Vincent and Carr

[2011] FMCAfam 633

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VINCENT & CARR [2011] FMCAfam 633

FAMILY LAW – Child maintenance – children aged 9 & 8 – father employed overseas – change of circumstances since making of interim order – further interim hearing – nature of interim hearing – application fixed for final hearing in September 2011 – private school fees – manner in which the children are being educated – parties’ expectations in respect of children’s education – matters to be considered.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.66J, 66Q, 66S

Carr & Vincent (No.2) [2009] FMCAfam 648

Applicant: MS VINCENT

Respondent: MR CARR

File Number: ADC 2680 of 2008

Judgment of: Brown FM

Hearing date: 17 June 2011

Date of Last Submission: 17 June 2011

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 24 June 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr McQuade

Solicitors for the Applicant: C M Tucker & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Noble

Solicitors for the Respondent: Judith Jordan

ORDERS

1. Order 3 of the orders made on 26 June 2009 be discharged.

2. The final hearing of the parties’ respective applications in respect of child maintenance is confirmed for 6, 7 & 8 September 2011.

3. The interim applications are otherwise dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 2680 of 2008

MS VINCENT

Applicant

And

MR CARR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 26 June 2009, I made interim orders concerned with the financial support of two children – [X] born [in] 2002 and [Y] born [in] 2003.  The parents of the children are the parties to these proceedings,

   
   

   Ms Vincent, their mother and Mr Carr, their father.

2. At the time of the orders, Mr Carr, although an Australian citizen was not a permanent resident of this country.  He worked offshore, in Japan, as an [occupation omitted] and was paid in US dollars.  Accordingly, his financial situation was not amenable to an assessment pursuant to the regime inaugurated by the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.  In addition, Australia and Japan do not share an international maintenance agreement. As a result, any assessment of child maintenance payable by Mr Carr in respect of [X] and [Y] falls to be assessed pursuant to the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975.

3. Ms Vincent and the children live in suburban Adelaide.  The children attend [S] College and partake in many extra curricular activities.  Their standard of living and education have depended on regular and significant financial contributions from Mr Carr, who has been able to make such contributions because he has enjoyed a high salary and has not been liable to pay tax in Japan, the United States or Australia. 

4. The parties themselves have been involved in protracted and vitriolic litigation, not only in this court about issues to do with the financial support of [X] and [Y], but also in the District Court of South…