Lopez and Romer (Child support)
[2023] AATA 2934
•29 June 2023
Lopez and Romer (Child support) [2023] AATA 2934 (29 June 2023)
DIVISION: Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER: 2022/SC025294
APPLICANT: Ms Lopez
OTHER PARTIES: Child Support Registrar
Mr Romer
TRIBUNAL:Member D Tucker
DECISION DATE: 29 June 2023
DECISION:
The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:
· for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 the mother’s annual rate of child support is reduced by $2,488,
· for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024 the mother’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $74,720.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – special needs – orthodontic treatment – 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
Mr Romer (the father) and Ms Lopez (the mother) are the parents of [Child 1], born 16 March 2007 and [Child 2], born 13 March 2009. A child support case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) from 3 February 2010.
The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of the child support payable. It uses a formula that applies variables including each parent’s adjusted taxable income (ATI) and percentage of care. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.
On 8 February 2022 the mother applied for a change of assessment, based on Reason 2 (costs of meeting special needs) in relation to [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment; and Reason 8A (the father’s income and financial resources). The mother sought an increase in the father’s liability to $6,000 p.a. for the period 1 March 2022 to 31 March 2023.
[The decision maker] found that Reason 2 and Reason 8 were established[1] because:
· The cost of [Child 2]’s braces would total $9,900 which significantly increased the cost of maintaining her.
· The father’s financial arrangements were too complex to estimate his income precisely, but it was significantly higher than the $25,135 reflected to him. The father’s ATI was deemed to be $54,125, which was two thirds of average male weekly earnings.
· The mother’s ATI in 2021/22 was $78,500, significantly higher than the $68,692 reflected to her in the prevailing assessment.
[1] page 512 of the hearing papers
On 22 June 2022 [the decision maker] decided that:
· For the period 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2023, the annual rate of child support payable by:
othe father, would reduce from $459 to $0 and
othe mother’s liability would remain unchanged at $0.
The rationale was that the mother’s annual rate would otherwise be $3,447 p.a. Reducing her rate to nil for 18 months reduced her child support liability by around $5,000, roughly equivalent to 50% of [Child 2]’s orthodontic fees. This obviated the need for the father to directly contribute a 50% share ($5,000) toward the treatment costs.
On 18 August 2022 the father objected on the basis that:
· the mother did not provide evidence that she had paid for [Child 2]’s treatment and he believed that at least some of these costs was met by a third party, and
· the CSA’s decision was based on an over-estimate his annual income and an underestimate the mother’s income.
The mother contended that the father had not been transparent about his financial situation as evidenced by him sending money overseas and investing in the stock market.
After conducting a full merits review, [the objections officer] found that:
· Reason 2 was established in relation to [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment costs.
· Reason 3 was not established as there was insufficient evidence of mutual expectation regarding [Child 1]’s private schooling.
· Reason 8A was not established in relation to the father.
· Reason 8A was established in relation to the mother, as her ATI had been under assessed for various periods.
[The objections officer] reasoned that the amount that the mother had not paid in child support due to the under assessment of her income was offset by the $9,950 she had paid for [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment between 17 August 2021 and 29 April 2022.
To effectively divide these costs with the father, the objections officer reduced the mother’s rate of child support to nil from 1 July 2022 to 31 October 2022, using the same rationale as [the decision maker] (see paragraph 6 above).
Accordingly, on 1 December 2022 [the objections officer] decided that:
· For the period 1 July 2022 to 31 October 2022, the annual rate of child support payable by each parent would be set at $0; and
· For the period 1 November 2022 to 31 May 2023, the mother’s ATI would be varied to $74,720, making her liable for an annual rate of $6,875.
The mother’s application for independent review
On 19 December 2022 the mother made a timely application for further review by this tribunal. She and the father gave affirmed evidence at a directions hearing on 4 April 2023 and a further hearing on 8 June 2023. The tribunal also considered submissions from the parents and relevant documents provided by the CSA.
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are outlined in section 98C of the Act, which states that a decision to depart from the administrative assessment may be made if the following three requirements are met:
(i)that one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 117(2) exists; and
(ii)that 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 …
Therefore, the issues which arise in this case are:
· Does a ground exist for departing from the administrative assessment? And if so,
· Would it be just, equitable and otherwise proper to do so?
CONSIDERATION
Does a ground exist for departing from the administrative assessment?
Reason 2 – special needs
During the objections process the mother provided letters from [Child 2]’s orthodontist regarding the need and estimated fees for her orthodontic treatment. The mother also provided copies of accounts to demonstrate that she had been meeting these costs.
The mother told the tribunal that [Child 2] needed orthodontic treatment from as early as 2013 for nasal congestion, restless sleep and nocturnal bruxing caused by problems with her palette and crowded teeth.
The father did not dispute this but questioned the necessity of [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment, saying that he knows of other children with similar problem who do not receive such treatment because of its cost. He observed that when he was a child, he also had braces but found part-time work to pay for them. He argued that as [Child 2] has part-time work and can afford to buy expensive items for herself, such as the latest iPhone, she could contribute to the costs of her treatment.
The father claimed he simply could not afford to pay 50% of these treatment costs and argued that the benefits of this treatment had to be weighed against its cost and the likelihood that, if he is forced to pay for it, he will become reliant on social security benefits.
The father also contended that the mother had chosen a relatively expensive orthodontist and that he could have found cheaper options.
The mother stated that she obtained quotes from two orthodontists and both were in the $8,000 to $10,000 range. She opined that [Child 2]’s treatment costs would always be in the high range because her teeth were exceptionally crowded and problems with her teeth and pallet had been evident since she was five years old. She had undergone two operations when younger to assist with her breathing and experienced problems such gums growing over her teeth. She was also teased relentlessly at school regarding the appearance of her teeth. The tribunal notes that the father did not dispute these claims.
The mother argued that while it was appropriate for [Child 2] to use her casual earnings to buy herself luxury items, such as mobile phones, her parents are responsible for meeting the costs of her orthodontic treatment. The tribunal agrees (subsection 117(5) of the Act).
Based on the available evidence the tribunal is satisfied that [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment was a special need, and that the cost of it was $9,950, an amount that significantly added to the cost of maintaining her. Based on these findings, the tribunal is satisfied that Reason 2 is established as a ground for departing from the administrative assessment. The tribunal notes that this finding is separate to the question of whether either or both parents can afford the costs of this treatment.
Would a departure from the administrative assessment be just and equitable?
Once a reason for departing from an administrative assessment has been established, the Registrar, or the tribunal, must consider the amount and duration of any proposed change and the factors listed in section 117(4) of the Act which are relevant to a particular case. These include:
· the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child, and the proper needs of the child
· the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child and of each parent
· the commitments of each parent to support himself or herself, and any other child or person that they have a duty to maintain
· the direct and indirect costs incurred by the carer entitled to child support in providing care for the child
· any hardship that would be caused to the child, the parents or carers, or any other child or person that the liable parent has a duty to support, by the making of, or the refusal to make, a determination, and
· any other relevant matters.
Costs of [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment
During the objections process the mother provided two statements from [City orthodontic centre]. One dated 3 August 2021 indicated the cost of the full course of treatment would be $9,900. Another dated 28 January 2022 that showed $4,098 had been paid via six instalments.
During the objections process the mother stated that she had paid the balance of the treatment costs, which totalled $9,950. She provided a statement from [City orthodontic Centre], dated 23 September 2022, which showed five monthly instalments of $266 had been paid from 3 December 2021, and then a lump sum of $5,054 paid on 29 April 2022 as the final instalment. The mother told the objections officer she paid this final lump sum from her savings account[2].
[2] page 45 of the hearing papers.
The father asserted that [Child 2]’s maternal grandmother, or another third party, had paid for a substantial proportion of [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment. The tribunal asked the mother to provide a copy of her bank statement which showed the final payment of $5,054 for the orthodontic fees. She agreed to do so but failed to comply. She subsequently told the tribunal there was no such bank statement because she had paid the final instalment of $5,054 in cash.
The mother explained that in 2020 she received a redundancy payment of $17,292[3]. She withdrew $10,000 of this money from her bank account and stored it as cash at her home because she found it convenient for paying bills. She used the last of this money to settle the orthodontist’s account with a lump sum of $5,054 in cash.
[3] As corroborated by a notice from her former employer at page A26 of the hearing papers.
The tribunal asked the mother why, if she had this cash readily available, she had elected to pay the orthodontic fees in instalments of $266 each month. The mother explained that she decided to pay off the outstanding account in a single lump sum so she would have “one less thing to worry about”. The tribunal finds this explanation implausible, noting that (i) the mother previously told the objections officer that she had paid the balance of the orthodontic fees from her savings account, and (ii) that she did not raise any objection to producing the corresponding bank statement when asked at the tribunal’s directions hearing. The tribunal also finds it inherently unlikely that the mother paid $5,054 off the balance of the orthodontists account in cash which she kept in her home for no particular purpose. Tribunal finds that the most likely explanation is that the payment of $5,054 was contributed by third-party as suggested by the father.
The Tribunal notes that the objection decision of 1 December 2022 relied upon a finding that the mother had personally paid the total cost of [Child 2]’s treatment, which was $9,950. In the tribunal’s view, it would be unfair to ask the father to contribute $5,000 towards [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment, as this would mean the mother would not personally contribute anything. Given all the circumstances, the tribunal finds it appropriate that the father contribute 25% of the total cost of [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment, which is $2,488. This will be achieved by reducing the mother’s annual rate of payment accordingly.
Children’s education
In 2021 and 2022 [Child 1] lived with the father who enrolled him in [School 1] Catholic school at [City] halfway through year nine. The fees for the school were approximately $4,000 per year. The father claimed they should be considered in the assessment because [Child 1] was being educated in the manner expected by both parents.
The term “manner expected” is not defined in the legislation. In Mee v Ferguson [1986] FamCA 3, the Full Court of the Family Court considering a similar provision in the Family Law Act 1975 said (at [37]):
It refers to the manner in which the child "is being", and which the parties to the marriage "expected" the child to be educated. That provision appears to have direct relevance to the issue of private school education, particularly its reference to the manner in which the parties "expected" the child to be educated. The word "expected" in the past tense presumably relates to some expectation of the parties at a point in time earlier than the hearing.
In Farthing & Robinson & Anor [2016] FCCA 2851, the court held that the manner of education expected by the parents, the type or style of education is relevant and that requires a nuanced approach based on the particular facts of the case.
One of the factors for the Tribunal to consider is the circumstances at the time of separation. If the child was attending a particular school, or was participating in a particular extracurricular activity, then it may be evidence of the manner expected by the child's parents. The parents' expectations, however, can be created at any time, not just during the period that the parents lived together. The "simplistic argument" that it is not open to a parent to change his or her expectations with respect to the child's education due to financial reasons was rejected in Dobbins & Devlin (SSAT Appeal) [2014] FCCA 1274 (Dobbins & Devlin). In that case, Riethmuller J observed at [43]:
Throughout life people change their expectations both with respect to their own lives and their children as a result of the resources available to them...in this case the expectations of the parents had certainly changed at the time they enrolled the child in a government school due to their circumstances at the time. Whether these changes should be viewed as a temporary change, with the continuing underlying expectations, or a general change in expectations, is a matter of fact for the Tribunal.
Other evidence that may be given includes enrolment forms or evidence of the payment of costs. Evidence of the payment of school fees is not, however, conclusive evidence that a parent expected the child to be educated in a particular manner (Dobbins & Devlin at [37]).
In Oliver v Oliver [2021] FCCA 965, the father signed the enrolment form but did not make a commitment to pay school fees. The Court agreed with the Tribunal’s approach that the father’s agreement to pay school fees was not a requirement for the ground of departure but instead that there are special circumstances in the case, the children are being educated in the manner expected by the parties and the costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected as a consequence of that.
In the current matter, the father submitted that before the children reached school age, he and the mother agreed that if finances permitted, they would be educated at a private school. However, by the time the children started school, the parents were already divorced. As neither parent had full-time employment, they could not afford private schooling and consequently the children started school in the public system.
The father took the tribunal to a written statement made by the mother in 2021 in which she says: “When Mr Romer and I separated back in 2010, the option for me sending either of the children to a private school was null and void.” The father argued that this statement implied that there had previously been an agreement.
The father submitted, and the mother did not dispute, that [Child 1] had behavioural and academic problems in primary school, and on the recommendation of his teachers the mother took him to a paediatrician and a psychologist to investigate possible disorders including ADHD.
The mother told the tribunal that [Child 1] was tested by a psychologist who suggested consultation with a paediatrician to assess whether medication was indicated. The paediatrician declined to provide a diagnosis or medication.
After [Child 1] was involved in further incidents at school at the end of year four in 2016, the parents agreed to enrol both children at [School 2, Town] Christian school in 2017 – [Child 1] in year five and [Child 2] in year three. The father provided enrolment forms signed by himself and the mother, dated 20 January 2017.
However, the children were returned to the public school after one term. The father opined that the mother took this action because she was unwilling to pay their school fees. The mother disputed this attribution, stating she returned the children to the public school because they hated the private school to the point of refusing to attend, which they had never done at the public school.
The mother also stated that she agreed to enrol the children at the Christian school only because [Child 1] was having problems at the public school and the Christian school was the only other school in town. The mother’s position is that the Christian school was a failed experiment for [Child 1], as his behaviour and engagement did not improve. The father disputed this, stating that the children did well at their new school.
The father told the tribunal that [School 1]’s had “turned [Child 1] around”. He made friends and committed to staying at school until the end of year 12, whereas before that he had been disengaged from school. The father argued that even if mutual intent or expectation could not be found, the school fees should be included in the assessment on the basis that [Child 1]’s enrolment was necessary due to his special needs.
The mother contested this, stating that [Child 1]’s engagement at [School 1] was much the same as his previous schools. She opined that [Child 1] told her and the father different stories about his school experience, and that he had told her he hates all schools and would prefer to leave and get an apprenticeship.
At the end of 2022, after [Child 1] completed year 10 at [School 1], the father enrolled him at [School 3, City] senior campus (a public school) because he could not afford to pay for the fees at [School 1] on his own. Regarding [Child 1]’s current school, the father submitted:
He is enrolled at [School 3] Senior College (public school) that only has year 11 and 12 and takes a different approach to schooling. It is a well regarded school and I am hopeful [Child 1] will do well. It is too early to say how he is going but he is willing to go to school every day.
After carefully weighing the evidence outlined above, the tribunal is not satisfied that there was a mutual intent or expectation to the degree that would warrant the inclusion of the school fees paid by the father in 2021 and 2022 in the assessment. Although the children were previously (and briefly) enrolled in an independent Christian school is not sufficient evidence of mutual expectation. For years prior to this enrolment the children were educated in the public system. The Christian school was resorted to only after a crisis at the public school. While the tribunal accepts that [Child 1] has a history of poor engagement at school, and that he improved at [School 1], this is not enough to conclude he had special needs that necessitated his enrolment at [School 1].
The father’s income, earning capacity, property and financial resources.
The mother contended that the father’s income was not fairly reflected in the assessment. She asserted that his declared income was inconsistent with the fact that he had imported vehicles from [Country], which would have required him to have access to a large amount of capital. She took the objection officer to a [Social media] post by the father offering one of these vehicles for sale for $55,000.
The tribunal is obliged to look beyond a person’s taxable income when estimating their financial resources. Although not defined in the Act, the term “financial resource” has received judicial consideration. In Costa & Fairbank (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 39, the Court said:
“Financial resource” refers to something which is not property but from which financial benefit is or may be gained. In light of the objects of the Act, the term should be broadly defined and would refer to any financial benefit that would enhance the capacity of parents to provide a proper level of financial support for their children.
The father denied having undeclared assets or income, explaining that he was medically retired from [Employer] in 2010. He received a total permanent disability payment and early access to his superannuation. He used this capital to invest in rental properties, which he renovated and let to produce an income for himself of around $25,000 per year on average. He adopted this financial strategy because he had lengthy experience in renovating properties for investment. In response to the Tribunal’s directions the father provided a list of all properties he has owned since 2020, detailing the purchase price, estimated value, condition and rental yield.
In 2012 he purchased a property at [Address 1, Town] for $160,000. His mother assisted him with a loan of $50,000 to spend on renovations. In April 2021 this property was sold for $250,000. After the mortgage was discharged, he was left with $194,252.
He did not repay his mother her $50,000, at her suggestion, but instead used most of the sale proceeds to buy [cars] from [Country] as a profit-making venture. In late March 2022 he sold one of the imported cars for $55,000. After costs he received $45,150, which represented a profit of $9,000.The [other] cars require more work (which he will do) before they are ready for sale. One of them was damaged in transit. The father hopes they will be sold within six months.
The father does not plan to import more vehicles, as he needs the capital to complete the renovation of his investment properties, which are houses at [Address 2] and [Address 3, Town]. Both cannot be rented until they have had further repairs and renovation, which he hopes to complete within nine months. He and his wife have worked together on this and he relies on her assistance due to his physical limitations. He and his wife are joint owners of [Address 3] and she has a 50% interest in [Address 2], although the title is in his name. He estimated the value of these properties at $75,000 each in their current condition.
The father also owns a property at [Address 4] (the former marital home) which is encumbered by a mortgage of $330,000. He estimated that its market value was between $450,000 – $500,000. It is tenanted for $450 per week, equivalent to a net income of approximately $23,723, after deducting for mortgage payments and other outgoings.
His residence is at [Address 5]. He estimates its value at $200,000 and it has a mortgage of $110,000. There is a single mortgage for [Address 5] and [Address 4], so that they cannot be sold separately without refinancing, which he is unable to do with his current income.
The father denied having any shares or other investments. He stated that his wife generated income from cleaning, cooking and the sale of Thai vegetable seeds. He recently had to withdraw $12,500 from his mortgage to repair his van. He survives financially only because he has interest-only loans on his investment properties, which he cannot afford to insure. He also relies upon his wife’s income to meet their costs of living.
The father provided bank statements to verify that his spending on self-support and discretionary expenses was consistent with his declared income. He also provided a statement of financial circumstances. The father pointed out that his bank account includes spending by his wife, and money he spent on his mother when she fell and broke her leg. He purchased adaptive equipment and groceries for her, for which she reimbursed him. In response to directions the father provided his income tax returns for 2020/21 and 2021/22. With declared total incomes of $25,393 and $23,656 respectively.
The tribunal put it to the mother that the father had provided all the financial records required of him, both during the objections process and the tribunal’s review, which support his claims about his income and assets. The mother told the tribunal that she now accepts that this is the case.
Based on the available evidence, the tribunal is satisfied that at all relevant times the father’s income was not significantly greater than the ATI of $25,135 used in the prevailing assessment. In the absence of any contention or evidence the tribunal finds that the father does not have any unexercised earning capacity.
The mother’s income, earning capacity, property and financial resources.
The objections officer obtained information from the Australian taxation offices database regarding the mother’s 2020/21 and 2021/22 income tax returns, and her year-to-date income from her two employers for 2022/23.
Based on this data, the objections officer made findings about the mother’s income which are summarised in the following table:
start
finish
assessed income
actual income
Rate increase p.a.
1 Mar 2021
30 Jun 2021
$53,696
$68,692
reconciled
1 Jul 2021
31 Jul 2021
$66,264
$74,720
-
1 Aug 2021
20 Sep 2021
$68,692
$74,720
+ $919
21 Sep 2021
12 Mar 2022
$68,692
$74,720
+ $3,216
13 Mar 2021
31 Jul 2022
$68,692
$74,720
+ $3,526
1 Aug 2022
21 May 2023
$68,692
$74,720
+ $844
The mother does not dispute these findings and the tribunal finds they are correct.
In the absence of any contrary contention or evidence the tribunal finds that the mother does not have any unexercised earning capacity.
The objections officer found that the under assessment of the mother’s income during the periods 1 August 2021 to 20 September 2021, and 1 August 2022 to 21 May 2023 made differences to her annual rate of child support of $919 and $844 respectively. The objections officer found these differences were not significant enough to render the assessment unfair during those periods.
However, the objections officer found that the difference in the mother’s annual rate of child support liability during the period 21 September 2021 to 31 July 2022 ($3216 - $3,526) was significant enough to render the assessment unfair, as the mother would be liable to pay an additional $2,884 during this period.
The tribunal asked the mother if it would be fairer to simply vary the assessment to reflect her actual income from 1 July 2021. The mother argued this would not be fair, as she has always notified Child Support promptly of any change in her income. Varying the assessment to reflect her income would effectively punish her for Child Support’s errors.
The tribunal is not persuaded by this argument. Correctly assessing the income of parents with shared care is not a matter of reward or punishment, but of fairly dividing the costs of care. In the tribunal’s view, the fairest outcome is to base the assessment on the mother’s actual income from 1 July 2021.
Other matters
The tribunal accepts that the parents have a duty to maintain their children. The tribunal is satisfied that the children’s proper needs are being met.
The tribunal finds that whatever income, earnings, property or financial resources the children have do not meet the threshold required to affect the child support assessment.
The tribunal, while considering that the father has an infant child with his current partner, is satisfied that no hardship would be caused to the children or the parents, or any other child or person that the liable parent has a duty to support, by the making of, or the refusal to make, a determination.
After carefully considering all the relevant circumstances of the case, the tribunal is satisfied that this is a just and equitable sharing of the financial cost of meeting the children’s needs.
The tribunal’s findings and application of the law
Based on the evidence and findings outlined above, the tribunal finds that:
· [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment is a special need and that the cost of this treatment adds significantly to the cost of maintaining her. It therefore constitutes a special circumstance that warrants a departure from the administrative assessment.
· The mother has contributed $4,896 toward the cost of [Child 2]’s orthodontic treatment and it is appropriate for the father to contribute half of this amount, which is $2,488, via a reduction in the mother’s annual rate.
· the father’s assets are broadly as he has stated, and his income is not significantly greater the ATI of $25,135 reflected to him.
· the mother’s ATI is $74,720, and has been since 1 July 2021, and should be applied to the assessment from that date.
· There was no mutual expectation that the children would be privately educated and therefore the mother is not liable to contribute to the cost of [Child 1]’s private schooling.
The father estimates that his income will increase in around nine months (March 2024) when his investment properties can be let. Accordingly, the tribunal will depart from the administrative assessment until 30 June 2024. By that date, the parents’ ATI for the current financial year should be known. If there is a significant change to their income, financial resources or earning capacity in the meantime, the parents can apply again for a change of assessment.
Is it otherwise proper to make a change to the administrative assessment?
Subsection 117(5) of the Act requires the tribunal to take into consideration the following matters:
(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 requirement to consider whether a departure would be otherwise proper directs attention to what is fair to the community. It is necessary to consider the effect of any departure from the administrative assessment on entitlements to income-tested pensions, allowances and benefits. Parents, rather than the community, have the primary duty to maintain a child. It appears that the mother has received family tax benefit in respect of [Child 2]. If that is the case, changing the child support payable by the father will result in a more appropriate apportionment of financial responsibility between the parents and the community. The proposed decision will be otherwise proper.
DECISION
The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:
· for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 the mother’s annual rate of child support is reduced by $2,488,
· for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024 the mother’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $74,720.
0
4
0