Armfield and Warnock

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ARMFIELD & WARNOCK [2008] FMCAfam 804

CHILD SUPPORT – Departure application – cost of spending time with a child – income earning capacity.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.3, 117

Applicant: MR ARMFIELD

Respondent: MS WARNOCK

File number: CAM 3129 of 2001

Judgment of: Brewster FM

Hearing date: 24 February 2006

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 31 July 2008

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: Self Represented

Respondent: Self Represented

ORDERS

1. That Order 16 made on 6 September 2006 be discharged.

2. That for the period 1 May 2004 to 1 August 2005 the father’s child support income be calculated on the basis that the cost of his exercising contact in this period was $8,216 and that his child support income for the period 1 July 2005 to 6 September 2006 be calculated on the basis that the cost of his exercising contact in this period was $5,640.

3. That for the period 1 March 2005 to 1 August 2005 the father’s child support income (not having regard to Order 1) be assessed at $92,230 per annum.

4. That for the period 2 August 2005 to 6 September 2006 the father’s child support income (not having regard to Order 1) be assessed at $55,000 per annum.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Armfield & Warnock is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
CANBERRA

CAM 3129 of 2001

MR ARMFIELD

Applicant

And

MS WARNOCK

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter concerns the father’s application in relation to child support. Originally he sought to vary assessments from the Child Support Agency from 6 May 2004 but at the hearing he indicated that the assessments he challenged related to the period 1 March 2005 to 6 September 2006. However I understood him to seek that there be factored into his child support assessment the costs of his exercising contact from May 2004. The issue of child support became irrelevant after 6 September 2006 as orders were made on that day that the child the subject of the assessments live with the father.

2. The father’s contentions are as follows:-

   (a)From 1 March 2005 to 30 June 2005 he was assessed as having an income of about $105,000 per annum. He claims that he should be able to have deducted from that figure a number of items.

   (b)In August 2005 the father left his employment in Sydney and moved to Hobart. When he moved to Hobart he set up a business with his wife. He claims his income there was $45,000 a year. There is the issue as to what his income was and whether I should assess him on the basis of his income in Sydney.

   (c)He claims that child support should be calculated having reference to the high costs of his contact with the child.

   (d)He takes issue with the Child Support Agency’s treatment of the mother’s income.

3. I shall deal with these in turn.

4. The husband seeks…