A financially draining legal battle could be what finally drives convicted baby killer Keli Lane apart from her long-term boyfriend, a friend of the couple has revealed.
Teacher Patrick Cogan, who has been Lane's partner on and off since her 2010 trial, faces a potentially expensive appeal after a judgement ruled he was unfairly sacked by an elite Sydney school.
Cogan had taken St Pius X College to the Fair Work Commission after he was dismissed following 27 years of service and accused of using his work email for matters relating to Lane.
The Commission ruled in Cogan's favour on April 2 and ordered the school to give him his job back and repay lost wages, finding that he had been unfairly dismissed.
But now the school has challenged that decision, throwing his return to work and back pay into doubt, and leaving both Cogan and Lane in financial strain.
Their latest setback comes after Lane lost her jail job in October after being caught using a prison-issued work phone to message Cogan.
While Lane's exact earnings behind bars are unconfirmed, the Daily Mail understands that internal prison roles start at about $80 a week, but can reach much higher for external placements.
Sources say Lane, who had worked in the prison mill for years, would either have recently started or had been considered for a more stable full-time position before losing her privileges.
The partner of convicted baby killer Keli Lane, teacher Patrick Cogan, has been dealt a fresh blow after the elite Sydney school that sacked him appealed a ruling ordering his reinstatement
Cogan (pictured with Lane at Fairlight Beach in Manly in April last year) took St Pius X College to the Fair Work Commission after he was dismissed following 27 years of service
The Commission ruled in his favour on April 2 and ordered the school to give him his job back and repay lost wages
'With Patrick's mounting legal fees, no income and depleting savings, it's becoming increasingly hard to top up Keli's jail allowance,' a friend told the Mail.
The allowance enables Lane to purchase snacks, toiletries and other incidentals through a weekly 'buy-up program'.
'Keli is furious about everything and is convinced they are both being targeted because she is a high-profile prisoner,' the friend said.
'Yes, she used the phone, but they were speaking daily during official calls and she was also staying with him at weekends anyway.
'And now all of this with Patrick, too. He won fair and square, and the school is appealing, which she thinks is just a tactic to bury him in legal fees.
'It's really put a strain on their relationship because Patrick loved his job and was really looking forward to going back and seeing the kids again.
'He has been there since he left university so it's been really hard for him, and while Keli was allowed to go to court to support him, she hasn't been able to be there in person since he found out they were appealing.'
Lane faces a crucial court showdown of her own next month as she fights to win back her privileges, which include the ability to earn money and to re-secure weekend release.
Lane faces a crucial court showdown of her own next month as she fights to win back her privileges, which include the ability to earn money and to re-secure weekend release
Cogan has always publicly supported Lane
The pair dated during high school and reconnected after the investigation into Tegan's disappearance commenced
Cogan has stood by Lane throughout her sentence and has been living at her Northern Beaches home while she remains behind bars.
It was September 12, 1996, when Lane went to Auburn Hospital in outer western Sydney and delivered her baby girl Tegan in secret.
Two days later, having not yet been discharged, Lane sneaked out of the ward with Tegan at about 12pm and arrived back at her parents' home on the Northern Beaches alone by 3pm.
She later claimed she had given the child to the biological father who then disappeared.
Lane and Cogan had dated in high school and reconnected shortly after the investigation into Tegan's disappearance began.
Lane was found guilty in 2010 of murdering her newborn daughter in 1996 and sentenced the following year to 18 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 12 years and five months.
That ruling would have made her eligible for parole in 2024; however, under NSW's no body, no parole laws, that was denied. Her full sentence expires in December 2028.
The former champion water polo player has always maintained her innocence.
She was granted special supervised day release from maximum-security Silverwater prison earlier this year to support Cogan.
Lane was granted special supervised day release from maximum-security Silverwater prison earlier this year to support Cogan
The former champion water polo player has always maintained her innocence
In turn, Cogan has always publicly supported Lane, even sending red roses to court on days he was unable to attend during her trial.
But his employers claimed he failed to inform them about a 60 Minutes report concerning the case last year and used his work emails to talk to journalists and lawyers about Lane's case.
He was also accused of failing to provide what the school considered an adequate medical report when he took personal leave.
However, in the judgment, FWC Deputy President Tony Slevin found that neither Cogan's failure to inform the school of his media engagement nor his medical certificate constituted a breach of obligations.
'I find that Mr Cogan's dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable,' Slevin said in his judgment.
He denied there was any adverse reputational impact on the College because of Cogan's advocacy for Lane and his 'devotion to his partner'.
Slevin ordered the school to reinstate Cogan and that the two agree on lost wages, which were to be reimbursed.
At the time, employment lawyer Michael Gillis, from Gillis Delaney Lawyers, claimed the true reason for Cogan's dismissal was his relationship with Lane.
'After 27 years of loyal and faithful service to St Pius X College, the students, parents and staff, he has lost his job,' Mr Gillis told Lawyers Weekly.
'I've never had a case where an employer has adversely impacted an employee's ongoing employment because of their relationship with someone [who] has been convicted of a criminal offence.'