Maidwell and Routledge (Child support) - [2018] AATA 1235

Maidwell and Routledge (Child support) [2018] AATA 1235 (3 April 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2017/BC011453
APPLICANT:  Mr Maidwell
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mrs Routledge

TRIBUNAL:Member J Thomson
DECISION DATE: 3 April 2018
DECISION:

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

the decision of DM [Mr A] will end on 31 December 2016;
the rate of child support payable by Mr Maidwell for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017 is increased by $3,825 per annum; and

the rate of child support payable by Mr Maidwell for the period 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 is increased by $3,201 per annum.

CATCHWORDS
Child support – Departure from assessment – Costs of education – Manner of education expected by 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 removed 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 Maidwell and Mrs Routledge are the parents of [Child 1], born 2001, and currently in her final year (grade 12) at [School 1], [Town 1], [State 1]. Mrs Routledge has primary care of [Child 1]who resides with her mother in [Town 1].
Mr Maidwell seeks review of an objection decision made by the Department of Human Services – Child Support (the Department) on 31 March 2017. This decision allowed his objection to a decision dated 4 January 2017 which affirmed an earlier decision of the Department’s Decision Maker (DM) [Mr A] dated 3 May 2016. The objections officer set aside the decision dated 4 January 2017, and varied DM [Mr A]’s decision of 3 May 2016 to provide that that decision ended on 31 December 2016, and for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, the rate of child support payable by Mr Maidwell would be increased by $3,201 per annum, and for the period 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018, the rate of child support payable by Mr Maidwell would be increased by $2,590 per annum.
The Tribunal heard the matter on 6 March 2018. Mr Maidwell attended the hearing in person. Mrs Routledge attended the hearing via conference telephone. Both parents gave affirmed evidence. The Tribunal had before it documentation provided by the Department, Mr Maidwell and Miss Routledge, admitted into evidence and marked Exhibits 1, A and B.
Mrs Routledge was directed to provide further evidence in the form of an invoice for [School 1]’s school fees and charges for the 2018 school year. She complied with this direction and the invoice she provided was admitted into evidence and added to Exhibit B. Due to the nature of this document it was not considered necessary to provide a copy to Mr Maidwell for his comment. A copy will…

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 Maidwell and Routledge (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: [2018] AATA 1235
Decision Date: 3 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maidwell and Routledge concerned a dispute over child support, specifically an application for a departure from a child support assessment. The matter came before Judicial Officer Thomson M.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the costs of a particular educational institution for the child constituted a necessary expense that warranted a departure from the standard child support assessment. This required the court to consider the manner of education that both parents expected for the child.

Judicial Officer Thomson M reasoned that for a departure to be justified on the grounds of educational costs, the court must be satisfied that the expense is necessary and that it aligns with the educational expectations of both parents. The court applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* concerning departure from assessments, focusing on the necessity of the expense and the shared parental expectations regarding the child's education.

The decision under review was set aside and substituted with a new order reflecting the court's determination on the departure application.

Orders