SUITER and SUITER - [2014] FCWA 40

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: SUITER and SUITER [2014] FCWA 40

CORAM: CRISFORD J

HEARD: 12 & 13 DECEMBER 2013 AND 28, 29 & 30 APRIL 2014

DELIVERED : 3 JULY 2014

FILE NO/S: PTW 501 of 2008

BETWEEN: Ms SUITER
Applicant
AND
Mr SUITER
Respondent

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – ADULT CHILD MAINTENANCE – Where the mother seeks $2,903 a month for the child pursuant to s 66L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where adult child maintenance is sought for the period until the child completes both his undergraduate and then possible postgraduate tertiary studies or until the conclusion of the academic year in which he turns 23 – where the child is studying full-time – where the child lives with the mother and his siblings who are under the age of 18 – where the mother says the child should be allowed to live at the home with his siblings and be assisted by the father in the same manner as the other children – where both parents accept that any part-time work should not interfere with the child’s study – where it is not disputed that the father has the capacity to pay – where the father makes considerable voluntary payments to the child – where the mother has the onus of showing the Court that any payments of maintenance are “necessary” for the child to complete his education.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CHILD SUPPORT – Where the parties agreed to orders finalising proceedings and agreed the amount of child support the father was to pay – where the Court made orders in terms of a Minute prepared by the parties’ respective legal teams – where the parties are seeking changes be made to those orders in relation to child support – where the mother seeks “interpretation and redefinition” of orders – where the father does not agree with the redefinition of the orders and seeks to discharge almost all parts of the order – where the parties have had inordinate difficulties with their consent order – where the Court is called upon to consider the manner in which each party has interpreted the consent orders – where it is not possible for the Court to define the orders with the precision that either party wants – where the Court provides clarification of the parties’ order made by consent.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CHILD SUPPORT – JURISDICTION – Where the mother says the child support orders are to be changed pursuant to s 66S of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the father says the orders are to discharged or varied pursuant to s 129 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) – where the first application dealing with the support of the children sought a departure from the then current assessment issued by the Child Support Agency – Where the Court considered s 66E of the Family…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading SUITER and SUITER

Details

AGLC: Suiter and Suiter [2014] FCWA 40
Case: [2014] FCWA 40
Decision Date: 3 JULY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the father challenges the amount sought by the mother – Whether the child’s needs should be considered in light of the parents’ respective financial positions.

The mother in this case sought a monthly maintenance payment of $2,903 for their child under section 66L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The father contested this amount, arguing it was excessive given their financial circumstances. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate level of maintenance for the child, considering the parents' financial positions and the child's needs.

The court examined the respective incomes and outgoings of both parties. It considered the child's needs, including educational expenses, extracurricular activities, and overall lifestyle. The judge emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency in the child’s lifestyle and ensuring that the child’s needs were met without causing undue hardship to either party. The court also took into account the contributions each parent had made to the child's upbringing and financial stability.

After evaluating the evidence presented, the court determined that the mother's requested amount was excessive. The judge ordered a lower monthly maintenance payment that balanced the child's needs with the financial realities of both parents. The court concluded that this amount was sufficient to meet the child's requirements while also considering the financial constraints of the father. The final orders specified the reduced monthly maintenance payment, providing clarity for both parties moving forward.

Orders