Ridgeway and Ridgeway (Child support) - [2018] AATA 2415

Ridgeway and Ridgeway (Child support) [2018] AATA 2415 (15 May 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2017/PC013184
APPLICANT:  Mr Ridgeway
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mrs Ridgeway

TRIBUNAL:Member W Budiselik
DECISION DATE: 15 May 2018
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS
Child support - Departure determination - Whether there is new information since the last departure decision - A ground for departure not established - Refusal to make a determination - Decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

Mr Ridgeway (the father) and Mrs Ridgeway (the mother) are the separated parents of two children (a girl born in 2010 and a boy born in 2012) (the children). A child support non- collect case was registered with the Department of Human Services – Child Support (the Department) in respect of the children on 3 October 2016. The Department’s records show it commenced collecting child support on behalf of the mother from 6 July 2017, and that the children reside with the mother for 226 nights per annum and with the father for 139 nights per annum. The matter before the tribunal is about the amount of child support the father is required to pay the mother.
Following registration the mother’s 2015/2016 adjusted taxable income of $38,983 was used as an element within the child support formula to determine the father’s child support liability for the child support period commencing from 3 October 2016. The child support assessment issued is referred to as the administrative assessment of child support.
On 17 October 2016, the father lodged an application to depart from the administrative assessment of child support. On 5 July 2017 (following an initial determination by the Department on 16 December 2016 and a subsequent objection by the father) an objections officer from the Department determined that for the period 3 October 2016 to 31 October 2017 the mother’s adjusted taxable income was to be varied to $79,200. The child support assessment issued following this variation replaced the previous administrative assessment of child support.
After the Department’s objections officer made his decision on 5 July 2017, the Department sent the father a notice advising him if he thought the decision was wrong he could seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal). He was advised he must act to seek a review within 28 days from the date he received the decision. The father has not sought a review of the decision of 5 July 2017.
On 13 October 2017, the father lodged a fresh departure application citing his reason for seeking the departure as the mother’s income, property, financial resources and earning capacity. In his application the father wrote “whilst the original COA (decision…

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 Ridgeway and Ridgeway (Child support) and more:

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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] AATA 2415
Decision Date: 15 May 2018

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 father, Mr Ridgeway, against the mother, Ms Ridgeway, concerning child support payments for their child. The application was heard by the Child Support Registrar, whose decision was subsequently reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "new information" since the last departure determination that would warrant a further departure from the child support assessment. The father sought to argue that a ground for departure had been established, thereby justifying a change to the existing child support arrangements.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented and applied the principles governing departure determinations under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*. It found that the information relied upon by the father did not constitute "new information" as contemplated by the Act, nor did it establish a ground for departure. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Child Support Registrar to refuse to make a departure determination.

Orders