Newsome and Newsome (Child support)

[2024] AATA 1179

Newsome and Newsome (Child support) [2024] AATA 1179 (5 April 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/SC026862

APPLICANT:  Ms Newsome

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Newsome

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member D Benk

DECISION DATE:  05 April 2024

DECISION:

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

• For the period 1 January 2023 until 30 June 2023, Ms Newsome’s adjusted taxable income be set at $112,941.

• For the period 1 July 2023 to 25 November 2023, Ms Newsome’s adjusted taxable income be set at nil.

• For the period 26 November 2023 to 31 December 2024, Ms Newsome’s adjusted taxable income be set at $112,941.

• For the period 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2023, the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $4,740 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1]’s education costs in 2023.

• For the period 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024, the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $4,945 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1]’s education costs in 2024.

• For the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024, Mr Newsome’s adjusted taxable income be set at $62,000.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – ground for departure – costs of education – income, property and financial resources – earning capacity – medical incapacity – unremunerated labour for partner’s business – application for 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

1. The issue before the Tribunal is the level of child support payable for [Child 1], age 15, who is in the sole care of Mr Newsome. The administrative assessments issued by the Child Support Agency assessed child support as follows;   

   ·For the period 29 November 2022 to 9 January 2023, Ms Newsome was assessed to pay an annual rate of $16,059 based on her 2021-22 ATI (adjusted taxable income) of $104,568 and Mr Newsome’s 2020-21 ATI of $47,333;

   ·For the period 10 January 2023 to 29 January 2023, Ms Newsome was assessed to pay an annual rate of $1,521 based on her 2022-23 estimated income of $0 for Ms Newsome and Mr Newsome’s 2020-21 ATI of $47,333;

   ·For the period 30 January 2023 to 14 May 2023, Ms Newsome was assessed to pay an annual rate of $10,965 based her revised 2022-23 estimated income of $75,607 and Mr Newsome’s 2021-22 ATI of $47,333;

   ·For the period 15 May 2023 to 30 June 2023; Ms Newsome was assessed to pay an annual rate of $17,202 based on a revised 2022-23 estimated income of $112,941 and Mr Newsome’s 2021-22 ATI of $47,333.

2. Ms Newsome lodged a change of assessment application with the Child Support Agency (Child Support) on 15 February 2023. This process allows for departure from the administrative assessment provided a ground is established and further that the special circumstances of the case make it just, equitable and otherwise proper to do so. A senior case officer assessed the matter on 26 June 2023, and ultimately found that a ground to depart from the administrative assessment was established but that it was not just, equitable or otherwise proper to depart from the assessment.

3. Mr Newsome objected to that decision and following review, an objections officer found that a ground to depart was established and further that it was just, equitable and otherwise proper to do so, substituting the following assessment (unedited):

   - For the period 10 January 2023 until 14 May 2023; the ATI for Ms Newsome is set at $112,941.

   - For the period 26 November 2023 until 30 June 2024; the ATI for Ms Newsome is set at $112,941.

   - For the period 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2023; the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $4,740 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1] s education costs in 2023.

   - For the period 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024; the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $4,945 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1] s education costs in 2024.

   - For the period 1 January 2025 until 31 December 2025; the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $5,500 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1] s education costs in 2025.

   - For the period 1 January 2026 until the happening of a terminating event as to the child [Child 1]; the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $5,418 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1] s education costs in 2026.

4. Relevantly the above decision summary is silent on the period between 15 May 2023 to 25 November 2023, causing much initial confusion.   However, review of the extensive text of the decision statement records that the objections officer determined that the adjusted taxable income that was to apply for this period was $112,941.

5. The net financial impact of that decision on Ms Newsome was as follows (unedited):

   ·For the period 1 January 2023 until 9 January 2023; from $16,059 to $20,799,

   ·For the period 10 January 2023 until 29 January 2023; from $1,521 to $21,942,

   ·For the period 30 January 2023 until 14 May 2023; from $10,965 to $21,942,

   ·For the period 15 May 2023 until 25 June 2023; from $17,202 to $21,942,

   ·For the period 26 June 2023 until 25 November 2023; from $459 to $4,740,

   ·For the period 26 November 2023 until 31 December 2023; from $459 to $21,942,

   ·For the period 1 January 2024 until 28 February 2024; from $459 to $22,147.

6. The above increases reflected the findings made by the objections officer in relation to [Child 1]’s school fees and Ms Newsome’s earning capacity.

7. Ms Newsome maintains the above assessment does not properly reflect her circumstances and now seeks independent review by the Tribunal. To be clear, she has no objection with the findings and increased child support liability relating to school fees; however, she protests the application of an ATI of $112,941 whilst she was incapacitated and unemployed between July 2023 and February 2024.

8. The matter underwent the usual case management pathways with a telephone directions hearing being convened which resulted in the issue of directions. Both parties partially complied.

9. The hearing proper took place on 5 April 2024 at which time both parties gave evidence via conference telephone.

ROLE OF THE TRIBUNAL AND PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

1. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision maker and so is reviewing whether the administrative assessment properly reflects the income/property and financial resources and/or earning capacity of both parties and any extraordinary costs associated with [Child 1] that are not reflected in the baseline administrative assessment (Costs of the Children Table) (for example, in this case, private school fees). The Tribunal formed the view that both parties are lost in the system and have found that it only increases the tensions between them. This coupled with a lack of communication and antagonism towards one another on Facebook (by posting lifestyle snapshots which appear to be inconsistent with their respective claims of income and hardship) resulted in the ultimate dispute before the Tribunal. It was clear from the evidence that there is more to this dispute than child support with Ms Newsome claiming she had been treated inequitably on separation as Mr Newsome was able to escape proper liability as Child Support had failed to properly investigate his circumstances, whilst she had primary responsibility for all three children. There are also many other tensions.

2. As an aside, this matter has become unnecessarily complex due to the overwhelming amount of paperwork provided by Child Support, which unfortunately does not appear at hearings before the Tribunal. Both parties appeared to be overwhelmed with the multiple changes to the assessments and reassessments and the documentation associated with this. This is not surprising. There must be a more time and cost effective way to deal with these matters, particularly with parties who are unrepresented, have competing demands on their time, generally have financial pressures and where there is an element of distrust and lack of communication. However, this is not the platform for criticism of the system. The law applies equally to all but the administration of those laws and the processes underpinning them, in the Tribunal’s view, certainly begs for improvement for the sake of citizens involved in these sensitive and fragile family matters. The Tribunal acknowledges it has no jurisdiction to comment on such matters, but at the same time, cannot remain silent on what is a discussion that is long overdue.

CONSIDERATION

1. The law relevant to this application is found in the Child Support( Assessment) Act 1989, herein referred to as the Act.

2. Paragraph 98C(1)(b) of the Act relevantly provides that a departure decision may be made in respect of a departure application if:

   (i)... one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in [subsection 117(2)] exists; and

   (ii)... 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; …

3. The term ‘special circumstances’ is not defined in the Act. In Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279 the Full Family Court indicated that for there to be special circumstances, the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary.

4. In assessing the matter, the Tribunal is reviewing the change of assessment application. It is not bound by any of the findings made by Child Support and makes is own assessment of the circumstances. Whilst a number of grounds of departure have been raised by the parties during the internal review process with Child Support, only one ground needs to be established to depart from the formula assessment.

Does a ground for departure exist?

1. In this case, both parties agreed that it was their joint intention that [Child 1] be educated privately as her brothers before her at [College 1]. The parties accepted the school fees documented in the papers and the forecasted increases. Ms Newsome admits that cost of living pressures have made it difficult for both parents to continue to meet this cost, but it was and is their joint desire that [Child 1] complete her education privately.

2. Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, commonly referred to as Reason 3, provides as a ground for departure:

   that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected:

   …   

   (ii)because the child is being cared for, educated or trained in the manner that was expected by his or her parents …

3. On the basis of the evidence before it the Tribunal finds:

   ·      Both parents jointly intended for [Child 1] to attend [College 1].

   ·      The annual costs of [Child 1]’s education is $9,840 (2023) and $9,890 (2024).

4. As such costs are not reflected in the standard Costs of the Children Table, and represent more than one-third of the costs in that Table, which impact on the level of support required, special circumstances exist to establish this ground of departure.

5. As a ground for departure has been established, the Tribunal will now explore whether it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment. Such departure is not automatic as the Tribunal is now required to consider whether it is just and equitable to depart from the formula assessment and further whether it is otherwise proper to do so (paragraph 13 of these reasons refer).

Issue 2 – Is it just and equitable to make a departure determination?

1. As indicated, the next step is to consider whether it is just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent and the carer entitled to child support to make a particular determination in accordance with sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(A) of the Act. This in turn requires the Tribunal to consider a range of factors, set out in subsection 117(4) of the Act.

2. In this regard extensive oral evidence was taken. There was little consensus. Both parties dispute the earning capacity of one another and this largely was influenced by posts on Facebook, emotion, distrust, and a lack of communication generally. The following represents findings largely obtained from the documentary evidence and where possible where there was some agreement between the parties.

The nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child and the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of [Child 1]

1. [Child 1] lives with Mr Newsome. Child Support has correctly reflected the level of care. Both parents agree that [Child 1] has no independent income and relies entirely upon them for financial support. The Tribunal so finds.

The proper needs of [Child 1]

1. Subsection 117(6) of the Act states that in having regard to the proper needs of the child, the Tribunal 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 or trained, and any special needs of the child.

2. The costs of private education have been discussed above and in the interests of brevity will not be repeated here. Apart from education, [Child 1] has no unusual costs that would exceed/impact those provided by the Costs of the Children Table. The Tribunal so finds.

3. Mr Newsome suggested [Child 1] has had to ‘go without’ some of the things that she wanted and was not able to have the same luxuries as her peers during the period when Ms Newsome claimed she was medically incapacitated. The Tribunal does not accept this, as the evidence disclosed [Child 1] will now be travelling to the United States of America as a guest in a wedding, funded by Mr Newsome and his partner. Such costs are significant and are inconsistent with claims of financial hardship.

The income, property and financial resources and earning capacity of Ms Newsome

1. Much evidence was taken on this point. Ms Newsome maintains that as a result of a toxic workplace and burnout she took leave from her post as a [Occupation 1] from [Employer 1] as recommended by her doctors and had not worked between July 2023 and February 2024. The incapacity was documented and medically certified between 20 June 2023 to 25 November 2023. However, Mr Newsome maintains that during this time Ms Newsome travelled up and down the East Coast (as seen on Facebook) and posted pictures of her appearing to enjoy herself, an activity that is inconsistent with someone who suffers from such significant medical incapacity. He also maintains that it was unnecessary for Ms Newsome to resign her employment as [Occupation 1] can avail themselves of leave entitlements/benefits that are not generally available to the ordinary workforce.

2. Ms Newsome in response said that the trip was necessary for her mental health but at all times she continued her treatment via telehealth. She has bounced back albeit not completely and returned to work, also with [Employer 1]. Between February 2024 to 28 March 2024 her year to date earnings were $32,276.79 or $4,680.08 per fortnight. She confirmed her medical certification expired in November 2023.

3. Ms Newsome maintains that she should not be assessed to pay child support on her pre-illness earnings when she had none. She asks the Tribunal to adjust child support to take this into account, remaining somewhat resentful that the objections officer determined she had deliberately ceased working to obtain a child support advantage. She said that statements like this do little for the already fragile relationship with her daughter.

4. Mr Newsome maintained [Child 1]’s needs did not stop simply because Ms Newsome could not work. He accepts the medical certificates and was surprised to learn Ms Newsome had recently returned to work and that there had been recent child support deductions made from Ms Newsome’s salary which had not been passed on to him by Child Support.

5. Mr Newsome questioned the resignation and said that it was unusual. Whether Ms Newsome resigned voluntarily or engaged in some other action is not relevant as she has returned back to work with the same employer ([Employer 1], albeit with a different [work site]) and has done so [since] 6 February 2024. She testified she hopes to continue working and is committed to her health.

6. Overall, on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal it finds that Ms Newsome had the following income:

   ·Between the period 1 June 2022 to 30 June 2023, a sum of $112,941;

   ·She was certified unfit for work between 20 June 2023 to 25 November 2023;

   ·Ms Newsome returned to full-time albeit casual employment at the commencement of the 2024 first school term having worked intermittently prior to that time; her remuneration currently is at pre-illness levels.

   ·There was no other income either by way of superannuation withdrawals or accident and illness protection or Centrelink benefits.

7. The Tribunal finds therefore that it is appropriate to assess Ms Newsome’s child support liability using these figures but reducing the rate of child support payable between 1 July 2023 to 25 November 2023 on the basis of nil learnings. It further finds that liability for school fees should remain undisturbed for the 2023 year (that is 50% contribution) as Ms Newsome was well aware of this annual commitment prior to her taking time away from unpaid work and as it remained her intention that [Child 1] continue to be educated privately.

8. The Tribunal notes the objections officer’s reasoning in relation to Ms Newsome’s earning capacity but as she has returned to work and as her incapacity was medically supported, cannot adopt such findings as it was not satisfied, on the evidence to hand, that Ms Newsome’s working arrangements were substantially motivated by any effect it would have on her child support assessment. Admittedly, Facebook posts seem to show Ms Newsome enjoying her travels whilst ‘incapacitated’ and ‘taking advantage of every opportunity and learning that life is too short’. This was a source of irritation to Mr Newsome who suggested that Ms Newsome abandoned employment and forgot about [Child 1]’s welfare whilst advancing her own. This is a legitimate criticism; however, as the Tribunal cannot disregard the medical evidence, it will not take this argument further.

The income, property and financial resources and earning capacity of Mr Newsome

1. Ms Newsome suggested that Mr Newsome’s accounts were a work of fiction. He has the capacity to earn more money and is a [Occupation 2]. Mr Newsome said that he has not practised in this field since 2007 and is no longer licensed, as demand for such services are falling with the introduction and popularity of platforms such as [Platform 1] and [Platform 2]. He is a professional self-employed [Occupation 3] predominantly undertaking domestic jobs, few commercial jobs and works alone. He has no staff. He does not accept cash for services, all his jobs are quoted in writing, invoiced and paid electronically. Mr Newsome said that there are expenses associated with his work in self-employment and admits, as Ms Newsome suggests, that there are some non-cash benefits such as the taxation write off of his vehicle, phone and home office expenses but that his books are straight and what you see is what you get.

2. Mr Newsome accepts that he has represented his income as $62,000 in other proceedings. This is the gross figure and does not take into account his expenses.

3. Ms Newsome submitted that Mr Newsome is active on Facebook marketing his partner’s business, ([Business 1]) yet not marketing his own [Occupation 3] services to the same extent. Mr Newsome admits that he is the administrator on the Facebook account and that he may commit about one to two hours per day on this activity, taking bookings, liaising with clients and generally undertaking administrator tasks and hosting podcasts but that he is not paid for this activity. It is done after his standard work hours and so no work is foregone. He gets no financial reward for his investment in time.

1. Ms Newsome identified cash transfers to Mr Newsome from his partner but Mr Newsome submitted that careful review of the bank accounts would reveal that these were ‘top ups’ when his bank account was low and that these were ‘loans’. The deposits (varying in amount but up to $2,000 on occasion) are short-term loans and not payment for services. He does not get paid any monies from [Business 1] (his partner’s business) but admits that he is actively involved and he supports his partner in her endeavour. Mr Newsome said that his books are done by an accountant and if there was any income it would be declared in his taxation return. Further, pre COVID-19 he admits he was able to earn in excess of $100,000 but following COVID-19 and the restrictions with social distancing, the work dropped off significantly. It has not really picked up due to the cost of living crisis with many people foregoing maintenance or alternatively opting to undertake their own [work]. Further, there is a lot of competition in the market and he finds that frequently his quotes are beaten. However, he has a good reputation and word of mouth is his best form of marketing. Mr Newsome testified that his partner keeps her accounts separate. He is not an employee of her business. Again he stated he does not get paid and is unsure of what the market value would be for his services if he was to be remunerated.

2. Mr Newsome maintained that his taxation return accurately reflects his income and financial resources, he is working to full capacity and the reduction in income after COVID-19 is due to the general economic climate and not due to deliberate actions to maximise child support received from Ms Newsome. The Tribunal invited Mr Newsome to explain why he was not paid for his administrative services to [Business 1] and he again repeated that he does this for his partner’s sake and that she too would ‘[do the same for me] if necessary’.

3. The 2022/2023 Notice of Assessment and taxation return declares a taxable income for Mr Newsome of $33,326. The bulk of deductions claimed relate to his motor vehicle/telephone/computer/security expenses which Mr Newsome acknowledged he also obtained a personal benefit. It is a well-established principle in the Family Court that the taxable income of a person who is self-employed may not be an accurate reflection of their earning capacity and financial resources (DJM and JLM [1988] FamCA 97; Scott and Scott (1994) FLC 92-457; Carey and Carey (1994) FLC 92-489).

4. Ms Newsome maintains that Mr Newsome’s time is worth money and if he wasn’t spending time ‘working’ in an unpaid capacity in his partner’s business he could be working elsewhere and be appropriately remunerated for his skills.  This is a legitimate argument.

5. In assessing Mr Newsome’s ATI, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to apply an income figure that Mr Newsome has reflected to other jurisdictions, that is, $1,200 per week ($62,000) rounded and which is consistent with his Statement of Financial Circumstances of $1,215 per week rounded. The evidence at hearing confirmed that he works alone and so enjoys the perks of self-employment, that is, he uses his work vehicle for personal use and likewise other deductions such as mobile phones etc are a non-financial benefit and work to legitimately reduce his taxable income. Further, the Tribunal cannot ignore that Mr Newsome gives away (on his own evidence) 8 to 10 hours of labour without compensation to a business that is allegedly profitable (again according to the dreaded Facebook). This of itself would have a minimum return of at least $200 per week or $10,000 per annum. Certainly, the Tribunal has no information as to what his labour would be worth, but in this regard deems it fair to apply the gross income he has recorded in other jurisdictions and in his Statement of Financial Circumstances. Certainly the Tribunal could engage in adding to any ATI the above figure of unremunerated labour, but this makes matters complex, opting to apply the documentary evidence before it. There was no evidence of any other income, such as income protection, investments etc.

6. Overall, on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal it finds that Ms Newsome has an ATI of $62,000.

The necessary commitments of Ms Newsome

1. Ms Newsome does not have any other children under the age of 18 to support. She does have two adult sons who remain at home, who have secured trades and are working and studying.

2. The costs of her medical treatment are largely met by the public purse (Medicare).

The necessary commitments of Mr Newsome

1. Mr Newsome does not have any other children under the age of 18 to support.

2. He has made a good recovery from a brain tumour (diagnosed many years ago) which appears to have minimal ongoing sequalae. The costs of medical treatment are largely met by the public purse (Medicare).

3. Further, the Tribunal has had regard/considered the commitments of each parent that are necessary to enable the parent to support himself/herself and was satisfied that the evidence did not establish any self-support commitments that would take priority over any child support liability. Further the Tribunal finds each parent’s budget (to the extent that there has been disclosure) is sufficient to cater for such needs as per the Statements of Financial Circumstances.

The direct and indirect costs incurred by Ms Newsome in providing care for [Child 1]

1. Ms Newsome does not have any contact with [Child 1] at this time. She stressed on multiple occasions that this was not by choice. Mr Newsome says that he encourages contact.

Hardship

1. Paragraph 117(4)(g) of the Act requires the Tribunal to consider any hardship that would be caused to both Ms Newsome, Mr Newsome and [Child 1], by the making of, or refusal to make, a departure determination.

2. The hardship in this case comes from lack of certainty moving forward but also the arrears that have resulted from various assessments. Both parties claimed to be struggling with increased costs of living pressures, however this was not evident from the papers and appears to be inconsistent with their ability to embark on travel both domestically and abroad.

3. Neither party made submissions on how long any departure should continue but both emphasised the need for certainty and lack of intervention by Child Support. As to the start date of the departure, the Tribunal will commence this from 1 January 2023 consistent with the objections officer. It noted the objections officer continued the departure until [Child 1] turned 18 but as the parties’ financial positions may alter, particularly given the dynamic nature of self-employment and possible pay increases secured by [Occupation 1], the Tribunal deems it appropriate for the departure to expire on 31 December 2024. This will allow the parties some certainty. The evidence did not suggest that the parties’ circumstances will change significantly in the interim.

What is the proposed departure determination in this case?

1. Taking into account all of the above considerations, the Tribunal finds that it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment as follows;

   ·For the period 1 January 2023 until 30 June 2023, Ms Newsome’s ATI be set at $112,941.

   ·For the period 1 July 2023 to 25 November 2023, Ms Newsome’s ATI be set at nil.

   ·For the period 26 November 2023 to 31 December 2024, Ms Newsome’s ATI be set at $112,941.

   ·For the period 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2023, the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $4,740 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1]’s education costs in 2023.

   ·For the period 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024, the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $4,945 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1]’s education costs in 2024.

   ·For the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024, Mr Newsome’s ATI be set at $62,000.

2. The Tribunal reinforces that it was difficult to quantify the income  but is overall satisfied that the above reflects the income and financial resources available to both parents.   It has not conducted a forensic analysis of all financial transactions but nor is it required to do so.  The above assessment results in a decrease in the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome which reflects her period of certified incapacity but also reflects Mr Newsome’s access to income and financial resources from his self-employment venture.   The Tribunal considers it appropriate that both parties contribute equally to school fees given it was a joint intention that [Child 1] be educated privately.

3. The last issue to be considered is whether it is otherwise proper to depart from the administrative assessment. When doing so, subsection 117(5) sets out what the Tribunal must have regard to when deciding whether it would be otherwise proper to make a particular order. Subsection 117(5) states:

   In determining whether it would be otherwise proper to make a particular order under this Division, the court must have regard to:

   (a) the nature of the duty of the 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 any 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.

4. This departure will now reflect that duty and reduce the impact on the public purse by way of any Centrelink entitlement. The Tribunal therefore finds that it is ‘otherwise proper’ to depart from the administrative assessment.

Conclusion

1. Section 4 of the Act sets out the objectives of the Act. These objectives include:

   ·      Parents of a child have a primary duty to maintain that child;

   ·      That duty has a priority over all commitments of the parent other than commitments necessary for self-support;

   ·      The level of financial support to be provided by parents to their children should be determined in accordance with the legislatively fixed standards; and

   ·      The level of financial support is to be determined according to the capacity to provide financial support and noting that parents with a like capacity to provide financial support should provide like amounts.

2. The Tribunal has found that there is a ground for departure in this case, and it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a departure determination in accordance with its findings above.

DECISION

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

• For the period 1 January 2023 until 30 June 2023, Ms Newsome’s ATI be set at $112,941.

• For the period 1 July 2023 to 25 November 2023, Ms Newsome’s ATI be set at nil.

• For the period 26 November 2023 to 31 December 2024, Ms Newsome’s ATI be set at $112,941.

• For the period 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2023, the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $4,740 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1]’s education costs in 2023.

• For the period 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024, the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Newsome is increased by $4,945 in recognition of her contribution to [Child 1]’s education costs in 2024.

• For the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024, Mr Newsome’s ATI be set at $62,000.