Reace and Mamakos (Child support) - [2024] AATA 3939

Reace and Mamakos (Child support) [2024] AATA 3939 (25 September 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2024/SC027719
APPLICANT:  Ms Reace
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Mamakos

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis
DECISION DATE: 25 September 2024
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources – mother’s stable employment – father’s higher income but contract work uncertain to be extended – father’s payment of child’s school fees, and both parents’ household expenditure – some hardship to mother balanced against needs of father and child – decision under review affirmed

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

This review is about whether or not there should be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.
Ms Reace and Mr Mamakos are the parents of [the child] (born April 2010). There has been a child support assessment in place since 1 July 2011 and Ms Reace is currently the parent liable to pay child support.
The following administrative assessments of child support are under consideration:
· for the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 November 2023 Ms Reace is assessed to pay an annual rate of $3,089 based on a 2021–22 adjusted taxable income of $88,202 for Ms Reace and a 2021–22 adjusted taxable income for Mr Mamakos of $93,202; and
· for the period from 1 December 2023 to 28 February 2025 Ms Reace is assessed to pay an annual rate of $565 based on a 2022–23 adjusted taxable income of $71,371 for Ms Reace and a 2022–23 adjusted taxable income for Mr Mamakos of $100,653.
The Tribunal notes a change to the care arrangements for [the child] was determined by Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) with Ms Reace providing 0 per cent care and Mr Mamakos providing 100 per cent care from 29 June 2023.
On 16 August 2023 Ms Reace applied to Child Support for a change to the assessment on the basis of the special needs of the child (the ground more commonly known as Reason 2) and a parent’s income, property, financial resource or earning capacity (Reasons 8A and 8B).
On 24 October 2023 Child Support made the decision to change the assessment so that for the period from 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2025 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Mamakos is set at $128,800 (the original decision).
On 19 November 2023 Mr Mamakos objected to this decision and on 19 December 2023 Child Support allowed the objection in part and made the decision to change the assessment (the objection decision) so that:
· for the period from 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2025 the adjusted taxable income of Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reace and Mamakos (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] AATA 3939
Decision Date: 25 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) brought by the mother, Reace, against the father, Mamakos. The dispute centred on the assessment of child support payable by the father for their child.

The court was required to determine whether the father’s child support assessment should be departed from, having regard to the income, property, and financial resources of both parents. Specifically, the court had to consider the mother’s stable employment income, the father’s higher but potentially uncertain contract income, and the existing financial contributions made by both parents towards the child’s expenses, including school fees and household expenditure.

Senior Member R Ellis reasoned that while the mother might experience some hardship due to the current assessment, this needed to be balanced against the financial needs of the father and the child. The court considered the father’s income to be higher overall, but acknowledged the precariousness of his contract work. The existing contributions towards the child’s expenses were also a significant factor. Ultimately, the Senior Member affirmed the original decision under review, finding that a departure determination was not warranted in these circumstances.

Orders