YBA v YBB

Facts

YBA (the Father) and YBB (the Mother) divorced in 2016, with ancillary orders made by consent on 17 May 2016 when their daughter was not yet a year old. The Mother had sole care and control. The Father had short weekday morning and Sunday afternoon access, overnight and overseas access were left for later discussion, and he was to pay $2,200 a month in child maintenance plus $300 a month towards the Mother's insurance, half of listed ad hoc expenses, and $1 a month as nominal spousal maintenance.

About nine years later both parties applied to vary the order: the Father in FC/OADV 270/2025 and the Mother in FC/SUM 1770/2025. The Father sought structured weekday, overnight, special day, school holiday and overseas access, a cut in monthly maintenance to $750, narrower ad hoc expenses, consultation before new activities, and rescission of the $1 spousal maintenance. The Mother accepted regular access but opposed regular overnight stays, sought to limit holiday access to five days and four nights, wanted overseas travel to need her consent, asked for an increase to $3,115 a month and a $20,000 annual cap on the Father's share of activities chosen by the Child, and asked that the Child be interviewed. Both agreed there had been a material change of circumstances. The decision was given after hearings in late 2025 and January 2026, and both parties filed cross-appeals (HCF/DCA 1/2026 and HCF/DCA 2/2026).

Issues

1. Whether and how the access arrangements should be varied to reflect the Child's present age and schedule
2. Whether a Judge and Child session should be convened to hear the Child's views
3. Whether, and by how much, the monthly child maintenance and the ad hoc expense terms should be varied
4. Whether the nominal spousal maintenance of $1 per month should be rescinded

Holding

The court allowed both applications in part and varied the 2016 Order. It increased the Father's access, with fallback timings where the parties cannot agree, overnight weekend access phased in during 2026, set school holiday blocks, and liberty to travel overseas with the Child without the Mother's consent. It reduced monthly child maintenance to $1,917, kept the $300 for the Mother's insurance and equal sharing of listed ad hoc expenses, and required new activities to be agreed, failing which the Father bears half subject to a $20,000 yearly cap. It refused to rescind the nominal spousal maintenance and declined to hold a Judge and Child session. Each party bore its own costs.

Reasoning

On access, the court treated the Child's welfare as paramount. It was undisputed that she was close to her Father, and ad hoc arrangements had led to disputes, so structured access was in her interests. Mindful of her heavy schedule and approaching Primary 6 year, the court kept her classes in place, provided Wednesday evening access as a fallback, and increased overnight and holiday access in stages. It found insufficient evidence that the Child was averse to overnight stays or that the Father was unsuitable, noted the Mother herself accepted overnight holiday access, and found her concern that the Father was a flight risk unfounded, given that he had worked in Singapore for many years and that his wife and the Child lived here; problems on the 2025 trip to Canada were typical of travel. It declined many detailed conditions sought by both sides as better handled through co-parenting.

A Judge and Child session was unnecessary because the changes were not drastic, the issues were practical, and there was no sign the Child wished to take part.

On maintenance, the court found it impractical to reconstruct the 2016 budget precisely and took a broad-brush approach to the Child's present reasonable expenses, assessed at $3,833 a month excluding the insurance sum, shared equally since neither party gave evidence of changed means. It allowed a share of the mortgage instalments and property outgoings for housing and the full monthly helper costs, while keeping school fees, enrichment and household replacements as ad hoc items. It rejected the Father's reading of a 2019 enforcement decision as requiring consultation, but accepted that consultation should be required for new activities. It found no basis to drop the $300 insurance payment.

On spousal maintenance, the Father had not shown any material change in the circumstances behind the nominal order. His account that it reflected the Mother's postpartum depression was not borne out, and his cases on financial independence concerned fresh or reduced maintenance, not rescission of nominal maintenance.

From the judgment