Jaeckle and Jaeckle (Child support) - [2021] AATA 1976

Jaeckle and Jaeckle (Child support) [2021] AATA 1976 (6 May 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/MC019833
APPLICANT:  Mr Jaeckle
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Jaeckle

TRIBUNAL:Member T Bubutievski
DECISION DATE: 6 May 2021
DECISION:

The decision under review is varied so that:

Mr Jaeckle’s adjusted taxable income is set at $112,128 per annum for the period 1 November 2021 to 31 December 2022;
The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Jaeckle is increased by $3,985 for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021; and
The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Jaeckle is increased by $4,000 for the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022.

The other provisions of the decision of the objections officer will continue to operate.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – whether there was a ground for departure - costs of special needs do not significantly affect the cost of maintaining the child – costs of education - manner expected by both parents – expectations of parents had not changed – cost of maintaining the children are significantly affected – just and equitable to make change – 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

Ms Jaeckle and Mr Jaeckle are the parents of two children, R, aged 16 and H, aged 14 (names redacted for privacy reasons). The case was registered with Services Australia (Child Support) (the Agency) for collection from 30 May 2018. Mr Jaeckle is the parent assessed to pay child support.
For the period 1 July 2019 to 24 November 2019 the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Jaeckle was $8,458 per annum, based on the parents’ 2017/18 adjusted taxable incomes of $56,593 for Mr Jaeckle and $9,096 for Ms Jaeckle. Mr Jaeckle then made an estimate of income of $40,097 on 25 November 2019 which markedly reduced the assessment to $3,992 per annum for 25 to 28 November 2019; and then $4,368 for the period 29 November 2019 to 31 December 2019. The change was due to H turning 13 years of age. From 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2020 the annual rate payable was $4,212 based on Mr Jaeckle’s estimated income of $40,097 and Ms Jaeckle’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $31,589.
After Mr Jaeckle made this estimate, on 10 December 2019, Ms Jaeckle made an application for a change to the child support assessment on the basis that the children have special needs (Reason 2); that they are being privately educated at the expectation of their parents (Reason 3); that Mr Jaeckle’s income and financial resources were not correctly reflected in the assessment (Reason 8A); and that Mr Jaeckle was not…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jaeckle and Jaeckle (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] AATA 1976
Decision Date: 6 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *Jaeckle and Jaeckle* concerned an appeal to the court regarding a child support departure determination. The primary dispute revolved around whether the existing child support assessment should be varied due to changed circumstances, specifically concerning the costs associated with maintaining the children.

The court was required to determine whether the grounds for a departure from the standard child support assessment were met. This involved assessing whether the costs of the children's special needs and education significantly affected the cost of maintaining them, and whether the parents' expectations regarding these costs had changed since the original assessment. The central question was whether it would be just and equitable to make a departure from the assessment.

The court found that the costs of maintaining the children were indeed significantly affected by factors not adequately accounted for in the original assessment. It was determined that the parents' expectations regarding the children's education and special needs had not changed, but the actual costs incurred had. Applying the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, the court concluded that it was just and equitable to depart from the assessment. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside and substituted with a new determination.

Orders