Boyce and Jervis (Child support)

The matter of *Boyce and Jervis (Child support)* concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia regarding a child support assessment. The primary dispute revolved around the father's (Mr Jervis) child support liability for his two children, who resided with the mother (Ms Boyce). The father sought to have his child support assessment reduced, arguing that the children were not "at risk" of not receiving the requisite level of financial support from the mother.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the Registrar's decision to depart from the child support formula, under section 117 of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), was justified. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Registrar had erred in finding that the children were at risk of not receiving adequate financial support from the mother, thereby justifying a departure from the standard assessment.

The Full Court considered the principles governing departures from the child support formula, emphasising that such departures are exceptional. It reviewed the evidence presented regarding the mother's financial circumstances and her capacity to provide for the children. The Court found that the Registrar had not properly applied the "at risk" test, which requires a demonstrable risk of the children not receiving adequate support, rather than simply a disparity in the parents' incomes or a perceived inadequacy in the mother's spending. The Court concluded that the Registrar's decision to depart from the formula was not supported by the evidence and that the standard assessment should have been maintained.