YARLEY & YARLEY

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Yarley (the wife) sought spousal maintenance and a departure from child support assessments from Mr Yarley (the husband). The parties had cohabited from 2003, married in 2005, and separated in June 2011, with two young children of the marriage. The wife also sought orders for the husband to pay the entirety of the costs of a nominated expert and for interim costs, both of which were dismissed.

The court was required to determine whether the wife met the threshold for spousal maintenance under section 72 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically whether she was unable to support herself. Additionally, the court had to consider a departure application concerning child support, assessing whether it was just and equitable to make a departure order under section 114 of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) to ensure the children's needs were met from the parents' resources. The court also needed to determine the husband's capacity to pay and the wife's reasonable expenses for spousal maintenance, and the appropriate level of child support, including school fees and other expenses, given the husband's income and control over the parties' business.

The court found that the wife was unable to support herself from her own income, accepting her evidence that she was establishing her own business and would not draw a wage for two years, and deeming this a reasonable timeframe for business establishment. The husband's argument that the wife's mother's wealth constituted a financial resource was rejected, as there was no obligation for the mother to provide ongoing support. The court determined the wife's reasonable weekly expenses to be $635, excluding certain items for which evidence was lacking or which were considered duplicative or already covered. Regarding the husband's capacity to pay, the court noted his significant bank assets and, crucially, his substantial income from the parties' jointly established business, which he controlled and from which he had chosen to reinvest profits rather than distribute them. The court found two grounds for a child support departure order under section 117(2) of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth), concluding that it was just and equitable to make such an order to ensure the children's needs were met from the parents' resources. The court also found that the husband should pay the children's school fees, as this was agreed upon in their parenting plan and the husband had the capacity to do so.

Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $635 per week by way of spousal maintenance. Furthermore, by way of departure from administrative assessments, the husband was ordered to pay $550 per child per week in periodic child support, and to meet all school fees and associated costs for the children, as well as 50% of their school uniforms and shoes. These child support payments, both periodic and non-periodic, were to account for 100% of the annual rate of child support payable by the husband under any administrative assessment until final proceedings were determined. The parties were directed to lodge a copy of the child support departure order with the Child Support Registrar.