Angelakis and Patalano (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 942

Angelakis and Patalano (Child support) [2025] ARTA 942 (1 May 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Angelakis

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Patalano

Tribunal Number: 2024/BC028206
Tribunal: Member K Hamilton
Place:Brisbane
Date:1 May 2025

Decision:
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution determines that:
·For the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, Mr Angelakis’ annual rate of child support is to be increased by $9,824.12.
·For the period 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, Mr Angelakis’ annual rate of child support is to be increased by $12,418.42.
·For the period 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026, Mr Angelakis’ annual rate of child support is increased by an amount equivalent to 50% of the out of pocket expenses for the children’s orthodontic treatment after taking into account any rebate available under Mr Angelakis’ private health insurance.
·For the period 1 January 2026 until 31 December 2030, Mr Angelakis’ annual rate of child support is to be increased by an amount equivalent to 50% of the children’s tuition fees at [Anglican College 2], after deducting any sibling discounts.
·For the period from 1 January 2024 until a terminating event occurs with respect to [Child 2], the adjusted taxable income of Mr Angelakis is set at $185,000 per annum.
·The adjusted taxable income of Mr Angelakis is to be adjusted annually from 1 July 2025 by the CPI National Weighted Average results from the preceding March quarter.
·For the period 1 January 2024 to 31 October 2024, the adjusted taxable income of Ms Patalano is set at $102,000 per annum.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – child support payable – costs of maintaining children – education in manner intended by parents – choice of schools, including state or private – evidence supports intention of private, fee-paying religious school – special needs of children – orthodontic treatment – income, property and financial resources – parents’ income and expenses – father’s full-time employment, sole-trader business, cryptocurrency investments, self-managed superannuation fund and real estate – mother’s full-time employment – decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Mr Angelakis and Ms Patalano are the parents of [Child 1] (born 2012) and [Child 2] (born 2013).
A child support case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) on 28 June 2015. From 28 January 2024, the children have been recorded as being in Ms Patalano’s care 61% and Mr Angelakis’ care 39%.
The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of child support payable. It uses a formula which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of the care of the children. The Act also provides a mechanism for departure…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Angelakis and Patalano (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 942
Decision Date: 1 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mr Angelakis and Ms Patalano are the parents of two children, and they were seeking a review of a decision made by Child Support to alter the amount of child support payable by Mr Angelakis to Ms Patalano. The Tribunal found that the decision under review was set aside and in substitution, Mr Angelakis’ annual rate of child support was increased for various periods. This was based on the evidence provided by both parties, including their respective incomes, expenses, and the special needs of the children. The Tribunal also found that both parties had a mutual expectation that the children would attend a private religious school, and this justified an increase in child support. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that it was just and equitable to require Mr Angelakis to contribute to the children's private education and orthodontic treatment costs.

The decision of the Tribunal in this case provides guidance on the factors that should be considered when determining whether to depart from the administrative assessment of child support, including the parents' mutual expectations regarding the children's education and any special needs of the children. The decision also highlights the importance of considering the financial resources of both parents when determining whether it would be just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment. The Tribunal found that it was just and equitable to require Mr Angelakis to contribute to the children's private education and orthodontic treatment costs, given his financial resources and the fact that both parties had a mutual expectation that the children would attend a private religious school.

Orders