Panton and Panton

[2008] FMCAfam 506

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PANTON v PANTON [2008] FMCAfam 506

CHILD SUPPORT – Confirmation of provisional order of Provincial Court of British Columbia – order confirmed with alterations – alterations made with reference to child’s high school completion date.

Family Law Regulations 1984

Applicant: SECRETARY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT ON BEHALF OF MS PANTON A RESIDENT OF CANADA

Respondent: MR PANTON

File number: SYC 403 of 2008

Judgment of: Altobelli FM

Hearing date: 2 May 2008

Date of last submission: 2 May 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 2 May 2008

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor Advocate for the Applicant: Mr McCulloch

Solicitors for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitors

Respondent: Self Represented

ORDERS

1. That the provisional order made by the provincial court of British Columbia on 6 January 2005 be confirmed, but with modification as follows:

   (a)that the liability of the Respondent to pay child support for the care of the child [A] (born in 1981) cease from the date that he graduated from high school in June of the year 2000;

   (b)that all arrears of child support payable by the Respondent be discharged;

   (c)That the child support liability be discharged as it stands paid and there be no child support overpayment debt payable by the Applicant mother to the Respondent father.

   (d)That any monies held by the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program in British Columbia in respect to Case No. [X] as between the Applicant mother to the Respondent father, which have not been released to the Respondent, now be returned to the Respondent father.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Panton & Panton is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYC 403 of 2008

SECRETARY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT ON BEHALF OF MS PANTONA RESIDENT OF CANADA

Applicant

And

MR PANTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex Tempore

1. The application before me was filed on 25 January 2008 and was initiated by the Secretary of the Attorney General's Department on behalf of Ms Panton, a resident of Canada. It is an application brought under the Family Law Regulations in relation to overseas maintenance. The order that is sought is that the provisional order made by the Provincial Court of British Columbia on 6 and 13 January 2005 be confirmed.

2. There was evidence before me by way of an affidavit of Ms H to which was annexed a substantial amount of historical information, but including importantly affidavits of [A] , the child the subject of the order for maintenance, and his father, Mr Panton who was present in Court with his current wife.

3. The issues in this case boiled down to this: what were the circumstances of the child between June 2000 when the evidence satisfies me that he finished school and September 2000 when the evidence satisfies me that he commenced full time work.  I record that the evidence in support of both of those facts is set out firstly in an affidavit of [A] annexed to the evidence of Ms H and then a copy of the school records, again annexed to the evidence of Ms Panton.

4. Mr McCulloch, who appears on behalf of the Department, provided to me an outline of the law of British Columbia as to when child support or maintenance ceases.  That document, which is a copy of a download from the website of the Ministry of the Attorney General British Columbia indicates that child support generally ends at age 19.  However, children who are aged 19 or older and still dependent on their parents are still eligible for child support in certain special circumstances. e.g. children are still dependent after they turn 19 owing to illness or disability or because they are still in school.

5. The evidence indicates that [A], who was born in 1981, turned 19 in January 2000.  So according to the law of British Columbia, the liability to pay maintenance ceased either when he finished school or at some later period, depending upon whether he was ill or disabled and of course it would cease when he commenced full time work.

6. I am satisfied from the oral evidence given by [A] by telephone that he was in fact working part time at a [Y], he tells me, between the relevant dates, that is when he ceased school and when he started working full time.  His evidence also was that he was neither ill nor disabled.  That satisfies me under the circumstances that the liability for maintenance should have ceased at the end of June 2000.  The consequence is that what I need to do is confirm the order but to then vary it to discharge the arrears.

7. I note in my reasons that, Mr McCulloch on behalf of the applicant, has pointed out that if I vary the order to discharge the arrears I could inadvertently create an overpayment of maintenance.  That is not the intention of the Court and it is not the intention of the respondent either.  The intention is that the moneys held by the FMEP, namely $531.34, be refunded to Mr Panton and no further adjustment is sought.

8. I am going to give leave to Mr McCulloch to, at any time within the next seven days, forward an appropriate order to reflect that which I have just stated about the intention of these orders.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Altobelli FM

Associate:  Monique Robb

Date:  5 June 2008