Faaborg and Taffet (Child support) - [2020] AATA 3653

Faaborg and Taffet (Child support) [2020] AATA 3653 (22 June 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/SC017616
APPLICANT:  Mr Faaborg
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Taffet

TRIBUNAL:Member K Dordevic
DECISION DATE: 22 June 2020
DECISION:

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

For the period 1 January 2019 to 31 October 2025 Mr Faaborg’s annual rate of child support is varied to $12,240 per annum; and
For the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019 Mr Faaborg’s annual rate of child support is increased by $2,661.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – high costs involved in enabling parent to spend time with child – high child care costs in relation to the child – income, property and financial resources of both parents – failure to fully and frankly disclose financial circumstances – 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

The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of the child support payable. It uses a formula which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of care of the children. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.
This case was registered with the Department of Human Services– Child Support on 27 January 2015 and has been collectable since 5 June 2015. The parties have one child (born 2014) who is recorded as being in the mother’s 100% care.
The mother lodged a change of assessment application on 18 December 2018. A senior case officer determined that the father’s adjusted taxable income be varied to $118,665 for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022 and that his annual rate of child support be increased by $2,022 in the 2019 calendar year.
The father sought a review of that decision. On 30 August 2019 an objections officer allowed the objection, determining:
·for the period 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019 the mother’s adjusted taxable income be varied to $62,213;
·for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 August 2020 the mother’s adjusted taxable income be varied to $70,500;
·for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 August 2020 the father’s adjusted taxable income be varied to $83,000;
·for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 August 2020 the father’s self-support amount is increased by $530; and
·from 1 January 2019 to 31 January 2020 the annual rate of child support payable by the father is increased by $2,183.
On 14 October 2019 the father sought further review with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal). A directions hearing was held…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Faaborg and Taffet (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] AATA 3653
Decision Date: 22 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *Faaborg and Taffet* concerned an application to review a departure determination made by the Child Support Registrar. The applicant, Faaborg, sought to set aside the Registrar's decision, which had been made in response to an application by Taffet. The dispute centred on the assessment of child support obligations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar had erred in making the departure determination, and if so, whether the court should substitute its own decision. Specifically, the court was required to consider the grounds for departure under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), including the high costs associated with enabling a parent to spend time with a child and high childcare costs in relation to the child. The court also had to assess the income, property, and financial resources of both parents, and whether there had been a failure to fully and frankly disclose financial circumstances.

The court found that the Registrar's decision was affected by an error, particularly in relation to the assessment of the parties' financial circumstances and the failure of one party to provide full and frank disclosure. Applying the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), the court determined that the circumstances warranted a departure from the standard assessment. The court considered the specific costs and financial positions of both Faaborg and Taffet in reaching its conclusion.

The court set aside the departure determination made by the Child Support Registrar and substituted its own decision regarding child support.

Orders