Scranton & Scranton
Case
•
[2013] FCCA 1560
•9 October 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Scranton & Scranton [2013] FCCA 1560
[2013] FCCA 1560
9 October 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for adult child maintenance. The applicant, the mother, sought orders for paid care for the parties' child, X, on Saturdays and for four weekends per year. The respondent, the father, had access to significantly greater financial resources than the mother, with a gross weekly income between approximately $10,000 and $15,000, while the mother's gross weekly salary was approximately $1,722. The mother's working career had been curtailed due to her care responsibilities for X.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the requested paid care for X was "necessary" and "proper" within the meaning of the relevant Act, considering the child's age and special needs, and the financial circumstances of both parents. The court was required to determine what constituted a reasonable amount of paid care in all the circumstances.
Judge Howard applied the guiding principle that the determination of necessity and propriety in adult child maintenance cases hinges on what is "reasonable in all the circumstances," as stated in *In the Marriage of Cosgrove (No.2)*. The court found that four hours of paid care per Saturday was reasonable, providing the mother with a window to attend to other matters, some of which would relate to X. This was considered both "necessary" and "proper." Similarly, the claim for four weekends of paid care per year was deemed reasonable and necessary for X to have his proper needs met. The court had regard to X's age, special needs, the current care arrangements, and the disparity in the parents' financial resources.
The court ordered that each party provide a copy of a proposed Final Order to the other by 4:00 pm on 16 October 2013. The parties were then to attempt to reach an agreed position on the wording of the Final Order, reflecting the Reasons for Judgment, and submit it to the Court by 4:00 pm on 23 October 2013. If an agreement could not be reached within that timeframe, the matter would be listed for Mention, with both parties and their legal representatives (if any) required to attend.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the requested paid care for X was "necessary" and "proper" within the meaning of the relevant Act, considering the child's age and special needs, and the financial circumstances of both parents. The court was required to determine what constituted a reasonable amount of paid care in all the circumstances.
Judge Howard applied the guiding principle that the determination of necessity and propriety in adult child maintenance cases hinges on what is "reasonable in all the circumstances," as stated in *In the Marriage of Cosgrove (No.2)*. The court found that four hours of paid care per Saturday was reasonable, providing the mother with a window to attend to other matters, some of which would relate to X. This was considered both "necessary" and "proper." Similarly, the claim for four weekends of paid care per year was deemed reasonable and necessary for X to have his proper needs met. The court had regard to X's age, special needs, the current care arrangements, and the disparity in the parents' financial resources.
The court ordered that each party provide a copy of a proposed Final Order to the other by 4:00 pm on 16 October 2013. The parties were then to attempt to reach an agreed position on the wording of the Final Order, reflecting the Reasons for Judgment, and submit it to the Court by 4:00 pm on 23 October 2013. If an agreement could not be reached within that timeframe, the matter would be listed for Mention, with both parties and their legal representatives (if any) required to attend.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Scranton & Scranton [2013] FCCA 1560
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
2