Once a child turns 18 in Australia, the standard child support system usually stops. Many parents assume that is the end of the story, but the Family Law Act 1975 keeps two narrow pathways open through section 66L: maintenance for an adult child who is still completing education, or for an adult child with a disability. This article walks through who can apply, what counts as necessary, and why most adult child maintenance applications are dismissed at court.
Introduction
Q1: Can I apply for adult child maintenance for my university-aged son?
A: Your son is not automatically entitled to payments just because he is a student. The law starts from the position that adults support themselves, and you must prove the money is genuinely necessary for him to finish his studies rather than helpful or fair. Maher [2012] FMCAfam 147. Reference: Maher [2012] FMCAfam 147
Q2: If my adult child has a disability, am I guaranteed to get maintenance?
A: A disability opens the door to a claim, but it does not guarantee every cost you list will be approved. The judge will still look at what support your child already receives from programs like the NDIS or the disability support pension, then decide what the paying parent can reasonably add. Ballantyne [2015] FCCA 500. Reference: Ballantyne [2015] FCCA 500
Q3: My adult child has $85,000 in savings. Does that mean I cannot apply?
A: Large savings do not automatically disqualify your child, because an adult child is not forced to become penniless before seeking maintenance. If money was set aside for long-term care or a specific future need, the court can still order a parent to contribute to daily living costs. Ballantyne [2015] FCCA 500. Reference: Ballantyne [2015] FCCA 500
Who can apply for adult child maintenance under section 66L?
A parent's legal duty to pay maintenance generally ends when the child turns 18. The Family Law Act extends that duty only in two situations: when the child is still completing education, or when the child has a disability. Outside those two pathways the court has no power to make an order, no matter how tight the family finances are.
The starting point for every case is section 66L of the Family Law Act 1975:
A court must not make a child maintenance order in relation to a child who is 18 or over unless the court is satisfied that the provision of the maintenance is necessary: (a) to enable the child to complete his or her education; or (b) because of a disability of the child.
The education gateway is most often used for university, TAFE, apprenticeships, or other vocational training. The law wants to help a child finish a course that will let them support themselves afterwards. It is not designed to fund a lifelong student or one who is not making real progress.
The disability gateway covers any disability that prevents the child from being fully self-sufficient. Earlier case law was decided when the statute used the phrase mental or physical disability, and the gateway was already applied across a wide range of conditions. The current wording is simply disability, which keeps the gateway at least as broad. The court looks at the level of care required and the extra costs that are not already covered by other forms of assistance.
If one of these gateways is open, the application can be filed by the parent who has been providing the primary care and financial support, or by the adult child directly. Either way, the applicant must show the maintenance is necessary, not merely socially proper or generous. If the child can reasonably support themselves through part-time work or their own resources, the court will not step in.
A mother applied for maintenance for her adult son, X, who was born with Down syndrome. X lived with his mother, could not work due to his disability, and had a bank account with $85,000 built up over time from his disability support pension and mobility allowance. The mother asked the court to order the father to pay $4,274 per month.
The father accepted that X had a disability and could not work, but opposed the claim on the basis that the $85,000 savings meant maintenance was not necessary. The court used the two-step approach: first section 66J (working out X's proper needs by reference to age and special needs), then section 66K (deciding how much each parent could afford to contribute).
Outcome: The court ordered the father to pay $230 per week for three years, backdated to the date the mother first filed. The judge accepted that the parents had previously agreed to preserve X's savings for his future care when they could no longer help him. Having assets does not automatically mean an adult child has no need for maintenance.
"The guiding principle in an application for maintenance of an adult child was what in all the circumstances was reasonable. The principle did not require an adult child to divest himself or herself of all assets and capital so as to qualify for an order for maintenance."
What does "necessary" mean under section 66L?
Under section 66L, necessary is a high legal bar, and the burden of proving it sits squarely with the applicant. You cannot simply point to a wealthy parent and a child who would like more money; you must show, with real evidence, exactly what the child needs to spend and why they cannot pay for it themselves.
When the court looks at necessity, it draws a sharp line between what is necessary and what is merely desirable. A brand new car for campus, or a luxury apartment close to class, may be desirable, but if public transport is available or the student could live at home, those specific expenses are usually not necessary. The court's role is to make sure the child's basic, reasonable needs are met so they can finish their education or manage their disability, not to fund a high-end lifestyle.
Specific evidence of needs means more than rough weekly estimates. The court expects bank statements, receipts, and a clear breakdown of the child's own income. If the child could work part-time but chooses not to, that capacity can be factored in. The focus is always on the child's actual financial gap, not just the parent's capacity to pay.
A magistrate had originally ordered a father to pay $80 per week for each of his two adult children, aged 22 and 19, both full-time university students. The father appealed to the Full Court, arguing there was no proper evidence that this money was necessary for the children to finish their education.
The Full Court examined the mother's evidence. Her affidavit dealt with the children's needs only briefly, and neither adult child filed evidence about their own expenses. The 19-year-old daughter had a part-time job and had funded two holiday trips to Bali in the year before trial. The 22-year-old son had more than $8,000 in savings and also worked part-time.
Outcome: The Full Court set aside the maintenance orders. A father's capacity to pay, plus a history of voluntary payments, is not enough. Because the mother did not provide detailed evidence of the children's actual expenses and inability to support themselves, she had not proved necessity. Capacity to pay is not a substitute for proof of necessary expenditure.
"It is for the applicant for an adult child maintenance order to persuade the Court that the provision of maintenance is necessary, here, to enable the child to complete his and her education... Whilst we do not construe the word 'necessary' as meaning completely indispensible, it does seem to us that a base level of necessity does have to be established before the Court is able to exercise a general discretion about the reasonableness or otherwise of making the order."
Why do Australian courts dismiss most adult child maintenance applications?
Adult child maintenance is not a standard right but a strictly controlled exception to the rule that adults support themselves. Courts start from the position that parental liability ends at 18, so every piece of needs evidence gets close scrutiny. Most applications fail at exactly that point: the evidence is thin or the child looks capable of self-funding, and the court is legally directed to dismiss.
-
Lack of detailed needs evidence. The applicant bears the burden of proving necessity, and courts will not make orders on speculation or short, cursory affidavits (Paul [2012] FamCAFC 64). Without concrete proof of the child's actual expenses and inability to self-fund, the application will usually fail.
-
The adult child has savings, part-time income, or realistic capacity to work. If the child is already working part-time or could find casual work, the court often finds parental support is not necessary (Maher [2012] FMCAfam 147). Even an existing order can be reduced or cancelled where the child rejects reasonable job opportunities (Wadsworth [2013] FCCA 2043).
-
The court treats the expense as desirable rather than necessary. There is a real gap between what a generous parent might choose to do and what the law requires a parent to do. A contribution that would make student life more comfortable is not the same as one without which the child cannot finish their degree.
A mother applied for maintenance for university-aged twins who lived at home with her. Both children held part-time jobs and were already receiving significant support from the mother. The father showed he had no surplus income after meeting his own basic living expenses.
The dispute centred on whether it was fair for the mother to be the only parent contributing. She argued the father should share the burden. He argued the twins were adults who could fund their own needs through work. The judge had to decide whether the father's contribution was truly necessary for the twins to finish their studies.
Outcome: The court dismissed the application entirely. Section 66L is a broad direction that adult children should support themselves as a matter of principle. Because the twins were successfully working part-time and funding their student lifestyles, the father's help was desirable rather than necessary.
"As to children over 18 years this basic duty to contribute to support gives way to an obligation which arises only in certain limited circumstances. Where a child is an adult, he should, as a prima-facie principle, support himself."
| Comparison | Ballantyne [2015] | Maher [2012] |
|---|---|---|
| Gateway under section 66L | Disability (s66L(b)) | Education (s66L(a)) |
| Child's resources | $85,000 savings, no work capacity | Part-time income, working capacity |
| Parental capacity | Father had surplus income | Father had no surplus |
| Needs evidence | Specific disability-related costs | General student costs |
| Outcome | $230 per week for 3 years | Dismissed |
The decisive factor is real evidence of a genuine financial gap the child cannot fill through their own work or resources.
How do Australian courts weigh parental contributions under section 66K?
When the court weighs how much each parent should contribute, it applies the two-step Ballantyne framework together with the nine Cosgrove factors, an approach confirmed again in Masterton. The structure stops a judge from ordering payment just because one parent has money: the judge must first confirm the child is actually in need, then decide how to split that need between the parents.
Step 1 uses section 66J to work out the adult child's proper financial needs, considering age, education, disability, and earning capacity. Any income-tested pensions or benefits the child receives are ignored.
Step 2 uses section 66K to split the cost between the parents based on each parent's income, property, and financial resources, alongside their necessary personal expenses and commitments to other dependents.
To guide this discretion, judges use the nine Cosgrove factors confirmed in Masterton & Anor [2012] FMCAfam 913:
- Age of the child
- Level and nature of education
- Continuity of dependency
- Child's own income and resources
- Each parent's income and resources
- Each parent's necessary expenses and commitments
- Any special needs of the child
- The filial relationship
- Overall reasonableness in all the circumstances
M was an adult son in his second year of a combined university degree. He lived at home with his mother and worked part-time, earning around $17,000 per year which covered his car and textbooks. The mother was in poor health and received a disability support pension. The father had moved to part-time work after degenerative arthritis in his knee reduced his earning capacity.
The court applied the two-step framework and worked carefully through the Cosgrove factors. The judge looked at the continuity of dependency, noting M had remained dependent on his mother for housing and food since reaching adulthood. The court also weighed both parents' reduced earning capacities due to their health.
Outcome: The father was ordered to pay $1,000 per semester. When applicants bring detailed evidence of need and respect the other parent's limits, the court can carve out a proportionate contribution.
"In Cosgrove (1996) FLC 92-700 Warnick J considered that the following matters were likely to bear upon the exercise of the discretion to make a maintenance order in respect to a child over eighteen years of age: whether the nexus of dependence between the child and parents had ceased and the application amounts to a resurrection of that dependence."
| Comparison | Paul [2012] | Masterton [2012] |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence of needs | Cursory affidavit | Detailed budget |
| Child's income | Part-time plus overseas holidays | Modest part-time income |
| Parent's capacity | Capacity to pay | Reduced work due to health |
| Cosgrove analysis | Not properly supported | Carefully applied |
| Outcome | Order set aside on appeal | Semester-based order granted |
Masterton succeeded because the application was built on detailed financial evidence and a proven history of dependency. Paul failed because it relied on speculation rather than concrete facts.
Can adult child maintenance be varied or waived?
The law accepts that an adult child's needs or a parent's capacity can shift over time, so the court keeps a live power to adjust existing orders to match the facts. In practice, that power runs through section 66S for variation and section 66R for lump sum conversion; attempts to waive future maintenance through a generic BFA clause generally fail.
-
Variation under section 66S. Either parent can apply to vary or set aside an order when circumstances change. In Wadsworth [2013] FCCA 2043, twins refused reasonable part-time work the father had arranged for them, and the court reduced the order on the basis that their decision not to seek employment was itself a change in circumstances. In Bridges [2011] FMCAfam 1288, unpaid arrears were reshaped into a single lump sum covering the final 65 weeks of the daughter's first degree.
-
Lump sum under section 66R. The court can replace ongoing periodic payments with a lump sum where appropriate. Bridges shows this power in practice, used after a parent defaulted on his weekly obligations. A lump sum order must identify the child who benefits and clearly state that section 66R applies.
-
A BFA cannot always waive future maintenance. A binding financial agreement that tries to waive future child maintenance under section 90E must name the specific child and state the amount. In Cumpton & Rainford [2020] FCCA 3441, a broad waiver clause failed because it did neither, leaving the mother exposed to a fresh application years later. For the wider rules on setting BFAs aside, see When Can a Financial Agreement Be Set Aside in Australia?.
-
Orders must have clear time limits and scope. In Everett [2014] FamCAFC 152, the Full Court set aside both a car-purchase inclusion and an order that ran open-ended "until completion of higher education". Orders without a clear time limit are unjust because they leave the paying parent exposed to an indefinite obligation.
A father applied for maintenance on behalf of his 21-year-old daughter, who had severe epilepsy and intellectual disability. She lived with him and required constant supervision and help with daily needs. He sought a weekly contribution from the mother because he had left his job to become his daughter's full-time carer.
The mother relied on clause 5.4 of a binding financial agreement the couple had signed years earlier, which stated they wished to settle all claims for maintenance now and in the future. The court tested that clause against section 90E, which imposes strict drafting requirements on any BFA provision dealing with child maintenance.
Outcome: The waiver clause was held void because it did not name the specific child and did not specify an amount. The mother was ordered to pay $120 per week for seven years. A BFA that tries to waive future child maintenance must name the child and the amount, or it will fail.
FAQ
Is there an age limit for child support in Australia? Administrative child support through Services Australia typically stops when the child turns 18, or at the end of the school year in which they turn 18 if the child is still at secondary school. After that, the administrative system no longer applies. If your child still needs financial help for studies or because of a disability, the only remaining pathway is adult child maintenance under section 66L, which goes through the court rather than Services Australia.
My child is at uni with a part-time job. Can I still apply for adult child maintenance? You can still apply, but you must prove your child's earnings and savings are not enough to cover their genuine study-related needs. Judges look closely at an adult child's capacity to support themselves and generally expect young adults to contribute to their own upkeep if they are able. Maher shows that if a student is already earning a modest income that funds their lifestyle, the court will usually treat additional parental maintenance as not necessary.
My adult child is estranged from me. Can I still apply for maintenance? Estrangement does not automatically block a claim, but the state of the relationship is one of the factors the court uses to decide how to split the costs. A warm relationship is not a legal requirement for an order to be made, and the filial relationship sits inside section 66K(1)(e) as a special circumstance. Everett confirms a strained relationship is not relevant when working out the child's actual needs, but it can be used to argue it would be unjust to force a particular parent to pay as much as the applicant is asking.
Can the order cover a car or housing deposit? Usually no. The court will generally refuse to include major capital purchases like a car or a housing deposit because they are rarely considered necessary for education. The legal test is whether the maintenance is necessary to enable the child to complete their studies, not whether it would be helpful or nice to have. Everett set aside the car-purchase portion of an order, ruling that since public transport was available, the car was a preference rather than a necessity.
What should I do before applying for adult child maintenance?
-
Collect detailed needs evidence. List every weekly or monthly expense, back it up with receipts and bank statements, and make clear what the child cannot cover themselves. Paul shows that a cursory affidavit loses on appeal.
-
Identify which gateway applies. Your child must be completing education or have a disability, or section 66L gives the court no power to make an order. Name the gateway at the start of your application.
-
Assess the child's income and savings honestly. Count part-time wages, savings, and realistic capacity to work, remembering that income-tested pensions are ignored under section 66J. Wadsworth and Maher show that courts will reduce or dismiss where a child can reasonably self-fund.
-
Document the other parent's capacity fairly. Evidence of income and assets is not enough on its own, because section 66K also looks at that parent's necessary expenses and commitments. Masterton shows that a balanced budget on both sides helps the court land a proportionate order.
-
Check for any existing BFA clauses. Look through previous binding financial agreements for anything that touches child maintenance. Cumpton & Rainford shows that a generic waiver usually fails, but a clause that specifically names the child and a clear dollar amount can be binding under section 90E.
-
Set realistic time limits and scope in your draft order. Tie the duration to a specific educational milestone and exclude one-off capital purchases. Everett shows that open-ended orders and requests for items like a car are highly vulnerable on appeal because they leave the paying parent exposed to an indefinite obligation.
