Step 3 of the four-step framework adjusts the contributions split (from Step 2) for future needs. Two parties with identical contributions can have very different future positions; the court’s job at Step 3 is to recognise that and adjust accordingly. The Settlement Planner’s Future Needs tab applies the section 75(2) factors of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — the statutory list of considerations the court must weigh.Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
The 16 factors of section 75(2)
The factors are wide-ranging. Most-cited in family-law settlements:| Factor | What it considers |
|---|---|
| (a) | Age and state of health of each party |
| (b) | Income, property, financial resources of each party + capacity to earn |
| (c) | Care of children of the relationship aged under 18 |
| (d) | Standard of living that is reasonable in all the circumstances |
| (e) | A party’s responsibility to support any other person |
| (g) | Effect of any proposed orders on the earning capacity of either party |
| (k) | Length of the marriage + extent to which it has affected earning capacity |
| (n) | Need to protect the position of a child |
| (o) | Any other order made under the Act affecting either party |
The post-10-June-2025 amendments
The codified framework brought several changes relevant at Step 3:- Family violence as an express future-needs consideration. Where family violence — including economic and financial abuse — has affected a party’s earning capacity, financial position, or capacity to provide for children’s care, this is now expressly relevant at Step 3.
- Stronger weight to economic disadvantage. Patterns where one party’s career was constrained by the relationship (parental leave, geographic restrictions, partner’s career taking precedence) have always been s75(2)(k) considerations, but the codified framework reinforces them.
- Companion-animal care. Ongoing care responsibilities for companion animals can be a Step 3 consideration where care imposes real cost.
How adjustments work
Step 3 adjustments are typically expressed as percentage points added to one party’s Step 2 result. Example:- Contributions (Step 2): 50/50
- Future needs adjustment: +7% to the party with primary care of children
- Final split: 57/43
Typical adjustment patterns
A few patterns the case law tends to follow:Primary-care parent +5–15%
The parent with primary care of children typically receives a 5–15% future-needs adjustment under s75(2)(c). Magnitude varies with children’s ages, care intensity, and the parent’s own earning capacity.
Career-constrained party +5–10%
A party whose earning capacity has been materially reduced by the relationship (career break for parenting, geographic constraint following partner’s relocation) typically receives a 5–10% adjustment under s75(2)(b) and (k).
Health constraints +5–10%
Where one party has a chronic health condition affecting earning capacity or care needs, s75(2)(a) typically produces a 5–10% adjustment.
FV-affected party (post-2025)
Variable; can be substantial. Where family violence has caused economic disadvantage (job loss, employment impossible during the relationship, ongoing trauma affecting capacity), the post-2025 framework treats this as an express adjustment factor. Magnitude case-by-case.
The Future Needs tab in the Settlement Planner
The platform’s tab walks each of the 16 s75(2) factors with a prompt:- Does this factor apply in your matter? (Yes / No / Partially)
- If yes, in whose favour? (User / Other)
- Magnitude — significant / moderate / minor (subjective initially; the platform’s AI suggests typical magnitudes from analogous cases)
- Supporting evidence — what in the Master Case File or Evidence Portfolio supports this assessment?
Common Step 3 issues
Don’t double-count. Some factors overlap (s75(2)(b) earning capacity + s75(2)(k) length of relationship + s75(2)(g) effect of orders all point at the same fact pattern). The platform’s prompts flag overlap; treat the cluster as one weighted consideration, not separate ones.
Don’t ignore the other side’s future needs. Self-represented parties tend to focus on their own future needs. The court considers both. Your Step 3 analysis is stronger when it acknowledges the other party’s future needs alongside your own.
The adjustment is what’s reasonable, not what’s maximum. A common error is arguing for a 30% future-needs adjustment when the case law on similar facts shows 8%. Asking for too much undermines credibility. The platform’s AI suggestions reference comparable cases.
Children as the dominant Step 3 factor
In matters with minor children, s75(2)(c) (care of children) and s75(2)(n) (protect the position of a child) often dominate. Adjustments of 5–15% in favour of the primary carer are common. A useful pattern: think of Step 3 as “can the children be reasonably housed and supported by the post-settlement positions of each parent?”. If one side’s position would leave the children inadequately housed or supported, Step 3 is the correction mechanism.Step 3 and de facto matters
For de facto matters, the equivalent provisions are in section 90SF(3) (the de facto mirror of s75(2)). Substance is essentially the same. The Settlement Planner adapts the prompts when your Master Case File indicates a de facto matter.Sample Step 3 analysis
A simplified output for a 12-year matter, two children aged 8 and 11:Future needs assessment: +8% adjustment to User. Driver factors: s75(2)(c) — User has primary care of both children. Children’s needs across the next 6–10 years (until both reach majority) require stable housing, education continuity, and adequate support. This is the dominant Step 3 factor in this matter. s75(2)(b) and (k) — User’s earning capacity reduced compared to Other’s during the relationship; User worked part-time during the early years to provide care. Career trajectory affected. Modest adjustment. s75(2)(a) — Both parties in good health. Neutral. s75(2)(g) — Proposed property orders would not materially affect either party’s earning capacity. Neutral. No family-violence factors raised. Overall: 50/50 contributions (Step 2) + 8% Step 3 adjustment = 58/42 in User’s favour.
What Step 3 will not do
- It will not produce the adjustment magnitude automatically. The percentage is yours (or the court’s) to argue for and defend. The platform structures the analysis.
- It will not predict the court’s adjustment. Outcomes are heavily fact-driven; the platform’s AI suggestions reference comparable cases but don’t predict.
- It will not handle complex spousal-maintenance interactions. Where ongoing spousal maintenance is a live issue alongside property settlement, the analysis becomes more complex and typically warrants legal advice.
What’s next
Step 4 — Just and equitable
The threshold question + final fairness check.
Step 2 — Contributions
Step back if contributions aren’t settled.
The section 79 framework
Statutory and case-law context.
AI smart suggestions
AI-suggested Step 3 reasoning.