Coombs and Wreford (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by the respondent father, Mr. Wreford, to vary child support payments payable to the applicant mother, Ms. Coombs. The dispute centred on whether the father's income should be assessed on the basis of his actual earnings or on a notional income, due to his alleged voluntary unemployment or underemployment. The application was heard by Magistrate Cipolla in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the father had voluntarily retired from full-time employment and, if so, whether it was reasonable for him to do so. This required the Court to consider the provisions of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) concerning the assessment of income, particularly where a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. The Court had to determine if the father's reduced earning capacity was a result of his own choice and if that choice was reasonable in the circumstances.

Magistrate Cipolla reasoned that the father had indeed voluntarily retired from his full-time employment as a plumber. The Court found that the father's decision to retire was not reasonable, given his financial obligations to his children and the availability of suitable employment in his trade. The Court applied the principles established in case law regarding voluntary unemployment and underemployment, which permit the imputation of income where a parent has reduced their earning capacity without reasonable cause. The Court considered the father's age, health, and the labour market for plumbers in reaching its conclusion.

The Court ordered that the father's child support assessment be based on a notional income, reflecting his earning capacity as a full-time plumber, rather than his actual reduced earnings.