Crawford and Samuel (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Crawford against a decision of the Registrar of Child Support not to make a departure determination regarding the child support assessment for her child with Mr Samuel. The dispute centred on Mr Samuel's earning capacity, as he was on unpaid leave from his employment as a [profession] for two years, resulting in minimal income. Ms Crawford argued that Mr Samuel's earning capacity as a [profession] was significantly greater than his declared income and that a fairer assessment should reflect this.

The court was required to determine whether the conditions for making a departure determination under subsection 117(7B) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 were met. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Mr Samuel's choice to take unpaid leave, which markedly reduced his income, was justified by his health or caring responsibilities, and whether it was not a major purpose of the choice to affect child support.

The court found that Mr Samuel's decision to take unpaid parental leave satisfied the first condition of subsection 117(7B) as it was a choice that markedly reduced his income. While the Registrar had concluded that this choice was not justified by caring responsibilities, the court disagreed. The court reasoned that decisions regarding the arrangement of parental time and effort for child-rearing are made by parents and can take into account various life aspects beyond just financial considerations. The court accepted Mr Samuel's evidence that he and Ms A chose for one of them to be a full-time carer for their young child, [Child 2], and considered this choice justified by their parental duty, irrespective of financial implications or the availability of paid childcare. The court emphasised that fathers and mothers bear the same duty to support a child, and therefore, a father assuming the role of full-time carer should not be viewed differently from a mother doing so.

The court affirmed the decision of the Registrar, finding that Mr Samuel's choice to take unpaid leave was justified by his caring responsibilities. Consequently, the conditions for a departure determination under subsection 117(7B) were not met, and no departure determination was made.