MOTHER ASKS THE FATHER TO PAY FOR ADULT CHILD MAINTENANCE
Lytton & Calix [2020] FCCA 3279 (4 December 2020)
This is an application for adult child maintenance in respect of a young woman, Ms. A Calix, born on 2001. The applicant, who is Ms. A Calix’s mother, seeks that the respondent, who is Ms. A Calix’s father, pay maintenance in a sum of $450 per week, to continue “until Ms. A Calix no longer has a disability”. The respondent father seeks the dismissal of the application.
Facts:
The mother submitted that Ms. A Calix has ADHD and PTSD and has been self-harming since 2013. Dr. O says this could be lifelong, but at least for the next several years. Ms A Calix left school at level 11 and had two brief jobs at Employer I. Ms A Calix has had two reasonably lengthy admissions in 2019 and two longer ones again in 2020. She has been recently readmitted for ongoing indefinite treatment of TCMS.
The father contends that a lifelong order is sought, and this would give rise to injustice. There is no communication between the parties, and also the father and Ms. A Calix. The payment was sought whether she had a job or ceases to live with the mother. It was submitted that there was no disability. Ms. A Calix had undertaken courses and had two jobs at Employer I. A maintenance order is not necessary.
Issue: Should the court grant the application for adult child maintenance in favor of Ms. A Calix?
Law:
- Family Law Act 1975 ss.66J, 66K
Analysis:
It is immediately apparent that Ms. A Calix is disabled and cannot reasonably be expected to hold down employment. She is equally unable to study. There is no doubt that Ms A Calix suffers a disability such that she cannot be expected to work.
The mother has very high medical expenses, both for herself and for Ms. A Calix. Her household is plainly very poorly financially resourced. If one ignores the pensions paid to her father, to the mother and to Ms. A Calix, there is really no income at all. In the court’s view, it is plain that there is a need. Accordingly, the applicant has established that adult child maintenance is necessary because of the physical disabilities from which Ms. A Calix suffers.
The notion that payments should go on for the rest of Ms. A Calix’s life, or at least without definite finishing date, is plainly untenable. Counsel for the father is correct to submit that this would be unjust. These payments should subsist for another 18 months. By then Ms. A Calix will be over two years from the date of the diagnosis by Dr. O, and her future may be more clearly apparent.
Conclusion:
The court fully accepts that adult child maintenance for Ms. A Calix is necessary because of her mental and physical disability. For the reasons given, the Court will order the payment of $150 per week for 18 months from the date of these orders.
