Doaity and Afeland (Child support) - [2024] AATA 3582

Doaity and Afeland (Child support) [2024] AATA 3582 (26 July 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/PC027095
APPLICANT:  Ms Doaity
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Afeland

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis
DECISION DATE: 26 July 2024
DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

for the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Afeland is varied to $58,672;
for the period from 1 July 2023 to 31 October 2025 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Afeland is varied to $77,984;
for the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Afeland is increased by $1,959; and
for the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Afeland is increased by $147.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure from the administrative assessment – parent’s income, property and financial resources or earning capacity – special needs of the child – cost of maintaining the child – ground for departure – 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 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

This review is about whether or not there should be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.
Ms Doaity and Mr Afeland are the parents of [Child 1] (born November 2015). There has been a child support assessment in place since 6 April 2022.
The following administrative assessment of child support is under consideration:
·     for the period from 6 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 Mr Afeland was assessed to pay an annual rate of $3,783 based on a 2020–21 adjusted taxable income of $49,315 for Mr Afeland and a 2020–21 adjusted taxable income for Ms Doaity of $30,845;
·     for the period from 1 October 2022 to 30 June 2023 Mr Afeland was assessed to pay an annual rate of $3,931 based on a 2021–22 adjusted taxable income of $50,187 for Mr Afeland and a 2021–22 provisional adjusted taxable income for Ms Doaity of $31,740;
·     for the period from 1 July 2023 to 31 July 2023 Mr Afeland was assessed to pay an annual rate of $3,931 based on a 2021–22 adjusted taxable income of $50,187 for Mr Afeland and a 2021–22 adjusted taxable income for Ms Doaity of $34,092; and
·     for the period from 1 August 2023 to 31 October 2024 Mr Afeland is assessed to pay an annual rate of $4,448 based on a 2022–23 adjusted taxable income of $53,672 for Mr Afeland and a 2022–23 provisional adjusted taxable income for Ms Doaity of $35,319.
On 7 August 2022 Ms Doaity applied to Services Australia – Child…

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 Doaity and Afeland (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Doaity and Afeland (Child support) [2024] AATA 3582
Case: [2024] AATA 3582
Decision Date: 26 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *Doaity and Afeland* concerned an application to depart from a child support administrative assessment. The applicant sought to vary the assessment, arguing that the existing assessment did not adequately account for the child's special needs and the costs associated with maintaining the child. The decision was made by Senior Member R Ellis.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the grounds for departure from the administrative assessment, as provided by the relevant legislation, were met. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the parent's income, property, financial resources, or earning capacity, or the special needs of the child, or the cost of maintaining the child, constituted sufficient grounds to justify setting aside the administrative assessment.

Senior Member R Ellis reasoned that the existing administrative assessment did not sufficiently recognise the significant costs associated with the child's special needs. Applying the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, the Senior Member found that the circumstances warranted a departure from the standard assessment. The court concluded that the cost of maintaining the child, particularly in light of their special needs, was not adequately reflected in the administrative assessment.

Consequently, the Senior Member ordered that the decision under review be set aside and substituted with a new assessment that more accurately reflected the child's needs and associated costs.

Orders