A Canberra father has been ordered to pay $14,000 to his ex-partner for expenses related to their daughter’s birth.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But a judge has rejected the mother’s claim for costs associated with new age birthing techniques, including a doula birthing partner.
The parents were in "volatile" relationship from early 2011 until September 2012.
The baby girl was born soon after.
The law says a father who is not married to a child's mother is liable to help pay for her maintenance and medical expenses for the pregnancy and birth.
The Canberra mother launched action in Federal Circuit Court of Australia, claiming the father owed her a total of $27,061 in childbirth maintenance, which covered $11,451 for medical expenses and $15,610 for loss of income.
Part of the medical claim included the cost of a doula birthing partner - a non-medical person who provides physical and emotional support to a mother before, during, or after childbirth.
But the father told the court he should pay only $7000.
The court heard the man had already paid $2200 and the mother sought orders to collect the remaining $23,474.
The woman argued the man had failed to pay pregnancy related costs, despite agreeing to do so in January 2013.
She said she had taken out a higher level of private insurance, with his agreement, due to existing health issues.
She confirmed the father also paid child support.
But the man said not all the claims were reasonable and the woman had failed to provide proper evidence to the court, including pay slips.
He said he should only be responsible for half the proven expenses.
The father also argued the woman received the $5000 Baby Bonus, which should reduce the amount claimed.
Judge Warwick Neville ordered the man pay $14,000, comprising $7000 for maintenance of the mother for the childbirth, and $7000 for reasonable medical expenses in relation to the pregnancy and birth.
Judge Neville, in calculating the figure, accepted the father’s argument that he should only bear half the costs and expenses claimed.
But the judge rejected a number of arguments, including the father’s baby bonus contention and a number of medical expenses claimed by the mother.
“In my view, a number of the ‘medical expenses’ claimed by the mother do not, strictly, come within the term of ‘reasonable medical expenses’,” the judge wrote in a judgment on the matter.
“Thus, while I appreciate the mother’s felt need for them, I do not see that she can claim for all of the private health insurance cover, for the doula birthing partner, or for a ‘settling swing’.
“The father’s apparent contention that the mother was entitled to receive and, did so, the sum of $5000 by way of the Baby Bonus in my view cannot be taken into account by the court … [as] the Baby Bonus is clearly an ‘allowance or benefit’, and therefore it should not be taken into account for the purposes of the current application.”