Kaetzel and Babe (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Kaetzel for a review of a child support departure determination made by the Child Support Registrar. The dispute arose from an application by Ms Babe seeking a departure from the administrative assessment of child support, arguing that Mr Kaetzel’s income and financial resources made the assessment unfair. The original assessment involved Ms Babe paying Mr Kaetzel child support, calculated using their respective adjusted taxable incomes (ATIs). An initial departure determination varied both parties' ATIs, but a subsequent objection decision set the annual child support rate at $0 for a specified period, which Mr Kaetzel sought to have reviewed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether a ground for departure from the administrative assessment of child support existed, and if so, whether making a departure order would be just and equitable having regard to the circumstances of both parents and the children. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to consider if the application of the administrative assessment would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of financial support due to the income, earning capacity, property, and financial resources of either parent. The Tribunal also had to assess the proper needs of the children, the necessary commitments of each parent to support themselves and any other dependants, the costs incurred by the carer parent, and any hardship that might arise from making or refusing a departure order.

The Tribunal found that a ground for departure was established because Mr Kaetzel's income and financial resources, particularly during the period of his full-time employment from April to July 2019, were greater than initially assessed for child support purposes, making the assessment unfair in the special circumstances of the case. In considering whether a departure would be just and equitable, the Tribunal examined the financial positions of both parents. It noted Mr Kaetzel's fluctuating income, his reliance on savings and Centrelink payments, his ongoing expenses including school fees for the children, and his intention to repay a loan. It also considered Ms Babe's stable full-time employment and her property ownership. The Tribunal ultimately varied the adjusted taxable incomes for both parties for different periods to reflect their financial circumstances more accurately.

In substitution for the decision under review, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Kaetzel's adjusted taxable income be varied to $37,859 for the period from 9 April 2019 to 30 June 2021. Ms Babe's adjusted taxable income was varied to $57,637 for the period from 23 January 2019 to 30 June 2019, and to $72,000 for the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2021.