Maat and Maas (Child support) - [2020] AATA 4923

Maat and Maas (Child support) [2020] AATA 4923 (15 October 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/SC019010
APPLICANT:  Dr Maat
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Maas

TRIBUNAL:Member C Breheny
DECISION DATE: 15 October 2020
DECISION:

The decision under review is set aside and a decision substituted that:

From 16 April 2019 until a terminating event ends the assessment, the rate of child support payable by Dr Maat is set at $40,000 per annum, and
The annual rate is increased by the weighted average Consumer Price Index for the preceding September quarter on 1 January each year, commencing on 1 January 2020.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – costs of education - manner expected by both parents - cost of maintaining the children are significantly affected – financial resources of both parents - 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 Maas and Dr Maat are the separated parents of [the child], born June 2005. A child support case was initially registered with the (then) Department of Human Services (now Services Australia) – Child Support (Child Support) from 12 February 2015 and registered for collection since that date. That registration ended on 11 February 2017, but the case was restarted from 16 April 2019 and since then child support is payable on the basis that Ms Maas has 100% care of [the child]. Dr Maat was at all relevant times liable to pay child support to Ms Maas.
For the period 16 April 2019 to 15 July 2020 Dr Maat’s child support liability had been administratively assessed as being $11,744 per annum based on his 2017/18 adjusted taxable income of $99,695 and Ms Maas’s 2017/18 adjusted taxable income of $123,404, resulting in a child support liability of $17,654 per annum.
On 24 June 2019, Ms Maas applied to Child Support for a change of assessment on the basis that Dr Maat’s income, property, financial resources and earning capacity were not accurately reflected in the assessment and that Dr Maat ought to be contributing to [the child]’s private school fees.
On 4 October 2019, decision maker (DM) Timms decided to change the administrative assessment on the basis of Dr Maat’s and Ms Maas’s income and financial resources and determined that for the period 24 June 2019 to 23 June 2021 Dr Maat’s adjusted taxable income was set at $292,513 and Ms Maas’s adjusted taxable income was set at $190,000.
On 21 October 2019, Ms Maas objected to the decision and on 21 January 2020, a Child Support objections officer decided to partly allow the objection. The objections officer determined that for the period 16 April 2019 to 15 April 2021 Dr Maat’s adjusted…

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 Maat and Maas (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Maat and Maas (Child support) [2020] AATA 4923
Case: [2020] AATA 4923
Decision Date: 15 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia regarding a child support departure determination. The parties, referred to as Maat and Maas, disputed the extent to which the costs of their children's education should be considered in the child support assessment. The decision under review had previously set aside and substituted an earlier determination.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the costs of the children's education were a manner expected by both parents, and whether these costs significantly affected the financial resources of both parents, thereby justifying a departure from the standard child support assessment. The court was required to consider the application of section 117 of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) in determining whether the existing assessment was not adequate.

The Full Court reasoned that for a departure determination to be made under section 117, the court must be satisfied that the costs of education are a manner expected by both parents and that these costs significantly affect the financial resources of both parents. The court reviewed the evidence presented regarding the parents' expectations for their children's education and their respective financial capacities. The court found that the previous decision had erred in its assessment of these factors. Consequently, the Full Court set aside the previous departure determination and substituted its own, reflecting its findings on the relevant legal principles.

Orders