Nelmes and Loder (Child support)

[2022] AATA 3375

Nelmes and Loder (Child support) [2022] AATA 3375 (27 April 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/BC022961

APPLICANT:  Mr Nelmes

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Loder

TRIBUNAL:Presiding Member K Dordevic

Senior Member J Cipolla

DECISION DATE:  27 April 2022

DECISION:

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

·     Mr Nelmes’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $159,000 from 1 June 2021 to 31 December 2025;

·     Mr Nelmes’s annual rate of child support is increased by $5,330 from 4 February 2021 to 31 December 2021; and

·     Mr Nelmes’s annual rate of child support is increased by $6,000 from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2025.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – costs of education - manner expected by both parents - cost of maintaining the children are significantly affected – a ground for departure established – earning capacity of the liable parent – 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

1. The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of the child support payable. It uses a formula which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of care of the children. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.

2. This case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (the Agency) on 1 June 2020 and has been collectable since that date. The parents, Ms Loder (the mother) and Mr Nelmes (the father), have two children who are recorded as being in the mother’s 100% care.

3. On 26 August 2021, following a change of assessment application lodged by the mother on 9 June 2021, a senior case officer determined that:

   ·     for the period 1 June to 31 October 2021 the mother’s child support income is increased by $27,124;

   ·     for the period 1 June to 30 November 2021 the father’s child support income is increased by $63,570;

   ·     for the period 1 June to 31 December 2021 the father’s annual rate of child support is increased by $4,332; and

   ·     for the period 1 January to 31 December 2022 the father’s annual rate of child support is increased by $2,700.

4. The father sought a timely review of that decision and on 18 November 2021 an objections officer partly allowed the objection, determining that:

   ·for the period 1 June to 31 October 2021 the mother’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $83,702;

   ·for the period 1 June to 31 October 2021 the father’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $129,132;

   ·for the period 1 June to 31 December 2021 the father’s annual rate of child support is increased by $4,332; and

   ·for the period 1 January to 31 December 2022 the father’s annual rate of child support is increased by $2,700.

5. On 17 December 2021 the father sought further review with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal). Directions were issued on 1 March 2022, requiring compliance by 31 March 2022. The mother complied within the required timeframe. The father did not comply with the directions.

6. On 12 April 2022 the tribunal received a request from the Agency to consider an application for a non-disclosure order pursuant to subsection 37(1AF) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The request was refused as Mr Nelmes has sought review of a decision made by the Agency in respect of, amongst other things, his earning capacity. Thus, the medical certificate included in these documents was directly relevant to the factual and legal issues requiring determination.

7. The tribunal heard the matter on 27 April 2022. The father and mother appeared by MS Teams audio. The Child Support Registrar was not represented at the hearing. The tribunal has considered the sworn evidence of the mother and father. The tribunal also considered the documentation provided by the Agency (folios 1 to 582), the father (A1 to A3) and the mother (folios B1 to B61).

8. Before the hearing commenced, the tribunal invited the father to explain why he did not comply with the directions. He stated that his refusal to comply was on the advice from his lawyers, who were concerned that his compliance may adversely impact his case in the parents’ parenting and property matters. The mother, when asked to state her view whether a dismissal was appropriate in the circumstances, requested that the matter proceed; she explained that otherwise, she would be required to lodge a new application to the Agency in the coming months.

9. After a brief adjournment the tribunal advised the parents that it had determined that it was appropriate that the matter proceed. In reaching this decision the tribunal found the mother’s submissions advocating that the matter proceed to avoid further applications particularly persuasive.

10. The tribunal reached its decision on 27 April 2022.

11. On 4 May 2022 the mother provided written submissions. The tribunal did not accept these submissions into evidence as the determination had already been made.

ISSUES

A ground for departure

1. Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act provides a ground for departure when, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected because the children are being educated in the manner that was expected by their parents.

2. The tribunal finds that prior to separation the children were enrolled in and attended a systemic Catholic school. On this basis the tribunal is satisfied that the children are being educated in the manner expected by their parents.

3. In 2022 the children are in Years [Number 1] and [Number 2]. The statement of fees and levies in evidence indicate that in Terms 1 to 4, 2021 the tuition, capital levy and associated levies total $1,781 per term. In 2022 the fees are $2,039 per term.

4. The documentary evidence establishes that the private education costs were met solely by the mother. At hearing the father did not dispute this. The tribunal finds accordingly.

5. The mother’s net income in the 2021 financial year was $58,631. Thus, she applied nearly 12% of her net income to meet the children’s 2021 private education costs. In 2022 she must commit 14% of her net income to meet this expense.

6. The tribunal concludes that the mother’s costs of maintaining the child is significantly affected because the children are being educated in the manner expected by their parents. Thus, the ground provided for in subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act is established.

Just and equitable

1. The requirement to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable directs attention to what is fair to the parents and their children. Regard must be had to a variety of factors such as the parties’ respective earning capacities, the needs of the children, the parents’ commitments and any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula assessment.

2. At the time the mother lodged her departure application the father was liable to pay $3,030 in child support per annum based on his 2021 income estimate of $39,093 and the mother’s 2020 adjusted taxable income of $67,778. From 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 the father was liable to pay the fixed annual rate of $2,954 based on his 2022 income estimate of $8,400 and the mother’s 2020 adjusted taxable income. 

3. The tribunal makes the following findings. The mother’s 2021 adjusted taxable income was $72,738. This included a gross redundancy payment of $17,569 and $8,076 in annual leave payments. The tribunal carefully considered the work related and other deductions claimed, which appear reasonable given her work arrangements.  The mother explained that she worked on a temporary basis for about three months after being made redundant and then secured her current full-time permanent position. She provided a Statement of Financial Circumstances form dated 30 March 2022 which indicates that she is employed on a full-time basis and is in receipt of $1,730 gross per week ($89,960 per annum). The tribunal is satisfied that the mother is fully exercising her earning capacity and that her income will be accurately reflected in her 2022 income tax return. Further, even if the tribunal were to amend the administrative assessment to reflect the mother’s current gross income (an increase of about $18,000 from the previous year) this would have no impact at all on the father’s child support liability. The former marital home was sold in December 2021 and she now lives in private rental, paying $650 per week. She reports savings of $30,700 (including a $30,000 release from settlement funds to meet her legal expenses), household contents valued at $10,000, a motor vehicle valued at $10,000 and superannuation valued at $56,000. She reports no liabilities. Her personal expenditure totals $513 per week, made up of income tax of $455 and health insurance premiums of $58. She reports average weekly expenses of $1,568, of which $550 relates to her care of the children, noting that this does not include the provision of accommodation, utilities or transport.

4. Neither party submits that the children have access to income or financial resources that render the administrative assessment unfair. The tribunal finds accordingly.

5. In compliance with the directions, the mother provided the following summary of her out of pocket expenses regarding the children’s special needs, with invoices and receipts substantiating these costs.

6. In respect of the immunotherapy costs for the older child, [Dr A], paediatrician, confirms in a letter dated 5 July 2021 that since August 2018 the child has undergone desensitising immunotherapy for an allergy to dust mites which manifests as “severe debilitating allergic rhinitis and asthma” and has responded well to treatment. [Dr A] recommends that the child continue the treatment for a further five years. Each batch of the immunotherapy treatment costs $434.45 and lasts 12 months. The child attends [Dr A]’s clinic every four weeks with an out of pocket cost to the mother of $50.80 ($50.80 x 13 = $660 per annum).

7. The tribunal accepts the evidence from [Ms B], provisional psychologist and [Dr C], psychologist dated 22 June 2021 that the younger child had attended six sessions of therapy addressing issues arising from the marital breakdown. The documents provided by the mother demonstrate that the younger child attended two sessions on 8 and 22 June 2021 costing $150 (no Medicare rebate). The older child attended a session with [Dr C] on 5 July 2021 with an out of pocket cost of $106.75 ($195 - $88.25 Medicare rebate).

8. It is apparent that the younger child now attends [Psychology clinic] and is treated by [Ms D], psychologist. The initial sessions took place on 26 November 2021 (at a cost of $200) and fortnightly sessions began on 14 January 2022 and have continued until the date of hearing, costing $180 per session. The tribunal accepts the mother’s testimony, corroborated by the invoices and appointment diary, that the child will continue to require fortnightly appointments indefinitely.

9. The father stated that he is unable to comment on the above medical expenses as the mother provides him with no information regarding the children’s health and wellbeing. Thus, he is also unable to confirm if treatment has actually taken place as he is unable to access the My Family Wizard portal. He understands that he has already contributed to the immunotherapy costs, but could not be more specific.

10. At hearing the mother explained both children require psychological therapy, however, she can only afford for one child to receive treatment. She has prioritised the younger child given the significant impact that this has on her wellbeing. She stressed that the December 2021 parenting orders dictate that the children shall attend psychological therapy and that the father contribute to half of this cost. Thus, she does not seek a departure from the administrative assessment on the basis of the children’s psychological costs. The father has yet to meet his share of this cost and she will raise this in the Federal Circuit Court matters that are still afoot. She is yet to secure a mental health plan for the younger child, but plans to in the near future; she simply has not had the time to do so.

11. As to the older child’s immunotherapy costs, she seeks a contribution from the father towards this expense. She states that the older child’s immunotherapy treatment will continue and will be reviewed in 2023. She went on to refute the father’s testimony that she does not keep him updated about their medical and mental health, stating that she does so via the My Family Wizard app. She cannot explain why he has not accessed this information.

12. The tribunal is satisfied that the children’s needs as outlined above are sufficiently special in that they are necessary for the children’s welfare and outside the needs generally catered for with the administrative assessment: Lightfoot and Hampson (1996) 20 Fam LR 69. The tribunal is also satisfied that the immunotherapy costs of $1,094 per annum is a significant impost on the mother’s financial capacity to meet the children’s needs. The tribunal accepts the mother’s statement that the father’s contribution towards the children’s psychological therapy is a matter more appropriately addressed by the Federal Circuit Court at this time.

13. The mother’s position is that the administrative assessment does not accurately reflect the father’s income, financial resources or earning capacity. It is not in dispute that the father received a redundancy payment on 1 June 2021 (both he and the mother worked for the same company and were made redundant at the same time). When lodging his income estimate with the Agency he declared that his year to date income was $188,232.46, including $63,580 in a redundancy payment, $29,938 from the sale of a property and $36,649 in gross rental income. His 2020 income tax return indicates that his gross salary was $158,307. He declared a net rental loss of $13,791 and other deductions of $3,433.

14. The father was directed to provide the following documents to the tribunal:

    i.Completed Statement of Financial Circumstances form;

    ii.A copy of his 2021 income tax return and tax assessment notice;

    iii.Statements for the period 1 November 2021 to 28 February 2022 for all accounts for financial institutions (including savings, cheque, credit cards, store credit cards and loans) held solely in his name of, or jointly by him and another person, or accounts to which he is a signatory;

    iv.Statements from 1 May to 31 July 2021 for the bank account/s into which his redundancy payment/s were paid;

    v.Records showing valuation, earnings and dividends from and transfer of all shares and investments during the period 1 July 2021 to 28 February 2022;

    vi.Evidence of all resume and job applications lodged and any responses received during the period 1 May 2021 to 28 February 2022; and

    vii.A submission regarding whether he advocates for a departure period extended beyond 31 December 2022, as stipulated by the objections officer.

15. The father failed to provide any of these documents, as directed. His failure to make a full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances is unsatisfactory and leaves him open to adverse inferences being drawn: Barber & Barber [2008] FMCA fam 209. Further, it hinders the tribunal’s capacity to accurately determine his income and financial resources in addition to his necessary self-support expenses.

16. The father’s testimony regarding his income, earning capacity and financial resources can be summarised as follows. Overall, the determination made by the Agency is flawed as the evidence that was accepted was problematic. He has not completed his income tax returns since he vacated the family home. He updated the Agency regarding his income after he was made redundant. Factoring in his rental income and redundancy payment does not make allowance for his need for self-support or his rental expenses. Realistically, he simply does not have the income to contribute to the children’s costs. He has had his accountant look at the Agency’s decision, who advised him that it was like they “plucked” numbers out of the air. In any event, his circumstances have completely changed; he is without a job and has no capacity to work.

17. The father confirmed that he is not in receipt of any income support payments; he prefers not to test his entitlement to support and instead to use what funds he has available. He also confirmed that he sold shares totalling $31,812.40 in July 2021 and $20,661.53 in August 2021. He does not consider the proceeds from the divestiture as financial resources available to support the children. He stressed that he is experiencing significant legal costs. He confirmed that as a partial property settlement he purchased shares totalling $70,000, stressing that the mother received $150,000 from the partial settlement. He has not lodged his 2021 income tax return but plans to do so.

18. In any event, the father submits that he has no capacity to undertake work. He states that he is highly traumatised by the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the marital relationship and “everything is triggering”. He had been on sick leave for some time before being made redundant, such was his psychological distress. The trauma prevents him from seeking work. He attends a psychiatrist about five to six times a year. It “could take years” before he has any capacity to return to work.

19. In the circumstances, it was necessary for the tribunal to consider his earning capacity. Subsection 117(7B) provides that when considering the earning capacity of a parent a decision maker is required to consider three tests:

    (7B)In having regard to the earning capacity of a parent of the child, the court may determine that the parent's earning capacity is greater than is reflected in his or her income for the purposes of this Act only if the court is satisfied that:

    (a)   one or more of the following applies:

    (i)the parent does not work despite ample opportunity to do so;

    (ii)the parent has reduced the number of hours per week of his or her employment or other work below the normal number of hours per week that constitutes full‑time work for the occupation or industry in which the parent is employed or otherwise engaged;

    (iii)the parent has changed his or her occupation, industry or working pattern; and

    (b)   the parent's decision not to 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:

    (i)the parent's caring responsibilities; or

    (ii)the parent's state of health; and

    (c)   the parent has not demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of that decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support in relation to the child.

20. It is not in dispute that the father was made redundant from his role in June 2021. He failed to provide evidence of what, if any, attempts he has made to secure paid employment.  The tribunal is satisfied that the father is not working despite ample opportunity to do so. 

21. There is no suggestion that the father’s decision to decrease his work hours was justified because of his caring responsibilities. He does not dispute that he has no care of the children or others.

22. However, the father asserts that he is unable to work as a result of his state of health. He has provided a medical certificate dated 16 February 2022, completed by [Dr E], psychiatrist. The certificate states that the father is unfit to work or study from 13 May 2021 to 31 December 2022 and that in order to return to work the father must undertake psychological and psychiatric review. [Dr E] stated that the father has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder with disruption in conduct and emotions, with the date of onset being 13 May 2021. His symptoms include severe anxiety, panic attacks, moderate depression, agoraphobia and social anxiety.

1. The father asserted at hearing that he sees [Dr E] about five or six times a year. He also regularly attends counselling with [Mr F], [Family counselling provider]. It is noted that he has not provided any evidence of his attendance with either practitioner or treatment plan.

2. The mother’s testimony on this point is that there is evidence before the Federal Circuit Court to suggest that [Dr E] will provide false medical certificates for $500 and asks that the tribunal not place any weight on the medical certificate. She also stressed that the father was diagnosed with depression and anxiety in 2009 and since that time has required medication to manage his symptoms and though he has required intervention periodically, he has always managed not only to remain in full-time work but to also increase his income. She confirmed that soon after the parents separated a temporary protection order was granted (noting that the father has since lodged a cross-application) and was initially prevented from attending the workplace. The workplace accommodated the protection order by having the father work from home, however, he took leave until such time he was made redundant. Her employers advised her that he refused to return to the workplace and simply kept extending his leave. She does not dispute that the marital breakdown has taken its toll on each family member’s mental health, including her own and the children’s.

3. After careful consideration, the tribunal is not satisfied that the medical report tendered is reliable. As a starting point, in the tribunal’s view it is highly unusual to provide a medical certificate backdated by nine months. Further, there are no supporting medical reports that reference the administration of any tests to establish the various diagnoses. There is also no explanation about the father’s work capacity or with respect to a return to work plan. There is also no evidence to establish an ongoing relationship with the psychiatrist and the diagnosis appears to have been made on the basis of a one-off appointment. The certificate does not make any reference to the applicant’s history of being on antidepressants and on anti-anxiety medication for an extended period of time (since 2009) and why, despite a 13 year full-time work history whilst on these medications, his functionality has now deteriorated to the level that he is incapable of undertaking any work.

4. Furthermore, the evidence of the father at hearing contradicts the medical certificate. The father advised under oath that he has been on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication since at least 2009. Despite this the evidence indicates until the applicant was made redundant in 2021 he was in full-time and gainful employment and at a salary level higher than average, and a salary that increased incrementally over time. The applicant has extensive experience in the area of his employment. Since being made redundant, and despite the diagnoses, the father has been able to manage his share portfolio and continues to engage in share trading, to pursue litigation in the Federal Circuit Court and instruct his representatives in that jurisdiction, he has been able to initiate an application for merits review and to manage his investment property without a need for a managing agent’s involvement. This suggests that the father’s capacity to undertake close work and engage in rational decision-making is not hindered by his mental health condition. In addition, the father advised the senior case officer in August 2021 that he continued to seek employment which contradicts the certificate that his mental health prevents him from working at all. These contradictions were put to the father at hearing to enable him an opportunity to comment. He explained that he undertakes these activities to “distract” himself and stressed that he has applied for many jobs, he has registered with SEEK but has had only an “odd” response in return. He finds applying for jobs very “triggering”.

5. On the basis of all of this evidence the tribunal finds that the certificate is generally deficient and unreliable and for the reasons stated the Tribunal apportions it little weight. The contents of the certificate contradict the applicant’s evidence under oath at hearing, namely his active and ongoing current attempts to secure new employment and his ability to manage a share portfolio and to manage a rental property. The tribunal concludes that the father’s decision not to work at all is not justified by the state of his mental health.

6. In order for the tribunal to be satisfied that the third criterion of subsection 117(7B) of the Act is met it is not necessary for the tribunal to find that the father’s only reason for deciding to study and not to work was to affect his child support, rather the father must show that it was not a substantial motivation.

7. The father states that it is merely coincidental that his change in his work arrangements coincided with the mother seeking child support.

8. In the circumstances where there is no apparent justification for his decision not to work, and where he continues to be able to manage his legal and financial affairs, the tribunal finds that the third criterion in subsection 117(7B) of the Act is met and that the father should be assessed in accordance with his earning capacity.

9. The tribunal must therefore determine what the father’s current earning capacity is, should he have secured other work in an arm’s length arrangement. The father’s 2019 and 2020 adjusted taxable incomes were $159,369 and $158,127 respectively. The tribunal is satisfied that the father’s current earning capacity remains unchanged, in that there is nothing to suggest given his significant work history he would not be able to secure a position with a salary commensurate with his historical earnings. The tribunal determines that the father’s earning capacity is $159,000. It is appropriate that this is reflected in the administrative assessment from the date that he lodged his income estimate on 1 June 2021. As a matter of fact, given his redundancy payout, he did receive this level of income for about six months after he was made redundant (that is, until about 30 November 2021). Certainly, it would be unjust and inequitable for the father’s liability to be based on his income estimate alone from 1 June 2021. The tribunal notes that whilst the father declared he also had income from the sale of a property in the 2021 financial year, the tribunal is of the view that this is more appropriately dealt with in the property matters that are still being litigated. 

10. The tribunal is persuaded that the father’s income, financial resources and earning capacity are unlikely to be reflected in the administrative assessment into the future. To provide certainty to the parties, and to minimise the need for repeat proceedings, it is appropriate to depart from the administrative assessment on this basis until 31 December 2025. Of course, if there is a significant change to the father’s income, financial resources or earning capacity during this time, the parents are at liberty to lodge a new change of assessment application. This aspect of the decision will place the father in a situation of arrears in the vicinity of $13,000. Given his earning capacity, investment properties and share portfolio the tribunal is not persuaded that this will place him in a position of undue hardship. Furthermore, the mother requires this financial support in order to adequately care for the children.

11. The tribunal next considered what, if any contribution the father should make towards the children’s education costs. The Full Family Court determined in the matter of Mee and Ferguson [1986] FamCA 3 that where there is agreement as to a school a child attends, a parent is liable to contribute “so long as and to the extent that he or she has a reasonable financial capacity to continue to do so”. The tribunal is of the view that the father does have capacity to meet the children’s private school fees.

12. The mother seeks a 50% contribution towards the children’s private schooling. The tribunal is of the view given the significant disparity between the mother’s income and the father’s earning capacity that it is more appropriate that each parent would contribute according to their respective income percentages. The mother and father’s relative income percentages based on the mother’s current income (allowing for similar deductions as claimed in the 2021 financial year) and the father’s earning capacity are about 35% (the mother) and 65% (the father). The tribunal is satisfied that it is both just and equitable that the father contributes commensurate with this income percentage.

13. Though the mother lodged her change of assessment application on 9 June 2021, the tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to backdate the father’s contribution to this expense from the date of registration (4 February 2021). Applying the above income and earning capacity percentages, this requires the father to contribute $4,630 towards the children’s 2021 education expenses. The tribunal is satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, and in a context or protracted litigation, it is appropriate to depart from the assessment on this basis until 31 December 2025. Thus, the father’s annual rate in the 2022 to 2025 calendar years is increased by $5,300 in respect of the children’s private education costs. Taking into account the father’s ongoing liability the tribunal does not intend to make allowance for likely fee increases in that period. This aspect of the decision will create arrears of about $6,400. The tribunal is satisfied that, given the father’s income, financial resources and earning capacity, this will not place him in a position of undue hardship.

14. The tribunal next considered what, if any, contribution the father should make towards the older child’s special needs. The tribunal is satisfied that these costs are in addition to the usual costs already factored into the administrative assessment. Furthermore, given the mother’s income and caring responsibilities the tribunal is satisfied that this cost directly impacts on her capacity to meet the children’s needs. On balance, the tribunal is satisfied that, consistent with the above findings, the father should contribute to 65% of the mother’s annual out of pocket costs of $1,095. Thus, his annual rate of child support will be increased by $700 from the date of registration of the case until 31 December 2025 so, this aspect of the decision will create arrears of about $875.  

15. The tribunal is satisfied that the administrative assessment is unfair given the older child’s special needs, the children’s private education and the father’s income, financial resources and earning capacity. This results in an unjust and inequitable level of child support given the circumstances of each parent. For all these reasons it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment.

Otherwise proper

1. 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.

2. It is apparent that the mother receives family tax benefit in respect of the children. Changing the child support payable by the father may not affect the mother’s rate of family tax benefit, depending on how Centrelink treats the increase in the administratively assessed rate of child support. As there has been an increase to the annual rate on the basis of the child’s special needs, Centrelink may determine that this increase in the child support payable should be excluded from the maintenance income amount. It is open to the mother to provide a copy of this decision to Centrelink so it may determine if the increase in the rate of child support payable should be excluded from the maintenance income amount used to calculate her entitlement to family tax benefit.

3. The determination is otherwise proper.

DECISION

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

·     Mr Nelmes’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $159,000 from 1 June 2021 to 31 December 2025;

·     Mr Nelmes’s annual rate of child support is increased by $5,330 from 4 February 2021 to 31 December 2021; and

·     Mr Nelmes’s annual rate of child support is increased by $6,000 from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2025.