Maraccini and Maraccini (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 506

Maraccini and Maraccini (Child support) [2025] ARTA 506 (19 March 2025)

Applicant/s: Ms Maraccini
Mr Maraccini

Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Mr Maraccini
Ms Maraccini

Tribunal Number: 2024/MC028246
2024/MC028300

Tribunal:General Member S Irvine
Place:Hobart
Date:19 March 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that:
§For the period 27 November 2023 to 31 January 2024, Mr Maraccini’s income is set at $239,142.
§For the period 1 February 2024 to 30 June 2024 the annual rate of child support payable by both parents is set at nil.
§For the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2025, Mr Maraccini’s adjusted taxable income is set at $133,000.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure from the administrative assessment – income, property and financial resources – adjusted taxable income – father’s employment ceased involuntarily with termination payment paid, and now has own company – director’s loan for start-up costs now substantially repaid, and modest income and profit to date – future performance cannot be accurately predicted and likely amounts calculated – change to pattern of work – work responsibilities and conditions, physical and mental health, and caring responsibilities – change not for major purpose of affecting administrative assessment – binding child support agreement – high expenses and potential hardship – decisions 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 pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Ms Maraccini and Mr Maraccini are the parents of [Child 1] (born 2008), [Child 2] (born 2010), and [Child 3] (born 2011). A child support assessment commenced on 17 September 2021. The children are in the shared care of the parents, with each parent having 50% care of each child.
For a period commencing 1 December 2023, Ms Maraccini was assessed, under the terms of the relevant legislation, to pay an annual rate of child support of $9,330 to Mr Maraccini. The assessment was based on an adjusted taxable income for Ms Maraccini of $100,310, being Ms Maraccini’s adjusted taxable income from the 2022/23 financial year, and an estimated income for Mr Maraccini of $35,975, being an annualised amount based on Mr Maraccini’s estimated income for the period 27 November 2023 to 30 June 2024.
Ms Maraccini and Mr Maraccini have also entered into a binding child support agreement which requires that in addition to paying periodic child support in accordance with the child support assessment:
·     Ms Maraccini and Mr Maraccini contribute equally to all of the children’s education expenses including tuition fees, books, uniforms, levies, camps and school-related excursions and events;
·     Ms Maraccini and Mr Maraccini share equally the cost of the children’s agreed sporting activities;
·     Ms Maraccini and Mr Maraccini share equally the cost of gap payments with respect to necessary medical, dental and orthodontic expenses of the children; and
·     Mr Maraccini meets the cost of private health insurance for the children.
On 20 March 2024 Ms Maraccini applied to Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) for a departure from the administrative assessment, raising grounds relating to Mr Maraccini’s income and earning capacity. On 11 April 2024 a Child Support decision maker made a determination to depart from the administrative assessment of child support and set the annual rate of child support payable by both parents at nil for the period 1 December 2023 to 31 December 2024.
On 16 May 2024 Mr Maraccini objected to Child Support’s decision. On 27 June 2024 a Child Support objections officer partly allowed Mr Maraccini’s objection. The objections officer set aside the decision made on 11 April 2024, and replaced it with a new decision in the following terms:
· for the period 27 November 2023 to 31 January 2024 Mr Maraccini’s income is set at $239,142.
· For the period 1 February 2024 to 31 December 2024, the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Maraccini is set at $5,000.
On 12 July 2024 Ms Maraccini applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) for an independent review of Child Support’s decision. On 24 July 2024 Mr Maraccini also applied to the AAT for an independent review of Child Support’s decision.
A hearing took place on 11 March 2025. Both Ms Maraccini and Mr Maraccini attended the hearing by telephone and gave sworn evidence. I had before me documents submitted by Child Support numbered 1 to 561, documents submitted prior to the hearing by Ms Maraccini numbered A1 to A18, and documents submitted prior to the hearing by Mr Maraccini numbered B1 to B155.
From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.

ISSUES

The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment determined under Part 5 of the Act. This requires the application of a statutory formula which takes into account factors such as the number and age of the children, the income of each parent and the level of care provided by each parent.
In relation to the income used for each parent, the formula set out in the Act requires that each parent’s adjusted taxable income be determined. Section 43 of the Act provides a definition of adjusted taxable income which states that it is the total of the parent’s taxable income for the last relevant year of income in relation to the child support period, plus other components set out in section 43. The last relevant year of income is defined in section 5 of the Act as the last year of income that ended before the start of the relevant child support period. Division 7 of Part 4 of the Act provides that if a parent’s current income is substantially less than the adjusted taxable income that would otherwise be used in the formula, the parent can elect to replace the existing adjusted taxable income with an estimate of their current income.
The formula uses the Costs of the Children Table, set out in Schedule 1 to the Act, to calculate the costs that are to be shared between the parents. The costs are calculated based on the parents’ combined child support incomes, with adjustments made according to the number and age of the children. In general, the costs calculated in accordance with the Costs of the Children Table are intended to cover the usual costs of raising children, and the formula determines how those costs are to be shared between the parents according to the income of each parent.
However, it is recognised in the legislation that in some special circumstances an adjustment to the formula may need to be made. Under section 98B of the Act, if special circumstances exist, a liable parent or a carer entitled to child support may apply to the Registrar in writing, requesting a determination to depart from the provisions of the Act in respect of the administrative assessment.
Section 98C of the Act provides that before making a departure determination the Registrar must be satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case one or more of the grounds set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act exist, and also that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination. There are a number of grounds set out in subsection 117(2), including grounds relating to the income, property and financial resources of each parent, and earning capacity of each parent.
Section 98S of the Act sets out the determinations that can be made. Relevantly, they include a determination varying the annual rate of child support payable by a parent, or adjusting the adjusted taxable income used for a parent in the formula. Subsection 98S(3B) provides, in effect, that a determination can only be made for a day that is more than 18 months earlier than the day on which the application for a departure determination was made if a court has granted leave for such a determination to be made.
The issues which arise in this case are:
· Whether one or more of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 117(2) of the Act exists; and if so
· Whether it is just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent and the carer entitled to child support, and otherwise proper, to make a particular determination to depart from the administrative assessment.

CONSIDERATION

Is there a ground to depart from the administrative assessment?

As set out above, the threshold question to depart from an administrative assessment of child support is that one or more of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 117(2) of the Act is established.
Subparagraphs 117(2)(c)(ia) and 117(2)(c)(ib) of the Act provide that a ground for departure exists if:
…in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to the child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child:
…
(ia) because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent; or

(ib) because of the earning capacity of the parent …

The words “in the special circumstances of the case” are not defined in the legislation. In Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92–279, it was held that “special circumstances” were “facts peculiar to the particular case which set it apart from other cases”.
The main issue raised in this application concerns the adjusted taxable income used for both parents.
At the time of Ms Maraccini’s original application to depart from the assessment, Mr Maraccini was assessed on his estimated income of $35,975. If not for the lodgement of an election to the assessment of estimated income, Mr Maraccini would have been assessed based on his 2022/23 adjusted taxable income of $239,142.
It is not disputed that Mr Maraccini was employed by the [Employer] earning an income equivalent to approximately $239,142 per year until October 2023. It is also not disputed that in October 2023 Mr Maraccini received a lump sum payment from the [Employer] in the amount of $68,692 upon the cessation of his employment with the [Employer]. According to Mr Maraccini’s 2023/24 income tax return, he received the following income during the 2023/24 financial year:
·salary payments of $68,139 from the [Employer];
·employment termination payments of $68,692 from the [Employer];
·total interest payments of $36,593; and
·dividend payments totalling $606.
After deductions, Mr Maraccini had a taxable income in the 2023/24 financial year of $168,382.
Mr Maraccini submitted to me that he should be assessed on his previous income from the [Employer] of approximately $239,142 per year only until the day his employment was terminated on 12 October 2023. While Mr Maraccini does not dispute that he received a lump sum payment of $68,692 at the cessation of his employment, he submitted that it was a factual error to continue to assess him on the basis of his income from his previous employment until the end of January 2024, because he was no longer employed after 12 or 13 October 2023.
Mr Maraccini established a company, [Company name] Pty Ltd (the company) in October 2023. Mr Maraccini is the sole director and shareholder of the company. Mr Maraccini submitted to the Tribunal a copy of the company’s 2024 income tax return and financial statements prepared by his accountants. The profit and loss statement for the company for the year ended 30 June 2024 shows a net profit of $977. According to the profit and loss statement the company generated $17,350 income, including $10,362 in sales income and $6,988 in employee reimbursements relating to a motor vehicle. The company incurred total expenses of $16,374, including $9,523 in depreciation costs. At the hearing Mr Maraccini explained that the employee reimbursement related to the fringe benefit accruing to Mr Maraccini from his private use of a motor vehicle owned by the company. Mr Maraccini said that the amount of $6,988 was deducted from the amount owing to him through his director’s loan.
Mr Maraccini’s evidence is that the company was unable to pay him a salary until approximately December 2024. Mr Maraccini said that he made an interest-free loan to the company upon establishment to meet various start-up costs including a motor vehicle, laptop and software. The balance of the loan has fluctuated since October 2023, but at the date of the hearing had been substantially repaid. I note that bank statements provided by Mr Maraccini show a payment to him of $4,000 on 22 June 2024, and a payment of $50,000 on 11 November 2024, which Mr Maraccini confirmed were repayments toward the loan. Mr Maraccini submitted that those payments are repayment of his capital investment, and should not be considered income.
The bank statements also show payment to Mr Maraccini of $13,179 on 13 December 2024, which Mr Maraccini confirmed is a salary payment to him from the company. Mr Maraccini said he is hopeful that the company will be in a position to continue to pay him a salary throughout the remainder of the current financial year, but he has not yet received any further salary payment from the company. Mr Maraccini’s submission is that he currently expects that his total income from the company in the current financial year will be approximately $80,000, although that will be dependent on the company’s performance through the remainder of the financial year.
Absent any departure from the administrative assessment, the adjusted taxable incomes used for Mr Maraccini in the assessment would be:
·for the period from 1 July 2023 to 26 November 2023, Mr Maraccini’s 2021–2022 taxable income of $188,576;
·for the period from 27 November 2023 to 30 June 2024, Mr Maraccini’s estimated income of $35,975;
·for the period from 1 July 2024 to 28 February 2025, Mr Maraccini’s 2022–2023 taxable income of $239,142; and
·for the period commencing on 1 March 2025, Mr Maraccini’s 2023–2024 taxable income of $168,382.
I accept that Mr Maraccini’s employment with the [Employer] ended on approximately 12 October 2023, and that he has not worked for that employer again since that time. I also accept that since receiving the lump sum termination payment in October 2023, Mr Maraccini did not receive any further income from the [Employer]. However, the use of Mr Maraccini’s estimated income of $35,975 from 27 November 2023 means that the lump sum termination payment that he received in October 2023 is unaccounted for in the child support assessment. I am satisfied that that lump sum termination payment was income available to Mr Maraccini, and the effect of the lump sum termination payment was that Mr Maraccini received in advance payment equivalent to approximately 3-and-a-half months of salary. I am satisfied that it is reasonable for that income to be considered in the child support assessment up to 31 January 2024. The use of Mr Maraccini’s estimated income, at least in the period from 27 November 2023 to 31 January 2024, results in an unjust and inequitable determination of child support for the children.
In relation to his income from the company, Mr Maraccini’s evidence is that he did not receive any income from the company until December 2024. He did receive a lump sum of $4,000 in June 2024, and a further lump sum of $50,000 in November 2024 which Mr Maraccini were repayments of the loan he had made to the company. In December 2024 Mr Maraccini received a gross salary payment of $16,000 which was paid to him in a lump sum in December 2024 (he received a net payment after allowance for income tax of $13,179). He is not currently drawing a regular salary from the company, but he expects to receive total income from the company in the current financial year of approximately $80,000. He also expects to continue to receive interest income from his savings which he estimates will be approximately $30,000 in the current financial year, although he said that he hopes to purchase a home at some point in the future, and when he does that his savings will be invested in the home, so he will no longer have interest income.
The evidence before me is that the company posted a modest profit of $907 in the 2023/24 financial year. According to the interim profit and loss statement provided by Mr Maraccini, as at 31 December 2024 the company had accrued a profit in the 2024/25 financial year of $60,217. Mr Maraccini said that there is an error in the interim profit and loss statement, in that the expense of salaries and wages has been listed as $13,179, when in fact that expense was $16,000. Taking that error into account, the company accrued a current year profit as at 31 December 2024 of $57,396.
Given that he is self-employed through a company structure, Mr Maraccini is in a position to control the amount of taxable income that he draws from the company. As the sole director and shareholder of the company, I am satisfied that any profit generated by the company after the payment of salary and other expenses, will also be a financial resource that is available to Mr Maraccini. On that basis, the income and financial resources generated by the company, and available to Mr Maraccini, in the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2024 is approximately $73,396 ($57,396 in profit and $16,000 in salary).
Mr Maraccini said that he is hopeful that the company’s earnings will continue at approximately the same rate for the rest of the current financial year, although that is not guaranteed. He said that expenses are likely to increase because there are some large expenses such as insurance that will accrue in the current financial year. He expects to draw a total salary of $80,000 from the company in the current financial year.
I accept that the future performance of the company cannot be accurately predicted at this point in time. It is a relatively new business and does not yet have a proven track record of earnings. However, on the basis of the evidence before me I am satisfied that it is likely that the company may generate total income and profit for Mr Maraccini in the current financial year of at least $100,000, even allowing a generous margin for increased expenses and some reduction in income in the second half of the financial year. I accept that Mr Maraccini is unlikely to draw a salary of more than $80,000, and any profit in excess of that may be retained in the business. It is, of course, a matter for Mr Maraccini how he chooses to invest any profit the business generates. But regardless of what choice he makes, I am satisfied that the profit generated will be a financial resource available to Mr Maraccini.
I am also satisfied that Mr Maraccini will continue to benefit from the private use of a motor vehicle owned by the company, and that benefit will have a value equivalent to at least $8,000 of taxable income. In addition, Mr Maraccini has interest income which is likely to be approximately $30,000 in the current financial year. On that basis, I find that the income and financial resources available to Mr Maraccini in the current financial year wlll be at least an amount of approximately $138,000, less any allowable deductions Mr Maraccini may have against his taxable income.

As set out above, absent any departure from the administrative assessment, Mr Maraccini’s child support liability would be calculated on the basis of an income for him of $239,142 from 1 July 2024 to 28 February 2025, and $168,382 from 1 March 2025. As those incomes are significantly higher than the income and financial resources I have found are likely to be available to Mr Maraccini in the current financial year, I am satisfied that the use of those incomes results in an unjust and inequitable determination of child support for the children.
I am satisfied that there are special circumstances in this case relating to Mr Maraccini’s income and financial resources, and consequently the ground for departure set out in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act is established.
An issue raised by Ms Maraccini in her application to Child Support, and also at the hearing of this matter, related to Mr Maraccini’s earning capacity. Ms Maraccini said that, while she accepted that Mr Maraccini’s termination from his employment with the [Employer] was not voluntary, it was open to him to obtain a position with a different employer and to continue to earn a salary commensurate with that earned by him at the [Employer]. Ms Maraccini said Mr Maraccini’s decision to instead start a new business meant that he was choosing not to exercise his earning capacity, and that decision had a significant impact on the financial resources available to support the children.
Subsection 117(7B) of the Act provides that in having regard to the earning capacity of a parent of a child, I may determine that the parent’s earning capacity is greater than is reflected in his or her income only if the following three criteria are met:
·the parent does not work, or has reduced his or her hours of work below full-time hours, or has changed his or her occupation, industry or working pattern; and
·the parent’s decision to not work, to reduce the number of hours, or to change his or her occupation, industry or working pattern, is not justified on the basis of the parent’s caring responsibilities or the parent’s state of health; and
·the parent has not demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of that decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support.
It is not disputed that there was a change to Mr Maraccini’s occupation and working pattern from October 2023. Mr Maraccini’s evidence is that he did not make a voluntary decision to leave his position with the [Employer]. He was placed on a period of performance management approximately 8 months prior to his employment ending, following a disagreement with his employer over a lack of resourcing and poor remuneration. Mr Maraccini regarded that process as designed to force him to leave his employment. He said that he did what he could to retain his employment, including engaging an employment lawyer, he ultimately decided to accept the employer’s offer of an amicable termination of his employment rather than be forced out.
Mr Maraccini told me that his position with the [Employer] was extremely demanding both in relation to the hours worked and the stressful nature of the role. He was required to work upwards of 55 to 60 hours per week, and his requests for additional resourcing were declined. He also described some particular distressing incidents, including two large and public corporate clients going into liquidation, and the suicide of a close client due to the client’s financial difficulties. During the final months of his employment with the [Employer], Mr Maraccini said he was under very considerable stress and was experiencing a number of stress-related health problems.
Mr Maraccini said that when it became clear that he could not continue in his position with the [Employer], he made the decision to start his own company. He believes that at the time his employment ended he could not have obtained a position with a different employer, due to his mental and physical condition at the time. He said that since that time his health has improved considerably, and if he sought employment with an employer now he would likely be able to obtain a position, although he did not know if it would be at the same level or salary that he had in his previous employment.
I accept that Mr Maraccini did not voluntarily leave his position with the [Employer], rather it was a decision that was forced upon him by his employer. I find that Mr Maraccini did make a voluntary choice to change the nature and pattern of his work by establishing his own business rather than seeking alternative employment with another employer.
Mr Maraccini’s evidence is that his decision was justified on the basis of his health conditions. He has described physical and psychological symptoms that he experienced prior to and immediately after the cessation of his employment, however he has not provided any independent evidence of any health condition that would justify his decision. In relation to his caring responsibilities, I note that Mr Maraccini has had shared care of the 3 children since approximately September 2021, but was able to maintain his full-time employment while still providing care for the children until October 2023. There is insufficient evidence before me to enable a finding that Mr Maraccini’s decision to change the nature and pattern of his work in October 2023 was justified on the basis of his caring responsibilities or his state of health.
I must therefore consider whether Mr Maraccini has demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of his decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support.
In relation to his decision to start his own company rather than seek new employment, Mr Maraccini explained that he had become disillusioned with the [work sector], and that he had suffered burnout as a result of the demands of his position in that [sector]. He said that it had often been suggested to him by clients that he should set up his own consulting company. He believed that many clients were distrustful of [work sector companies], and therefore less likely to follow his advice while he was working for a [work sector company]. He also said that he was motivated by having more flexibility in his working hours, allowing him to spend more time with the children, and the ability to ultimately achieve financial independence by working for himself. Mr Maraccini said that although the company has not yet generated substantial income, the fact that he has been able to generate a profit even in the very early stages of building the business is a positive sign, and ultimately he will be in a stronger financial position than would have been the case had he remained in employment with the [Employer] or an alternative employer.
I also note that, since starting his company, while Mr Maraccini has paid periodic child support for the children, he continues to have 50% care of the children and to contribute non-periodic support as required by the binding child support agreement.
I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that affecting the administrative assessment of child support was not a major purpose of Mr Maraccini’s decision to start his company rather than seek alternative employment. I am satisfied that Mr Maraccini was motivated primarily by his disillusionment with the working conditions and effectiveness of a role in the [work sector], and a desire to ultimately improve his financial position through building a successful business, notwithstanding the short-term strain on his financial position.
As I have found that Mr Maraccini has demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of his decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support, I am unable to determine that Mr Maraccini has earning capacity greater than is reflected in his income. The ground for departure set out in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ib) of the Act is not established.

Is a departure from the assessment just and equitable?

As I have found that there is at least one ground to depart from the administrative assessment of child support, the next step is to consider whether it is just and equitable to depart from the assessment.
In deciding whether a departure from the assessment is just and equitable, I must have regard to the matters set out in subsection 117(4) of the Act, and I may also have regard to any other relevant factors. The factors set out in subsection 117(4) are as follows:
(a)the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (as stated in section 3); and
(b)the proper needs of the child; and
(c)the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child; and
(d) the income, property and financial resources of each parent who is a party to the proceeding; and
(da)the earning capacity of each parent who is a party to the proceeding; and
(e)the commitments of each parent who is a party to the proceeding that are necessary to enable the parent to support:
(i)himself or herself; or
(ii)any other child or another person that the person has a duty to maintain; and
(f)the direct and indirect costs incurred by the carer entitled to child support in providing care for the child; and
(g)any hardship that would be caused:
(i)to:
(A) the child; or
(B) the carer entitled to child support;
by the making of, or the refusal to make, the order; and
(ii)to:
(A) the liable parent; or
(B) any other child or another person that the liable parent has a duty to support;
by the making of, or the refusal to make, the order; and
(iii)to any resident child of the parent (see subsection (10)) by the making of, or the refusal to make, the order.
Pursuant to section 3 of the Act, I must approach this task on the basis that the duty that a parent has to maintain their children has priority over all other commitments of the parent other than commitments necessary to support themselves and any other people they have a duty to maintain.
Subsection 117(6) of the Act provides that in having regard to the proper needs of the children I must have regard to the manner in which the child is being, and in which the parents expected the child to be, cared for, educated and trained, and I must also have regard to any special needs of the child.
It is not disputed that all three children attend private schools which attract significant tuition fees. At the hearing Ms Maraccini and Mr Maraccini said that currently the tuition fees for the three children amount to approximately $95,000 per year. Under the terms of their binding child support agreement Ms Maraccini and Mr Maraccini contribute equally to those costs, as well as to other costs relating to the children’s school expenses and extra-curricular activities. There is no dispute that the parents are meeting those obligations.
Ms Maraccini said she incurs costs relating to private tutoring for [Child 1]. [Child 1] has had weekly tutoring since 2023 when he was in year 10. He currently has an English tutor at a cost of $90 per week and tutoring in biology, chemistry and maths at a cost of between $60 and $120 per week. Mr Maraccini is currently contributing $60 per week toward the tutoring costs. Ms Maraccini said she also incurs costs relating to driving lessons for [Child 1].
Mr Maraccini disputed that the costs relating to tutoring and driving lessons are necessary. In relation to the tutoring he said that [Child 1] attends a very good school, and achieves good academic results, and he does not believe there is any need for [Child 1] to receive private tutoring. Notwithstanding that, he has agreed to meet part of the costs of [Child 1]’s tutoring. In relation to driving lessons, Mr Maraccini said he takes [Child 1] driving himself, and he regards this as something that can be done by the parents rather than paying a driving instructor.
It is not disputed that Mr Maraccini also maintains private health insurance for the three children under the terms of the binding child support agreement.
There is no suggestion that any of the children have any special needs. In addition to the costs outlined above I accept that both parents incur the usual costs of supporting children of their age, and that they also incur costs in supporting themselves.
In her Statement of Financial Circumstances Ms Maraccini listed average weekly household expenses of $3,978. At the hearing she said that some of those expenses have since increased, in particular the children’s school fees. This amount significantly exceeds Ms Maraccini’s income, and she explained that she has been meeting the shortfall by drawing funds from her mortgage off-set account.
In his Statement of Financial Circumstances, Mr Maraccini listed average weekly household expenses of $2,570. Mr Maraccini also noted that his share of the school fees has recently increased. Those expenses exceed Mr Maraccini’s income, and Mr Maraccini explained that he has been meeting the shortfall by utilising the loan repayment he received from the company, and through drawing on his savings.
There is no evidence before me to suggest that any of the children have independent income, property, financial resources or earning capacity. I am satisfied that the 3 children are wholly dependent on their parents to meet their needs.
Mr Maraccini’s Statement of Financial Circumstances discloses assets comprising funds held in financial institutions totalling $684,588, shares with a value of $14,060, and household contents valued at $30,000. Mr Maraccini valued his interest in the company at $54,000. His only liability is a credit card with a balance of $2,657 owing.
Ms Maraccini submitted to the Tribunal a copy of her 2023/24 tax return and evidence of her current income in the form of recent payslips from her employer. On the basis of that information, I am satisfied that Ms Maraccini earns gross income from her employer of $100,000 per year. I note that in 2023/24 Ms Maraccini’s taxable income was $94,680, comprising gross income from employment of $101,669 plus a small amount of dividend income, and tax deductions of $6,810. I am satisfied that Ms Maraccini’s income is in line with the incomes used for her in the child support assessment.
In her Statement of Financial Circumstances Ms Maraccini has declared assets of a home valued at $1,330,000, a motor vehicle valued at $22,000 and household contents valued at $20,000. She has a home mortgage. At hearing she explained that the current balance of her mortgage is $471,549, and she has $47,000 in an offset account, giving a total of $424,549. Ms Maraccini said that the balance of her offset account has decreased in recent months, as she has had to draw money from that account in order to meet expenses such as school fees.
Mr Maraccini submitted at the hearing that Ms Maraccini’s current income as [an occupation] is lower than an income she could potentially earn if she were to change profession. Mr Maraccini said that Ms Maraccini was previously employed in the [work sector] and has qualifications in [subjects].
Ms Maraccini’s evidence is that she last worked in the [work sector] in January 2009. She took some time away from employment when the children were small, and briefly ran her own business in 2015. Since that time she has been employed as [an occupation], which is her current profession. Ms Maraccini said she has no capacity to earn a higher income, and she would take advantage of any such capacity if she had it . I am satisfied that Ms Maraccini does not have any unexercised earning capacity.

What departure from the assessment is appropriate?

In relation to an appropriate departure from the administrative assessment, Mr Maraccini submitted at the hearing that he feels that it is appropriate that Ms Maraccini should be required to pay child support of at least $5,000 per year from the time he ceased his employment in October 2023, on the basis that Mr Maraccini says he has had no income over that period of time until December 2024 when he was able to begin drawing a salary from the company. In relation to current and future child support, Mr Maraccini said that he does not currently have capacity to pay child support to Ms Maraccini. Mr Maraccini pointed out that in addition to his direct care of the children for 50% of the time, he also contributes 50% of school expenses including tuition fees, and maintains private health insurance for the children as well as contributing directly to other expenses including tutoring costs for [Child 1].
Mr Maraccini pointed out that since 1 January 2025 he has been assessed to pay child support on the basis of his 2022/23 taxable income of $239,142, which is significantly in excess of his current income.
Ms Maraccini submitted that she believes Mr Maraccini should continue to be assessed to pay child support to her. She said that she has not received any child support payments since October 2023, and this has caused her and the children significant hardship. She said that she entered into the binding child support agreement and the arrangement to contribute 50% of the children’s education costs, including tuition fees, with an understanding that Mr Maraccini was a high income earner and so would be in a position to contribute child support to assist with the costs of raising the children. Ms Maraccini said that she was blindsided by Mr Maraccini’s decision to forego his considerable income in order to start his own company and that decision has had a significant effect on her and the children. She noted that under the terms of the objection decision she was required to pay child support to Mr Maraccini at an annual rate of $5,000 in the period from 1 February 2024 to 31 December 2024. She said that she has not made any payments of child support to Mr Maraccini and that she was advised by officers at Child Support not to make any payments until the review of the decision had been finalised.
I note that according to the documentation provided by Child Support neither parent has paid any periodic child support since September 2024. As at 31 December 2024, Ms Maraccini had an outstanding child support liability of $5,416.71, and Mr Maraccini had an outstanding child support liability of $2,471.06. From 1 January 2025 Mr Maraccini has been assessed to pay child support to Ms Maraccini in the amount of $1,191.50 per month, decreasing to $898 per month from 1 March 2025.
Given the termination payment received by Mr Maraccini in October 2023, I am satisfied that it is reasonable that Mr Maraccini continue to be assessed to pay child support based on his previous income of $239,142 per year up to 31 January 2024.
I am satisfied that in the period 1 February 2024 to 30 June 2024 Mr Maraccini did not have any income from the company, but was meeting his expenses from savings and his earnings from interest. I am satisfied that he did accrue benefits from the company in respect of his private use of a motor vehicle equivalent to an income of approximately $6,900 over the approximately 8-and-a-half month period from mid-October 2023 to June 2024, and also that the company generated a profit in the period from October 2023 to June 2024 of approximately $900. During that period, I am satisfied that it would not be just and equitable to require Mr Maraccini to pay periodic child support to Ms Maraccini.
Taking into account Ms Maraccini’s 2023/24 taxable income of $94,680 and assuming an approximate amount of $48,000 per year as the income and financial resources available to Mr Maraccini during that period, ordinarily under the terms of the administrative assessment Ms Maraccini would be required to pay child support to Mr Maraccini.
However, I have taken into account the circumstances surrounding the reduction in Mr Maraccini’s income. I am satisfied that the reduction was a result of a voluntary decision made by Mr Maraccini to not seek alternative employment, and instead to start his own business in the hope of a longer-term financial benefit to himself. As it was Mr Maraccini’s choice to follow that path, he had the advantage of being able to make decisions about his own financial situation and manage his affairs to manage his reduction in income. Mr Maraccini’s changed circumstances and the loss of the periodic child support that had previously been payable also affected Ms Maraccini’s ability to provide support for the children, in circumstances where she had also made the significant financial commitment to contribute half the cost of the children’s private school education. Unlike Mr Maraccini, Ms Maraccini did not have the opportunity to consider and adjust her financial affairs in advance of the unexpected loss of periodic child support.

I am satisfied that in the period from 1 February 2024 to 30 June 2024 neither parent had the capacity to contribute periodic child support beyond their own direct contributions to the costs of the children, and it is just and equitable to set the annual rate of child support payable by both parents at nil for that period.
In relation to the period from 1 July 2024, I have found that in the 2024/25 financial year Mr Maraccini will have access to income and financial resources equivalent to an income of $138,000. I note that the income from his company will not be received evenly across the financial year, and in fact as at the date of the hearing Mr Maraccini’s evidence is that he had only received one salary payment of $16,000. However, on the basis of his evidence that he expects to draw a total salary of $80,000 in the financial year, I am satisfied that he will draw an amount of $64,000 in the last four months of the year, and any additional profit earned by the company will also be available to him in the next few months.
I am satisfied in the circumstances that from 1 July 2024 it is just and equitable that Mr Maraccini be assessed for the purposes of the child support assessment on an income of $138,000, less an adjustment for allowable deductions for which I will allow $5,000, giving an income of $133,000.
The effect of this decision will be that Ms Maraccini’s arrears of child support will be removed, and Mr Maraccini’s will be increased in relation to the period from 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2024 and reduced in relation to the period from 1 January 2025 to date. The actual calculation of arrears and ongoing child support to be paid by Mr Maraccini will be a matter for Child Support when they implement the decision, but by my calculation Mr Maraccini will be assessed to pay an annual rate of child support of approximately $4,860 in the period from 1 July 2024 to 28 February 2025, and an annual rate of approximately $5,859 from 1 March 2025. His ongoing rate of child support will be in the region of $112 per week.
I have considered any potential hardship to both parents and also to the children that may occur as a result of this decision. I note that currently both parents have expenses in excess of their income, and in particular are meeting high private school fees for the three children. Some adjustment of their ongoing expenses is likely to be required. However, both parents also have assets on which they can draw. I am satisfied that a decision in the terms set out above takes into account the relative ability of each parent to provide support for the children.

Is a departure from the assessment otherwise proper?

Finally, I must be satisfied that the departure determination is “otherwise proper”. Subsection 117(5) of the Act requires me to take into consideration the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child, and the effect that any change to the assessment would have on the rate of any Centrelink benefits being received by the parties or the child.
The child support law recognises that each parent has a primary duty to maintain their children. In the case that they cannot, the government may assist in the form of family assistance payments.
The evidence before me is that Ms Maraccini does receive some family assistance payments in respect of the children. There is no evidence that Mr Maraccini currently receives any family assistance payments in respect of the children, but he may be eligible to claim such benefits in the future.
I am satisfied that the departure from the assessment properly reflects the capacity of each parent to provide for the children, and on that basis I am satisfied that the departure determination is otherwise proper.

DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that:
§ For the period 27 November 2023 to 31 January 2024, Mr Maraccini’s income is set at $239,142.
§ For the period 1 February 2024 to 30 June 2024 the annual rate of child support payable by both parents is set at nil.
§ For the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2025, Mr Maraccini’s adjusted taxable income is set at $133,000.

Date(s) of hearing:	Tuesday, 11 March 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Representative for the Other party:	Self-represented