Bharma and Child Support Registrar (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 2162

Bharma and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2162 (15 September 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Bharma

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Tribunal Number: 2024/CC028852
Tribunal: General Member R Anderson
Place:Melbourne
Date:15 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision and, in substitution decides that:
·     The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma is to increase by $1,830 per annum in respect of the period 28 October 2022 to 31 December 2022;
·     The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma is to increase by $1,376 per annum in respect of the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023;
·     The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma in respect of the period
1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 is to increase by $2,233 per annum;
·     The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma in respect of the period 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 is to increase by $3,367 per annum;
·     The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma in respect of the period 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026 is to increase by $1,782 per annum; and
·     The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma in respect of the period 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027 is to increase by $1,960 per annum.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources – adjusted taxable income – confidentiality order – extension of time – relocation – travel costs – costs of education – manner expected by both parents – costs of special needs – cost of maintaining the child – disability pension – favourable net asset base and access to liquid assets – obligation of both parents to contribute – 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 Bharma and Ms [A] are the separated parents of [Child A]. According to the records of Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support), the child support assessment was registered on 23 October 2019. Child Support have been responsible for the collection of child support from Mr Bharma since 29 October 2019. The care attributed to Mr Bharma and Ms [A] in respect of [Child A] has been 15% and 85% respectively since 10 June 2023, following Ms [A] and [Child A’s] relocation to [State 1].
The child support assessment is generally calculated in accordance with the administrative assessment, as provided in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act). The calculation uses the adjusted taxable income (ATI), based on the incomes recorded by each parent in their most recently completed income tax returns, as lodged with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) or an estimated ATI accepted by Child Support. It is open to either parent to lodge a change of assessment or departure application to depart from the administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Act if they consider the administrative assessment results in an unfair amount of child support payable by one parent. According to Child Support, Ms [A] lodged such a departure application on 21 January 2024.
The departure application was on the basis that in the special circumstances of the case, the administrative assessment produced an unfair outcome because the overall costs of maintaining [Child A] are significantly affected because she is being educated in the manner expected by both parents (Reason 3), and because of the earning capacity, income, property and financial resources of the parents (Reason 8). Prior to the decision being made, further grounds were raised in respect of the administrative assessment being unfair because of the high costs incurred in enabling contact with [Child A] (Reason 1) and because the overall costs of maintaining [Child A] are significantly affected due to her special needs (Reason 2).
At that time, the administrative assessment was based on the 2022/23 ATI of Mr Bharma and Ms [A] of $179,842 and $148,604 respectively. The resulting annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma to Ms [A] in respect of [Child A] was $7,981.
On 16 August 2024, a delegate of the child support registrar decided to depart from the administrative assessment having found a ground was established in relation to Reason 3. Accordingly, the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma was increased to account for a 50% contribution to [Child A’s] private school fees as follows:
·From 1 July 2023 to 31 December 2024 the annual rate of child support is increased by $1,874;
·From 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 the annual rate of child support is increased by $1,930;
·From 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026 the annual rate of child support is increased by $1,988;
·From 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027 the annual rate of child support is increased by $2,047 and
·From 1 January 2028 to 31 December 2028 the annual rate of child support is increased by $2,109.
On 26 August 2024, Ms [A] lodged an objection to the decision of 16 August 2024 on the basis that [Child A] has ongoing special needs. Subsequently, on 17 October 2024, an objections officer decided to allow the objection and made the following decision to account for a 50% contribution to [Child A’s] special needs in 2024 and her private school fees in 2024, 2025 and 2026.
·     From 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2024 the annual rate of child support is increased by $3,685;
·     From 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 the annual rate of child support is increased by $1,488;
·     From 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026 the annual rate of child support is increased by $1,533.
Mr Bharma lodged an application to this Tribunal on 10 November 2024, requesting an independent review of Child Support’s decision. The directions hearing was conducted by telephone with Mr Bharma and Ms [A] on 22 July 2025. Ms [A] confirmed that she is no longer pursuing a ground under Reason 1. Following this hearing, directions were made to both parties requiring them to provide further information and documents by 14 August 2025.
Ms [A] wrote to the Tribunal on 11 August 2025 seeking approval that her financial submissions and evidence are not to be provided to Mr Bharma. She essentially sought a blanket confidentiality order, in addition to an extension of time to provide information and for a rescheduling of the hearing due to work commitments. The Tribunal granted an extension of time of the compliance date until 20 August 2025 and both parties were advised accordingly. The Tribunal also advised Ms [A] that she may redact personal contact details and the name, and/or address or identification numbers of any employers if she has privacy concerns. Ms [A] was also advised that if she believed there was a basis for further redactions of documents, she could make an application to the Tribunal specifying what information she believed should be redacted and the Tribunal would consider the request. The reschedule request was not granted.
Mr Bharma fully complied with the Tribunal’s directions on 17 August 2025.
On 22 August 2025, Ms [A] wrote to the Tribunal seeking a reschedule of the hearing and also the following:

That my unredacted financial documents are not provided to the Applicant.
That the Applicant receive only a de-identified summary approved by the Tribunal. That the same restriction apply to the Applicants financial documents so as to provide procedural fairness to both parties.
That the Applicant be directed to provide disclosure regarding whether he or his partner are their beneficiaries in any trusts, or otherwise receive any financial support/benefit from parents.

The Tribunal wrote to Ms [A] on 25 August 2025 and granted a rescheduling of the hearing to 3 September 2025. Furthermore, the Tribunal reiterated the earlier response of 12 August 2025 in respect of applications for redactions and in response to Ms [A’s] concerns about account numbers and transactions, noted that the Tribunal has not requested provision of bank statements other than the most recent personal loan statement. This was for the sole purpose of confirming the outstanding liability and as such, other redactions on the statement can be made.
No applications for specific redactions were made by Ms [A]. While Ms [A] provided some information on 29 August 2025, she had failed to substantially comply with the Tribunal’s directions in a reasonable time. None of the financial information Ms [A] was directed to provide was submitted, other than a general statement from the accountant in respect of the family trust of her parents. Nor was any information provided in respect of the costs relating to [Child A’s] special needs, a major consideration in this matter.
The parties were informed of the consequences of non-compliance at the directions hearing on 22 July 2025, including the drawing of adverse inferences and findings and the possibility that a party may be removed from the proceedings. On 1 September 2025, the Tribunal decided to remove Ms [A] as a party to the proceedings because of her failure to substantially comply with the directions issued to her on 22 July 2025.
On 2 September 2025, Ms [A] applied for reinstatement. She also provided further information. However, she continued not to comply with the provision of financial information or to provide Medicare information that enabled an accurate assessment of the costs she incurred in respect of some of [Child A’s] special needs. On 2 September 2025, the Tribunal decided to refuse Ms [A’s] request for reinstatement.
The hearing was held on 3 September 2025. Mr Bharma participated by conference telephone and gave oral evidence on affirmation. During the hearing Ms [A] provided an additional document, being the Medicare statement in relation to [Child A’s] expenses. The Tribunal considered information in the documents provided by Child Support in accordance with the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 numbered 1 to 838, documents lodged by Mr Bharma numbered A1 to A191 and documents from Centrelink numbered C1 to C7. Ms [A’s] documents were numbered B1 to B275. As the B and C documents had not been provided to Mr Bharma prior to the hearing, the Tribunal discussed them in detail with Mr Bharma at the hearing. The Tribunal and Mr Bharma were satisfied that the detail had been discussed and understood and it was therefore sent to Mr Bharma for his information after the hearing.
Immediately following the hearing, the Tribunal received further information from Child Support, numbered 839 to 849 that Child Support also provided directly to Mr Bharma. As the screens replicated assessment letters already received by Mr Bharma, the Tribunal was satisfied that no further comment or discussion was necessary.
Ms [A] provided additional information after the hearing. As the hearing was completed, the Tribunal refused to accept any further information and proceeded to make a decision. It is noteworthy that Ms [A] was advised of the evidentiary requirements on 22 July 2025, some six weeks prior to the hearing.

ISSUES

When calculation of the rate of child support is based on the usual administrative formula it also takes into account, relevantly, factors such as the number of children, the level of care provided, the costs of the children, the costs of self-support of each parent and the income of each parent. Section 98C of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) allows for a decision maker to depart from the usual manner of calculating the rate of child support payable by one parent to the other parent for a child after considering the following issues:
·         whether a ground exists to depart from the administrative assessment; and if so
·         whether any proposed departure is fair to Mr Bharma, Ms [A] and [Child A]; and if so
·         whether any proposed departure is fair to the public.

CONSIDERATION

Issue 1 – Does a ground exist to depart from the administrative assessment?

The grounds for departure are set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act. Each ground is prefaced by the words ‘in the special circumstances of the case’. The meaning of this expression is not defined in the Act. However, the Tribunal was guided by the courts, which have concluded that the expression relates to the facts peculiar to each case such that those facts are ‘out of the ordinary’ and set the case apart from the usual case (Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279 (Gyselman) and Philippe and Philippe (1978) FLC 90-433).
Mr Bharma confirmed to the Tribunal that he is not pursuing Reason 1 as a ground. Rather, he provided information in respect of the travel costs to have contact with [Child A] because he wants the Tribunal to consider the additional travel costs he incurs in his overall expenses. Mr Bharma told the Tribunal that in respect of Reason 2, he does not have an issue in contributing to [Child A’s] needs. However, he did not agree with Child Support’s decision to provide for a contribution by him to consultations and/or an assessment that had not yet occurred as he did not want to set a precedent.
In respect of Reason 3, Mr Bharma stated that he considers there are suitable public schools in the vicinity of [Child A’s] residence that provide good opportunities. He also noted his concern in meeting private school fees when her attendance rate is below the acceptable level.
It was unclear whether Ms [A] was pursuing a ground for departure under Reason 6. She had provided information to Child Support in relation to before and after school care and provided an updated document to the Tribunal. For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal also considered Reason 6. That is, that the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected because of high child care costs in relation to the child.
In respect of Reason 8, Mr Bharma stated that he understands Ms [A] works in the family business and wants to ensure that her earnings are taken into account for child support purposes. He submitted that his own circumstances have changed significantly with the arrival of his [child in] May 2025, his wife’s paid parental leave ending in late September 2025 and his inability to work going forward. He is now in receipt of a [pension] on medical grounds.

Reason 6 – High child care costs

Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ib) of the Act provides a ground for departure exists where, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected because of high child care costs in relation to the child. Subsection 117(3A) of the Act goes on to set out the conditions which must be satisfied before a ground under subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ib) can be established. That is, the costs must be incurred by the payee and the children in care must be under 12 years of age at the start of the child support period. It is not disputed that these two conditions are met.
The Tribunal then turned its mind to whether the out-of-pocket before and after school child care costs incurred by Ms [A] after receipt of child care subsidy, resulted in the child care costs being considered as “high”. Subsection 117(3B) of the Act provides that child care costs are only “high” if, during a child support period, they total more than 5% of the amount worked out by dividing the payee’s ATI for the period by 365 and multiplying the quotient by the number of days in the period. Further guidance is found at 2.6.12 of the Child Support Guide.
In this case the Tribunal calculates the costs of child care in the relevant child support periods and the relevant ATI to apply in the child support period to be as set out in the table below.

Child support period	Cost of childcare $	Costs of childcare annualised	ATI used for Ms [A] $	ATI applied to child support period	5%
01/11/22 – 30/09/23 (334 days)	3,016	3,295	124,627	114,042	5,702
01/10/23 – 30/09/24 (365 days)	1,330	1,330	148,604	148,604	7,430

In each of the child support periods in the table above, the annualised costs of childcare are significantly less than 5% of Ms [A’s] relevant ATI and therefore cannot be considered as “high”.
In respect of the child support period from 1 October 2024 to 31 December 2025, the Tribunal notes Ms [A’s] ATI from 1 October 2024 is $158,345. This was replaced by an estimated ATI from 25 October 2024 of $78,903, replaced on 26 October 2024 by $90,243 and from 17 February 2025 an estimated ATI in the amount of $177,155. On 18 March 2025 it reduced to $159,913.
The childcare costs in the period 1 October 2024 to 15 August 2025 totalled $1,611, which equates to $2,211 in the child support period from 1 October 2024 to 31 December 2025 ($1,611/319 x 438). However, given the time [Child A] is likely to spend with Mr Bharma during school holiday periods at the end of Term 3 and the summer holidays, the cost is likely to be less. Applying the formula provided in subsection 117(3B) of the Act, the Tribunal calculates the 5% threshold in the child support period 1 October 2024 to 31 December 2025 to be $8,975 [($158,345/365 x 24) + ($78,903/365 x 1) + ($90,243/365 x 114) + ($177,155/365 x 29) + ($159,913/365 x 289) x 5%].
It is evident that the out-of-pocket child care costs in the child support period 1 October 2024 to 31 December 2025 are also significantly less than the 5% threshold of $8,975, and therefore cannot be considered as “high”.
As the childcare costs cannot be considered as high, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to consider whether they significantly affected the costs of maintaining the child. The Tribunal finds that a ground for departure under subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ib) of the Act has not been established.

Reason 3 – Costs related to the child’s care, training or education in the manner expected by the child’s parents

Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act provides a ground for departure exists where, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected because the child is being cared for, educated or trained in the manner that was expected by his or her parents.
In this case there is no dispute that [Child A] commenced her education at Prep level at [School 1] in [City 1]. [School 1] is a Catholic primary school. Text messages between Mr Bharma and Ms [A] from 2020 indicate that he was willing to enrol her in other private schools and also pay 50% of the enrolment fee. Numerous text messages throughout [Child A’s] schooling from Ms [A] have requested a contribution from Mr Bharma.
According to the statement from 6 June 2022, the term fees for tuition, community council fee, school services maintenance fee and building fund levy at [School 1] total $924, which equates to an annual fee of $3,696. The remaining levy for resources and activities is not considered to be out of the ordinary, as such expenses are also incurred at public schools. Mr Bharma gave oral evidence that he recalls there being no dispute in regard to [Child A] attending [School 1]. He cannot recall whether the costs were shared with Ms [A], but given they agreed on the school he thinks he likely did contribute. Evidence from Ms [A] in the hearing papers states that Mr Bharma made no financial contribution towards the education costs of [School 1].
Upon relocation to [State 1] with Ms [A] around April 2022, [Child A] commenced at [School 2]. This too, is a Catholic primary school. [Child A] is currently in Grade 3. A statement dated 15 August 2025 sets out the fees from [Child A’s] commencement on 20 May 2022 and includes tuition fees, capital levy, parents and friends levy, resource levy, technology levy, excursion/incursion levy and a co-curricular levy. As discussed at hearing, the Tribunal considers that “additional levies” in respect of excursions, resources, technology and co-curricular activities are equivalent to similar types of costs required to be met in government schools and as such do not create special circumstances. This is regardless of whether or not they are compulsory. Therefore, the Tribunal will consider the tuition fees, capital levy, and parents and friends levy payable in each of the relevant terms from May 2022 at [School 2] as set out in the table below:

Year	Cost per term $	Number of terms	Total cost per annum
2022	652.50	3	1,957.50
2023	688.00	4	2,752.00
2024	737.00	4	2,948.00
2025	810.00	4	3,240.00

The term ‘significantly affected’ is not defined in the Act. In the case of Potter & Burbage (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1009, Riethmuller FM stated that when considering whether the costs of maintaining the child are “significantly affected”, it is necessary to take into account not only the rate of child support but also the income of the parents.
The rate of child support is based on the costs of the child, as estimated using the Costs of the Children Table. According to the administrative assessment for the period 1 November 2022 to 30 September 2023, the costs of [Child A] approximate $24,762 per annum. It is evident that the costs of educating [Child A] at [School 2] for three quarters of the 2022 calendar year represent around 10% of her total costs and in 2023 represent more than 11%. Furthermore, the education costs represent around 30% of the corresponding child support liability of $8,682.
According to the administrative assessment for the period 1 October 2023 to 31 December 2024, the costs of [Child A] approximate $25,169 per annum. It is evident that the costs of educating [Child A] at [School 2] represent more than 10% of her total costs. Furthermore, the education costs represent just under 40% of the corresponding child support liability of $7,981. The ATIs of Mr Bharma and Ms [A] for the same period are assessed at $179,842 and $148,604 respectively. While the education costs represent a smaller proportion of the parents’ ATIs, the Tribunal is satisfied that the education costs do significantly affect the overall costs of maintaining [Child A].
In deciding this matter, the Tribunal also needs to consider the type of education expected by both parents for [Child A], rather than any particular school intended by the parents (Wild v Ballard (1997) FLC 92-771) and determine whether both parents expected that she would be educated privately.
The Full Court of the Family Court in the matter of J F MEE and P J FERGUSON (1986) 10 Fam LR 971 stated: “The word “expected” in the past tense presumably relates to some expectation of the parties at a point in time earlier than the hearing.”
Mr Bharma did not dispute that there was mutual agreement between the parents to educate [Child A] at [School 1]. He also acknowledged that he signed the enrolment form for [School 2]. Mr Bharma told the Tribunal that he completed and submitted an enrolment form for [Child A] to ensure his name was on it. In response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Bharma stated that his issue in paying private school fees is because [Child A] is not getting the most out of a private education with her diminished attendance record and otherwise considers a public school in [State 1] may be more appropriate. The Tribunal does not consider that his current view changes the expectation at an earlier point in time of a Catholic education for [Child A]. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that [Child A] has continued to be educated in the manner in which the parents expected, being a private Catholic education and the Tribunal so finds.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that special circumstances do exist in this case and the ground at subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) to depart from the administrative assessment is established.
As discussed at the hearing, the financial circumstances of the parents and their capacity to contribute to the proper needs of the children come into play during consideration of whether it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment (Newman & Caldwell [2009] FMCAfam 496 and Wright & Wright [2009] FMCAfam 979), discussed later in this Statement of Reasons.
As the Tribunal is satisfied that one of the grounds before it is established, it has not gone on to consider whether the other grounds under Reason 2 and Reason 8 are also established as a separate ground. The relevant issues will be dealt with in detail below under the “just and equitable” criteria.
Issue 2 – Is it fair or ‘just and equitable’ in relation to Mr Bharma, Ms [A] and [Child A] to make a particular departure determination?
As the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a ground to depart from the administrative assessment of child support, the next step is to consider whether it is fair as regards the parents and the children to make a particular determination in accordance with sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(A) of the Act. This in turn requires the Tribunal to have regard to a range of factors, including but not limited to those set out in subsections 117(4) and (6) to (8) of the Act, such as the needs of the children, the parents’ assets, liabilities, income and commitments and any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula. The Tribunal does not propose to explore every matter in detail but will discuss those it regards as pertinent to this application (Gyselman).

The needs of the children

Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that the parents of a child have the primary duty to maintain the child, and that this duty has priority over all commitments of the parents other than commitments necessary for self-support or the support of another person the parent has a duty to maintain (Ashcroft and Ashcroft (SSAT Appeal) [2008] FMCAfam 1250). In this case Mr Bharma and Ms [A] have the primary duty to financially support [Child A] and that contributing to her costs should take priority over all other costs other than their “necessary” costs of self-support. Mr Bharma also has a legal duty to contribute to the needs of his [child, Child B], born in May 2025. The Tribunal notes that Mr Bharma’s duty to support [Child B] has been accounted for in the administrative assessment by a relevant dependent allowance. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that [Child B] has any special needs or that the relevant dependent child allowance used in the administrative assessment is not appropriate.
In determining the proper needs of the child, subsection 117(6) of the Act also requires the Tribunal to have regard to the manner in which the parents expected the child to be cared for, educated and trained as well as a consideration of any special needs of the child.
The Tribunal found earlier in this Statement of Reasons that special circumstances existed in relation to the costs of [Child A] attending a Catholic Primary School, in the manner expected by the parents.
Special needs of a child must generally involve a cost that is additional to the normal needs that are expected to be met from the child support assessment. The Tribunal considers general practitioner visits that would be expected with a child, regular dental checkups, optometry checkups and other one-off consultations would be included in those needs expected to be met from the child support assessment.
In relation to special needs, Ms [A] initially raised the issue in respect of dental and podiatry costs and a single psychologist consultation. On appeal to Child Support, Ms [A] provided evidence of further psychology costs and the recommendation for a psychological assessment of [Child A]. Dr [A] of [Medical clinic 1] prepared a GP Mental Care Treatment Plan for [Child A] on 17 April 2024 on the basis of his diagnosis of adjustment disorder.
Prior to the Tribunal’s hearing an assessment report in respect of [Child A] was completed by [Psychology service 1] on 13 August 2025 and was before the Tribunal. A letter from [Psychologist A], Clinical Psychology Registrar and General Psychologist from [Psychology service 1], dated 21 August 2025, clarified that the report was not final and a final report will be provided to the parents after additional information is provided from [Child A’s] school. [Psychologist A] confirmed that [Child A] had been formally diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder – Level 1(ASD), which required support/substantial support. The assessment in relation to ADHD was only provisional at this stage. [Psychologist A] confirmed that [Child A] required the support outlined in the current report, noting that the next iteration will provide further clarification on the extent and nature of the supports recommended.
The [Psychology service 1] report divided the recommendations of support in relation to ASD into home-based and school-based. The final recommendation was to engage a multi-disciplinary team for coordinated support, which was expanded to mean collaboration with various professionals, such as psychologists, speech pathologists and occupational therapists.
Mr Bharma submitted that there were factual inaccuracies in the report and questioned the necessity of ongoing specialist intervention. The Tribunal put to Mr Bharma that neither he nor the Tribunal were medically qualified and therefore it is reasonable to accept the professional opinion in the [Psychology service 1] report. Mr Bharma conceded that this was so. He further reiterated that it is open to [Child A] to receive free psychology treatment [as a member of his family through Psychology service 2].
The psychology costs incurred by Ms [A] for [Child A], including the assessment report are set out in the table below, in accordance with the Medicare statement, [Psychology service 3] statement and [Psychology service 1] statement that were before the Tribunal.

Date	Provider	Out-of-pocket costs $	Additional comments
17/04/24	GP	69.80	Mental Health Treatment Plan
19/06/24	[Psychology service 3]	146.65
03/07/24	[Psychology service 3]	143.35
17/07/24	[Psychology service 3]	143.35
21/08/24	[Psychology service 3]	143.35
04/09/24	[Psychology service 3]	143.35
16/10/24	[Psychology service 3]	143.35
30/10/24	[Psychology service 3]	143.35
15/04/25	[Psychology service 1]	230.00	Prior to new mental health treatment plan
23/04/25	GP	66.30	Mental Health Treatment Plan
13/05/25	[Psychology service 1]	133.35
30/05/25	[Psychology service 1]	1,035.00	Likely for assessment report
14/07/25	[Psychology service 1]	141.05
07/08/25	[Psychology service 1]	480.00	Mr Bharma
15/08/25	[Psychology service 1]	460.00
15/08/25	[Psychology service 1]	1,495.00	Likely for assessment report
5,117.25
(940.00)	See below
TOTAL	4,177.25

According to the hearing papers, the estimate from [Psychology service 3] for the assessment report was $3,048. It appears that the report costs to date were less than that with [Psychology service 1] in the amount of $2,530. As it appears that Mr Bharma and Ms [A] both paid for discussions with the psychologist in a similar amount in August 2025, the Tribunal will ignore these costs. Therefore, the Tribunal calculates the out-of-pocket costs for [Child A’s] psychology needs between 19 June 2024 and 15 August 2025 to be $4,177. It is apparent that the majority of [Child A’s] consultations are under a partially funded GP Mental Care Treatment Plan. Regardless, the Tribunal is satisfied that the costs incurred in 2024 and 2025 do significantly impact on [Child A’s] overall costs, representing more than 14% of the annual costs attributed to [Child A] using the Costs of the Children Table, as used in the administrative assessment.
According to the schedule for upcoming appointments, [Child A’s] next appointment at [Psychology service 1] after the assessment report was 1 September 2025, with further consultations scheduled once a month until February 2026. The Tribunal noted that of the six upcoming appointments scheduled at [Psychology service 3] from 2 October 2024 to 11 December 2024, [Child A] only attended two of them. As such, the Tribunal is hesitant to attribute costs between the parents for upcoming appointments that have not yet occurred. In any event, as the final report is yet to be produced and recommendations of support for [Child A] are likely to change, it will be necessary for Ms [A] to lodge a further change of assessment unless the parents can come to an arrangement to share the costs in respect of [Child A’s] special needs. At that time, further appointments that have been completed and paid for after August 2025 can be addressed.
Ms [A] also provided numerous invoices in respect of dental costs for [Child A] from January 2023. After rebates from private health insurance, the only invoice that incurred an out-of-pocket cost was for an active removable appliance (an oral plate) with an out-of-pocket cost of $664. The remainder of the dental invoices appeared to be regular dental examinations. There was no evidence as to why an oral plate was necessary for [Child A]. Mr Bharma told the Tribunal that [Child A] has all of her adult teeth and he was not informed of the reasons, other than [Child A] telling him that it helped her teeth to grow. He further stated that she spent close to six months not wearing the plate and has only recently recommenced. At this stage, without evidence to confirm that it is not for cosmetic reasons, the Tribunal does not consider the one-off cost creates special circumstances such that a special need exists. It is open to Ms [A] to provide additional evidence if she pursues a further change of assessment in respect of [Child A’s] special needs.
Medicare statements record [Child A’s] medical consultations with a general practitioner, excluding the costs for the mental health treatment plans, to be around $230 over 12 months. The Tribunal does not consider such costs represent special circumstances, noting that general medical and dental costs are allowed for in the Costs of the Children Table used in respect of the child support assessment. Similarly, a one-off osteopathy appointment does not demonstrate special circumstances or special needs of the child.
Ms [A] also provided numerous invoices in respect of podiatry costs for [Child A] from a one-off consultation in October 2022 to more regular consultations between 29 January 2024 and 19 March 2025. It is evident that [Child A] requires orthotics on an annual basis. The out-of-pocket costs in 2024 were $441 and in 2025, $394. It is noteworthy that without the private health insurance contribution, the premiums of which are being met in full by Ms [A], the costs would be $540 and $760 respectively. In considering all of [Child A’s] expenses, the Tribunal considers the podiatry expenses also impact significantly on her overall costs and are likely to be an ongoing annual cost.
Mr Bharma estimated the weekly costs he incurs in respect of [Child A] to be $200, or $10,400 per annum. This included discretionary costs such as holidays and entertainment of $60. The estimate did not include any amount for accommodation. He estimates the costs incurred for travel in relation to contact with [Child A] that he incurs to approximate $9,000 per annum. As discussed at hearing, while the Tribunal accepts that Mr Bharma meets such travel expenses, so too does Ms [A], albeit not at the same level. However, the discrepancy in the level of travel costs met by each parent is as ordered by the court. It is not for the Tribunal to make any adjustment to alter the expected outcome of the court.
Ms [A] failed to provide an updated estimate of the average weekly expenses of [Child A], as directed. However, a spreadsheet provided to Child Support in early 2024 records [Child A’s] costs for the 2023 and 2024 calendar years in the amounts of $33,303 and $34,294 respectively. The annual estimates include expenses such as private school fees (more than $3,000), medical/dental costs ($886) and discretionary costs such as extra-curricular activities (more than $3,000) and private health insurance ($1,288 for [Child A]). The Tribunal notes that court orders provide that Ms [A] must also meet certain travel costs in relation to [Child A’s] contact with Mr Bharma. It appears that such travel costs have not been included. It is also apparent that the medical costs in respect of [Child A] have increased in 2025.
Based on the 2023/24 ATIs of Mr Bharma and Ms [A] used in the most current administrative assessment, the Costs of the Children Table estimates [Child A’s] costs are just over $26,000. This is less than the costs of [Child A] as estimated by the parents and indicates that her “necessary” and “discretionary” needs are being provided for.
In the special circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that [Child A] has special needs in relation to the psychology and podiatry costs. It is evident that the private health insurance premiums met by Ms [A] assist in partially meeting additional costs for [Child A]. Relevantly, psychology costs that are not under the GP Mental Care Treatment Plan and podiatry. The out-of-pocket costs represent around 15% of [Child A’s] assessed costs using her estimated costs under the Costs of Children Table in the 12 months to September 2025. The Tribunal finds that these costs significantly affect the overall costs to maintain [Child A].

The earning capacity, income, property and financial resources and commitments of each parent

The Tribunal considered the tax returns of Mr Bharma for the 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25 years.
Mr Bharma gave oral evidence that in 2022/23 he was employed as an [Occupation 1] for various [companies] on a full-time basis. He [also provided Service 1]; however, he did not earn any income from that source in 2022/23. In addition to his salary and wages income, Mr Bharma also earned a small amount of interest and dividends from a small share portfolio. Mr Bharma and his wife were joint owners of two investment properties, one in [City 1] and one in [City 2]. Both properties earned rental income in 2022/23, albeit the combined result was a net rental loss for tax purposes in the amount of $1,698. In 2022/23 Mr Bharma also made additional superannuation contributions in the amount of $3,909. The Tribunal notes that investment losses and reportable superannuation contributions are added back to taxable income for child support purposes under the normal administrative assessment. After deductions, the ATI of Mr Bharma in 2022//23 was $179,842. The Tribunal is satisfied that the add backs are appropriate.
Mr Bharma gave oral evidence that in 2023/24 he continued to earn some wages and left [Service 1]. He then commenced going through the medical recognition process [through Organisation 1]. It was determined that Mr Bharma was incapacitated on medical grounds. As such he received a lump-sum, non-taxable disability pension in the amount of $522,000 under [the relevant Compensation Act]. Certain tax-free pensions are added back for child support purposes and are defined in section 5 of the Act. A disability pension lump-sum payment from [the relevant Compensation Act] does not fall under the definition in section 5 of the Act and is therefore not added back to Mr Bharma’s ATI. While the Tribunal is satisfied that this is correct, as discussed at hearing, it is without question a financial resource available to Mr Bharma which should be taken into account in assessing his overall financial circumstances.
Mr Bharma also earned a small amount of interest, dividends and distributions from a small share portfolio. It was evident that he sold a number of managed funds also at a combined net loss, albeit the combined gross proceeds were just under $7,000.
Both investment properties earned rental income in 2023/24, albeit the combined result was a net rental loss for tax purposes in the amount of $22,189. Furthermore, the investment property in [City 1] was sold in June 2024 at a loss. Mr Bharma told the Tribunal that after paying out the corresponding mortgage, the remaining $100,000 or so was paid into one of two mortgages secured by the principal residence. He further stated that the $522,000 was placed in the other mortgage on his principal residence. According to the CBA bank statements, the redraw balance at 30 June 2025 was $556,170. This implies that Mr Bharma has not had the need to access those funds in the period to 30 June 2025.

After deductions and add backs of net investment losses, the ATI of Mr Bharma in 2023/24 was $134,023. The Tribunal is satisfied that the add backs are appropriate.
Mr Bharma had an estimate of his ATI accepted by Child Support in respect of the period 2 September 2024 to 30 June 2025 in the amount of $110,533. In the ordinary course of the administrative assessment, a reconciliation will be processed once his 2024/25 tax return is lodged with the ATO.
Mr Bharma’s 2024/25 tax return records income from [Employer 1] in the form of reportable fringe benefits in the amount of $27,472. Similarly to reportable superannuation contributions, reportable fringe benefits are added back to taxable income for child support purposes under the normal administrative assessment. It was evident that he continued to earn a small amount of dividends from a small share portfolio. A net capital gain was incurred in respect of some share sales in 2024/25 of almost $3,500, noting that the capital proceeds approximated only $3,000.
According to Mr Bharma’s 2024/25 tax return, he received ongoing, taxable payments from [Superannuation fund 1] in respect of a disability pension and incapacity payments from [Organisation 1]. The latter make up the difference between his [Superannuation fund 1] payment and 100% of his normal salary and allowances so as to prevent double compensation for the same incapacity. Incapacity payments are compensation for economic loss due to the inability, or reduced inability to work because of an injury or disease that has been [accepted] under the [relevant Compensation Act]. After 45 weeks, if not working at all, the top-up reduces to 75% of normal earnings. As they are compensation payments, no superannuation contributions are made in respect of them. They generally cease at age pension age, or earlier, if determined that the person has a capacity to work.
According to his 2024/25 tax return, Mr Bharma received a [Superannuation fund 1] lump sum payment in 2024/25 totalling $203,764. Two payments from [Organisation 1] were received, being $51,928 in respect of the 2024/25 year and $17,082 in respect of a past period. This was due to Mr Bharma’s entitlement being reassessed. A letter from [Organisation 1], dated 10 February 2025 states that the overpayment was repaid through Mr Bharma’s [Superannuation fund 1] lump sum before the remaining entitlement of incapacity payments were paid to Mr Bharma in the amount of $63,209.
According to the documentation from [Superannuation fund 1] and [Organisation 1], it appears that there are no tax-free components of Mr Bharma’s entitlements. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that going forward they will be recorded on his annual tax returns and therefore accounted for in the administrative assessment.
The [City 2] investment property earned rental income in 2024/25, albeit the result was a net rental loss for tax purposes in the amount of $15,292. A net financial investment loss was also recorded in the amount of $3,233.
After deductions and add backs of net investment losses, the ATI of Mr Bharma in 2024/25 was $296,618. The Tribunal is satisfied that the add backs are appropriate and notes the discrepancy between this amount and his estimated ATI of $110,533. The child support liability will be recalculated accordingly in respect of 2024/25 in accordance with the normal administrative assessment following assessment of his 2024/254 tax return by the ATO.
Mr Bharma gave oral evidence that in 2025/26 his income from [Employer 1] recorded on his income statement was in the form of reportable superannuation contributions in the amount of $30,000, albeit he did not work for them. He told the Tribunal that the payment was following an agreement in relation to his past superannuation entitlements. It was paid into his self-managed superannuation fund (discussed below).
Furthermore, the investment property in [City 2] was sold in August 2025 at a loss, also requiring an additional input of $6,207 by Mr Bharma and his wife to meet the outstanding mortgage balance at settlement.
Mr Bharma told the Tribunal that he had no other financial resources other than those already declared on his annual tax returns. There is no evidence to suggest that he did. In response to a question from the Tribunal he stated that it is unlikely he will ever work again because of his limited physical capacity.
The Tribunal considered the assets and liabilities of Mr Bharma, who jointly owns his home with his wife, valued at $1,300,000. According to the CBA statements provided, the corresponding mortgages at 30 June 2025 equate to $626,912. He records a minimal bank balance, noting his lump sum payments have reduced his mortgage balances. He also has a share portfolio valued at $1,891, a motor vehicle valued at $7,500 and personal and household contents valued at $6,000.
Mr Bharma borrowed funds from his father in the amount of $71,738 to meet his legal fees in August 2023. According to the loan agreement interest is supposed to accrue, however, there is no evidence of any repayments to date. Mr Bharma has no other liabilities.
It appears that Ms [A] also borrowed funds from her parents via their family trust to meet her legal expenses. A letter from Mr [C] of [Accounting service 1], dated 18 August 2025, stated that Ms [A] received a loan from [Family Trust 1] in relation to her legal fees which is being repaid over a number of years. The loan balance was not recorded. There is no evidence as to how much has been repaid to date, if any. As such, the Tribunal proposes to ignore the loans of both parties for legal fees. Therefore, the Tribunal calculates that Mr Bharma has a net asset base in excess of $350,000.
Mr Bharma gave oral evidence that he and his wife have a self-managed superannuation fund, which was opened in 2024 with rollovers from their respective industry super funds. He estimated the combined current balance to be $400,000. The fund holds a single residential property and a corresponding loan through a limited recourse borrowing arrangement. The Tribunal accepts Mr Bharma’s oral evidence that he and his wife have no access to those funds at present, due to their age.
The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to Mr Bharma’s expenses. He told the Tribunal that he shares his home with his wife, [Child B] and [Child A] for 15% of the time. He told the Tribunal that his wife and [Child B] are generally in good health, as is [Child A], with the exception of her recent diagnosis. Mr Bharma estimated his average weekly expenses to be $1,312, or $68,224 per annum. Of this, $80 per week represented discretionary spending. In response to an observation by the Tribunal, Mr Bharma agreed that he and his wife are able to meet the weekly household expenses. Mr Bharma gave oral evidence that his wife’s paid parental leave ends later this month, which will impact on their finances until she returns to work. In acknowledging that the payout received by Mr Bharma is to assist him financially going forward, he also has the benefit of an ongoing [disability] pension and a [pension] card. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Bharma has sufficient resources in the form of the redraw facility to enable him to continue to comfortably meet his expenses for the short-term until his wife returns to work. The Tribunal is also satisfied that in the circumstances, the self-support amount allowed in the administrative assessment is appropriate.
In respect of Ms [A], as noted earlier in this Statement of Reasons, she failed to provide her tax returns or any other financial information other than the letter from Mr [C] in relation to her connection to her parents’ businesses, which operate through discretionary family trusts. Mr [C] confirmed that Ms [A] has not received any distributions from the family trusts. The Tribunal is satisfied that if she did it would be declared on her tax return. He further stated that subcontractor payments received by Ms [A] from [Family Trust 1] are declared on her tax return. The Tribunal accepts that this is so. In addition, Mr [C] confirmed that a motor vehicle owned by one of the family trusts is loaned to Ms [A]. Ms [A] has recorded all running costs associated with the motor vehicle in her list of expenses on her change of assessment application to Child Support . As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that she likely meets those costs from her personal funds.
According to Child Support screens, Ms [A’s] 2022/23 and 2023/24 ATIs are $148,604 and $158,445 respectively. As noted above, Ms [A] has submitted numerous estimates of her ATI in respect of 2024/25, the most recent being $159,913. In the ordinary course of the administrative assessment, a reconciliation will be processed once her 2024/25 tax return is lodged with the ATO. The child support liability will then be recalculated accordingly in respect of 2024/25.
In August, Ms [A] sought an extension of time to comply with the directions, stating, amongst other things, that, “as a single mother working full-time, balancing primary caring responsibilities with my professional commitments (including additional casual work to meet financial obligations), my available time is limited.” Therefore, the Tribunal accepts that Ms [A] is employed on a full-time basis. Given the statement from Mr [C] in respect of contract work performed by Ms [A] being declared in her tax returns, the Tribunal considers it likely that all of her income is recorded on her annual tax returns. The Tribunal has no information in respect of other possible financial resources available to Ms [A]. In any event, as discussed at hearing, as the primary caregiver, Ms [A’s] ATI could increase significantly before having any material impact on the child support liability.
Ms [A] provided no information in respect of her assets and liabilities. The application provided to Child Support records minimal savings. In addition she has [an] investment for [Child A] in the amount of $9,500 and an additional [investment] in the amount of $2,500. Ms [A] records no personal or household contents as assets. No other assets were recorded. Her liabilities are limited to a credit card payment of $1,000 per fortnight. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal considers this likely represents the monthly payment in full.
In relation to Ms [A’s] expenses, those recorded on her application to Child Support appear to be the total household expenses, recorded as around $70,000, including discretionary items such as [Child A’s] private school education, personal expenses and private health insurance. Given Ms [A’s] ATI and lack of liabilities, the Tribunal has no reason to conclude that she is unable to meet those costs. There is no evidence of special circumstances in respect of Ms [A] and therefore the Tribunal is satisfied that the self-support amount allowed in the administrative assessment is appropriate.
Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tax returns in respect of Mr Bharma and Ms [A] provide a reasonably accurate record of their income from all sources. It is evident that both parties have income and financial resources that are sufficient to enable them to meet the costs of their respective households. The Tribunal also notes that Mr Bharma is in a more favourable position in respect of his net asset base and access to liquid assets.

Conclusion

After consideration of the income, resources, benefits and assets together with the commitments and liabilities of Mr Bharma and Ms [A], the special needs of [Child A] and the costs relating to the manner in which the parents expected [Child A] to be educated, the Tribunal considers it is just and equitable to make a departure determination from the current administrative assessment in accordance with section 98S of the Act. The Tribunal may make one of the determinations set out in section 98S of the Act. Section 98S sets out a range of determinations, including varying the annual rate of child support payable, the adjusted taxable income of a parent, or the costs of self-support.
There is no question that Ms [A] requires the assistance of Mr Bharma to meet the needs of [Child A]. It is also open to Ms [A] to prioritise the “necessary” needs of [Child A], noting that she incurs discretionary expenses in addition to private school costs in relation to [Activities 1, 2, 3 and 4].
The Tribunal may not make a determination in respect of any period more than 18 months earlier than the date on which the application for a change in the way the child support liability is calculated was made (subsection 98S(3B)). In this case, the Tribunal is limited to considering any backdating to 21 July 2022. The Tribunal must also be cognisant of whether either party has rested on their rights in not pursuing an objection or appeal process and also whether backdating a departure decision would cause prejudice to either party in the form of overpayment or additional arrears. There is also the generally accepted principle that the parties should be able to rely on the child support assessment in making financial decisions until such time as they are put on notice of a possibility of a change.
In relation to the private school costs incurred by Ms [A] prior to lodgement of the change of assessment application, the Tribunal considers that Mr Bharma was well aware of the costs involved and a formal application to attempt to secure a contribution from Mr Bharma would not have surprised him, given the numerous text messages over the years from Ms [A] requesting a contribution.
In respect of [Child A’s] private education costs and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal considers it appropriate that each parent share the education costs for [Child A] on an equal basis from the first payments after 21 July 2022, being 28 October 2022. This equates to $326.25 to 31 December 2022, $1,376 for the 2023 calendar year, $1,474 for the 2024 calendar year and $1,620 for the 2025 calendar year. The Tribunal considers it reasonable to continue an equal contribution by the parents for 2026 and 2027, assuming a 10% increase each year, which is in line with historical increases in fees and levies. Therefore, the Tribunal proposes for Mr Bharma to contribute $1,782 for the 2026 calendar year and $1,960 for the 2027 calendar year. This is the end of Grade 5. At that time, the secondary education plans for [Child A] will be more certain and if necessary, a further change of assessment application can be lodged.
In addition, in respect of [Child A’s] special needs, the Tribunal considered psychology and podiatry costs significantly affected [Child A’s] overall costs. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal proposes that Mr Bharma contribute 50% of the costs incurred from 1 January 2024 to date, being $759 in 2024 and $1,747 in 2025. For the reasons noted above, the Tribunal proposes only to depart in relation to the special needs of [Child A] in respect of the costs incurred to date.
The Tribunal does not propose to disturb the use of the ATIs of both parties in the administrative assessment. In respect of the lump sum payments received by Mr Bharma, the Tribunal considers that to be relevant in the overall consideration of Mr Bharma’s financial circumstances, including his future commitments, and in assessing his capacity to contribute to the needs of [Child A].
Subsection 117(4) of the Act requires the Tribunal to consider whether any departure determination or failure to make a departure will cause any hardship to the children, the carer, the liable parent or any other person the liable parent has a duty to support.
According to Child Support records and the oral evidence of Mr Bharma, he is up to date with his child support payments and has no arrears. Assuming he has paid his assessed child support to date, the Tribunal calculates that his arrears will increase at 10 September 2025 by less than $2,000.

100.In response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Bharma stated that while an increase in his child support liability would not cause hardship to him or his family, the situation is tricky because he has no capacity to increase his income while his wife is on unpaid parental leave. He also has no control over the reduction in his income after 45 weeks, when his [pension] payments only cover a gap up to 75% of his previous salary rather than 100%.
101.Mr Bharma further stated that he does not consider that a child support liability based on the normal administrative assessment would cause any hardship to Ms [A] and [Child A]. This is because in his view it is open to Ms [A] to reduce the optional extras and to educate [Child A] at a public school.
102.The Tribunal is satisfied that neither parent, nor [Child A] will incur hardship as a result of this departure decision and reiterates the obligation of both parents to contribute to [Child A’s] needs in accordance with their capacity. The Tribunal is confident that Mr Bharma has the financial capacity to meet the current annual child support liability based on this departure decision in the amount of $7,734, or $148 per week, albeit this may change following the reconciliation of the parents’ estimated ATIs and their actual ATI in accordance with their respective 2024/25 tax returns. The Tribunal is also satisfied that Mr Bharma has the financial capacity to meet the arrears at 10 September 2025.

Issue 3 – Is it otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination?

103.The third step is to consider whether it would be otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination in accordance with sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. Subsection 117(5) sets out the matters that must be considered when deciding whether it would be ‘otherwise proper’ to make a departure determination.
104.At the time of writing, according to Centrelink information, neither party was, nor had been in receipt of FTB throughout the relevant period. As such, the Tribunal’s decision will have no impact on the public purse. Therefore, the Tribunal considers that it is otherwise proper to make the particular proposed determination.
105.It is open to either party to lodge a further change of assessment application should the future circumstances of either party change significantly from the circumstances upon which this decision is based. In particular, in respect of the special needs of [Child A] if the parents are unable to mutually agree to sharing the costs through a private arrangement.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision and, in substitution decides that:

The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma is to increase by $1,830 per annum in respect of the period 28 October 2022 to 31 December 2022;
The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma is to increase by $1,376 per annum in respect of the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023;
The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma in respect of the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 is to increase by $2,233 per annum;
The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma in respect of the period 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 is to increase by $3,367 per annum;
The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma in respect of the period 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026 is to increase by $1,782 per annum; and
The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bharma in respect of the period 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027 is to increase by $1,960 per annum.

Date(s) of hearing:	Wednesday, 3 September 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	Self-represented