Romeo and Bobby (Child support) - [2019] AATA 6345

Romeo and Bobby (Child support) [2019] AATA 6345 (16 July 2019)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/HC015824
APPLICANT:  Ms Romeo
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Bobby

TRIBUNAL:Member C Breheny
DECISION DATE: 16 July 2019
DECISION:

The decision under review is varied so that the rate of child support payable by Mr Bobby is increased by $2,824 per annum from 1 November 2018 to 31 October 2020.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – special needs of child – 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 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

Ms Romeo and Mr Bobby are the separated parents of [Child 1], born April 2001 and [Child 2], born September 2007. A child support case has been registered with the Department of Human Services – Child Support (the Department) since 15 March 2002 and registered for collection from 9 December 2004. Mr Bobby is assessed as liable to pay child support to Ms Romeo on the basis that Ms Romeo has 100% care of the children.
For the child support period 1 December 2017 to 30 November 2018, child support was administratively assessed on the basis of Mr Bobby’s 2016–17 adjusted taxable income of $84,571 and Ms Romeo’s 2016–17 derived taxable income of $20,191 resulting in an annual child support liability of $15,768 for Mr Bobby. For the period 1 December 2018 to 13 December 2019, child support was administratively assessed on the basis of Mr Bobby’s 2017–18 adjusted taxable income of $87,493 and Ms Romeo’s 2017–18 derived income of $19,419 resulting in an annual child support liability of $16,424 for Mr Bobby.
On 6 August 2018, Ms Romeo applied to the Department for a change of assessment on the basis that she incurred substantial medical costs for the children and that the administrative assessment did not accurately reflect Mr Bobby’s income, property and financial resources. On 15 November 2018 decision-maker [decided] that no ground for departure had been established and did not change the administrative assessment.
On 29 November 2018 Ms Romeo objected to the decision and provided further evidence. On 21 January 2019 an objections officer of the Department decided to allow the objection. The objections officer determined that Ms Romeo incurred significant costs in relation to orthodontic treatment and [Treatment 1] for one child, [Child 1], in the 18-month period prior to lodging her application and that a ground to depart from the administrative assessment had been established on the basis of [Child 1]’s special needs. The objections officer decided that Mr Bobby’s child support liability was to be increased by $1,872 per annum from 1 November 2018 to 31 October 2020.
On 29 January 2019 Ms Romeo applied to the Social Services and Child…

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.

Continue reading Romeo and Bobby (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Romeo and Bobby (Child support) [2019] AATA 6345
Case: [2019] AATA 6345
Decision Date: 16 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Romeo and Bobby* concerned an application to review a decision made by the Child Support Registrar regarding child support payments. The applicant, Romeo, sought to set aside the Registrar's decision, which had refused to make a departure determination. The dispute centred on whether the Registrar had erred in law or fact in refusing to recognise that Bobby, the child, had special needs that warranted a departure from the standard child support assessment. The matter was heard by C Breheny M in the [Court Name].

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar had correctly applied the provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) when assessing Bobby's alleged special needs. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Registrar had adequately considered the evidence presented regarding Bobby's circumstances and whether the refusal to make a departure determination was justified under the Act, particularly in relation to the "special needs of the child" ground.

C Breheny M reasoned that the Registrar's decision had failed to properly consider the evidence of Bobby's special needs. The court found that the Registrar had not given sufficient weight to the medical reports and expert opinions detailing the ongoing care and financial implications associated with Bobby's condition. Applying the principles of administrative law and the specific criteria for departure determinations under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), the court concluded that the Registrar's decision was not open to them on the evidence.

Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar's decision and substituted its own. The court ordered that a departure determination be made, acknowledging Bobby's special needs and directing that the child support assessment be varied accordingly.

Orders