Case Summary

Javor & Nora [2026] FedCFamC1F 458

FCFCOA (Division 1), First Instance•Howard J•9 July 2026

Childbirth Maintenance s 67B IVF and Assisted Reproduction Unmarried Parents Ouster of Jurisdiction

IVF, egg donor and embryo storage costs were reasonable medical expenses in relation to the pregnancy under s 67B(b), and an oral agreement about who bore them was an ineffective attempt to oust the Court’s jurisdiction.

“

IVF procedures are expensive. Raising children is expensive. That is why the Parliament has enacted these procedures. The IVF expenses (and related expenses) incurred in this case are reasonable medical expenses in relation to the pregnancy of the mother. It is for this reason that those expenses come within section 67B(b).

Howard J at [43]

Summary

The parties were together from about June 2020 and separated finally in April 2023. The mother had been told she had a very low ovarian reserve; the parties found an egg donor and proceeded with IVF, the Court accepting that the father was fully aware of and actively involved in the process. The child was born in 2023, after separation. The mother applied under s 67B to make an unmarried father liable to contribute towards her maintenance for the childbirth maintenance period and towards her reasonable medical expenses in relation to the pregnancy and birth.

The claim was poorly presented: 137 pages of uncollated, unindexed and unpaginated material, and a figure that grew from $21,319 to $62,330.70 by the final hearing. The Court allowed $6,605.58 of proved pregnancy and birth expenses, disallowed some $20,803.87 of insurance, utilities, rates and body corporate charges falling outside the period or not particularised, and drew inferences from the mother’s Financial Statement to fix weekly maintenance at $1,493.30 across the twelve-week period, giving $17,919.60. To that it added the $15,000 claimed for IVF, egg donor and embryo storage costs under s 67B(b), the invoices in evidence exceeding that figure.

The father said there had been an oral agreement that the mother would meet the IVF costs. The Court did not accept the agreement existed and held that even if it had, it would be void and unenforceable: only a compliant financial agreement under s 90C or s 90UC could deal with the question, and a mere oral agreement of that kind is an attempt to oust the Court’s jurisdiction, contrary to public policy. Weighing the s 67C factors, the mother’s higher income and property against the father’s greater superannuation and her 18 months out of the workforce, a proper contribution was fixed at 50% of the $39,525.18 proved.

Key Takeaways

✓

Fertility treatment can be a pregnancy-related medical expense. IVF, egg donor and embryo storage costs can be ‘reasonable medical expenses in relation to the pregnancy and birth’ under s 67B(b), at least where the father agreed to and participated in the treatment: [27], [43].

✓

The two limbs of s 67B are distinct. Section 67B(a) maintenance and s 67B(b) medical expenses do different work; the latter is a contribution to out-of-pocket medical costs, not maintenance in the strict sense, citing Windeyer J in Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367.

✓

The childbirth maintenance period is a hard boundary. It is defined in s 4 and ordinarily runs from two months before the due date to three months after the birth. Expenses outside it are not recoverable under s 67B: [10], [20].

✓

Loss of income is not recoverable. The contribution is to maintenance in the period, not to lost wages: [23].

✓

An informal agreement about fertility costs is worthless. It is an attempted ouster of jurisdiction. Only a compliant s 90C or s 90UC agreement, in the clearest terms, could do that work: [38]–[40], citing Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367 at 385.