Adult Child Maintenance Dismissed – When Support Becomes Unnecessary

In this case, the Family Court dealt with a request from a mother for adult child maintenance to support her 19-year-old son, who had recently moved out of her home and was attending university.

The Court ultimately found the application had no reasonable chance of success—because the father was already supporting the child financially, the adult child didn’t want the help, and he no longer lived with the mother.

This article explains what the law says about adult child maintenance, what the Court considered, and why the application was dismissed.

What Was the Case About?

Ms Breitner (the mother) applied under section 66L of the Family Law Act 1975 for adult child maintenance, claiming financial support was needed so her son, Mr C, could finish university.

Mr C:

• Was 19 years old
• Had moved out of his mother’s house and into the home of his paternal grandmother
  
  
• Was studying at university and also working part-time
  
  
• Did not want to be involved in the legal proceedings

The Legal Test: What Is Section 66L?

Under section 66L of the Family Law Act, a parent can only be ordered to pay maintenance for a child over 18 if it is necessary to:

1. Help the child complete their education, or
   
   
2. Provide support due to a disability

So, the Court had to ask:

• Is financial support necessary for Mr C to complete his education?
  
  
• And if yes, who should pay it?

Key Facts the Court Considered

1. The father, Mr Breitner, had already provided financial support:
   
   
   • Paid over $400,000 in child support
     
     
   • Paid $500,000 in private school fees
     
     
   • Provided car expenses, health insurance, phone bills, and other help
     
     
   • Continued to give Mr C $200–$300 per week in direct financial support
     
     
2. Mr C:
   • Was a high-achieving student
     
     
   • Worked part-time
     
     
   • Was now living with his paternal grandmother, not either parent
     
     
   • Did not want his parents fighting over money on his behalf
     
     
   • Did not ask for support from his mother or father
     
     
3. The grandmother refused to accept money from the mother and did not request financial assistance
   
   
4. What Did the Mother Argue?

Ms Breitner said:

• She wanted to help support her son
  
  
• Both parents had a moral and legal obligation to help their child through university
  
  
• The father earned more and should contribute more
  
  
• The court should make an order even if the grandmother didn’t want the money, because it would reduce the need for Mr C to work and help him focus on his studies

She also argued that:

• Mr C didn’t fully understand his financial needs
• Without this support, he may have to work longer hours and perform worse at university

What Did the Father Argue?

The father, Mr Breitner, applied for summary dismissal of the mother’s claim, arguing:

• There was no reasonable chance of success
  
  
• He already regularly supported Mr C financially
  
  
• Mr C was living independently and didn’t want court orders made
  
  
• It made no sense for the Court to order payments to the mother when the child no longer lived with her

He also claimed the case had become vexatious and an abuse of process, especially since a similar case about their other adult son had been dismissed in the past—with costs ordered against the mother.

The Court’s Decision

The Court dismissed the mother’s application.

Why?

Judge O’Shannessy found:

• Mr C’s grandmother did not seek support
• Mr C didn’t live with his mother anymore
  
  
• The father was already supporting Mr C directly and generously
  
  
• There was no legal basis for forcing the father to pay the mother for a child who wasn’t living with her or needing her financial help
  
  
• The mother’s case didn’t meet the legal requirement under section 66L: there was no evidence the support was necessary to enable Mr C to complete his education

The judge explained that while the mother’s desire to help was understandable and even admirable, the Court is not a place to enforce moral preferences. It only deals with legal necessity.


Key Takeaways

Parents can only be ordered to pay adult child maintenance if it’s truly necessary—not just because they can afford to.

If the adult child doesn’t want help or doesn’t live with the parent seeking support, the case is unlikely to succeed.

Courts will dismiss claims that are unrealistic, repetitive, or abusive.

The Court considers what’s practically happening, not just what one parent thinks should happen.

Good intentions are not enough—you need clear evidence that the child’s education is at risk without the support.

What About Legal Costs?

The Court did not rule on legal costs, but it left the door open. Both parties were told they could apply for costs later, and they could appear remotely if necessary.