Adult Child Maintenance

In Everett & Everett [2014] FamCAFC 152 (26 August 2014) the Full Court (May, Strickland & Tree JJ) considered the issue of adult child maintenance. Relevantly the Court found

• “(a) It is not a necessary element, before adult child maintenance can be ordered, that there be a warm relationship between the parent and the child; and
• (b) There should not be a practice in adult child maintenance applications of conducting a detailed examination of the relationship between the child and the Respondent; however
• (c) It cannot be said that the attitude or behaviour of the child to the Respondent could, to use the language of s 66K(1)(e), never be a special circumstance which, if not taken into account in the particular case, would result in an injustice or undue hardship to any person.” 1

• “The task confronting a parent, who wishes to rely upon the filial relationship in determining what contribution should be made by them to the maintenance of the child, is a particularly difficult one.”
• If the filial relationship is not taken into account, the parent would need to show that it would result in an injustice or undue hardship to either them or someone else.” 2

“Necessary” under s66L … “means that:

• The maintenance is needed by the child; and
• It is reasonable to require the parent to contribute,
• Having regard to the parties’ financial circumstances and other relevant factors.” 3 4

1. at para (47) 
2. at para (48) 
3. In the Marriage of Tuck (1981) FLC 91-021 per Evatt CJ and Murray J at 76,227 
4. at para (77)