Greabes and Walaszek (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1635
•24 July 2025
Greabes and Walaszek (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1635 (24 July 2025)
Applicant/s: Ms Greabes
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Mr Walaszek
Tribunal Number: 2024/SC028949
Tribunal: General Member M King
Place:Brisbane
Date:24 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides:
·Ms Greabes’ adjusted taxable income is varied to $115,000 for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 and to $130,000 for the period 1 July 2025 to 31 August 2026; and
·The annual rate of child support otherwise payable by Ms Greabes is reduced by $2,500 for the period 23 May 2024 to 31 December 2026.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – costs of maintaining the child – high costs involved in enabling mother to spend time with child – costs incurred for flights and accommodation – fair to reduce the assessment – 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
Ms Greabes and Mr Walaszek are the parents of [Child A], born 2014. Mr Walaszek is recorded as having 70% care of [Child A], and Ms Greabes is recorded as having 30% care of [Child A], from 20 January 2022.
The administrative assessment for the period 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2024 is based on an adjusted taxable income of $112,732 for Ms Greabes (based on her 2022/23 income) and an adjusted taxable income of $65,734 for Mr Walaszek (based on his 2022/23 income). Ms Greabes was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $8,159 per annum.
The administrative assessment for the period 1 September 2024 to 12 May 2025 is based on an adjusted taxable income of $122,767 for Ms Greabes (based on her 2023/24 income) and an adjusted taxable income of $60,922 for Mr Walaszek (based on his 2023/24 income). Ms Greabes was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $9,386 per annum.
The administrative assessment for the period 13 May 2025 to 30 June 2025 is based on an adjusted taxable income of $0 for Ms Greabes (an estimate of income) and an adjusted taxable income of $60,922 for Mr Walaszek (based on his 2023/24 income). Ms Greabes was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $1,720 per annum (being the fixed annual rate of child support).
On 23 May 2024, Ms Greabes applied for a departure from the administrative assessment of child support, under Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).
On 15 August 2024, the Child Support Registrar (Child Support) made a decision to vary the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Greabes to $1,720 for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2026.
Mr Walaszek objected to the decision. On 15 November 2024, a Child Support objections officer partly allowed the objection and reduced the annual rate of child support otherwise payable by Ms Greabes by $1,981 for the period 23 May 2024 to 31 December 2026.
Ms Greabes then applied for review of the decision by the Tribunal. The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 24 June 2025. Ms Greabes attended the hearing by video conference and Mr Walaszek attended the hearing by conference telephone. Both parents gave sworn evidence. The Tribunal deferred making a decision to allow both parents to provide additional evidence.
The Tribunal took into account the relevant documents provided by Child Support to the Tribunal prior to hearing: pages 1 to 341 (the hearing papers), additional evidence provided by Ms Greabes (marked A1 to A98) and additional evidence provided by Mr Walaszek (marked B1 to B50).
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
Costs of enabling a parent to spend time with a child
Paragraph 117(2)(b) of the Act – commonly referred to as Reason 1 – provides as a ground for departure:
(b) that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected:
(i) because of the high costs involved in enabling a parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child; …
Subsection 117(2B) of the Act provides:
(2B) A parent's costs involved in enabling the parent to care for a child can only be high for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(a)(iv) or (2)(b)(i) if the costs that have been or will be incurred, during a child support period, total more than 5% of the amount worked out by:
(a) dividing the parent's adjusted taxable income for the period by 365; and
(b) multiplying the quotient by the number of days in the period.
Subsection 117(2C) of the Act provides:
(2C) If a parent has at least regular care of a child, then the only costs that can be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (2B) are costs related to travel to enable the parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child.
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 legislation 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.
Ms Greabes said the care arrangements for [Child A] are based on a court order. The order provides for Ms Greabes to have care of [Child A] not more than once per fortnight during school terms and for half of school holidays.
She said she usually flies from [City 1] to Brisbane, hires a car at the airport and then drives to the Sunshine Coast to pick [Child A] up on Friday afternoon. She spends the weekend with [Child A] and then flies home on Sunday. Sometimes she will drive to the Sunshine Coast if there are public holidays, or she has a day off work.
At page A68 is a schedule of Ms Greabes’ actual and likely time with [Child A] for 2024 and 2025.
At page 139 of the hearing papers, Ms Greabes summarised the costs she has incurred for flights and accommodation. In 2024, the costs totalled $27,000 (or $19,000 without accommodation costs). Ms Greabes told the Tribunal that the costs include flights, car hire, petrol and taxis to and from the airport. She said the costs average about $2,000 per month.
From page 140 of the hearing pages and page A71, Ms Greabes has provided a copy of flight invoices.
At page 195 of the hearing papers, Ms Greabes has listed the costs for 2025. She said Child Support asked her to do a 12-month rolling estimate of costs.
Mr Walaszek said Ms Greabes moved away from where he and [Child A] were living. He allowed Ms Greabes to see [Child A] when she wanted to. Ms Greabes is choosing to see [Child A] on weekends, as well as during school holidays. He does not think that should reduce the financial support she provides for [Child A], by way of child support.
Subsection 117(2B) of the Act provides that the costs have to be assessed over a child support period. The relevant child support periods in this matter are 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2024 and 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025.
Five per cent of the adjusted taxable income used for Ms Greabes in the assessment for the child support period 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2024 is $5,652. Five per cent of the adjusted taxable income used for Ms Greabes in the assessment for the child support period 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025 is $6,844.65.
As Ms Greabes is recorded as having 30% care of [Child A], it is only costs related to travel to enable Ms Greabes to spend time with [Child A] which can be considered.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Greabes’ costs of travel to spend time with [Child A] average about $1,500 per month. That does not include accommodation costs as they are not a cost of travel but rather a cost of enjoying the time with [Child A].
At page 98 of the hearing papers is a copy of a court order made on 7 November 2023, which sets out the care arrangements for [Child A]. Ms Greabes’ costs of spending time with [Child A] therefore commenced after November 2023.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Greabes’ costs for the child support period 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2024 were about $14,000. The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Greabes’ costs for the child support period 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025 are likely to be about $22,500.
The Tribunal finds that Ms Greabes has high costs involved in enabling her to spend time with [Child A]. That constitutes special circumstances as most parents do not incur such costs.
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.
Ms Greabes
Ms Greabes said she was employed with [Workplace 1] until 2 May 2025, when she was made redundant. She commenced new employment on 16 June 2025. Ms Greabes said her income is $130,000 per annum in her new role.
She told the Tribunal that she has also started a side hustle, [Business 1], but there have been no sales as yet. She is still in the start-up phase.
At page A60 is a copy of Ms Greabes’ 2023/24 income tax return. The return records $124,616 salary and wage income from [Workplace 1]; $188 allowances; $6 interest income; and $2,048 deductions.
From page A65 are copies of payslips for Ms Greabes from [Workplace 1]. The payslips record her year-to-date income was $77,009.63 as at 25 April 2025.
At page A93 is a copy of the termination advice and final payslip for Ms Greabes from [Workplace 1]. The payslip records that Ms Greabes was paid $37,800 on 8 May 2025.
At page A96 is a copy of the offer of employment Ms Greabes received from her current employer. The letter states her annual salary will be $130,000.
At page A97 is a copy of Ms Greabes’ first payslip from her new employer, for the payday 19 June 2025. The payslips also records an annual salary of $130,000.
Ms Greabes lodged a $0 estimate of income with Child Support on 13 May 2025. She told the Tribunal that she had not updated her estimate of income to reflect her current employment, but she intends to do so.
At page A47 is a copy of a Statement of Financial Circumstances form, completed by Ms Greabes on 1 February 2025. Ms Greabes told the Tribunal she pays rent (which is now $760 per fortnight). She agreed her household costs are not out of the ordinary, other than her costs of spending time with [Child A]. She said she is living where she is, rather than on the Sunshine Coast, as it is cheaper. She can save a little bit, but she is not where she would hope to be at her age. She lives a very frugal life. She budgets to allow her to meet the costs for [Child A].
Mr Walaszek said Ms Greabes is doing well and he hopes she can afford to support [Child A] financially.
Mr Walaszek
At page B25 is a copy of Mr Walaszek’s 2023/24 income tax return. The return records $35,180 salary and wage income from [Workplace 2]; $4,182 deductions (including $2,351 for motor vehicles for 100% business use); and a $29,924 reportable fringe benefit amount.
From page B20 are copies of payslips for Mr Walaszek from [Workplace 3]. The payslips record his year-to-date income was $48,176.59 (before $600 per week salary sacrifice) as at 4 May 2025. That equates to income of about $57,000 per annum.
At page B36 is a copy of the 2023/24 financial statements for [Business 2]. The statement records a profit of about $9,000. Mr Walaszek told the Tribunal that he owns and runs the business. He said the business profit was chewed up in tax. There is not $9,000 cash in the business. He currently owes the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) money.
The Tribunal noted that the director’s loan increased during the 2023/24 year. Mr Walaszek said this year he owed the ATO $7,200. He said it is not easy running a business when he has full-time care of [Child A]. He cannot pay himself from the business. He said he does not take any funds from the business. He took a loan from the business once and he reported that.
Mr Walaszek said the business is run from his home. He claims part of the internet expense as a business expense. He also claims $100 per month rent as a business expense. He said he hopes to sell his car to the business this year and then claim business vehicle expenses, but he has not done so yet.
At page B46 is a copy of the Profit and Loss Statement for [Business 2] for the 2024/25 year. The statement records income of $2,662.64 (which was received on 1 and 2 July 2024) and a net profit of $2,708.36. The records indicate that the business has effectively not traded since early July 2024.
At page B1 is a copy of a Statement of Financial Circumstances form, completed by Mr Walaszek on 5 January 2025. Mr Walaszek said he was not sure what payments he receives from Centrelink. He said his rent is now $540 per week. He agreed his household costs are not unusual or out of the ordinary.
Mr Walaszek said he needs to be careful with his expenditure.
Ms Greabes said she wants to make sure that Mr Walaszek is not hiding money in his business.
Mr Walaszek said his goal is to cease his employment to work full time in his business. He does not know how long it will be before he can do that.
Further consideration
The Tribunal is satisfied that the incomes used in the assessment for Mr Walaszek fairly reflect his income and financial resources. They are consistent with the income recorded in his payslips.
There is no evidence that Mr Walaszek receives any income, or any significant benefit, from [Business 2].
The Tribunal notes that, as Mr Walaszek has 70% care of [Child A], any modest changes to the income used for him in the assessment would have little effect on the rate of child support payable.
Ms Greabes’ 2024/25 income is likely to be about $115,000 (being $114,809 from [Workplace 1] and $1,500 from her new employer less some modest deductions).
The Tribunal finds that income should be used in the assessment from 1 July 2024. An income of $130,000 should be used in the assessment from 1 July 2025. The Tribunal will continue that part of the decision until 31 August 2026, when Ms Greabes’ last adjusted taxable income should reflect her current income.
Using those incomes for Ms Greabes, will result in assessments for her to pay annual rates of child support of about $8,365 for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 August 2024; $8,621 for the period 1 September 2024 to 30 June 2025; and $10,033 from 1 July 2025.
Ms Greabes also incurs high costs in relation to travel to spend time with [Child A].
The court orders of 7 November 2023 do not state who should pay the costs of Ms Greabes travelling to spend time with [Child A]. Ms Greabes in fact meets those costs. When [Child A] travels to [City 1] for school holidays, Ms Greabes also pays for that pursuant to the court orders.
Ms Greabes said a lot has changed with her circumstances since she made the change of assessment application. Her new employment provides her with increased income, but she has not received a full pay from that employment yet. She was not sure what reduction to the assessment should be made in relation to her costs of spending time with [Child A].
Mr Walaszek said he did not know what a fair outcome would be. He said the costs of living and supporting [Child A] are extremely high.
The Tribunal has to balance Ms Greabes’ financial capacity to meet those costs against the need for Mr Walaszek to receive financial support for [Child A], who is in his primary care.
The Tribunal notes that Ms Greabes’ income is about double Mr Walaszek’s income.
Ms Greabes’ travel costs are about $18,000 per annum ($1,500 per month). If Ms Greabes’ self-support amount was increased by $25,000 (to allow for the gross income, Ms Greabes would need to earn to pay $18,000 per annum after tax), that would reduce the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Greabes by about $2,500.
On balance, the Tribunal finds it fair to reduce the assessment otherwise payable by Ms Greabes by $2,500.
The Tribunal finds it fair to commence that reduction from 23 May 2024, being the date Ms Greabes lodged her change of assessment application. The Tribunal will continue this part of the decision until 31 December 2026, to provide some certainty for the parents.
That would result in Ms Greabes being assessed to pay annual rates of child support of about $5,659 for the period 23 May 2024 to 30 June 2024; $5,865 for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 August 2024; $6,121 for the period 1 September 2024 to 30 June 2025; and $7,533 from 1 July 2025.
The effect of the decision should be to reduce Ms Greabes’ liability up to 30 June 2025 (and so child support arrears) by about $200. The ongoing rate of child support will be about $7,533 per annum.
The Tribunal is satisfied the above outcome is just and equitable.
Is a departure otherwise proper?
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.
The child support law recognises that each parent has a primary duty to maintain their child. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is satisfied it is appropriate to depart from the administrative assessment.
The Tribunal is satisfied the decision appropriately reflects both parents’ capacities to support [Child A] during the departure period and the decision is otherwise proper.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides:
Ms Greabes’ adjusted taxable income is varied to $115,000 for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 and to $130,000 for the period 1 July 2025 to 31 August 2026; and
The annual rate of child support otherwise payable by Ms Greabes is reduced by $2,500 for the period 23 May 2024 to 31 December 2026.
| Date(s) of hearing: | Tuesday, 24 June 2025 |
0
0
0