Bizkit and Johnson (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1994

Bizkit and Johnson (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1994 (18 September 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Bizkit

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Johnson
Tribunal Number: 2025/MC029108
Tribunal: General Member I Sheck
Place:Melbourne
Date:18 September 2025

Decision:
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and replaces it with the following:

For the period 31 July 2024 to 31 October 2025, Ms Johnson’s adjusted taxable income is set at $80,000; and
For the period 31 July 2024 to 30 July 2025, the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bizkit is reduced by $5,000.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources – cost of maintaining the children – costs of special needs of the children – costs of education – 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 Bizkit and Ms Johnson are the separated parents of [Child A], born [in] November 2011 and [Child B], born [in] January 2015. The records of Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) indicate that the child support assessment was first registered on 19 January 2012 and Child Support has been responsible for the collection of child support from Mr Bizkit from 23 January 2018. Mr Bizkit applied to Child Support for a departure from the administrative assessment on 31 July 2024 on the basis that, in the special circumstances of the case, the assessment was unfair because of the additional costs of [Child A’s] special needs, the extra costs in educating [Child A] and the income, financial resources or earning capacity of Ms Johnson. At the time of the application the annual rate of child support payable under the administrative assessment was $13,132.
On 25 October 2024 an officer of Child Support decided that grounds for departure had been met. Ms Johnson’s adjusted taxable income was set at $82,000 for the period 31 July 2024 to 31 October 2025; also the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bizkit was reduced by $2,333 in the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2025. This had the effect of reducing the annual rate of child support to $10,799 with effect from 1 July 2024 and $5,367 with effect from 31 July 2024.
On 31 October 2024 Mr Bizkit objected to the decision and on 25 November 2024, Ms Johnson objected to the decision. An objections officer of Child Support considered the reasons for departure and on 16 October 2024 set aside the decision of the original decision maker. The objections officer set Ms Johnson’s adjusted taxable income at $82,000 for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2024 and reduced the annual rate of child support by $3,167 in this period. The objections officer additionally increased Mr Bizkit’s self-support amount…

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.

Continue reading Bizkit and Johnson (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Bizkit and Johnson (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1994
Case: [2025] ARTA 1994
Decision Date: 18 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the tribunal involved a child support dispute between Mr Bizkit and Ms Johnson, the parents of two children, Child A and Child B. Mr Bizkit sought a departure from the administrative assessment of child support on the basis of the special circumstances of the case, including the additional costs of Child A’s special needs, the extra costs in educating Child A, and the income, financial resources, or earning capacity of Ms Johnson. The tribunal was required to determine whether there were grounds for a departure from the administrative assessment, whether such a departure would be just and equitable, and if it would be otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination.

The tribunal found that there were grounds for departure under section 117(2)(b)(ia) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, as Child A’s need for orthodontic treatment due to a bite condition significantly affected the cost of maintaining her. It was also determined that it was fair and equitable to make a departure determination considering the parents’ assets, liabilities, income, and commitments, and the needs and costs of the children. The tribunal noted that while Child A’s attendance at a particular school did not align with the parents' expectations, it was not necessary to make a determination on this point as grounds for departure had already been established. The tribunal also considered Ms Johnson’s financial capacity and concluded that she should contribute financially to Child A’s school fees and the costs of Child A’s orthodontic treatment.

After considering all the evidence and relevant factors, the tribunal decided to set aside the decision under review and replace it with the following: For the period 1 July 2024 to 31 October 2025, Ms Johnson’s adjusted taxable income is set at $80,000; and for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Bizkit is reduced by $5,000. The tribunal concluded that this decision appropriately reflected the responsibilities of both parents to provide financially for their children and would not cause hardship to any party.

Orders