Court has wrapped up for the day.

Follow along tomorrow for more updates.

Mandy has probed Simon on how the couple planned to resolve the issue of their children’s school fees.

The court earlier heard that Patterson has pushed for them to split the costs of school fees, but Simon said he had been advised by “child support people” not to.

Delving into further detail, Simon told Mandy:

“The child support people were going to tell me how it was going to work. That amount I would pay would cover school fees. They said, ‘don’t pay that now, because you will be double paying’.”

Mandy said the child support payments, when they eventually came out, were around $40 per month.

“It might have been $38. 28. It was about $40. It was hardly anything,” Simon said.

Mandy put it to Simon that it became apparent that would not be enough money, which caused “friction”.

Mandy: “So once that first invoice or payment came to Erin for $40, you appreciated, as did she, that that amount was not going to be anywhere near sufficient to cover things like doctors’ fees, school fees, those kind of things?

Simon: “That’s right, yeah.”

Mandy: “In the interim, between the time you had the conversation about child support and the first invoice - that created some friction?”

Simon: “Yes, it did.”

The court has previously heard that Simon and Patterson’s relationship changed after he changed his relationship status in a 2022 tax return to “separated”.

Simon earlier told the court Patterson was upset and, although he offered to change it, they agreed she would apply for child support.

Simon told the defence he understood she was upset and seeking child support because his change on his ATO forms would change her family tax benefit.

The court has been shown a message exchange between the pair a few months later on messaging app, Signal, which Simon says they used regularly to communicate.

21 November 2022, 1.03pm

Erin Patterson:

“FYI I put in child support application so that I can also supply for the family tax benefit, as I said I was going to do a few weeks back.

“Their procedure is try to contact you by phone or letter, idk (I don’t know) which to confirm basic details, such as you accept you’re the father of the children and agree we’re separated etc. They asked for a date of separation, it is kind of moot because the assessment doesn’t begin until the date I applied, which is November 18th, but I said September 14th for the sake of having a date. They’ll probably ask you to confirm that so that our information lines up. Just fyi”

21 November 2022, 1.10pm:

Simon Patterson:

“Thanks for the heads up”

Mandy put it to Simon that Patterson’s self-image wasn’t great.

Mandy: “She put on weight.”

Simon: ”She did.”

Mandy: ”She wasn’t happy with the way she looked.”

Simon: ”Erin is not happy with how she is. I don’t think she has great self-esteem.”

Mandy put it to Simon that Patterson was a devoted mother.

“She seemed like a devoted mother, most of the time,” he said.

Simon said he believed she took her role as a mother seriously, that she was keen and supportive of them to be in different activities, and helped them with their homework.

Mandy put it to Simon that his family were part of Patterson’s support network, to which he agreed, saying “some more than others”.

Mandy: “Was it your brother who walked her down the isle when you were married?

Simon: “My cousin did.”

Mandy: “And Erin and the children had been to your parents place many times without you being present?”

Simon: “Yes, I think they had.”

The court has heard Patterson and Simon both remained hopeful after their 2015 separation that they may reconcile.

Mandy told the court Patterson received more inheritance money when her mother passed away in 2019.

The court heard Patterson used the money to buy two more properties - a Mount Waverley apartment, in Melbourne, and the Gibson Street home in Leongatha (where she held the 2023 lunch).

Mandy put it to Simon that, despite the couple being separated, Patterson included her estranged husband’s name on both house titles as a gesture of ‘’good will” as they were still open to reconciling.

By doing so, Mandy suggested that Patterson in essence shared her inheritance with him (due to the financial benefit of being listed on a property title).

Simon agreed.

Mandy noted the Leongatha home, which was custom built, was spaciously designed as a “family home” which could be occupied by Patterson, Simon and their two children.

Again, Simon agreed.

However, he added that he had pondered whether Patterson had ulterior motives.

“(It) made me wonder if she was using me for my contacts and expertise to build her house”.

Mandy put it to Simon that Patterson had been generous towards him and his family with the funds she inherited from her grandmother’s passing.

The court earlier heard she received the $2million windfall around 2006.

Asked whether Patterson had given his sibling interest-free loans, Simon said: “Yes, we did loan my siblings money.”

Mandy: “The bulk of that came from her inheritance?”

Simon:”We wouldn’t of been able to do it without it.”

Mandy put to Simon that one loan to a sibling was loaned around $400,000 to build a home, which he rejected, saying he believes it was between “$250K and $300K”.

Mandy also put it to Simon that four other relatives (two sets of couples) were also loaned sums in the “hundreds of thousands” to buy familly homes, to which he agreed.

Simon told the court the loans were given with an understanding they would be repaid in a similar fashion to a mortgage, but with no strict repayment schedule.

Mandy put it to Simon that money had never been a significant motivating factor in Patterson’s life decisions.

Simon agreed.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC has begun his cross examination of Simon Patterson.

Mandy: “Mr Patterson, you said up until 2015 you regarding your relationship with my client as ‘strong’.”

Simon: “I’m not sure the word I would use is strong.”

Mandy: “That is the word you used to this same question during pre-trial evidence.”

Simon conceded that was the case, stating his definition of “amicable” has changed in recent months.

“Our relationship went up and down,” Simon said.

Upon medics request, the children were picked up from school and taken to Monash Hospital - where Patterson had been taken to.

The children were found to be healthy, but were kept over night, in a room near Patterson’s, the court heard.

Simon said he spent quite a bit of time with Patterson during the family’s stay at Monash Hospital, as the kids moved between the two rooms.

Rogers put it to Simon that on Tuesday August 2, while the family were together at the hospital, the couple’s daughter brought up the topic of mushrooms.

Simon: “(Our daughter) raised again the topic that she doesn’t like eating mushrooms.”

Rogers: “Which you said earlier is well-known in the family”

Simon: “Yes.”

Rogers: “What did Patterson say?

Simon: “Erin said (sometime) in he past, I’m not sure when, she’d cooked some muffins and then she had dehydrated some mushrooms and then put different amounts of mushrooms in the muffins - you know, 1 gram, 2 grams, 3 grams... Zero grams - you know, a control with no mushrooms in it.

“(Then she) did sort of a blind taste test with (our daughter) - and they all found it interesting that (our daughter) actually preferred the muffin that did have some mushrooms in it.

“I can’t remember if it was 1 or 2 grams, but she didn’t prefer the non-mushroom muffin.”

Simon said it was news to him that Patterson dehydrated food and she hadn’t done so when they lived together.