on the Suburb R property had increased as it had been used to pay out the Suburb C mortgage. He therefore, even on his own evidence, has equity in three real properties totalling $376,333. His evidence is that he has very little in the way of savings. This was not accepted by the First Applicant however there are no documents produced to support that.
The First Applicant questioned the Respondent about the sum of about $279,000 which she said was in his four bank accounts in about 2015. The Respondent gave evidence that the same questions were asked in both property trials[13] and that the funds had long been expended on legal fees and other expenses.
[13] 2016 and 2019
The judgment from the first trial in 2016 reflects that at that time the Respondent had a financial resource/savings of about $170,000. The First Applicant produced the four bank statements from 2015 and 2016 which consist of term deposits and an account for about $170,000. All of those statements were from different dates. The term deposits statements predate the account of about $170,000 and the Respondent’s evidence is that the various statements all reflect the same funds which were moved around to seek favourable interest rates. His evidence was that those funds have since been expended, partly on legal fees and also on other expenses.
It is not my role to revisit the Final Property Orders and I do not intend to do so. I accept that at the time of the property decision he had a financial resource of $170,000. There is however no independent evidence that the Respondent has any current financial resources or that he has transferred funds to China. He has purchased another property. I am unable to make findings about the current cash resources of the Respondent.
The First Applicant made submissions and I accept that in all this wheeling and dealing, the Respondent has not contributed any money to the upkeep of the child of the relationship.
The Respondent’s submissions were to the effect that the Adult Child, who is now almost 24 years of age, should contribute to his own support. He proposes to provide only practical hands-on support. His evidence is that to date these offers have been spurned.
As regards income, the Respondent works on a casual basis as a cleaner through a business he established. I do not accept the First Applicant’s valuation of that business as $300,000; this is her guesstimate based on an internet search of the standard income of cleaner, taking that at its highest, and then tripling it. The Respondent’s evidence is that this cleaning business has little to no value. I accept the Respondent’s evidence as there is no expert evidence and this is a self-exertions business.
The Respondent’s evidence is that he is working 10 to 15 hours per week on a casual basis. His estimated income from that source is $650 per week. He does however have the capacity to work longer hours – on his own evidence having worked 50 hours a week at times. There was no evidence that the surgery to his eye impacted his earning capacity as his own evidence was that it did not impact his ability to drive. There is no evidence that he does not have the capacity to work full time.
The Respondent gave evidence that he receives rental income for the Suburb R property of $350 per week but pays the mortgage and expenses for that property from that income. The amount reflected in his Financial Statement is supported by the documents obtained by the First Applicant.[14]
[14]Affidavit of the First Applicant filed 20 April 2022, page 16 of the annexures
The Respondent estimates the unit in Suburb C which is worth $65,000. The First Applicant has estimated a value of $125,000 however I have no valuations. This property is mortgage free. The Respondent conceded that when the Suburb C property was rented out he received about $800 per month by way of rental income. It is a two bedroom property and he rents out the rooms separately. He gave evidence of water damage and a dispute with the body corporate which is in the Magistrates Court. His evidence is that the property has been untenanted for about a year. I accept that evidence however I also accept his own evidence that this property has a capacity to earn income of about $200 per week once that issue is resolved.
The First Applicant cross examined the Respondent about his rental income. The Respondent conceded he received about $130,965 by way of rental income between 2009 and 2021, being a period of 11 years. His evidence was however that he had to pay the mortgages and other expenses including rates and the like.
The Respondent expressed concern that if he was ordered to pay money to the First Applicant then it may put at risk his investment properties and he may be forced to send the Suburb E property to auction in order to pay the bank. As this is the property in which the Applicants live, this was arguably a threat to sell their home, which he may well do as a consequence of the Final Property Orders made on 11 July 2019. This reflected poorly on the Respondent, particularly where he has two investment properties which could be realised to pay any amounts ordered.
The Respondent also said that he works very hard to maintain the properties so that the Applicants can continue to live in the Suburb E home. He also however said that he works 10 to 15 hours per week, which is far from a standard working week. This was a troubling contradiction in his own evidence.
Looking at the Respondent’s Financial Statement filed 11 May 2022, once the expenses at Part G are considered together with those at part N, his estimated income is exceeded by his expenditure. I confirm however the Respondent’s evidence that he is working only 10 to 15 hours a week.
His Financial Statement reflects that his income from the business is $650 per week. If he is working 15 hours he is earning $43.33 per hour. If he worked 40 hours per week he would then earn $1,733.20 per week plus the rental income of $350 per week. His total expenses are ($920+$286) $1,206. From that income he would need to pay additional tax and for the purpose of this calculation I have estimated that at an additional $350 per week. He would then have surplus income of $527.32. I pause to say again that the parties gave me no evidence and that the estimate I made as regards tax obligations are not based on any documents, but on standard tax schedules.
So in summary, the Respondent has a potential earning capacity which would allow him additional funds of $527.32 per week, and once the Suburb C unit is repaired, a further $200 per week making that a total of $727.32 per week. In addition, as noted above, he has equity in real property to the value of at least $376,333.
Having considered that income earning capacity, and the fact that it is supported by a solid asset base, I find that the Respondent has the capacity to make a contribution to the Adult Child’s tertiary education.
I am of the view that in this case the poor relationship that currently exists between the Respondent and the Adult Child should not be a bar to the making of an Order that the Respondent be responsible for contributing to the Adult Child’s necessary expenses, as there are no special circumstances in evidence which would cause me to consider this an injustice.[15]
[15] Cosgrove & Cosgrove (1995) FLC 92-700
The Orders sought by the Applicants
Having heard the evidence of the parties, I am satisfied that the provision of maintenance is necessary to enable the Adult Child to complete his education for the following reasons:
(a)I find that it was the expectation of both parents that their child would proceed to university.
(b)I find that at the crux of this matter is their personal dispute with each other and their disagreement about what level of independence and responsibility their adult child should assume for the cost of his own education and other expenses.
(c)I accept the evidence of the Adult Child that without some support he will be unable to complete his education;
(d)Whilst I am of the view that the Adult Child has the capacity to contribute to his own support and education, I am not satisfied that he could or should do that unassisted;
(e)I find that the First Applicant has been solely responsible for meeting the costs of the Adult Child’s education and general support to date;
(f)I am of the view that whilst he has not financially contributed to his own support and education, I accept the evidence of the Adult Child that he has worked hard on his academic studies and I support him being able to complete those studies;
(g)I have found that the Respondent has the capacity to make periodic payments.
If I were to consider a lump sum payment this would, on the evidence before the Court, necessitate the Respondent either re-financing or selling a real property. That would not be an Order that I would lightly make. I note however that the Respondent has never financially supported the Adult Child so it is important to consider all options.
The Respondent’s threat to enforce the Final Property Orders made in 2019, by selling the home in which the First Applicant and Adult Child live, do him no credit. Whilst I have some sympathy for his views that he should be consulted rather than just forced to pay money based on decisions made by others, I am satisfied and accept the evidence that he wanted the Adult Child to be educated to university level. I formed the view that it is the Respondent’s frustration at the denial of a relationship with his child that is holding him back from supporting the Adult Child; instead making offers of practical assistance in order to create opportunities for contact.
Moving to consider the table provided by the Applicants as regards historical fees if I deduct the taxi fares, and reduce the council fees by two thirds (as per his Financial Statement) and deduct the airline tickets, then that brings the amount sought for historical payments down to $33,468.34.
I do not however intend to make Orders for retrospective lump sum adult child maintenance for the following reasons:
(a)The legislation requires me firstly to consider periodic payments;
(b)Based on the calculations above I am satisfied that the Respondent has sufficient earning capacity to contribute on a periodic basis;
(c)I am satisfied that there is no evidence of any physical or mental incapacity which would prevent the Adult Child engaging in paying work of some sort;
(d)I am satisfied that the Adult Child has the capacity to contribute to his own financial support and he has to date failed to do so;
(e)I am of the view that an Order for lump sum retrospective Adult Child Maintenance would arguably be to re-visit the Final Property Orders;
(f)I am not satisfied that the legislation empowers me to Order retrospective adult child maintenance. In the event that I am wrong about that, I am of the view that such an Order is not appropriate for the reasons outlined above.
As regards the current and foreshadowed expenses for the period between February 2022 and August 2023, if I deduct the taxi fares, the loan from Mr F, reduce the council rates again to one third, reduce the internet to the $100 per month I have allowed, then that brings the future amount sought down to $22,661.
On the evidence before the Court, and as noted above, an Order for a lump sum payment in that amount would require the Respondent to sell a property or refinance.
Having considered the evidence of all the parties I do not consider a lump sum order to be appropriate for the same reasons that I do not intend to make an Order for retrospective lump sum adult child maintenance.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to backdate the payment of adult child maintenance to a date earlier than the date of the hearing. To consider backdating the Orders to an earlier date, I would have to be satisfied that at that earlier date, it was appropriate for Orders to be made for maintenance of the Adult Child and on the evidence before me, I cannot be so satisfied. There is simply a lack of independent evidence which would allow me to consider that aspect of the claim.
I will not make Orders to freeze assets based on bank account statements from 2013 through to 2016. Current day evidence would be required for me to consider taking such action.
I will not make Orders to transfer real estate to the First Applicant, which in my view would in reality be revisiting the Final Property Orders which have already been addressed twice by this Court.
That leads me back to consider periodic payments and what form those periodic payments should make. As required by the legislation, an Order for periodic payments is, in any event, the starting point and I have found that the Respondent has the capacity to make periodic payments.
I have calculated the reasonable and necessary expenses for the Adult Child to complete his tertiary education as $711 per week. The Adult Child gave evidence that the crucial issue for him was the payment of the University fees and I accept and agree with that. As those fees are calculated at about $280 per week, that aspect of the claim is 39.4% of his total expenses.
I have found that the Adult Child has the capacity to contribute to his own expenses. I have found that the First Applicant has the capacity to contribute to an unknown extent.
I have found that the Respondent has capacity to contribute, in that whilst he is not working full time he has the capacity to do so. He is also in receipt of rental income and has another property which is capable of providing further rental income once it is back on the market.
On the limited evidence before the Court, the Respondent has the greatest income earning capacity and further he has not made any financial contributions to date, noting that the Adult Child gave evidence that he commenced his studies in 2017. In short it is the Respondent’s time to contribute to the endeavours of the Adult Child.
Conclusion
Having considered all those matters I propose to make an Order that the Respondent contribute to the Adult Child’s university fees by way of a weekly payment of $155 per week.
That figure is roughly one half of $311, being the difference between the Adult Child’s reasonable expenses and my calculation of his earning capacity.
I propose that the obligation to pay be backdated to the last day of the Final Hearing on 19 May 2022.
I propose that the first payment be made in the sum of $2,945, and will cover the first 19 weeks. That will be payable on or before Friday 30 September 2022.
The Adult Child is to provide to the Respondent with the bank account details into which those funds are to be paid within seven days. It is a matter for the Adult Child which account he nominates.
As of Friday 7 October 2022, the Respondent is to pay by direct debit the sum of $155 per week, with the last payment to be paid when the Adult Child completes his degree, or drops out of University, or fails, or works full time or on 31 August 2024, which is the expected completion date for his degree given by the Adult Child during the course of cross examination, whichever is the earliest.
The Respondent is to provide to the Adult Child confirmation of the direct debit arrangement to commence of 7 October 2022 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, so that the Adult Child has the reassurance of those payments.
As the Respondent is contributing to the cost of a full time degree, as of next semester the payment will be conditional upon the Adult Child being enrolled full time at university and providing confirmation of that to the Respondent.
I am satisfied that those Orders are necessary and will enable the Adult Child to complete his tertiary education.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and ninety-two (192) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cope. Associate:
Dated: 30 August 2022
0