Gettys and Laverty (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 2282
•4 September 2025
Gettys and Laverty (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2282 (4 September 2025)
Applicant:Ms Gettys
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Party: Mr Laverty
Tribunal Number: 2024/PC028990
Tribunal:General Member S Irvine
Place:Hobart
Date:4 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – costs of education in manner expected by parents – special needs – ADHD and ear treatment and surgery – additional tutoring – psychological report supports father’s claim that child does not have learning difficulties or needs special tutoring – cost of medication not significant – health insurance and incidental costs – mother’s decision to enrol child for tutoring before applying for selective high school – sports and other activities – decision under review affirmed
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 Gettys and Mr Laverty are the parents of [the child], who is currently aged 10. A child support case for [the child] commenced on 16 December 2020. The care percentages reflected in the child support assessment for [the child] are 85% to Ms Gettys and 15% to Mr Laverty. Mr Laverty is the parent required to pay child support.
In the child support period commencing 1 February 2024 Mr Laverty was required to pay an annual rate of child support of $6,335, based on an adjusted taxable income of $162,204 for Mr Laverty and an adjusted taxable income of $166,757 for Ms Gettys.
On 28 April 2024 Ms Gettys applied to Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) for a departure from the administrative assessment. In her application Ms Gettys submitted that the costs of maintaining [the child] are significantly affected by [the child]’s special needs, and that the costs of maintaining [the child] are significantly affected by the costs of caring for, educating or training her in a way that both parents intended.
On 29 May 2024 a Child Support decision maker decided that there should be no departure from the administrative assessment as no ground for departure had been established. Ms Gettys objected to that decision, and on 9 August 2024 a Child Support objections officer dismissed her objection, agreeing with the original decision maker that no ground for departure had been established.
On 13 September 2024 Ms Gettys applied to this Tribunal for an independent review of Child Support’s decision. A hearing took place on 12 August 2025. Ms Gettys and Mr Laverty attended the hearing by telephone and gave sworn evidence. At the time of the hearing the Tribunal had before it documents submitted by Child Support numbered 1 to 666, documents submitted by Ms Gettys numbered A1 to A9 and documents submitted by Mr Laverty numbered B1 to B9.
Following the hearing of the matter the Tribunal gave leave to Ms Gettys to file further documentary evidence. Further documents were received from Ms Gettys on 20 and 21 August 2025, and have been numbered A10 to A161. A copy of those documents was exchanged with Mr Laverty.
CONSIDERATION
The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”) provides for an administrative assessment of child support payable. It uses a formula which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of care for the child. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.
Paragraph 98C(1)(b) of the Act relevantly provides that a departure decision may be made in respect of a departure application if:
(i)... one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in [subsection 117(2)] exists; and
(ii)... it would be:
(A)just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent, and the carer entitled to child support; and
(B)otherwise proper;
to make a particular determination under this Part; …
Is there a ground for departure?
Reason 2
Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ia) of the Act, commonly referred to as Reason 2, provides as a ground for departure:
that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected:
…
(ia)because of special needs of the child …
The term ‘special needs’ is not defined in the Act. In the decision of Lightfoot v Hampson [1996] FLC 92-663 the court stated that the special needs of the child:
encompasses a wide range of needs of a child which is seen as “special” in the sense of necessary or at least desirable for the child’s welfare but outside the “normal” needs of a child which would be catered for within the formula. This would include such things as unusual medical expenditure, facilities for handicapped child, etc. if necessary it could include “special needs” in education.
There is evidence before the Tribunal that [the child] has a diagnosis of ADHD, and that she has also required treatment and surgery for an ear condition including most recently in June 2025.
In respect of [the child]’s ADHD, Ms Gettys provided to Child Support and to the Tribunal the following medical evidence:
·a comprehensive psychological report prepared by [Dr A] and dated 30 June 2020;
·a comprehensive psychological report prepared by [Dr A] and dated 1 September 2023; and
·a letter from [Dr B] dated 31 October 2024.
Ms Gettys told the Tribunal that she incurs a number of costs associated with meeting [the child]’s special needs relating to her ADHD, but the main cost is the cost of additional tuition, which Ms Gettys said is necessary to enable [the child] to reach her potential particularly in the area of written expression. Ms Gettys submitted to the Tribunal that [the child] has learning difficulties that require intervention.
In relation to learning difficulties, [Dr A]’s reports both state that a diagnosis of Specific Learning Disorder is not warranted. [Dr A]’s 2020 report says:
[The child]’s academic attainments in Reading, Mathematics, and Written Expression were not found to be significantly and substantively (i.e., <78; ≤6th percentile) below commensurate with those expected given the combination of her chronological age and education/years of schooling.
Therefore a diagnosis of a SLD is not warranted at this time.
Although [the child]’s results did not quite meet the depreciated level required for a diagnoses of a Specific Learning Disorder – With Impairment in Reading, Specific Learning Disorder – With Impairment in Writing, and Specific Learning Disorder – With Impairment in Mathematics her low scores for Early Reading Skills (8th percentile), Maths Problem Solving (21st percentile), Alphabet Writing Fluency (23rd percentile) and Written Language Composite (21st percentile) illustrate that Writing, Reading, and Mathematics are areas of weakness.
A diagnosis of a Specific Learning Disorder – With Impairment in Written Expression, Reading, and Mathematics can be revisited in 6+ months, following the provision of interventions that target the writing, reading, and mathematics difficulties.
[Dr A]’s 2023 report says, in relation to her specific learning disorder:
[The child]’s academic attainments in Reading, Mathematics, and Written Expression were not found to be significantly and substantively below commensurate with those expected given the combination of her intelligence, chronological age, and education/years of schooling.
Therefore, a diagnosis of a specific learning disorder (SLD) is not warranted at this time.
[Dr A]’s 2020 report contains recommendations including that [the child] should continue to undergo individualised, intensive, and targeted evidence-based remediation in reading, writing, and mathematics as part of an in-school program or with an external private tutor/specialist, and specifically states that [the child] would benefit from specialist reading, writing and mathematics tutoring from a local specialist tutor or an organisation listed in the report. The 2023 report states only that [the child] would benefit from continuing her specialist written expression tutoring.
The letter from [Dr B] is a letter to [the child]’s GP. It contains a “problem list” that contains a number of issues including very low early reading skills, low average mathematics problem-solving, average writing fluency, and low average written language comprehension. In that letter [Dr B] says in part:
I have recommended appropriate education support to be organised for her in the classroom setting including tutoring (both in-school and out-of-school) to accommodate above identified learning concerns.
Ms Gettys submitted to the Tribunal a copy of [the child]’s Year 5 NAPLAN results, and her Year 5 – Semester 1 school report. The NAPLAN results show very strong results in numeracy and grammar & punctuation, and results above or close to the national average in reading and spelling. In writing, [the child]’s result is below average, being at the lower end of the range of achievement for the middle 60% of Year 5 students in Australia. The school report appears to show that [the child] was demonstrating the expected skills across all areas of the English curriculum and most other subjects, and that she was demonstrating more advanced skills in some subjects, in particular mathematics and visual arts.
Ms Gettys also provided the Tribunal with a list of costs she has incurred in providing tutoring for [the child] going back to 2021, as well as some evidence of payment of those costs. Ms Gettys’s evidence is that [the child] initially commenced a tutoring program initially with [Organisation 1] in 2021. In 2023 [the child] moved to a program with [Speech Pathology] where she received tuition in English. At the beginning of term 2 in 2025 Ms Gettys moved [the child] to a tutoring program with an organisation called [Organisation 2] (the [Organisation 2] program), where she is receiving tutoring in English and maths. Ms Gettys told the Tribunal that the [Organisation 2] program is designed to assist children with preparation for the Gifted and Talented Exam (GATE), which is required to gain entry into the Gifted and Talented Program in year 7 at a selective high school in Western Australia. Ms Gettys said that both she and Mr Laverty would like [the child] to attend a selective high school.
Mr Laverty said that he does not believe that [the child] has learning difficulties, or that she has a need for special tutoring. He submitted that, while [the child] has her academic strengths and weaknesses like any child, he does not believe she has special needs or any particular need for tutoring.
In respect of [the child]’s need for tutoring or extra tuition support Ms Gettys made the following written submission to the Tribunal:
A formal diagnosis of dyslexia is ultimately irrelevant, she has learning difficulties and ADHD which require intervention. [The child] has now been assessed twice by the educational psychologist, her intelligence quotient and cognitive abilities are in the very high however her educational results are poor. After the first assessment intervention was advised to support [the child’s] education. With almost 3 years of significant intervention, we have managed to bring her from well below the average, now to average in most areas. Per the second report recommendations to both the parents and the school (as well as the report from the Paediatrician) we must continue to provide additional educational support to maintain the ground she gained as well as individual curriculum adjustment plan by her teacher (reference [Dr A] report findings and recommendations page 15 and 16). Mr Laverty states that [the child’s] diagnosis does not impact her abilities, but for the intensive intervention over the past 3 years she would not be where she is today. I also highlight again it is the nature of her condition that she is highly intelligent but will always need additional learning support and work harder than a ‘normal’ child to maintain average or slightly above average results.
Essentially, Ms Gettys put it to the Tribunal that while [the child] does not have any specific diagnosed learning disability, her understanding in particular from her discussions with [Dr A] is that [the child] is of very high intelligence, but is unable to reach her full academic potential without additional assistance. It is clear that Ms Gettys wishes to do everything in her power to support [the child] to reach her full academic potential. However, that does not in itself constitute special circumstances. Taking into account the medical evidence and in particular [Dr A]’s more recent report, I am not satisfied that the costs associated with tutoring for [the child], at least from around the time of Ms Gettys’s most recent departure application in April 2024, relate to [the child]’s special needs.
In respect of her ADHD [the child] has been prescribed medication, Vyvanse. Ms Gettys has provided evidence of costs associated with [the child]’s medication showing a cost of approximately $31.60 per month for [the child]’s medication. The cost of medication is a cost associated with [the child]’s special needs, however I do not consider that a cost of $31.60 per month significantly affects the costs of maintaining [the child].
Ms Gettys also raised other costs she has incurred including:
·Private health insurance, which Ms Gettys submitted is a cost of approximately $3,673 for [the child] (when comparing her actual cost to the cost of insurance for a single adult) in the current year.
·Dental costs including most recently an urgent filling on 24 June 2024 at an out-of-pocket cost of $508, a visit in October 2024 at an out-of-pocket cost of $215 and a visit in August 2025 at an out-of-pocket cost of $66.
·Paediatrician consultations including most recently in October 2024 with an out-of-pocket cost of $50.
·Eardrops purchased most recently in August 2024 and March 2025 at a cost of $26.95 each and in June 2025 at a cost of $40.
·Costs associated with ear surgery including recent out-of-pocket costs totalling $1,244.19 since June 2025, of which Mr Laverty has paid $500 and Ms Gettys has paid the remainder. Ms Gettys has also listed future costs of around $1,000 for post-operative checkups and testing, although no documentary evidence as to those expected costs has been provided.
In respect of costs associated with private health insurance, I note there is some evidence that both parents have included [the child] in their private health insurance policies. The provision of private health insurance for a child is not an unusual expense, and does not constitute special circumstances.
In respect of costs relating to dental care, paediatrician consultations and eardrops, those costs do not significantly affect the cost of maintaining [the child]. While there are more significant costs in respect of [the child]’s recent ear surgery, the evidence is that Mr Laverty has already contributed to those costs in addition to his child support liability, and Ms Gettys’s evidence is that once the costs are paid in respect of [the child]’s most recent surgery the parents will be roughly 50/50 in terms of meeting those costs, or she may have incurred a slightly higher cost. Those circumstances do not constitute special circumstances.
Reason 2 is not established.
Reason 3
Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, commonly referred to as Reason 3, provides as a ground for departure:
that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected:
…
(ii)because the child is being cared for, educated or trained in the manner that was expected by his or her parents; …
[The child] attends the [School], which does attract tuition fees. Ms Gettys and Mr Laverty told the Tribunal that they have a private agreement whereby they each meet 50% of [the child]’s school fees. It was not argued by either parent that there should be any adjustment to the child support assessment on that basis.
I have considered whether the costs of [the child]’s attendance at the [Organisation 2] program are because [the child] is being educated in the manner that was expected by her parents.
Ms Gettys told the Tribunal that both she and Mr Laverty would like [the child] to apply to a selective high school, although they have not agreed on the particular school at this stage. In respect of the [Organisation] program itself, Ms Gettys said she selected the program in order to increase [the child]’s chances of doing well in the GATE, and therefore to increase her chances of being accepted to a selective high school. She said she discussed the program with Mr Laverty because it was outside school hours and therefore required some of [the child]’s extracurricular activities to be moved around in her schedule. She said Mr Laverty agreed to [the child] attending the [Organisation 2] program.
Mr Laverty told the Tribunal that his understanding is that the [Organisation 2] program is for parents who want their kids to do well and increase the chances of getting into particular high schools. He said that Ms Gettys told him about the program and asked if he was willing to take [the child] to the class on days when [the child] was in his care, which he agreed to. There was no other discussion of the program or whether [the child] should attend.
Ms Gettys provided to the Tribunal a copy of an email that she sent to Mr Laverty on 16 April 2025, in which she says:
[The child’s Art teacher] highlighted the need for [the child] to attend academic classes for the written tests as some of her most talented art students were not accepted last year because of the academic requirements. I have found an organisation who deliver academic support but more specifically GATE testing support. They run a session for the 4 areas, Reading Comprehension, Communicating Ideas in Writing, Quantitative Reasoning and Abstract Reasoning on Saturday mornings at [Venue] 0930 – 1200
Are you willing to take her to the educational classes in lieu of art classes on Saturday mornings?
I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that [the child]’s attendance at the [Organisation 2] program is a result of her being educated in the manner expected by the parents. There is no evidence that Mr Laverty had any expectation of [the child] attending a tutoring program to increase her chances of doing well in the GATE, or that he was in any way involved in the decision to enrol [the child] in such a program, other than Ms Gettys seeking his agreement to take her to the program classes on Saturdays when [the child] is in his care.
Ms Gettys also told the Tribunal that [the child] attends a number of extra-curricular activities. In her written submission to the Tribunal Ms Gettys said in part:
With respect to extra-curricular and intra-curricular activities; there is a 50% cost agreement with the school including school music program. Per the parenting plan agreed to be both parties [the child] would continue to attend the below activities. She has participated in these same three activities prior to our separation, Mr Laverty does not contribute to those activities. Mr Laverty has declined to take [the child] to the art classes this term. Mr Laverty has independently enrolled [the child] in gymnastics, from time to time [the child] does attend gymnastic while in my care and I pay for those sessions (noting that extra-curricular are not considered in this application.)
1. Swimming
2. [Martial art]
3. Art Classes ([Specific arts])
Ms Gettys provided the Tribunal with evidence of her costs associated with [the child]’s extra-curricular activities including [Martial art] at a current cost of approximately $60.90 per fortnight, swimming at a cost of $173 per term, art classes at a cost of $275 per term, piano lessons at a cost of $135 per month and some costs associated with gymnastics classes. Ms Gettys has also included costs incurred for equipment for each of those activities from time to time.
I accept that Ms Gettys incurs costs in respect of [the child]’s various extra-curricular classes and activities. There is evidence that Mr Laverty also incurs some costs in respect of extra-curricular activities for [the child], in particular gymnastics. However, such activities are not unusual for a child of [the child]’s age, and those circumstances do not constitute special circumstances.
Reason 3 is not established.
I have considered the other grounds for departure from a child support assessment set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act. There is no evidence before me to suggest that any of those grounds apply.
As none of the grounds set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act have been established, a departure from the administrative assessment of child support is not available. I must therefore affirm Child Support’s decision.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
| Date of hearing: | Tuesday, 12 August 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self-represented |
| Representative for the Other party: | Self-represented |
0
0
0