Cocchiola and Haracera (Child support)

[2024] AATA 3937

Cocchiola and Haracera (Child support) [2024] AATA 3937 (4 September 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2024/BC027371

APPLICANT:  Mr Cocchiola

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Haracera

TRIBUNAL:Deputy President K Synon

DECISION DATE:  4 September 2024

DECISION:

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure from the administrative assessment – high costs of enabling father to spend time or communicate with children, and father’s necessary expenses – children living in another country – business class flights rather than cheapest available – no evidence of source of payment of expenses provided – decision under review affirmed

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 so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1. 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 care. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.

2. This case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) on 19 April 2013 and has been collectable since that date. Mr Cocchiola (the father) and Ms Haracera (the mother) are the parents of [Child 1] born 23 July 2015 and [Child 2] born 24 July 2010.

3. Since the beginning of the case, [Child 1] was recorded as being in the 100% care of the mother and in the 0% care of the father.[1] [Child 2] was recorded as being in the 85% of the mother and in the 15% care of the father.

   [1] The father disputes this is the situation saying that he has the same care of both boys. The father currently has a Care review with the AAT and is pursuing the issue of access and care with Courts in [Country 1].

4. The initial administrative assessment[2] required the father to pay child support for the children. The assessment dated 15 September 2023, for the period 1 October 2023 to 31 December 2024, was based on the parents’ 2022–2023 adjusted taxable incomes of $206,677 for the father and $55,016 for the mother. This assessment has the father paying $32,361 in child support per annum. On 9 February 2024, the father lodged an income assessment of $77,867 for the 2023–2024 financial year. This was accepted and resulted in a new child support assessment for the period 27 February 2024 to 30 June 2024 of the father paying $10,675 or $889.58 a month.[3]

   [2] Folio 4.

   [3] Folios 213 and 224–226.

5. The father lodged a departure application on 7 August 2023. On 28 September 2023, a case officer disallowed the application finding that a ground to depart from the administrative assessment was not established, namely Reason 1, which states that in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining a child are significantly affected by the high costs of enabling a parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child. Reason 7 was also not established, which states that in the special circumstances of the case, a parent’s necessary expenses significantly reduce their capacity to support the child. As a result, the administrative assessment stands in place.

6. The father lodged an objection to that decision on 23 October 2023 and the objection was disallowed on 14 January 2024. The objections officer (OO) found neither Reason 1 nor Reason 7 were established based on the insufficient evidence provided.

7. On 18 January 2024, the father sought further review of the objection decision with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

8. To support his objection to the 28 September 2023 and the 14 January 2024 decisions, the father wrote in his submission[4] dated 30 January 2024:

   The 4 trips a year I do to [Country 1] to visit [my sons] cost a significant amount of money. I am asking to have my child support rate re assessed please.

   Flights are a minimum of $2,000 return each trip, car hire approx. $1,500 each trip, accommodation approx. $1,500 each trip. That equates to $5,000+ each trip, $20,000+ annually.

   There are many other costs involved ie airport parking, connecting flights and so on. Each trip conservatively costs $6,000 + $24,000 annually. Then the costs involved with fuel, parking, activities, food, clothes, uniforms, sport equipment, musical instruments etc.

   [4] Folio 160.

9. Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 18 June 2024 which, among other things, advised that the hearing was scheduled for Tuesday 3 September 2024.[5] The directions required that both parties provide a range of financial documents, including recent tax returns and details of any payments or loans they received from anyone including evidence in cash, kind or via transactions into their bank accounts; any relevant and undisclosed emails and correspondence chains and records between the father and mother discussing how the father’s ability to maintain the children is affected due to costs he has incurred to spend time with or communicate with the children and any relevant and undisclosed emails and correspondence chains and records between the parties discussing why the father’s necessary expenses for self-support significantly reduce his ability to support the children. The mother was also ordered to provide copies of her four most recent payslips.

   [5] The extended period of time between the directions and the substantive hearings was due to the mother’s pre-planned overseas travel.

10. In addition, the father was ordered to provide bank transaction histories for all accounts to which he is a signatory (including all business accounts) for the past 3 months; dates of all trips he has taken to [Country 1] to spend time with his children since March 2022; flight invoices and receipts which clearly demonstrate who was responsible for the payment and who actually paid these in respect of the last four trips he made to [Country 1] to spend time with his children; travel itineraries for the last four trips to [Country 1] showing any stopovers or time spent in countries other than [Country 1]; receipts for accommodation and car rental costs incurred by him in his travel to [Country 1] in respect of the last four trips he made there to spend time with his children; highlighted copies of his personal bank statements or credit card statements showing where he paid for the above airfares, car hire and accommodation costs; if ongoing, details of his company and its main business function; if his business is sold, the final sale price and total stock sales; if he has travelled any class other than the cheapest available, a submission as to why this was necessary. Compliance was ordered by close of business on Friday 2 August 2024.

11. The mother fully complied. The father partially complied. Upon issuing a non‑compliance show cause notice to the father on 6 August 2024, he provided additional documents on 15 August 2024 but did not fully comply by the time of the hearing. The critical non‑compliance is examined below at paragraph 34. All documents which were provided, after redactions, were exchanged between the parties on 15 August 2024 with the advice that any submissions about the documents could be made orally at the hearing or in writing.

12. On 17 August 2024, the mother responded to the father’s documents, providing some details of the businesses that the father had recently sold, and images of him which she believed was the father was flying business class to visit the children. The mother wrote:[6]

    ·    [The father] has submitted his application as ‘Reason 1’, I do not believe this to be true I do not accept this. I believe [he] Travelled Business Class in July when he came to see the children. This is not a necessity to visit his children, this is a luxury. This business class journey would buy him several journeys in an economy seat, which [the father] claims to travel, always. I have attached a picture of Mr Cocchiola in Business class, which was sent to my son in July 2023.

    ·    [the father] is currently in [Country 2] on [a travel activity], and travelled via [Country 3]. I would like CSA to look into the cost of this travel expense for [him]. During these holidays [he] is doing many luxurious activities and has sent photos and videos to my son of these activities.

    ·    When [the father] travels to [Country 1] to see the children, he takes them on Skiing Lessons for [Currency]129 each per lesson and horse riding lessons (minimum [Currency]30 each) and also these are nice things for the children to do, they are not necessary, they are a luxury activity when your parents can afford it. If [the father] was unable to afford to travel to [Country 1] for less than 5% of his overall income, then when he is in [Country 1] he would not be able to afford the luxuries which he does, such as expensive horse riding lessons and expensive skiing lessons. Although these things are nice for the boys, they are NOT a necessity. Clothes, shoes, school, activities, music lessons, a heated home, food, school lunches – these are a necessity.

    ·    In [the father’s] form Q10 [he] says he was not made aware that he could apply for this change of assessment, but I know he was aware of it. He has mentioned it to me many times and sadly this summer my 13 year old is now refusing to see [him] and my 8 year old doesn’t want to see him, without [Child 2]. On the 27 July 2023, I informed [the father] of this, and his response was to leave the country immediately and he said that he would be claiming his costs back. I do not believe [the father’s] travel costs to be more than 5% of his income and the direct link to this change of assessment claim being directly linked to my son not wanting to see him. (evidence of communication enclosed which shows [he] was aware that he can apply to change the assessment)

    ·    I would like Child Support Services to look at [the father’s] travel records from his passport, this will give an indication of the disposable income that [he] has. I prioritise looking after my children, [he] need to do the same. My children deserve the life that me and [the father] can afford together, not what I can afford on my own.

    [6] Folio B20.

13. I heard the matter on Tuesday 3 September 2024. The father and mother appeared by MS Teams audio telephone. The Child Support Registrar was not represented at the hearing. In reaching my decision, I have considered the sworn evidence of the parents, the papers provided by Child Support (folios 1–210), and supplementary papers provided by Child Support (folios 211–276), the father (folios A1–A96) and the mother (B1–B84).

ISSUES

1. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act. The liable parent or carer entitled to child support may apply for a determination departing from the administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Act.

2. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are outlined in section 98C of the Act, which states that a decision to depart from the administrative assessment may be made if the following three requirements are met:

   (i)that one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 117(2) exists; and

   (ii)that it would be:

   (A)just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent, and the carer entitled to child support; and

   (B)otherwise proper;

   to make a particular determination under this Part …

3. Once satisfied the Tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act.

4. The Tribunal also had regard to the Child Support Guide (the Guide) where relevant. The Guide contains governmental guidelines and policy as to how the legislation is to be applied. The Tribunal acknowledges that, whilst it may be guided by policy, it is not bound to follow it: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2).[7] In the case of G v MIBP,[8] the Federal Court observed that it is clear from earlier authorities, that in the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide the exercise of a statutory power is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to take into account in performing its review task. A lawful approach allows the adoption of appropriate policy as a guide but not so as to control the making of the decision and the Tribunal adopts that approach.

   [7] (1979) 2 ALD 634.

   [8] [2018] FCA 1229.

5. Therefore, the issues which arise in this case are:

   ·   Does a ground exist for departure from the administrative assessment of child support? And, if so,

   ·   Would it be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination?

CONSIDERATION

Does a ground exist for departing from the administrative assessment?

1. 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 is 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 and Philippe and Philippe (1978) FLC 90-433).

Reason 7: Does the father’s necessary expenses significantly reduce his capacity to support the children?

1. The Child Support Guide explains that one of the objects of the Act is that the level of financial support provided by parents for their children should be determined according to their capacity to provide financial support, and, in particular, that parents with similar capacity should provide similar amounts of support: subparagraph 4(2)(a). A parent must show that there is something special or unusual about their case. The mere fact that a parent’s expenses exceed their income is unlikely to amount to a special circumstance. The desire for expenditure on hobbies, entertainment and holidays does not amount to a special circumstance.

2. A parent must have necessary commitments or expenses for self-support for the reason to be established and, standing in the shoes of the Registrar, I must:

   ·   examine the nature of the expenditure (e.g. the kind of expenditure and the reasons for the expenditure) to decide whether it is a ‘necessary commitment’; and

   ·   decide if the amount of the expenditure is ‘necessary’.

3. Expenditure which may be considered ‘necessary’ includes:

   ·    reasonable costs of food;

   ·    reasonable costs of accommodation;

   ·    household essentials;

   ·    clothing;

   ·    necessary transport;

   ·    necessary health costs.

   All expenses should be substantiated with appropriate documentary evidence. The necessity of the cost will depend on the facts of the case.

4. The Guide relevantly states: [e]xpenses incurred to enable a parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child are not included under this reason. Where those costs are necessary to enable contact with the child, they can form the basis of an application under Reason 1.

5. To support his case, the father provided email correspondence[9] from the mother dated 25 April 2023, in which he claimed that the mother confirmed that he incurs significant expense when travelling to [Country 1] to be with the children 56 days a year. The relevant sections of the mother’s email are:

   Re the 56 nights a year, I am going to find it very difficult to say I don't say good night and tuck in my babies to bed 56 nights a year, when I do. Currently Child Support think I don't have [Child 2] 56 nights a year, but that's not accurate, if anything needs to change, it's that I have him more than they think.

   That being said you DO have to travel from Australia to see them and that has serious cost implications and I am more than willing to accept that and alter the amount payable. Also you have them every day during your stays over here.

   [9] Folios A11–A13.

6. I asked the father why he claimed Reason 7 and to explain in what way his capacity to provide financial support for his children is significantly reduced because of his commitments which are necessary to enable him to support himself. The father said that he has significant lost income which is a high expense which bites into his income and cannot be claimed. He said it takes a lot of time to generate the cost of travelling which is $40,000 per year. Asked about his particular self-support cost and expenses the father said this included electricity, interest on credit cards, repairs, phone bills, clothes, water, insurance and motor costs.

7. I carefully reviewed the father’s Statement of Financial Circumstances and can identify no particular expenses which are out of the ordinary. Nor could the father identity these. When I asked him where the evidence was for these expenses, he responded, ‘how long is a piece of string?’

Findings in relation to Reason 7

1. While I accept that the father travels to [Country 1] to spend time with one or both his children, I do not accept that income lost while he is there is out of the ordinary and nor can I identify any necessary expenses of the father such that this reduces his capacity to support his children.

2. I therefore determine that there is no ground for departure from the administrative assessment based on the commitments of the father necessary to support himself. This ground is therefore not established as all the criteria specified under sub‑subparagraph 117(2)(a)(iii)(A) of the Act have not been met.

Reason 1: The costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected because of the high cost involved in enabling the father to spend time with them

1. Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(i) of the Act provides a ground for departure if, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected because of the high costs involved in enabling a parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child.

2. Subsection 117(2B) of the Act states that the costs involved in enabling a parent to care for a child can only be high for the purposes of subparagraph 117(2)(b)(i) if the costs incurred during a child support period total more than 5% of the amount worked out by dividing the parent’s adjusted taxable income for the period by 365 and then multiplying the quotient by the number of days in the period. Subsection 117(2C) of the Act goes on to state that if a parent has at least regular care of a child then the only costs that can be taken into account for the purposes of subsection 117(2B) are costs related to travel to enable the parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child. Subsection 5(2) of the Act states that a person has regular care of a child if the person has at least 14% but less than 35% care.

3. The Tribunal finds that since the beginning of the case, the father had regular care (15%) of [Child 2] and therefore only the travel costs may be taken into account in determining whether the 5% threshold is met. The Child Support Guide states that the costs of travel includes actual transport costs such as airfares, petrol, parking and car hire.

4. I note the following evidence relates to the father’s accommodation costs involved in enabling him to spend time with [Child 2] since April 2022. Listed below are the fees charged according to an invoice provided by [Property name] Airbnb [part of Country 1]:[10]

   [10] Folio A71.

Date recorded on invoice	Duration	Cost in [Currency]
April 2022	16 nights	[Currency]980
August 2022	11 nights	[Currency]720
October 2022	12 nights	[Currency]810
April 2023	12 nights	[Currency]810
July 2023	16 nights	[Currency]980

1. Based on the above, there is no dispute that the father, up until July/August 2023, travelled on at least five occasions to spend time with one or both boys in [Country 1], however I had significant difficulty in establishing the exact costs of these visits and, importantly, how the expenses were paid. I have no invoices or receipts for any expenses other than for accommodation (and this is only an invoice not a receipt) for the four trips from April 2022 to April 2023.[11] While folios labelled A17 and A56–58 refer to payments made from [Credit card] 552350****** I do not have these card statements and nor can I be satisfied that these were paid personally by the father.

   [11] Folio A16 refers to a payment made by [Credit card], but this trip was subsequently cancelled.

2. The mother was on record at the primary stage regarding whether some of the costs were claimed as business expenses.[12] For this reason, I specifically directed that the father provide:

   [12] See, for example, in the OO decision at folio 152.

   ·    Flight invoices and receipts which clearly demonstrate who was responsible for the payment and who actually paid these in respect of the last 4 trips he made to [Country 1] to spend time with his children.

   ØThe father did not provide any invoices or receipts confirming he paid these expenses.

   ·    Travel itineraries for the last 4 trips to [Country 1] showing any stopovers or time spent in countries other than [Country 1].

   ØThe father only provided the travel itineraries for one trip undertaken from 19 July 2023 to 5 August 2023.[13] He provided quotes and itineraries for two later proposed but then cancelled trips from 29 March 2024 to 14 April 2024[14] and from 20 July 2024 to 3 August 2024.[15]

   ·    Receipts for accommodation and car rental costs incurred by him in his travel to [Country 1] in respect of the last 4 trips he made there to spend time with his children.

   ØThe father did not provide any receipts confirming payment of these expenses by him.

   ·    Highlighted copies of his personal bank statements or credit card statements showing where he paid for the above air fares, car hire and accommodation costs.

   ØThe father did not provide these.

   [13] Folio A56–A58.

   [14] Folio A60.

   [15] Folio A65.

3. It is worth reiterating that both the senior case officer and the OO based their refusals on the lack of sufficient evidence and therefore I consider that the father was on notice about the necessity of providing all the evidence requested by the Tribunal.

4. During the hearing, I focused on trying to elicit the necessary evidence in relation to the father’s last trip to [Country 1]. I advised that I had reviewed the bank statements he did provide but there are no transactions which related to any of these expenses.

5. There is no dispute that the father’s last trip to [Country 1] to see his children was in July–August 2023, 2 years ago. He has not travelled to [Country 1] since July 2023 given there are now ongoing access/care disputes initiated both in Australia and [Country 1]. I note that the father said he had costs relating to cancelling booked trips after July 2023. I accept that additional trips appear to have been planned based on invoices and quotes provided. The evidence supporting these cancelled trips is as follows:

   ·    18 December 2023–4 January 2024[16] (cancelled) (A [Website] Booking Reference[17] with a payment date of 17 March 2023 corresponds to this trip).

   ·    29 March 2024–14 April 2024 (cancelled).

   ·    20 July 2024–3 August 2024 (cancelled).

   [16] Folio A17.

   [17] Folio A59.

6. I asked the father, in relation to his 29 March 2024 to 14 April 2024 planned (but cancelled) trip, if he could point me to the evidence of where he had personally paid the airfares of $2,680.39. He responded that he does not keep receipts and that he usually books trips 6 to 9 months in advance to get the right price. His credit card was hacked in February this year and he cannot go back and look at his old credit card statements once he has been issued a new credit card. He said he did not have any electronic statements he could give me. I then asked about the claimed car hire cost of $609.18[18] for the same trip and again asked if he could show me where the receipt for this was in his evidence and, importantly, the evidence that he personally paid this. The father said that again it is the same issue because it was paid on the same credit card which was hacked. When asked about the $2,870 he claimed he paid for accommodation, the father gave the same response.

   [18] See folios A62 and A64.

7. I then tried to get the same evidence in relation to the father’s last planned (but cancelled) trip to [Country 1] which was from 20 July 2024 to 3 August 2024 and for which he claimed he personally spent $2,462.99 on airfares, $909.25 on car hire and $2,221 on accommodation.[19] The father could not point to any of this evidence against citing his card replacement.

   [19] See folios A66, A68 and A70.

8. There is no evidence before me that the father did incur any costs, which he personally paid, for these cancelled trips.

9. During the hearing I pointed out to the father the important documents ordered that he had not provided, including most relevantly:

   ·    bank transaction histories for all accounts to which he is a signatory (including all business accounts) for the past 3 months (the father did not provide bank transaction histories for the following accounts: #7388 [Bank internet account] (mentioned at A29 on 1 May 2024), #1385 [Bank credit card account] (mentioned at A29 on 25 May 2024), #8086 [Internet account] (mentioned at A31 on 29 July 2024), #5627 Card (mentioned at A35 and A36 on 7, 14, etc May 2024) and #2669 Card (mentioned at A50 on 3rd and 4th May 2024);

   ·    flight invoices and receipts which clearly demonstrate who was responsible for the payment and who actually paid these in respect of the last 4 trips he made to [Country 1] to spend time with his children;

   ·    travel itineraries for the last 4 trips to [Country 1] showing any stopovers or time spent in countries other than [Country 1] (the father only provided 3 of these details);

   ·    receipts for accommodation and car rental costs incurred by him in his travel to [Country 1] in respect of the last 4 trips he made there to spend time with his children;

   ·    highlighted copies of his personal bank statements or credit card statements showing where he paid for the above air fares, car hire and accommodation costs.

10. I spent considerable time during the hearing trying to understand many of the transactions into and out of the father’s accounts which appear to have several personal and business expenses intertwined. For example, I asked him about the $29,000 detailed in transactions on A29 which were paid from xx7388 and titled ‘repayInitialCocchiola’. He responded that this was from a company account to a new building account and he ‘thinks this was to pay off the credit card and some of it was his personal money he loaned to the business many years ago’. This particular transaction also demonstrates that the father did not provide all the bank accounts to which he is a signatory as ordered. The father also knew nothing about the [Surname A] Family Trust from which he has received funds in his account[20] saying this is his mother's maiden name, and he does not know who the directors of the Trust are. He said he is not a beneficiary. The father was emphatic that he does not claim any travel costs from his business. The father expressed concern, more than once, that I was examining transactions in the account statements he had provided and asked what the relevance of this was. I explained that if I found a ground was established to depart from the administrative assessment, I then had to consider if it was just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a new determination and, in so doing, I was required to consider what would be fair to the parents and their children. Therefore, I would need to have regard to a variety of factors such as the parties’ respective earning capacities, the needs of the children, the parents’ commitments and any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula assessment and, implicit in this, was an examination of the financial resources available to both parties.

    [20] Fast Transfer from [Ms A] (the father’s mother) credit to the father’s personal account ending #4109 on 16 June 2024 of $6,683, at folio A30.

11. However, I have decided not to record the father’s other explanations for various transactions into and out of accounts as, for the reasons in paragraph 47, a consideration of whether a departure is just and equitable is not necessary.

12. The father is the sole owner of his new business, [Business name], which [makes products], but he has only sold one thus far. Its business and operation address is located at [Location], Queensland.

13. There was little relevant evidence from the mother which requires recording except that she believes the father has the financial capacity to visit the children and still help with their day‑to‑day expenses. In relation to the Notation in the Family Court Orders dated 29 May 2013, she agreed that the father’s child support payments had not been reduced to offset his costs in visiting his children in [Country 1] but said she would ‘have chopped off her right arm to have the orders signed’. The mother acknowledged that the cost of the father spending time with his children in another country is significant.

14. In relation to the section 117(4) issues, both parents agreed that they have no health concerns that could affect their earning capacity over the next 12 months, they do not have any earning capacity in addition to their current full-time positions and their children do not have access to any other income earning capacity. The father has no other caring responsibilities, does not live with any other adults and has no other children for whom he has financial responsibilities. The mother has two stepchildren aged 18 and 19. The 19‑year‑old now lives out of home and the 18-year-old lives with her mother and father on a 50/50 basis. She also has a child aged 7 with her new partner so she has three children living with her full-time. She lives with her husband.

Findings in relation to Reason 1

1. After considering the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the father was personally responsible for the expenses incurred in his most recent trip to [Country 1] in July 2023–August 2023. This is because the father was not able to provide any evidence to demonstrate that he had paid for any of the expenses incurred. I am therefore unable to determine if he incurred reasonable costs totalling more than 5% of his adjusted taxable income. Further, the father has not visited his children in [Country 1] since August 2023 while access and care issues are determined in the [Country 1] courts and via a care percentage application now lodged with the AAT. While it is open to me to consider a previous pattern of care, two factors mitigate against this now. The first is that the father has lodged an income estimate for the last financial year which is yet to be reconciled when his tax assessment is lodged and, secondly, such a predicative future pattern of costs cannot be determined because:

   1) I have no reliable evidence of past costs actually paid by the father;

   2) the last trip was 2 years ago; and

   3) ongoing court and tribunal processes may fundamentally change any previous pattern.

2. If the father were to lodge another administrative assessment departure application based on Reason 1, it would assist his position greatly if he were to gather from the accommodation provider, car hire company and travel agent receipts made out to him personally which demonstrated he paid these expenses. Indeed, I am surprised he failed to provide these to the Tribunal given he had over 2 months to do so from the time of the directions being issued on 18 June 2024. I also note, in relation to any subsequent change of assessment applications, that the father indicated that he thought a 50/50 split of these costs with the mother would be fair. Finally, I note that had I been satisfied on the evidence provided that the father did personally incur these costs in travelling to [Country 1] to see his children and a reasonable future pattern of travel could be established, I would have been inclined to find in his favour given the persuasive nature of the Notation with the Court Orders dated 29 May 2013[21] suggesting it was always envisaged that there be some discount to the father’s child support liability in recognition of the significant costs of him travelling to spend time with his children in another country.

   [21] Folio 167.

3. However, in this instance I have arrived at the conclusion that the father did not make a full and frank disclosure of his financial affairs and did not comply with my orders to demonstrate that he had personally incurred the costs he claimed for travel to [Country 1]. Unable to be satisfied on these critical factors, I have no alternative but to agree with the decisions of Child Support.

CONCLUSION

1. As I have determined that no ground for departure exists, I refuse to make a departure determination.

2. This means the administrative assessment of child support will remain in place.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.