Conabeau and Seabaugh (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 949

Conabeau and Seabaugh (Child support) [2025] ARTA 949 (29 April 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Conabeau

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Seabaugh

Tribunal Number: 2024/SC028471
Tribunal: Member M Baulch
Place:Sydney
Date:29 April 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that there is not to be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support because it is not just and equitable to do so.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources – special needs of the children – specialised tutoring costs – financial resources from businesses – ground for departure – not just and equitable – 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 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

This application for review concerns the amount of child support paid by Mr Conabeau to Ms Seabaugh in respect of [Child 1], born in 2009, and [Child 2], born in 2012.
The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of the child support payable by one separated parent to the other. It uses a statutory formula which contains variables such as the parents’ incomes, the number of children, their ages and their percentages of care. Mr Conabeau has been assessed as liable, by Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support), to pay child support to Ms Seabaugh in respect of the two children.
A parent can make an application to Child Support for a change to the administrative assessment based on the statutory formula in the special circumstances of their case – referred to in the Act as a departure determination. Mr Conabeau and Ms Seabaugh both made such an application on 20 February 2024. Those applications relied upon the following grounds for departure:
· That the children had special needs; and
· There are extra costs in caring for, educating or training the children in the way both parents intended.
The application was considered by a Child Support decision maker who decided, on 10 April 2024, that there should be a departure determination, such that for the period 20 February 2024 to 31 December 2024 the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Conabeau was increased by $5,400.
Mr Conabeau objected to that decision and, on 23 August 2024, that objection was partly allowed. The objections officer decided that the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Conabeau was to be increased by $5,130 for the period 20 February 2024 to 31 December 2024 (the decision under review).
On 27 August 2024, Mr Conabeau applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) seeking an independent review of Child Support’s decisions. On 14 October 2024, the AAT was abolished and replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal), which is now required to determine…

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 Conabeau and Seabaugh (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Conabeau and Seabaugh (Child support) [2025] ARTA 949
Case: [2025] ARTA 949
Decision Date: 29 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a review application brought by Mr Conabeau, who was seeking a departure from the administrative assessment of child support payable to Ms Seabaugh for their two children. The application was determined by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 29 April 2025. The parties participated in the hearing by telephone and provided documentary evidence. The Tribunal had before it a total of 792 pages of evidence.

The statutory provisions relevant to this review application are found within the child support legislation, in particular, the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. The application for a departure determination relied upon the ground for departure set out in subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ia) of the Act, that is, that the children had special needs. The Tribunal was satisfied that [Child 1] has a specific learning disorder, being dyslexia, with mild to moderate impairment in reading and mild moderate impairment in writing, and [Child 2] is affected by ADHD. The Tribunal found that [Child 1] and [Child 2] each have a special need that requires Ms Seabaugh to bear costs that are not borne by most parents. However, having considered the matters set out in subsection 117(4) of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that the administrative assessment advantages Ms Seabaugh by approximately $12,000 per annum because, when she made her application for a departure determination, her income, property and financial resources were not adequately reflected in the administrative assessment.

The Tribunal concluded that it would not be fair, or just and equitable, to make a departure determination that requires Mr Conabeau to contribute more by way of child support because of [Child 1] and [Child 2’s] special needs. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decided that there is not to be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support because it is not just and equitable to do so.

Orders