Ferahan and Boland (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 511

Ferahan and Boland (Child support) [2025] ARTA 511 (10 March 2025)

Applicant: Ms Ferahan

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Mr Boland

Tribunal Number: 2024/SC028104
Tribunal: General Member R Prasad
Place:Sydney
Date:10 March 2025

Decision:The Tribunal varies the decision under review so that for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024:
1. the mother’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $161,987; and
2. the father’s annual rate of child support is decreased by $4,660.

Statement made on 10 March 2025 at 3:10pm

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources – adjusted taxable income – costs of educating child in manner expected by parents – enrolment of oldest child in private secondary college – large disparity in income – mother’s change of employment – disengagement scheme and payout – now self-employed professional – health and reduced hours of work – personal expenses paid by business – father’s commissions, bonuses and share scheme – unvested stock not part of income – decision under review varied

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 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Ms Ferahan (the mother) and Mr Boland (the father) are the parents of three children, born 5 October 2010, 17 September 2012 and 13 October 2014. Since 17 June 2019, this case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support). The existing percentages of care are that the mother has 71% care and the father has 28% care of the children from 7 July 2018.
The mother lodged an application to change the child support assessment (the departure application) on 28 August 2023. On 16 February 2024, Child Support determined that for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, the mother’s adjusted taxable income would be set at $163,996 and that for that period, the father’s annual rate of child support would decrease by $5,437.
On 18 March 2024, the mother lodged an objection. An objections officer, on 25 April 2024, disallowed the objection.
On 27 May 2024, the mother sought review of the objection decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT).
From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
A directions hearing was held on 21 October 2024. Directions were issued on 25 October 2024 requiring compliance by 22 November 2024.
The hearing took place on 15 January 2025. The mother was represented by Mr Lowe and provided documentation before and after the hearing.[1] The father also provided documentation.[2] The Child Support Registrar elected not to be represented at the hearing, but provided documentation.[3]

ISSUES

[1] A1 – A155.

[2] B1 – B624.

[3] T1 – T245.

The issues before me are:
a. does a ground exist for departure from the administrative assessment of child support; and if so,
b. would it be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination.

CONSIDERATION

What does the law say in relation to the departure of administrative assessments?

Section 98C of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides that a decision to depart from an administrative assessment may be made if each of the following requirements are met:
a.    at least one ground for departure referred in subsection 117(2) of the Act exists;
b.    it would be just and equitable as regards to the child and the parents to the assessment; and
c.     it would otherwise be proper.
Section 117 of the Act provides the matters that must be considered before being satisfied in making an order in relation to a child in the special circumstances of the case. The phrase ‘special circumstances of the case’ is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary.[4]
[4] Gyselman and Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93 at [39].
The grounds for departure that I have been asked to consider in this matter are commonly known as ‘Reason 3’ and ‘Reason 8’. Reason 3 is set out in subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) which provides that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining a child are significantly affected because the child is being cared for, educated or trained in the manner that was expected by the parents. Once the costs associated with educating, maintaining or training a child in the manner expected by the parents have been calculated, the additional amount must be significant in relation to the assessed costs of the child. If it is not, then the costs of maintaining the child may not be significantly affected and there would be no reason to change the assessment.
Reason 8 states that, in the special circumstances of the case, there is an unjust and inequitable level of financial support to be provided because of either parent’s income, property and financial resources as set out in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia), or their earning capacity pursuant to subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ib). A child support assessment is generally calculated using the parent’s most recent taxable income. This requires consideration of whether a parent’s current income is not adequately reflected in the child support assessment. Special circumstances may exist if one parent has financial resources that have not been properly taken into account in the child support assessment.[5] Further, although a parent’s most recent taxable income is used in the child support formula, a parent’s income, earning capacity, property and financial resources which do not necessarily form part of a parent’s taxable income can be added to or excluded from a child support assessment.[6]
[5] Ross and McDermott (1998) FLC 98-003.
[6] Carey and Carey (1994) FLC 92-489.
In deciding whether a decision is fair, consideration is given to the amount and duration of any proposed change and the factors listed in subsection 117(4) of the Act which are relevant to a particular case. Particular factors may be given more weight depending on the circumstances of the case.
Subsection 117(5) of the Act provides that in determining whether it would be ‘otherwise proper’ to change the assessment, consideration must be given to:

a.the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child and, in particular, the fact that it is the parents of a child who have the primary duty to maintain the child; and
b.the effect that any proposed change would have on the child or the receiving parent's entitlement to, or the rate of, an income tested pension, allowance or benefit.

What information has been provided?

Costs of caring for, educating or training the child

In the departure application and her written submissions, the mother stated that the oldest child commenced Year 7 at a private secondary college in February 2023 with the 2023 annual school fees being $35,782. The child was placed on a waiting list around 2013 prior to the parent’s separation, and in 2022 both parents accepted and signed a written offer from the school. As the mother had also signed the consent form, she would also be liable to pay the school fees. It was submitted that the father had falsely asserted that he paid 100% of the schooling and extracurricular needs of the children. It was submitted that if the decision were to be set aside in favour of the mother, she would undertake to pay half of the school fees. At the hearing, it was confirmed that the father has been paying the child’s school fees and the mother has not made any contribution, however it was submitted that there was no court agreement and he could stop at any moment.
The father advised that he pays for all school fees and costs for the children, and mentioned paying the entire orthodontic costs for the older child as well, which he is not seeking to be included in the administrative assessment. He also pays for other things like stationery and camp fees. In particular, he receives monthly statements from the school which includes the tuition and camp fees, he pays different companies for uniforms and stationery, and also purchases laptop and technology as needed. He noted that the applicant may also pay for uniforms. The father provided a letter sent to him from the school dated 22 November 2022 which included details how to pay enrolment fees. He provided the 2023 and 2025 offers of acceptance for the oldest and middle child noting the enrolment fees had been paid. He also provided a confirmation of application for enrolment for the youngest child, the annual school fee details for each school, and a summary of projected school costs from 2023 to 2032 for all the children. In particular, the 2023 total school fee comprising of enrolment, tuition, uniform and technology and activity costs, for the oldest child was $47,335. For the 2024 school year, the oldest child’s school costs (tuition, uniform and technology and activities) were $41,835. For the 2025 school year, the school costs for the oldest and middle children (enrolment, tuition, uniform and/or technology and activities) were $89,348.50.

Earning capacity, income, property and resources of the parents

The Child Support records indicate that the mother had a taxable income of $147,975 and $258,429 for the 2022 and 2023 financial years and an income estimate of $15,991 for the 2024 financial year.
The mother’s written submissions and hearing papers indicate that she worked as [an occupation 1] for [Employer] and had resigned from the role in May 2023 after 24 years. At the time, there was [a] retirement scheme where a payout is aggregated based on the period of service, age and other factors on a first in basis. The scheme was only available for a period of three years so she took the opportunity to transition away from the [Employer]. She provided a tax ruling, CR 2021/89, which set out the income tax consequences of an early retirement scheme implemented by [Employer]. In particular, it indicates that so much of the payout that falls within a particular calculated threshold is not assessable income and is not exempt income. She received a total payment of $221,358 gross or $193,732 net. It was submitted that this payout was reflected in her 2023 taxable income and it was an error for it to be carried into the next financial year by Child Support as it is not a true financial position of the parties. It was a one-off payment with her previous employment ceased and in the process of creating a sole trader. In this regard, the mother has been operating her own [occupation 2] practice for around 18 months. She advised that the business brought in $90,000 inclusive of GST in the first financial year, with operating costs of around 90%. The operating costs increased in the next financial year with approximately $60,000 to $70,000 inclusive of GST. She noted that she was diagnosed with [condition] in 2004, and while still generally in good health, she was mindful of extending herself beyond her capacity and was the predominant reason she resigned from [Employer]. However, she has not reduced the hours she works in her business from when she worked at [Employer], and does not have capacity to work more than on a full time basis. She is requesting her 2024 adjusted taxable income be varied to $15,000.
After the hearing, the mother provided her 2024 individual tax return which showed a taxable income of $21,628 (gross income of $30,132 and deductions and losses of $8,504). The 2024 company tax return showed total income of $89,908, total expenses of $80,585 with a total profit of $9,323. Taxable income was $134 with the addition of non-deductible expenses of $2,719 and deduction of other income not included in assessable income of $11,908 comprising of current year debtors. The 2024 business profit and loss statement indicates total income of $89,908 and total expenses of $80,587 (including advertising, bank fees, client promotion, donations, filing fees and filing fees for clients, repairs and maintenance, travel, vehicle parking, vehicle tolls and workwear). The expenses also included wages and salaries of $24,720, which is also noted in her individual tax return. Net profit was $9,287 with income tax of $34 (comprising accounting, superannuation and debtors). Total equity was valued at $9,288 (retained earnings of $9,287 and share capital of $1). Business activity statements show total sales of $85,757 for the 2024 financial year. The mother’s bank accounts included an AMEX account which she confirmed was being used for both personal and business use. She stated that she makes a note of what is a personal or business transaction. There were numerous business-related transactions including payments of $34,796 for the period 11 July 2024 to 10 November 2024. She also provided details of the children’s bank accounts being inheritance they received, with balances of around $10,000 for the oldest and middle child in September and October 2024 respectively, and an opening balance of around $10,000 in July 2024 and closing balance of about $75 in November 2024 for the youngest child.
In her statement of financial circumstances (the mother’s statement), the mother indicates she is self-employed, her gross weekly salary is about $75. She earns interest of about $50 a week from an interest bearing savings account, which she advised was a result of a disengagement payment she received from her previous employment and while at the time of completing the statement there was $41,000 in the account, there was around $27,000 remaining at the time of the hearing. She also receives $622 in child support each week. The total value of her property, comprising of a home, savings, shares, a car and household contents, is $3,804,800. She also has $316,000 in superannuation. Her total liabilities, comprising of a home mortgage and credit card repayments, is $1,021,000. Her and the children’s weekly household expenses were approximately $4,149.50, including $1,787 for mortgage repayments. The mother advised that she has been using her disengagement payment to pay for the expenses, which has been depleting quickly. Her weekly household expenses are $175 for education expenses, including fees and levies which she said from memory were for stationery, books and general equipment and at the time the father was not paying for all excursions, but was not certain if she had accounted for Child Support’s decision that the annual rate payable was to decrease by $5,000 in consideration of the father’s contribution to school fees. Her bank statements do not appear to reflect this expenditure. The mother also provided a cryptocurrency trading report and advised she had approximately $200 in that account.
The Child Support records show that the father had a taxable income of $906,800 and $818,469 for the 2022 and 2023 financial year. He has not lodged his 2024 tax return at the time of the hearing, but his income statement shows gross salary and wages of $698,878 and his employee share scheme statement shows a discount from deferral schemes of $438,690 for the 2024 financial year, and therefore gross income of $1,137,568. He confirmed that this amount was broken down into a salary of $355,715, bonuses and commissions based on sales performance of $326,003, an employee share scheme as noted, plus paid leave. The father advised that he has a successful career but only the base salary of 28% was guaranteed with the bonuses, commissions and share scheme income being highly volatile. The father explained that when he started working for his company, he was allocated shares as part of the employee share scheme, which vest on a quarterly basis over a four year period. He also receives top ups every year. The shares are invested in a stock account in [Country], and he can either leave the shares that have vested in the account or sell them. He sells shares to pay for his home mortgage and the children’s school fees, but otherwise keeps the shares in the account. He provided stock plan accounts, which he advised were in [Country currency] but the amounts in his income statement and employee share scheme statement were in Australian dollars. The stock plan accounts also indicate the amounts that will vest sometime in the future, but as they were not vested, they were not included in his statements. If his employment were to cease, then he would receive the shares that have vested but not from the unvested stock.
It was submitted on behalf of the mother that this was a serious issue that had arisen during the course of the hearing and required significant readjustment to the determination the mother was seeking. In current exchange rates, it would mean that the father has access to a further $1.2 million per annum when it vests. While it is not easy to liquidate, this was still a financial resource that the Tribunal should have regard to. The father advised that this amount was not per year, it was the value of unvested stock which fluctuates.
In his statement of financial circumstances (the father’s statement), the father indicates he works as a senior [position] for a [company] on a full time basis earning an average gross weekly wage of $9,765 with weekly income from employee stock plan of $5,811 and interest of $4. He pays tax of $6,782 and $555 in child support weekly. The total value of his property, comprising of a home, savings, investments from employee stock plan, life insurance policy, a car and household contents, is $5,104,322. He has $752,782 in superannuation, has a home mortgage of $1,473,882 and owes $4,800 on his credit card. He estimates total household expenditure to be $6,582 each week for himself and the children.
The father provided a copy of his recent bank statements which showed that his deposits included his salary, transfers from a home mortgage account, liquidated stock to pay for the home mortgage, and amounts from different people to pay for a golf trip. The withdrawals included transfers to the children’s investment accounts, transfers to pay the home mortgage, and to pay income tax.
In response to the mother’s assertions about his property, the father advised that he received only 29% in their property settlement and not 35%. He purchased a property for $2.71 million which he estimated to be valued at $3.56 million, providing the property value averages from the Domain website, and not $4.3 million as stated by the mother. He also owns less than 1% in [investments] but is not expecting to be financially rewarded. A summary of his [investment] ownership shows he is in a syndicate that owns [investments] with his share in the syndicate for each was just over 1% and overall his ownership was less than 1%. Since February 2021 to September 2024, he had made payments of $8,231 and received returns of $2,338. The father advised he does not own any investment properties or any equitable interests with his partner. He provided the children’s investment accounts that he is a sole signatory to which he hopes to hand over to the children. As at 31 July 2024, the accounts have a closing balance of around $1,300 for each child.
Given the father’s income, which was said to be reserved for the top echelon of the community, it was submitted on behalf of the mother that an unjust outcome results with the mother’s income as only 2% of the father’s income. The intentions and objective of the child support legislation cannot apply in all circumstances and is limited when applying a mathematical approach. This case instead calls for a human approach. In particular, it was submitted that the object of the Act was for children to be given proper financial resources from parents based on their capacity to provide like financial support. The children should share the same standard of living of their parents, whether living with either of them, and as the mother is not in a financial position to do so, it is important she receive such financial support. She earns roughly 2% of what the father does but has responsibility for the three children for more than 70% of the time. She also suffers from a health condition but is working hard to establish a business as [an occupation 2]. Her family home repayment is $7,200 per month and given her income capacity is limited, sometimes fluctuating, the child support formula is not fit for purpose for this case. It was submitted that this was an extraordinary or rare case where one parent earns over $1 million a year. As she has over 70% care, the ledger should be balanced with her receiving financial contribution from the father so the children can have the same living standards. It was noted that the father is seen as the gift giver by the children, whereas the mother is seen in a negative light who cannot give them luxury. The children have told her that when they need something, they will go to the father. It was asserted that this is not a just situation and the objects of the Act say that responsibility should be shared out between the parents, although it may not be 50%. The children should have the same or similar lifestyle as the father.

The mother is seeking a specific determination that the father pay around $144,000 per annum which is not unreasonable based on his income. This is based on guidelines on Services Australia’s website. In particular, it says that considering a combined income cap of $223,000 where there are three children, the annual child support rate is $58,639. When compared to the father’s income if this amount is divided by 71%, then an annual rate of $144,000 is determined. Ultimately, it is for the Tribunal to apply its own calculations and reach a just and reasonable amount, as the current assessment has a significantly unjust outcome where the mother is not in a position to provide for the children. A further reason to apply such an annual rate is that the mother is willing to make an undertaking to pay half of the school fees as noted above.
The father stated that while he may enjoy holidays as asserted by the mother, she also travels overseas and had planned a holiday in the coming month. It was not unreasonable for him to take the children with him. While the mother says she undertakes to pay 50% of the school fees, he had already committed to pay the educational costs for the children. He said there was no logical reason for him to pay higher child support for the mother to then pay the school fees, and there was no guarantee that she would. He was willing to make a written submission to the school committing to being fully responsible for the school fees. The father asserted that it seemed the mother was seeking spousal support but they had signed a financial agreement under the Family Law Act 1975, which removed any obligation to provide maintenance to each other. In this regard, it was submitted on behalf of the mother that this is not a case for spousal maintenance given the amount of responsibility the mother has of the children, but may have been if she only had 5% care. The father noted that if the mother’s position is that she should receive more child support as she has more care of the children, he will pursue parenting orders to have more care of the children. From 1 March 2025, the annual rate of child support he pays will increase to $44,565. In the current financial year, he would have spent over $100,000 towards education costs, orthodontic costs of $30,000 and medical cover is provided for by his company for himself, the mother and the children. He also pays over $200,000 annually towards caring for the children, and this amount does not include the utility bills, rates, motor vehicle costs and insurance.

Should the administrative assessment be changed in the special circumstances of the case?

Has a reason to depart from the administrative assessment been established?

The mother has sought review of the objection decision as she considers her adjusted taxable income had been incorrectly increased and did not reflect her real income and seeks for the father to contribute more on the basis of his high income for there to be a more equitable position. I have been asked to consider both Reason 3 and Reason 8 and note that if I consider one ground to be established, then I will consider the other ground in the just and equitable considerations.
The information before me indicates that the oldest child commenced Year 7 at a private school in 2023, with both parents signing the offer of acceptance. I note I do not appear to have supporting evidence of the uniform and technology and activity fees paid or that these are significant costs that affect the maintenance of the children. On the basis of the parties’ sworn evidence, I accept that the enrolment and tuition fees were paid by the father. The 2023 offer of acceptance form indicates that the enrolment fee was $4,500 and the school website indicates the 2023 tuition fees were $35,782.[7] For the 2024 school year, the school tuition fees were $38,835. From the 2025 school year, the middle child commenced Year 7 at the same private school as the oldest child and the enrolment fee for the middle child was $3,150 and tuition fee was $44,343 for the oldest child and $37,578 for the middle child (applying a second sibling discount).[8]
[7] align="left">[8] >
Overall, I consider that the ground provided for in subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, or Reason 3, is established as the children are being educated in a manner expected by the parents, and the education costs can be considered as special, and significantly affect the costs of maintaining the children.
As a reason for changing the assessment has been established, I must now consider whether the proposed decision to change the assessment is both ‘just and equitable’ and ‘otherwise proper’.

Would it be just and equitable to depart from the assessment?

In order to determine whether a departure would be just and equitable, I must consider the factors set out under subsection 117(4) of the Act, as far as they are relevant to this case.
Section 3 of the Act provides that a parent’s duty to maintain their child has priority over all commitments of the parent other than commitments necessary to enable the parent to support himself or herself and any other child or person that the parent has a duty to maintain. Further, the objects of the Act, among others, are to ensure that the level of a parent’s financial support for a child is determined by their capacity to provide financial support, and that the change of assessment provisions are there to ensure that parents share equitably in the support of their children.[9] In this regard, I note that the father, as well as the mother, should contribute to the costs of raising their children to the extent of their financial capacity.
[9] Paragraph 4(2)(a) and paragraph 114(b) of the Act.
While the parents advised that the children have bank accounts and investment accounts which are being managed on their behalf, there is no evidence that the children have any significant income or resources available to them.
I will now consider the income, property and financial resources of each parent.
The mother asserted that her income should just be her taxable income for the relevant financial year and her disengagement payout has already been reflected in the 2023 financial year and should not be extended into the following financial year as was done by Child Support.
The Family Court has held that a “simple reference to a person’s tax return does not provide an appropriate quantification of their capacity to provide financial support”, such as where someone is self-employed, there will be legal structures and arrangements that would mean the taxable income does not properly reflect the realistic capacity of the person to provide financial support for their children.[10]
[10] Voss & Child Support Registrar & Anor [2009] FMCAfam 1296.
Consistent with the above, the Child Support Guide (the Guide), at 2.6.14, notes that consideration may be given to including in a parent’s adjustable taxable income any undistributed profits from, and retained earnings in, a company. A business may be able to deduct certain expenses from income for tax purposes and as a result legitimately may have a reduced income or may even run at a loss. These deductible expenses can result in a child support assessment that does not take into account the full financial resources available to the parent and result in an unjust and inequitable level of child support. An examination of the full financial position of the business is required to determine any personal financial resources available to the parent from the business. Where tax deductible business expenses provide a personal benefit to the parent, this may make the child support assessment unjust and inequitable. Consideration must be given to whether the parent has a greater financial capacity than is indicated by their taxable income, either as a direct result of the deductions or of having certain personal costs defrayed by being tax deductible.
I must therefore consider the full financial position of the mother’s [occupation 2] practice in order to determine whether the mother has any personal financial resources that are available, and not just refer to her taxable income. I note that a financial resource refers to any financial benefit that would enhance the capacity of a parent to provide a proper level of support for their children.[11]
[11] Costa & Fairbank [2010] FMCAfam 39.
From the information before me, I do not consider that the taxable income is an accurate assessment of the financial resources that are available to the mother as asserted. There appears to be some personal expenses being partially paid through the business, including bank fees, donations, repairs and maintenance, travel, vehicle parking, vehicle tolls and workwear. There also appears to be duplication in some expenses such as the filing fees and filings fees for clients as well as advertising and client promotion, and as the financial reports appear to be prepared after the hearing or were not provided prior to the hearing, an explanation of these expenses have not been provided. The business was recorded as having a profit of $9,323 and she was paid salary and wages of $24,720. I note her AMEX bank account is used for both personal and business transactions, and therefore it is difficult to determine exactly which transaction is identified as being for business use. Overall, as mentioned above, not all the expenses listed in the financial documents are necessarily an expense incurred by the business and are financial resources available to the mother. If part of these amounts were taken into consideration and added to the gross profit from the business and salary paid, this would indicate that the financial resources from the business available to the mother in the 2024 financial year were around $60,123. However, I also consider that an aggregated amount of her disengagement payout of $221,358 gross should be considered as part of her 2024 taxable income. While I accept that this was a one-off payment which has been included in her 2023 taxable income, she was paid this amount in May 2023 and is a financial resource that is available to her. The tax ruling indicates that the payout includes periods of pay, and from my calculations is 113 weeks of pay. Accordingly, Child Support correctly included this as part of her pay and from my calculations, amounts to $101,864 over a year. When these amounts are combined, I determine that the mother’s adjusted taxable income to be set at $161,987. I consider that it is appropriate to vary her income from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, after which the usual administrative assessment will apply.
I note that the father is employed and his taxable income reflects the salary he receives and includes the value of his shares. While it was submitted that the unvested stock should be included as part of his income even though it will be difficult to liquidate, I do not consider that these form part of his current financial resources that are available to him. If the father was to leave this employment, he would not receive any of the unvested stock and as such I do not consider that his financial resources should be increased to include this amount. Accordingly, I am satisfied the father’s income is correctly reflected in the administrative assessment.
In relation to the earning capacity of each parent, both parents work full time. While this suggests neither parent has unused earning capacity, I note that the mother elected to accept a disengagement payout and commence a new practice thereby leaving a steady salary and electing to commence [an occupation 2] practice with no certainty to income. I note that the reasons for leaving her previous employment included health reasons, her evidence was also that she is still in generally good health and works the same hours as she did previously. Further, I note that neither parent has advised of any significant expense that I should consider for the purposes of this review.
I have earlier considered the children’s education costs and am not of the view that it is just and equitable for the father to bear these costs solely and propose that the mother is to contribute to the education costs. In order to determine her level of contribution, I have considered the mother’s income and resources and the father’s income and financial resources in the 2024 financial year as determined above, as the figures to use in the administrative assessment. Given this apportionment, and as the departure application was made towards the end of the 2023 school year and I have only determined her adjusted taxable income for 2024, I consider it appropriate to apportion the costs only for the 2024 school year. It would be open to the parties to seek a change of assessment for contribution of education costs in later years should there remain an inequitable distribution.
In ascertaining the apportionment of the education costs, I am satisfied that this should be based on the income percentage of 12% to the mother and 88% to the father. Accordingly, considering the application of the income percentages to the education costs of $38,835 for the 2024 school year, the mother is liable to contribute $4,660 ($38,835 x 12%). The father must therefore contribute $34,175 ($38,835 x 88%).
I note that in making this determination, I have considered the objects of the Act, and there is no corroborating evidence before me that either parent has a legal duty to support anyone apart from the children and so I am unable to be satisfied that they should not contribute more to maintaining the children.
Overall, the effect of this decision regarding the increase in the mother’s adjustable taxable income and the apportionment of the education costs, will decrease the father’s liability by about $1,600. As the evidence indicates, the father pays for a majority if not all of the children’s education and medical costs. In light of this, and given my findings in relation to her available income and resources, I do not consider the mother will suffer undue hardship in the decrease of the annual rate as determined.
I note that I was asked to consider this matter taking a human approach rather than a mathematical approach. In particular, an increase in the annual rate of child support payable would mean the mother would be seen in a positive light in the children’s eyes and the father not the only giver between the two. I do not consider the purpose and object of the child support legislation is to improve the financial position of one parent. The purpose and object is about the maintenance of the children. While I accept that the children should be afforded the same opportunities as their parents, in this particular case, the father is paying for all the education and medical costs, and the evidence indicates he takes them on holidays, as does the mother, and purchases other things as they require or request. I note that the bringing of this application has resulted in an adverse outcome for the mother whereby she is now to contribute to the education costs when previously she has not. There is no evidence the children are not being cared for in an appropriate manner and are going without. There is no further responsibility that the father has in supporting the mother, and while it is asserted that spousal maintenance is not being sought, I do not consider that the administrative assessment should be changed and the father be expected to pay amounts to the mother so that it appears that she is also contributing to the children’s expenses when the father is already paying these amounts. The child support legislation is not for such purposes.
After consideration of all of the factors in subsection 117(4) of the Act, I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment.

Would it be otherwise proper to depart from the assessment?

I must now consider whether the proposed departure would be proper within the context of the public interest and welfare expenditure by the community. Neither parent receives government benefits and therefore the departure from the administrative assessment is unlikely to have any effect on welfare expenditure by the community.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the requirements under subsection 117(5) of the Act are met and that it is otherwise proper to depart from the administrative assessment.

DECISION

The Tribunal varies the decision under review so that for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024:

the mother’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $161,987; and
the father’s annual rate of child support is decreased by $4,660.

Date of hearing:	Wednesday, 15 January 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	Mr T Lowe
Representative for the Other party:	Self represented