Runcie and Heywood (Child support) - [2021] AATA 998

Runcie and Heywood (Child support) [2021] AATA 998 (9 February 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/SC019708
APPLICANT:  Mrs Runcie
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Heywood

TRIBUNAL:Member C Breheny
DECISION DATE: 09 February 2021
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

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 - financial resources of the liable parent – not just and equitable to depart – decision not to depart - 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

Mrs Runcie and Mr Heywood are the separated parents of [Child 1], born June 2009 and [Child 2], born June 2011. A child support case has been registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) since 13 August 2013 and has been registered for collection from 27 February 2015. Mr Heywood is assessed as liable to pay child support to Mrs Runcie on the basis that she has 77% care of the children.
Most recently Mr Heywood’s child support liability was set by a departure determination made by this Tribunal (differently constituted) on 7 February 2018, following review of a change of assessment application lodged by Mrs Runcie on 21 June 2016. Mrs Runcie requested an increase in child support payments from 1 July 2015 onwards. The Tribunal determined that Mr Heywood’s adjusted taxable income was set at $150,878 for the period 21 June 2016 to 31 December 2019. This resulted in an annual child support liability of $18,808.
From 1 January 2020 Mr Heywood’s child support liability reduced to ‘nil’ on the basis of a 2018/19 derived income of $19,996 for Mr Heywood and Mrs Runcie’s 2018/19 taxable income of $9,815.
On 12 December 2019 Mrs Runcie contacted Child Support to lodge a further change of assessment application seeking an increase in Mr Heywood’s child support liability from 1 January 2020 onwards, because Mr Heywood should contribute to private school fees for the children and the administrative assessment did not adequately reflect Mr Heywood’s income, financial resources and earning capacity.
On 10 March 2020 decision maker (DM) Bray decided that although a ground for departure had been made out in respect of the private school fees, it was not just and equitable to change the administrative assessment. On 4 April 2020 Mrs Runcie lodged an objection to DM Bray’s decision and on 22 July 2020 a Child Support objections officer disallowed Mrs Runcie’s objection.
On 21 August 2020 Mrs Runcie applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for an independent review of the objection decision. A hearing into…

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 Runcie and Heywood (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: [2021] AATA 998
Decision Date: 9 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia regarding a child support departure determination. The applicants, Runcie and Heywood, sought to depart from the child support assessment for their two children. The primary dispute revolved around the costs associated with the children's private school education, which the applicants argued significantly affected the costs of maintaining the children in a manner expected by both parents.

The court was required to determine whether the costs of the children's private education constituted a ground for departure from the child support assessment. Specifically, the court had to consider whether these costs significantly affected the costs of maintaining the children in a manner that would have been expected by both parents had they separated later. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether it was just and equitable to make a departure order, taking into account the financial resources of the liable parent.

The Full Court affirmed the decision of the lower court not to depart from the assessment. The reasoning focused on the interpretation of the phrase "manner expected by both parents." The court found that while the cost of private education was a significant expense, it did not necessarily establish that this was the manner in which both parents would have jointly maintained the children had the relationship continued. The court emphasised that the financial resources of the liable parent were a crucial consideration in determining whether a departure was just and equitable, and in this instance, the evidence did not support a departure.

Orders