Re AM (Adult Child Maintenance)

This case concerned an application for adult child maintenance before Carmody J. The dispute arose from a Registrar's ruling that the relevant legislative provision for adult child maintenance did not extend to disabilities arising after a child reached the age of majority.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 66L(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which allows for maintenance orders for adult children who are unable to support themselves due to a "continuing disability." Specifically, the court had to determine whether this provision applied to disabilities that manifested or arose after the child attained the age of 18, or if it was limited to pre-existing disabilities that continued into adulthood.

Carmody J rejected the Registrar's interpretation, which relied on overseas authorities suggesting a "continuing disability" exception only applied to pre-existing conditions. The court found that Australian evidence law, particularly section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), mandates proof on the balance of probabilities and does not recognise intermediate standards of proof as suggested by some of the cited overseas commentary. The court reasoned that the wording of section 66L(1)(b) did not impose a temporal limitation on the onset of the disability, and that the legislative intent was to provide for adult children who, for whatever reason, were unable to support themselves due to a continuing disability. The court also noted that the fear of being "flooded" with applications was not a sufficient basis to narrow the scope of the statutory provision.