Hepton and Roddam (Child support) - [2022] AATA 5014

Hepton and Roddam (Child support) [2022] AATA 5014 (7 December 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/SC024296
APPLICANT:  Mrs Hepton
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Roddam

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member D Benk
DECISION DATE: 07 December 2022
DECISION:

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

For the period 14 January 2022 to 30 June 2022, Mr Roddam’s adjusted taxable income be set at $70,000;
For the period 1 July 2022 to 30 September 2023 Mr Roddam’s adjusted taxable income be set at $62,400 per annum;
For the period 14 January 2022 to 30 June 2022, Mrs Hepton’s adjusted taxable income be set at $31,300;
For the period 1 July 2022 to 30 September 2023 Mrs Hepton’s adjusted taxable income be set at $59,280.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of both parents – a ground for departure established – decision to depart - decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

Mrs Hepton and Mr Roddam are the parents of [the child] age 11. Care is shared. On 14 January 2022, Mrs Hepton asked the Child Support Agency (the Agency) to depart from the administrative assessment of child support maintaining Mr Roddam had greater income, financial resources and/or capacity than the taxable income reflected in the administrative assessment of $25,436 due to his self-employment arrangement.
Following multiple internal reviews, the Agency ultimately determined Mr Roddam derived greater income/benefits/financial resources than that reflected in his adjusted taxable income and determined, in the special circumstances of the case, that departure was appropriate and applied an adjusted taxable income of $58,918 per annum for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 December 2023.
The matter was heard on 7 December 2022 when both parties gave evidence via conference telephone. During the course of the decision making, the tribunal had regard to the oral evidence, the documentary evidence and the law.

ROLE OF THE TRIBUNAL

As there appeared to be some confusion about the role of the tribunal, it is appropriate to reinforce that its role is to conduct a de novo review of the application before it. The tribunal is not a complaints handling body nor regrettably a family mediation service.
It is relevant to state here that both parties’ compliance with Directions fell short of what was required. Mrs Hepton elected to provide information she saw as relevant, thereby selectively excluding pertinent information in the Statement of Financial Circumstances. Mr Roddam completed his Statement of Financial Circumstances with regard to his financial situation at the time of the Agency’s review and not his current situation, (which had markedly changed). It was explained to the parties that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hepton and Roddam (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Hepton and Roddam (Child support) [2022] AATA 5014
Case: [2022] AATA 5014
Decision Date: 7 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by the respondent father for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) to vary the assessed child support payable to the applicant mother. The dispute centred on the father's income, property, and financial resources, and whether these warranted a departure from the standard assessment. The case was heard by SM Benk.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the father had established a ground for departure from the child support assessment. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the father's actual financial circumstances, including his income, property, and financial resources, were significantly different from those assumed by the standard assessment formula, and if such a difference would result in an unjust or inequitable outcome for the father.

SM Benk found that the father had successfully demonstrated a ground for departure. The Court's reasoning focused on the father's limited actual income and earning capacity, which was substantially less than what might be inferred from his assets and previous earning history. The Court applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, considering the father's current financial position and the overall fairness of the assessment in light of his circumstances. The Court concluded that the standard assessment would be unjust and inequitable in this instance.

The Court set aside the original child support assessment and substituted a new assessment reflecting the father's reduced capacity to pay.

Orders