Garabette and Newart (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1638

Garabette and Newart (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1638 (5 August 2025)

Applicant/s: Mrs Garabette and Mr Newart

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Mr Newart and Mrs Garabette
Tribunal Numbers: 2024/SC028759 and 2024/SC028788
Tribunal: General Member M King
Place:Brisbane
Date:5 August 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides to vary Mr Newart’s adjusted taxable income to:
·$159,327 for the period 23 April 2024 to 8 May 2024;
·$0 for the period 9 May 2024 to 13 July 2024;
·$23,000 for the period 14 July 2024 to 20 March 2025; and
·$52,000 for the period 21 March 2025 to 31 December 2025.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources – resigned from employment – supervised child visitation – went back to studying – anxiety and depression – working casually – 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 pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Mrs Garabette and Mr Newart are the parents of [Child A], born 2020, and [Child B], born 2021 (the children). The children are recorded as being in Mrs Garabette’s 100% care.
The administrative assessment for the period 23 April 2024 (when the child support case commenced) to 2 May 2024 was based on an adjusted taxable income of $159,327 for Mr Newart (based on his 2022/23 income) and an adjusted taxable income of $49,596 for Mrs Garabette (based on her 2022/23 income). Mr Newart was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $28,336 per annum.
The administrative assessment for the period 3 May 2024 to 16 July 2024 was based on an adjusted taxable income of $0 for Mr Newart (an estimate of income) and an adjusted taxable income of $49,596 for Mrs Garabette (based on her 2022/23 income). Mr Newart was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $3,440 per annum (being the fixed annual rate of child support for each child).
The administrative assessment for the period 17 July 2024 to 31 August 2024 was based on an adjusted taxable income of $20,283 for Mr Newart (an estimate of income) and an adjusted taxable income of $49,596 for Mrs Garabette (based on her 2022/23 income). Mr Newart was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $3,440 per annum (being the fixed annual rate of child support for each child).

The administrative assessment for the period 1 September 2024 to 30 June 2025 was based on an adjusted taxable income of $20,283 for Mr Newart (an estimate of income) and an adjusted taxable income of $71,672 for Mrs Garabette (based on her 2023/24 income). Mr Newart was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $519 per annum (being the minimum annual rate of child support).
On 15 May 2024, Mrs Garabette applied for a departure from the administrative assessment of child support, under Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).
On 13 June 2024, Mr Newart also applied for a departure from the administrative assessment.
On 27 July 2024, the Child Support Registrar (Child Support) made a decision to vary Mr Newart’s adjusted taxable income to $160,500 for the period 3 May 2024 to 30 June 2024 and to $58,200 for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 October 2024; to vary Mrs Garabette’s adjusted taxable income to $71,672 for the period 3 May 2024 to 31 August 2024; and to increase the annual rate of child support otherwise payable by Mr Newart by $6,033 for the period 3 May 2024 to 31 January 2025.
Mr Newart objected to the decision. On 3 October 2024, a Child Support objections officer partly allowed the objection and made a decision to vary Mr Newart’s adjusted taxable income to $100,000 for the period 23 April 2024 to 12 July 2024; and to vary Mrs Garabette’s adjusted taxable income to $71,672 for the period 23 April 2024 to 31 August 2024.
Mrs Garabette and Mr Newart then applied for review of the decision by the Tribunal. The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 19 June 2025. Mrs Garabette and Mr Newart attended the hearing by video conference and gave sworn evidence. The Tribunal deferred making a decision to allow Mr Newart to provide further evidence.
The Tribunal took into account the relevant documents provided by Child Support to the Tribunal prior to hearing: pages 1 to 673 (the hearing papers), additional evidence provided by Mrs Garabette (marked A1 to A311) and additional evidence provided by Mr Newart (marked B1 to B373).

CONSIDERATION

The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act. A formula is used. It takes into account variables including each parent’s adjusted taxable income, the number of children, and the level of care provided by each parent.
Part 6A of the Act allows for a departure from an administrative assessment (a process commonly known as a “change of assessment”). Under subsection 98C(1) of the Act, the Registrar may make such a departure determination if 3 matters are established:
·      one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 98C(2) exists (subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(i));
·      a departure is just and equitable as regards the children and each parent (sub‑subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(A)); and
·      it is otherwise proper to make a departure decision (sub‑subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(B)).
Subsection 98C(2) provides that the grounds for departure are the same as the grounds set out in subsection 117(2).
If satisfied that a ground or grounds exist and that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination, the Tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act. It permits a range of determinations, including varying the rate of child support payable, the adjusted taxable income or the cost percentage for a child.

Grounds for departure

Income, property and financial resources

Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) – commonly referred to as Reason 8 – provides as a ground for departure:
(c) that, in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to the child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child: …
(ia) because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent; …
The words “in the special circumstances of the case” are not defined in the legislation. Whilst it is not possible to define with precision the meaning of that term, it is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary. That is, the intention of the legislature is that the Tribunal will not interfere with the administrative formula result in the ordinary run of cases. In Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92–279, it was held that “special circumstances” were “facts peculiar to the particular case which set it apart from other cases”. The Tribunal’s approach to the interpretation and application of the particular grounds in subsection 117(2) must be guided by that qualification.

Mr Newart

At page B9 is a copy of Mr Newart’s 2023/24 income tax return. The return records salary and wage income totalling $130,092; a $13,717 eligible termination payment received on 7 May 2024; $3,246 interest income; and $932 deductions, resulting in an adjusted taxable income of $146,023.
At page 169 of the hearing papers is a copy of Mr Newart’s employment separation certificate from [Employer 1]. The certificate states that Mr Newart was employed by [Employer 1] from 15 February 2021 until 5 April 2024, when he resigned his employment.
At page B14 is evidence that Mr Newart was paid $933.17 in jobseeker payment (JSP) on 4 June 2025.
From page B16 are copies of job applications Mr Newart made, and responses to those applications, between 22 April 2024 and 13 November 2024.
At page B64 is a copy of a letter from [University 1], dated 28 May 2025. The letter states that Mr Newart is enrolled fulltime at [University 1]. He commenced [Course 1] in January 2025.
From page B60 are copies of Centrelink medical certificates completed by Dr [A]. The certificates state that Mr Newart was unfit to work or study, for more than 8 hours per week, for the periods 15 October 2024 to 12 February 2025 and 25 March 2025 to 24 May 2025, due to depression and anxiety.
Mrs Garabette told the Tribunal that the income of $100,000 per annum set for Mr Newart is the reason for her application. She said he was on a salary of about $170,000 per annum until April 2024. He also received lump sum payments from his employer.
She submitted that Mr Newart took almost $300,000 from their joint property pool in May 2024, just after the parents separated. He had $325,000 in his personal bank accounts until late June 2024, when he transferred the money to an account in the names of his parents.
Mrs Garabette said Mr Newart has been unemployed for some time. She accepts Mr Newart has applied for other roles. However, she believes there are a lot of roles that would not require the clearances which Mr Newart cannot get.
Mr Newart told the Tribunal that he does not agree that he has an earning capacity higher than his actual income. He said his ongoing health issues have impacted his ability to find work. He has been applying for roles.
Mr Newart said he started receiving JSP in July 2024. He has obtained casual work since March 2025. However, he is still in receipt of JSP.
He said he is seeking work, working casually and studying fulltime. He has to make 4 job applications per month. He generally works one day per week, for which he is paid about $500 per week. He reports his income to Centrelink. He had not updated his estimate of income with Child Support.
Mr Newart submitted that he has made voluntary contributions to Mrs Garabette and the children totalling about $30,000 since the parents separated.
At page B237, is a copy of a bank statement which records that Mr Newart received $12,716.83 on 8 May 2024 and $3,299.96 on 17 July 2024 from [Employer 1]. Mr Newart said the amount he received on 17 July 2024 was reimbursement for an excess amount previously paid for a novated lease, which was in credit. The payment he received on 8 May 2024 was his termination payment, including payment in lieu of notice.
Mrs Garabette submitted Mr Newart received an additional payment from [Employer 1], on 6 November 2024, for $885.19, as recorded at page B250. Mr Newart said that payment was a refund of an overpayment of GST, regarding his previous novated lease vehicle.
Mrs Garabette noted that, [in] May 2024, Mr Newart received $549.45 from “[deleted]”. Mr Newart said he did win that [amount].
Mrs Garabette noted that, at page B227, an amount of $2,750.46 was credited to Mr Newart’s bank account on 15 June 2024. Mr Newart said he does not recall that payment. He said the amount was used to pay his credit card.
Mrs Garabette noted that bank statements, from page B286, record that Mr Newart’s first payment from his casual employment, on 27 March 2024, was about $500 and the next 5 weekly payments were more than $1,000 each. The relevant payments are noted as being from “[Employer 2]” and “[Employer 3]”.
Mr Newart said his payments vary as he works casually. He said his last 3 payments were only $500 each.
Both parents confirmed they had not finalised a property settlement yet. Mr Newart confirmed that the parents’ major assets are their home and their superannuation funds.
In relation to his Statement of Financial Circumstances form, Mr Newart said the $320 per week amount is for rent. The supervised child visitation costs have ceased. They were court ordered and he was ordered to pay the cost. He said he is continuing to make the lease payments on his vehicle.
Mr Newart said his financial situation is dire compared to what it used to be. His casual work is just meeting his expenses. His parents have helped him financially as well.
Mrs Garabette submitted that Mr Newart has significant resources available. He had about $325,000 available in his bank account until 28 June 2024, when he transferred the funds to another account in the names of his parents.
She submitted that it appears Mr Newart still has access to those funds. There are a series of payments coming from that account to his account, totalling about $21,000. Many of those transfers were used by Mr Newart to pay off his credit card.
Mrs Garabette said Mr Newart’s vehicle lease appears to be about $1,600 per month, which is almost all of the JSP Mr Newart receives. She said Mr Newart’s rent seems to have reduced to $200 per week now. She said the supervised visitation ceased in later December 2024 or early January 2025.
Mrs Garabette submitted that it seems, from Mr Newart’s bank statements, that he spends, on average, about $500 per month on alcohol and more than $200 per month on takeaway food.
Mr Newart said it is evident that the funds he transferred to his parents were not his funds to start with and they were repaid to his parents. He said he is receiving some funds from his parents, but he has no control over his parents’ financial matters, and which accounts they use to transfer funds to him. He said his living expenses have reduced since he has been unemployed.
The Tribunal noted that Mr Newart ceased employment on 5 April 2024, a few weeks before the child support case commenced. He has provided evidence of his attempts to find work from May 2024 to October 2024. He has also provided medical certificates for the period October 2024 to May 2025.
Mr Newart said he was applying for employment after he ceased his previous employment. He has had exemptions from seeking employment since October 2024. He is now required to seek employment again.
The Tribunal noted that the medical certificates stated that Mr Newart was unable to work or study for more than 8 hours per week. The Tribunal asked how that was consistent with Mr Newart’s study load.
Mr Newart said he is trying to do as much as he can within the 8 hours per week limit. His university enrolment shows that he is only doing one subject per semester currently, which is 8 hours per week, even though he is enrolled fulltime. He said the university has 3 trimesters per year and he is doing one subject at a time. He is also working casually one day per week. He is studying to maximise his opportunities to gain full-time work.
Mrs Garabette noted that Mr Newart resigned from his employment before the child support case started. She submitted that, in studying one subject per semester and working one day per week since March 2025, he is working and studying more than 8 hours per week.
Mr Newart said he no longer has a medical exemption from seeking employment. He is being treated by practitioners, other than his General Practitioner, and studying to stimulate his brain is part of his treatment. He said the Centrelink medical certificates are just a standard form and may not reflect the totality of his circumstances.
Mr Newart said he could transition to austudy, as a full-time student, which would remove his obligation to seek employment. That is in the process of happening. Mr Newart said he will still be looking for employment, as best he can, regardless of his Centrelink obligations.
Mr Newart said, in his written submissions, he outlined his attempts to collect property from Mrs Garabette, which would help him find work.
Mrs Garabette said Mr Newart’s fitness equipment was bought during their relationship, as was the mower, so it is not relevant to child support. It will be considered in the parents’ property settlement. She said the mower and equipment is needed to maintain the property she lives on. She said Mr Newart could buy equipment, if he wanted to start a business.
Mr Newart referred to his submissions at paragraph 29 on page B5. He said he has incurred medical costs totalling about $2,200 since August 2024. He may also have some significant ongoing costs, given the types of physicians he is attending.
Mr Newart’s bank statements record that an amount of $294,076 was credited to Mr Newart’s [Bank account 1] on 6 May 2024 from a [Bank 1] account. On the same day, $285,000 was transferred to Mr Newart’s [Bank account 2].
On 28 June 2024, amounts totalling $312,671.87 were transferred from Mr Newart’s [Bank account 2] to his parents’ account.
Mr Newart’s salary from [Employer 1] was paid into his [Bank account 1]. The last regular payment received from [Employer 1] was $3,017.22 on 10 April 2024. The following further payments were received from [Employer 1]: $12,716.83 on 8 May 2024 and $3,299.96 on 17 July 2024. A payment of $885.19 was credited to Mr Newart’s [Bank account 3] on 6 November 2024.
Mr Newart’s JSP is paid into his [Bank account 1], with the first payment made on 17 July 2024, and the last payment on 9 April 2025. The following payments have been received from Mr Newart’s casual employment: $582.35 on 27 March 2025; $104.70 on 1 April 2025; $1,087.47 on 8 April 2025; $1,062.05 on 16 April 2025; $1076.39 on 22 April 2025; and $1,076.39 on 29 April 2025.
Funds are transferred regularly from Mr Newart’s [Bank account 1] to his [Bank account 3].
As well as credits from Mr Newart’s [Bank account 1], his [Bank account 3] records credits from his parents, totalling $15,000 during the period 23 May 2024 to 6 March 2025. Most of the credits from Mr Newart’s parents are noted as being for his car loan repayments of $1,662.73 per month (which are debited from that account). The statements also record Mr Newart transferring $200 per week to a third party, which is noted as rent.
Statements for Mr Newart’s [credit card] account record that payments were made to that account from his [Bank account 3] and [Bank account 1], as well as from Mr Newart’s parents. Between May 2024 and April 2025, $12,641.38 was transferred from Mr Newart’s [Bank account 3], $4,257.93 from his [Bank account 1] and $10,663.57 from his parents (between November 2024 and March 2025).
Mr Newart’s [credit card] has been used to meet his living expenses. The expenses equated to about $2,300 per month over that 12-month period (about $27,600 per annum).
Mr Newart’s payment from [Employer 1] of $12,716.63 represented about one month of the salary he had been earning at [Employer 1]. That effectively paid Mr Newart from 5 June 2024, when he ceased employment, until he received the payment on 8 May 2024.
Mr Newart received JSP from July 2024 to April 2025. He has received income from casual employment since late March 2025. That income has been consistently just over $1,000 per week (about $52,000 per annum calculated over 48 weeks).
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr Newart’s income, for child support purposes, continued to be $159,327 per annum (as his 2022/23 adjusted taxable income was) until 8 May 2024. From 9 May 2024 to 13 July 2024, Mr Newart had no income. From 14 July 2024 to 20 March 2025, Mr Newart’s income was from JSP, at a rate of about $23,000 per annum. From 21 March 2025, Mr Newart’s income has been about $52,000 per annum.
Mr Newart has also received assistance from his parents, totalling about $25,000 between May 2024 and March 2025.
The Tribunal understands Mrs Garabette’s concerns about the nature of the funds Mr Newart’s parents have transferred to him. However, on balance, the Tribunal accepts that the funds are his parents’ funds. It is unclear when, and whether, Mr Newart will repay those funds to his parents. However, the Tribunal finds those funds are not income for Mr Newart.
The funds also do not constitute a financial resource for Mr Newart which makes the assessment unfair. The Tribunal is satisfied Mr Newart does not have a right to demand that his parents provide him with funds. It is not unusual for parents to assist their adult children financially, when required, and the Tribunal is satisfied that is what Mr Newart’s parents have done. The Tribunal cannot base an assessment on the financial resources of Mr Newart’s parents, as they do not have a legal duty to support the children.

If Mrs Garabette has concerns about the funds Mr Newart transferred to his parents in June 2024, she should raise those concerns as part of the parents’ property settlement proceedings.
Mr Newart’s bank statements, whilst disclosing discretionary expenditure incurred by him, do not disclose an extravagant level of expenditure overall.
The administrative assessment was based on adjusted taxable incomes for Mr Newart of $0 from 3 May 2024 to 16 July 2024 and $20,283 from 17 July 2024 to 30 June 2025.
The incomes for Mr Newart determined above by the Tribunal are significantly different to the incomes used for him in the administrative assessment. The Tribunal is satisfied that makes the assessment unfair.
A ground for departure is established.

Just and equitable and otherwise proper: general observations

The requirement to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable and otherwise proper directs attention to what is fair to the parents, their children and the community. A decision maker must have regard to a variety of factors such as the needs of the children, the parents’ commitments, any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula and the effect on any income-tested benefits: subsections 117(4) to (9). Parents rather than the community have the primary duty to maintain a child: paragraph 117(5)(a). It is necessary to consider the effect of any departure from the administrative assessment on entitlements to income-tested pensions, allowances and benefits: paragraph 117(5)(b). Relevantly, this requires consideration of the effect on either parent’s entitlement to FTB Part A, which is subject to a maintenance income test.
A decision maker must bear in mind the duties of parents and the objects of the Act, set out in sections 3, 4 and 114. These include:
·      The duty of a parent to maintain his or her 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.
·      The level of support should be determined in accordance with the costs of the children, and according to the parent’s capacity to provide.
·      Parents should share equitably in the support of the child, and the child should have his or her proper needs met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both parents.

Would departure from the formula assessment be just and equitable?

The Tribunal has found there is a ground to depart from the administrative assessment. The Tribunal must also consider, pursuant to subsection 117(4) of the Act, whether it would be just and equitable to make a particular order. The Tribunal has considered the matters set out in subsections 117(4) and (6) to (8). The Tribunal does not propose to explore every matter in detail but will discuss those it regards as pertinent to this application.

Mr Newart

Mr Newart’s financial circumstances have been considered above.
The Tribunal also considered whether Mr Newart can be assessed on an earning capacity. Paragraph 117(7B)(a) of the Act provides that, before a person can be assessed on an earning capacity, the following 3 criteria must be satisfied:
1. The parent is either:
·not working despite ample opportunity to do so;
·has reduced their weekly hours of work to below full-time work; or
·has changed their occupation, industry or working pattern.
2. The parent's decision about their work arrangements is not justified by either:
·their caring responsibilities; or
·their state of health.
3. The parent has failed to show that the decision about their work arrangements was not substantially motivated by the effect this would have on the child support assessment.
Mr Newart ceased employment with [Employer 1], on 5 April 2024, prior to the child support case commencing on 23 April 2024. As there was no child support assessment at the time Mr Newart made that decision, the Tribunal is satisfied that his decision to cease employment was not motivated by the effect it would have on the child support assessment.
Mr Newart has provided evidence of job applications he made, and responses received, between 22 April 2024 and 13 November 2024. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Newart was seeking employment during that period and him not working was not motivated by the effect it would have on the child support assessment.
Mr Newart has provided medical certificates covering the period 15 October 2024 to 12 February 2025 and 25 March 2025 to 24 May 2025. The certificates state that, during those periods, Mr Newart was unable to work or study for more than 8 hours per week due to the conditions of anxiety and depression. Mr Newart was also exempted by Centrelink from seeking employment during those periods.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Newart being unemployed from October 2024 is justified by his state of health, being his conditions of anxiety and depression.
Mr Newart commenced casual employment in late March 2025. That increased his income and was not motivated by any detrimental effect it would have on the child support assessment.
As all of the criteria of paragraph 117(7B)(a) of the Act have not been established, the Tribunal cannot assess Mr Newart on a higher earning capacity.

Mrs Garabette

At page A15 is a copy of Mrs Garabette’s 2023/24 income tax return. The return records $71,677 salary and wage income; $420 from parenting payment (single); $461 interest income; and $886 deductions.
From page A18 are payslips for Mrs Garabette for the pay dates 13 March 2025, 14 April 2025 and 14 May 2025. The payslips record an annual base salary for Mrs Garabette of $72,322.87, which is consistent with the income recorded in the monthly payslips.
At page A1 is a copy of the Statement of Financial Circumstances form, completed by Mrs Garabette on 10 November 2024. In the form, Mrs Garabette listed her income as $1,395 per week and her household expenses as $1,446 per week. Mrs Garabette said her situation has not changed significantly since the form was completed.
Mr Newart said that at page 187 of the hearing papers, there is a letter in which Mrs Garabette states, in June 2024, that her personal savings would be significantly reduced. However, this has not been the case, as evidenced at page A85. On 19 April 2024, she had about $80,000 in her account and, on 14 March 2025, she had about $111,800 in her account.
Mrs Garabette said she receives a salary. She did have $83,000 from the property pool when the parents separated. She saved as hard as she could to put herself into a financial position to keep the parents’ home by buying Mr Newart out. They were ahead in their mortgage repayments by $13,000 or $14,000, so she did not have to make mortgage repayments for 4 or 5 months.
Mrs Garabette said she also received 2 domestic violence payments, totalling about $7,500, which assisted financially.
The Tribunal finds that Mrs Garabette’s income and financial resources are fairly reflected by her 2023/24 adjusted taxable income of $71,672.

The children

There is no suggestion or evidence that the children have any income or financial resources which should affect the rate of child support.

Child care costs

Mrs Garabette told the Tribunal that [Child B] attended [Preschool 1] until April 2025. She then moved to [Preschool 2]. [Child A] also attended [Preschool 1] until January 2025, and he has now started school. He attends outside school hours care.
Mrs Garabette confirmed the out-of-pocket costs. Mrs Garabette said she was paying the full rate of child care after the parents separated until her child care subsidy (CCS) was sorted out in late May or early June 2024. Mrs Garabette accepted that her CCS was reconciled for the 2023/24 year but she could not recall what the outcome was.
Mr Newart said there was also a reimbursement from [Preschool 1] after [Child B] left.
To be considered high, Mrs Garabette’s out-of-pocket child care costs must be at least 5% of the adjusted taxable income being used for her in the assessment over a child support period.
The relevant child support periods in this matter are 23 April 2024 to 31 August 2024 and 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025.
Therefore, to be considered high, Mrs Garabette’s child care costs must be at least $3,583.60 per annum. That equates to $1,286 for the period 23 April 2024 to 31 August 2024 and $4,477 for the period 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025.
Mrs Garabette has provided accounts from [Preschool 1], [Preschool 2] and [Out of School Hours Care].

100.The statements record that, for the period 23 April 2024 to 31 August 2024, Mrs Garabette’s out-of-pockets totalled about $1,180.
101.The statements record that, for the period 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025, Mrs Garabette’s out-of-pocket costs will total about $5,300.
102.The Tribunal finds that Mrs Garabette’s child care costs for the period 23 April 2024 to 31 August 2024 were not high. The Tribunal finds that Mrs Garabette’s child care costs for the period 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025 are likely to be high.

Payments made for the benefit of Mrs Garabette and the children

103.Mr Newart said he has made a number of payments which have benefitted Mrs Garabette and the children, which he has listed at page B3.
104.He said he deposited $5,000 into a joint expenses account (a [Bank 1] account) on 15 April 2024. The funds from the account were used for the children.
105.Mr Newart said, during the parents’ relationship, they had a primary joint account which they used for meeting expenses. They also had 2 subaccounts which they used as savings accounts and for offsetting the mortgage. There were automatic deductions from those subaccounts to the joint expenses account.
106.When he left the home, he withdrew the savings he had in the subaccount, and he left $5,000 in the account to continue contributions to the expenses of the children, when it was transferred to the joint expenses account. The joint expenses account was used for bills, groceries, utilities and other day-to-day expenses. Statements for his subaccount, ending in 2255, are at page B168.
107.Mrs Garabette said the mortgage repayments and other expenses came out of the joint account, ending in 5485. Statements for her subaccount, ending in 2212, are at page 167. She said she also transferred her savings out of her subaccount and left $5,000 to be transferred to the joint expenses account. She submitted the funds in those accounts are part of the parents’ property settlement, rather than child support.
108.Mr Newart told the Tribunal that he did not the touch the joint expenses account, ending in 5485, after the parents separated.
109.Mr Newart submitted that, from mid-April 2024 to early-May 2024, Mrs Garabette spent almost $1,200 on his personal credit card, as reflected in statements at page B162. Mr Newart said the credit card account is in his name. Mrs Garabette had a separate card with access to the account. He highlighted the purchases made on his account after the parents separated on 15 April 2024. He said Mrs Garabette has not repaid those amounts.
110.He said, prior to the parents’ separation, both parents used the joint account.
111.Mrs Garabette said Mr Newart was the primary account holder and she always had a subsidiary card. They both used the card. Post-separation there were automatic transactions which were made and she did make some purchases for the children.
112.She said, on 8 May 2024, Mr Newart took money from one of the [Bank 1] subaccounts, ending in 2212, to effectively repay those amounts to the dollar. Therefore, he was not out-of-pocket.
113.Mr Newart said Mrs Garabette opened [Bank account 4] on 15 April 2024 and transferred all of her money from the [Bank 1] account to [Bank account 4].
114.He said, if there was money in a joint account, where that was transferred to is a property settlement issue as are the mortgage repayments.
115.Mr Newart said he had an envelope containing $2,000 cash, which was missing when some of his possessions were returned to him on 29 April 2024. He submitted that Mrs Garabette had taken the money.
116.Mrs Garabette said she did not take the $2,000.
117.Mr Newart told the Tribunal that he paid 50% of the mortgage repayments on the matrimonial home from mid-May 2024 to mid-July 2024. He said, had he not been making that contribution, Mrs Garabette would have had to make 100% of the repayments herself to stay in the home. He submitted that the payments he made in May, June and July 2024 were voluntary payments and benefited the children. He said he was not obliged to make those payments from a child support perspective.
118.Mr Newart confirmed that both parents are liable for mortgage repayments. Mrs Garabette said the mortgage is a joint liability and, if it was not paid, both parents would be liable.
119.Mr Newart said the mortgage repayments were in advance when the parents separated, and he made the majority of the mortgage repayments during the relationship as he was earning more than Mrs Garabette. Therefore, the mortgage payments in advance, which Mrs Garabette relied on from July 2024 to January 2025, were amounts he had paid in excess of the minimum mortgage repayments. He submitted that he was effectively paying 100% of the mortgage from July 2024 to January 2025.
120.Mrs Garabette said that is a property settlement, and not child support, issue.
121.The Tribunal finds that these matters are appropriately considered in the parents’ property settlement, where the parents’ asset pool will be considered. They do not make the child support assessment unfair.

Further consideration

122.Using adjusted taxable incomes of $159,327 for Mr Newart and $71,672 for Mrs Garabette from 23 April 2024 to 8 May 2024 would result in Mr Newart being assessed to pay child support at a rate of $27,532 per annum.
123.Using adjusted taxable incomes of $0 for Mr Newart and $71,672 for Mrs Garabette from 9 May 2024 to 13 July 2024 would result in Mr Newart being assessed to pay child support at a rate of $3,440 per annum (being the fixed annual rate of child support for each child).
124.Using adjusted taxable incomes of $23,000 for Mr Newart and $71,672 for Mrs Garabette from 14 July 2024 to 20 March 2025 would result in Mr Newart being assessed to pay child support at a rate of $519 per annum (being the minimum annual rate of child support).
125.Using adjusted taxable incomes of $52,000 for Mr Newart and $71,672 for Mrs Garabette from 21 March 2025 would result in Mr Newart being assessed to pay child support at a rate of $5,564 per annum.
126.For the period 23 April 2024 to 30 June 2025, that would reduce Mr Newart’s child support liability by about $360. The ongoing rate of child support would be about $5,564 per annum.
127.The Tribunal will set the adjusted taxable income being used for Mr Newart at $52,000 until 31 December 2025, to provide some certainty for the parents.
128.The Tribunal has found that Mrs Garabette’s out-of-pocket child care costs for the period 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025 are likely to be high, equating to about 6% of her income.
129.If the Tribunal increased Mrs Garabette’s self-support amount by $4,242 (being her annual out-of-pocket child care costs), that would result in a negligible increase to the rate of child support payable. The Tribunal will therefore make no change to the assessment in relation to Mrs Garabette’s child care costs.
130.The Tribunal is satisfied the above outcome is just and equitable.
131.If either parents’ circumstances change significantly during the duration of this decision, they can make a further change of assessment application with Child Support to have the changed circumstances considered.

Is a departure otherwise proper?

132.In considering whether a departure is otherwise proper, the Tribunal must take into account subsection 117(5) of the Act, which provides as follows:
(5) In determining whether it would be otherwise proper to make a particular order under this Division, the court must have regard to:
(a) the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (as stated in section 3) and, in particular, the fact that it is the parents of a child themselves who have the primary duty to maintain the child; and
(b) the effect that the making of the order would have on:
(i) any entitlement of the child, or the carer entitled to child support, to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit; or
(ii) the rate of any income tested pension, allowance or benefit payable to the child or the carer entitled to child support.

133.The child support law recognises that each parent has a primary duty to maintain their children. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is satisfied it is appropriate to depart from the administrative assessment.
134.The Tribunal is satisfied the decision appropriately reflects both parents’ capacities to support their children during the departure period and the decision is otherwise proper.

DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides to vary Mr
Newart’s adjusted taxable income to:

$159,327 for the period 23 April 2024 to 8 May 2024;
$0 for the period 9 May 2024 to 13 July 2024;
$23,000 for the period 14 July 2024 to 20 March 2025; and
$52,000 for the period 21 March 2025 to 31 December 2025.

Date(s) of hearing:

Thursday, 19 June 2025