P and P
[2000] FMCAfam 14
•21 August 2000
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| P & P | [2000] FMCA fam 14 |
| CHILD MAINTENANCE ORDER – Section 66G & 66H FLA |
| Applicant: | P G P |
| Respondent: | K L P |
| File No: | ZB2494 of 2000 |
| Delivered on: | 21 August 2000 |
| Delivered at: | Brisbane |
| Hearing Date: | 17 August 2000 |
| Judgment of: | Baumann FM |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant in person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Hartfiel |
ORDERS
I am satisfied that the order sought by the mother in her application at paragraphs (1) and (2) is reasonable save that in view of the needs I have determined, the amount payable by the father should be $130.00 per week with the first payment due 7 days from today and weekly thereafter.
The amount of maintenance payable pursuant to this order be varied on and from the instalment payment due on 21 August in each year in accordance with the variation in the Consumer Price Index (Brisbane) as it stands on 31 December immediately preceding the date of variation as compared with the same Index at the same date 12 months prior.
I also order that the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to this application which I fix at $750.00
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
ZB 2494 of 2000
| P G P |
Applicant
And
| K L P |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The matter before me was an application for child maintenance brought by the mother K L P in respect of their child L M P (born 29 December 1982). The parties were married in 1975 and have been divorced for over ten years. The other child of the parties, R is working and currently resides with the father.
Applications
The mother seeks a child maintenance order of $150.00 per week. The father, who has paid maintenance voluntarily since separation in an amount of $30.00 per week, has offered in his response to increase payments to $50.00, “in addition to meeting half school, clothing and extraordinary expense items as per current arrangement”. The evidence did not assist me with clarity as to any “current arrangement”.
Law
The Court may make such child maintenance order as it thinks proper (s66G Family Law Act). In determining what is proper, the Court must first consider the financial support necessary for the maintenance of the child, and then determine the respective financial contributions towards the child’s support (s66H).
Support necessary for the child
In considering the financial support necessary to maintain a child, the Court must take into account the matters set out in s66J.
The mother in her application filed 16 June 2000 estimates the needs of the child to be $303 per week. The father, who represented himself in these proceedings, questioned the mother as to certain expenses (particularly allowances for food, clothing, computer loan and car expenses).
I was left with the clear impression that the father did not seriously disagree with the estimates when the mother gave responses.
Furthermore, the mother’s solicitor relied, upon the Lee scales, which show a total weekly expenditure of $261.32 for a child to age 13. Several cases have expressed a preference for the figures published and known as the “Lovering Scale”. After allowance for the components for housing, transport and computer expenses (which are not included in the Lovering figures), I have assessed the child’s proper needs at $260.00 per week taking into account all the evidence.
Contributions by the parties
Section 66b provides that children are to have their proper needs met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both of their parents – in an equitable manner.
A) The mother
The mother presented her evidence in a frank and direct manner. I find that the statements of fact in her material showing a weekly gross income of between $673 – $697 (including shift allowances) and net assets of approximately $30,000.00 to be verified by the evidence. I also accept the mother’s claim that the father has essentially been paying direct financial support of only $30.00 per week, which on the evidence is inadequate. The mother does not support any other person other than the child.
B) The father
I found the father was generally vague and uncertain whilst giving his evidence. He was clearly nervous and could also have been emotionally affected by the recent breakdown of his second marriage. Nonetheless, he did not impress me with the clarity of his understanding of his financial position. He constantly was required to get advice and direction from his second wife who came to Court to assist him. I could not be satisfied about the accuracy of his estimate of value of his home (which he finally conceded was worth about $320,000 not $230,000); the extent of the financial support received from his current wife towards the home; on the actual costs of construction of the home. His financial resources and property significantly exceeded those of the mother, although I am satisfied his income is similar.
Some time was taken over whether the father’s current marriage has broken down or not. Little turns on that question in this matter as the father denies he has any need to support his current wife. He only contributes an amount of $20.00 per week additional support for R.
It was not clear to me why the father has apparently contributed a relatively small sum since separation 12 years ago to the maintenance of his children. This may be due to some voluntary arrangement, however it is clear he has benefited financially by being relieved of a higher level of contribution.
Findings
The mother has borne the majority of expenses for the child L for many years. I find it is equitable for the father to contribute at a level which reflects his greater overall financial strength than that of the mother, and that his lack of support in the past is a special circumstance to take into consideration.
The father will have some difficulty, on his current levels of income and expenditure to meet the order I propose to make.
To some extent this reflects the priorities he has chosen to make in his financial structuring. The highest priority is the payment of a fair contribution to the proper needs of his child L. To the extent that he must make alterations to his current lifestyle to accommodate that contribution, then that is a requirement of the parental duty.
I am satisfied that even though his marriage has broken down, this current wife would be expected to make a contribution to the expenses of the house which they clearly planned and developed together and which is matrimonial property in any dispute between them.
Order
(1)
I am satisfied that the order sought by the mother in her application at paragraphs (1) and (2) is reasonable save that in view of the needs I have determined, the amount payable by the father should be $130.00 per week with the first payment due
7 days from today and weekly thereafter.
(2)The amount of maintenance payable pursuant to this order be varied on and from the instalment payment due on 21 August in each year in accordance with the variation in the Consumer Price Index (Brisbane) as it stands on 31 December immediately preceding the date of variation as compared with the same Index at the same date 12 months prior.
(3)I also order that the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to this application which I fix at $750.00
I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Baumann FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0