Shersby and Armon (Child support)

[2024] AATA 1191

Shersby and Armon (Child support) [2024] AATA 1191 (4 April 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/BC026725

APPLICANT:  Ms Shersby

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Armon

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member S De Bono

DECISION DATE:  04 April 2024

DECISION:

The decision under review is varied so that Mr Armon’s child support is increased by the following amounts:

• $614 for the period 1 March 2023 to 29 February 2024 to pay half the cost of the laptop for [the child]; and

• $215 annually for the period 1 March 2024 to 28 February 2025 to assist with the additional costs of [the child]’s medications.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure from administrative assessment – special needs – costs of maintaining child – developmental conditions – medications and laptop required for school – father’s business income and deductions, and personal expenses – adjusted taxable income affirmed – just and equitable to change assessment – decision under review varied

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

1. The issue to be determined in this application is whether there is a reason to change the administrative assessment of child support and, if so, whether it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to do so.

2. Ms Shersby and Mr Armon are the parents of [the child]. From the time of registration of child support [the child] was recorded by Services Australia (Child Support) as being in Ms Shersby’s 100% care. The child support case commenced on 14 October 2015. From the date of registration Mr Armon has been the parent liable to pay child support.

3. The administrative assessment in place prior to Ms Shersby’s change of assessment application on 12 April 2023 was as follows:

   ·     For the period 28 February 2023 to 31 December 2023, Mr Armon is liable to pay an annual rate of child support of $1,521. This is the fixed annual rate for one child and is based on Mr Armon’s 2021/2022 adjusted taxable income (ATI) of $0.00 and Ms Shersby’s 2021/2022 ATI of $44,423.

4. Ms Shersby applied for a change to the administrative assessment of child support on the basis of Reason 1 – the high costs of spending time with or, communicating with, the child; Reason 2 – the special needs of the child and; Reason 8A – that the income, property and financial resources of Mr Armon are not adequately reflected in the administrative assessment of child support.[1]

   [1] It was determined at the telephone directions hearing that Reason 1 did not apply to the circumstances of the case and Ms Shersby elected to proceed without consideration of this.

5. On 19 June 2023 a delegate of the Registrar made the decision to depart from the administrative assessment of child support on the basis of Reason 8A and set Mr Armon’s ATI for the period 1 March 2023 to 28 February 2025 at $90,000.

6. On 2 July 2023 Mr Armon lodged an objection to this decision. On 28 August 2023 an objections officer allowed Mr Armon’s objection, finding Reason 8A established and made the following change of assessment:

   ·     For the period 1 March 2023 to 28 February 2025 Mr Armon’s ATI is set at $62,282 per annum.

   The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Armon is $3,646.

7. On 6 September 2023 Ms Shersby sought further review with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). Directions were issued to both parties on 5 December 2023. On 1 February 2023 a telephone hearing was held in which Ms Shersby and Mr Armon both gave evidence under affirmation. The Tribunal deferred its decision, and further directions were issued to Mr Armon on 2 February 2024. The Tribunal reconvened on 4 April 2024. The Tribunal considered the documents from Child Support as well as the submissions provided by both parties prior to, and after the hearing, as well as the oral evidence from Ms Shersby and Mr Armon. Relevant aspects of the material and evidence will be referred to in the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision.[2]

CONSIDERATION

[2] Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, subsection 37(1) Statement and Documents provided by Child Support numbered 1–333; Ms Shersby’s documents numbered A1–A93; Mr Armon’s documents numbered B1–B60.

The legislative framework

1. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act). The liable parent or a carer may apply for a determination departing from the administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Assessment Act.

2. Section 98C of the Assessment Act establishes a three-step process to be satisfied: that there is a ground for departure; that it is just and equitable to depart; and that it is otherwise proper to make a departure determination. Once satisfied, the Tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Assessment Act.

Reason 2 – [the child]’s special needs

1. The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are those set out in subsection 117(2) of the Assessment Act. Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ia) of the Assessment Act – commonly referred to as “Reason 2”– states as follows: “(b) that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected: … (ia) because of special needs of the child”.

2. The term “special circumstances” is not defined in the Assessment Act. In Gyselman and Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93 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.

3. Ms Shersby told the Tribunal that [the child] has been diagnosed with ADHD. Evidence provided by Ms Shersby shows that [the child] underwent an assessment for ADHD by the Child Development Service of the Children’s Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service on 18 August 2022.[3] This assessment confirmed that [the child] does meet the DSM-V criteria for ADHD combined type as well as meeting the DSM-V criteria for developmental coordination disorder. The assessor reported that [the child] has some anxiety and recommended “consistent structure, routines and predictability at both home and school as well as continued opportunities to develop, responsive and trusting relationships with her family”.[4] Recommendations included a vision assessment and the need for glasses, diet to increase [the child]’s weight and resources regarding ADHD.[5]

   [3] A25 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

   [4] A25 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

   [5] A26 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

4. The Team Assessment Report completed in November 2022 by the Child Development Service recommended considering medication management and a referral to a local paediatrician once Ms Shersby had relocated to Brisbane; a review by a GP to see if [the child] qualifies for psychological support under a Mental Health Plan; and ensuring information about [the child]’s diagnosis is shared with her new primary school.[6]

   [6] A30 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

5. [The child]’s assessments for ADHD were undertaken in the public health system. Ms Shersby said the main cost she currently incurs is the cost of [the child]’s medications. Ms Shersby said [the child] takes Ritalin 10mg and is currently taking two tablets a day. The cost for 10 mg/100 Ritalin tablets is $10.46 a script (a cost of about $77 annually).[7] Ms Shersby said [the child] also has a melatonin tablet at night, this is about $55.40 for 60 tablets (a cost of about $350 annually), as well as vitamin gummies one at night, the cost is about $60 for 90 gummies (a cost of about $260 annually).

   [7]A50 of Ms Shersby’s submissions. 

6. The total cost of tablets for [the child] is approximately $690 annually or $13.26 weekly. Mr Armon is currently assessed to pay child support of $3,646 annually as a result of the departure determination which set Mr Armon’s ATI at $62,282. The total cost of medication for [the child]’s special needs represents 18% of the child support amount currently paid by Mr Armon annually. The Tribunal accepts this is a significant cost which affects Ms Shersby’s costs of maintaining [the child] due to her special needs.

7. Ms Shersby also said she had to purchase glasses for [the child] which cost her around $199. However, the Tribunal finds that it is not uncommon for children to require glasses and is not a special need.

8. Mr Armon said there is no medical evidence that supports the need for [the child] to take melatonin tablets. Ms Shersby submitted that the medication has been recommended by [the child]’s paediatrician. While there are no supporting documents in the evidence before the Tribunal which recommend [the child] take this medication, the Tribunal accepts that the scripts for Ritalin and melatonin were prescribed by [Dr A], [the child]’s paediatrician in [City 1] and were viewed by her to be necessary for [the child].[8]

   [8] A14 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

9. The total cost of medications for [the child] discussed at the hearing shows that she is required to take Ritalin and melatonin. The cost for these two medications is about $8.26 weekly or $430 annually. Mr Armon is currently assessed to pay child support of $3,646 annually as set by the departure determination which set Mr Armon’s ATI at $62,282. The total cost of medication for [the child]’s special needs represents 11% of the child support amount currently paid by Mr Armon annually. The Tribunal accepts this is a significant cost which affects Ms Shersby’s costs of maintaining [the child] due to her special needs. Accordingly, Reason 2 is established.

Would a departure from the administrative assessment be just and equitable?

1. Having found that special circumstances exist such that the administrative assessment resulted in an unjust and inequitable result, a ground for departure is established in relation to subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) (Reason 8A) of the Assessment Act, the next step for the Tribunal is to consider whether it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment.

2. In deciding whether it is just and equitable, the Tribunal had regard to the matters set out in subsection 117(4) of the Assessment Act. Section 3 of the Assessment Act makes it clear that the parents of a child have the primary duty to maintain the child over all commitments, other than commitments necessary for self-support or the support of another person to which they have a duty to support.

The needs of [the child]

1. In determining the proper needs of a child, it is necessary to 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 (subsection 117(6) of the Assessment Act). The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the parties relating to the needs of the child.

2. Ms Shersby confirmed that [the child] attends a public primary school. Ms Shersby provided evidence about school expenses she had incurred for [the child] including the cost of a school camp for 2023.[9] The costs of school supplies and uniforms are not costs which relate to [the child]’s special needs nor are these costs that are out of the ordinary for children attending primary school. Ms Shersby also provided a receipt for the cost of a personal computer for [the child] for school at a cost of $798.[10] A letter from the school confirms an extension to the ‘Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)’ laptops for students in 2024 for students in Years 4 to 6.[11] The Tribunal accepts this is an additional expense for Ms Shersby and represents a large sum that Ms Shersby is required to pay above the usual expenses in supporting a child in primary school.

   [9] A11 of Ms Shersby’s submissions

   [10] A80 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

   [11] A12 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

3. The cost of the laptop also represents 21% of the administrative assessment of child support payable by Mr Armon. The Tribunal finds given the circumstances that it is not unreasonable to expect Mr Armon to contribute to this cost in addition to his child support assessment. It is not just and equitable to expect Ms Shersby to fully fund a laptop for [the child] that is required by the school for [the child]’s education, given the cost of the device when compared with the annual child support payment Mr Armon is assessed to pay under the administrative assessment of child support.

4. Ms Shersby also wanted the Tribunal to consider the costs of transporting [the child] to and from her medical reviews and provided information about some of these appointments. She said that these appointments were a two hour round trip from [Region] to [City 1]. The Tribunal notes that some of these appointments were virtual health appointments, while two appointments at the Child Health Clinic at [Town 1] Hospital on 18 September 2023 and 16 October 2023 were face to face.[12] Ms Shersby has now relocated to Brisbane. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the costs of transporting [the child] to these appointments is not excessive and determines that this does not render the administrative assessment unjust and inequitable.

   [12] A19–A22 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

5. Ms Shersby confirmed that [the child] has no income or financial resources of her own.

Mr Armon’s income, property and financial resources

1. Mr Armon owns a business, [Business name]. He indicates a weekly gross business income before outgoings and costs of $1,500 or $78,000 annually.[13]

   [13] B3 of Mr Armon’s Statement of Financial Circumstances.

2. Mr Armon said he is [an Occupation 1] and operates his business as a sole trader, the business was previously registered but was deregistered on 24 June 2022. He is currently subcontracting to a company, ‘[Company 1]’ on a full-time basis, he was previously subcontracting to another company shown as ‘[Company 2]’ in the business account. Mr Armon said this contract will finish in February 2024. Mr Armon said he undertakes the work in the shed the business has rented and then provides the services. Mr Armon said the business was originally in his name and now is in both his and his partner’s names. He said has just set up GST in the last 12 months.

3. Mr Armon provided two bank accounts to the Tribunal:

   ·     The joint [Bank Business] account in joint names ending in account number 0456; and,

   ·     The joint [Bank Personal] account ending in account number 4031.

4. The [Bank Business] account before the Tribunal was for the dates 27 February 2023 to 31 March 2023 and 23 March 2023 to 28 September 2023.[14] The following deposits were noted:

[14] Pages 172–176 of the hearing papers and pages, B38–B40 of Mr Armon’s submissions.

All deposits into the business account	Total for the period	Days in the period	Gross daily business income for the period
27 February 2023–27 March 2023[15]	$26,008	28 days	$928.85
28 March 2023–28 June 2023	$32,366[16]	92 days	$351.80
28 June 2023–28 September 2023	$45,769.74[17]	184 days	$248.74
Total	$104,170.74	304 days	$342.66

[15] This statement is for the period to 31 March 2023, however there were no further deposits into this account after 20 March 2023 so the Tribunal has reduced the period to the day before the next statement period.

[16] B38 of Mr Armon’s submissions.

[17] B39 of Mr Armon’s submissions.

1. The Table shows that Mr Armon’s gross business income for a period of 304 days from 27 February 2023 shown by deposits into the joint [Bank] Business account was $104,170.74.

2. Mr Armon’s tax return for the 2022/2023 financial year shows a gross business income of $92,958 with business deductions for rent totalling $23,387, $5,078 in vehicle expenses, $7,777 in repairs and maintenance and all other expenses totalling $23,006. Following deductions in business expenses for the 2022/2023 financial year totalling $58,650, Mr Armon’s ATI was assessed by the Australian Tax Office to be $34,308.[18]

   [18] Pages 216–218 of the hearing papers.

3. If the Tribunal was to estimate the possible gross business income for the 2023/2024 financial year on the basis of the information contained in the Table above at a rate of $248.74 daily, the gross income for the business would be about $90,790.[19]

   [19] This is based on multiplying the daily rate for the period of $248.74 x 365 days.

4. The Tribunal considered whether business deductions of $58,650 is reasonable in the circumstances when considering the issues of just and equitable (see paragraph 20 of these Reasons). In Voss & Child Support Registrar & Anor (SSAT Appeal)[20] the court commented on the common situation of a self-employed person’s taxable income not corresponding with his or her income or financial resources for child support purposes:

   …where simple reference to a person's tax return does not provide an appropriate quantification of their capacity to provide financial support. Most commonly this occurs in cases involving the self-employed, where it is well accepted that legal structures and arrangements may generate taxable income that doesn't properly reflect the realistic capacity of the person to provide financial support for their children.

   [20] [2009] FMCAfam 1296.

5. The courts have also concluded that a “forensic audit” or major investigation of the financial circumstances of a party is not required to be undertaken. Rather, there must be satisfaction on the balance of probabilities as to the party’s income, property and financial resources.[21]

   [21] See for example Morse & Potts (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1305.

6. Mr Armon said deductions for the business include rent for the shed at [Address, Town 2], Tasmania.  Mr Armon provided a rental agreement for the shed from [Owner] showing annual rent as $24,000.

7. Ms Shersby was of the view that rental agreement was falsified and the person whose signature was attached as a witness to the agreement had told her they did not actually witness or sign the agreement. Ms Shersby said the person who told her this was a previous mutual friend of herself and Mr Armon. Ms Shersby is also of the view that Mr Armon, his current wife and her children (when she has care of them) are residing full time in the shed.

8. The rental contract for the shed at [Address, Town 2], Tasmania shows rent of $24,000 annually. The rental agreement does not stipulate a weekly amount. Mr Armon said he resides in the shed about three to four days a week if he has a big job he is undertaking, but as a family they might only stay one or two nights over the weekend. Mr Armon said his current wife is from Tasmania and has family in [City 2]. When they are not staying in the shed they stay with his wife’s family in [City 2], they do not pay rent to her family. Mr Armon said the shed has an upstairs carpeted area, there is a single bed mattress and a double bed mattress upstairs. The business account shows rental deductions as follows:

   ·1/5/2023:        $3,012.50[22]

   ·17/5/2023:      $100

   ·7/6/2023:        $100

   ·12/6/2023:      $2,200

   ·17/8/2023:      $100  

   [22] B16, B17, B21, B22 and B33 of Mr Armon’s submissions.

   Total rent paid:   $5,512.50

9. The Tribunal accepts on balance that Mr Armon is paying $24,000 annually for the rent of the shed, given there are deductions for rent in the above period from the business bank account.

10. The personal and business bank accounts before the Tribunal show the majority of bank transactions occurring close to [Town 2] where the shed is located.[23] Based on the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Armon is residing predominantly in the shed. The Tribunal finds that 10% of the rental costs represents the private use of the shed for Mr Armon while recognising that 90% of the use of the shed is used primarily to generate an income by Mr Armon.

    [23] This is worked out by dividing $24,000 by 365 ($65.75 daily) x 104 = $6,838.

1. Based on the business deductions for the 2022/2023 financial year, other expenses included $5,078 in vehicle expenses, $7,777 in repairs and maintenance and all other expenses equalling $23,006. In terms of motor vehicle use, Mr Armon said about 10% of the use of the business vehicle was for personal use. Mr Armon said business expenses were for the [Vehicle] dual cab which he sold in late 2023. Mr Armon said he has now purchased another vehicle in his own name. His wife has her own vehicle in her name.

2. The Tribunal has looked at Mr Armon’s personal expenditure deducted from the business account for July 2023. The Tribunal has excluded costs it has identified in relation to running a business, but has included costs for food, alcohol and other expenses identified as personal in nature and not related to running a business as [an Occupation 1]. The identified personal expenses for the month of June 2023 shown in Appendix 1, total $2,286.87. Calculated for a period of 12 months these personal expenses would be in the vicinity of $27,442 which is a financial resource available to Mr Armon and is a net benefit to him. This amount excludes the two cash withdrawals on 31 July 2023 totalling $1,700 as the Tribunal is satisfied that these withdrawals are not replicated in other months and are one-off cash withdrawals.[24]

   [24] B31 of Mr Armon’s submissions.

3. As the Tribunal has determined that 10% of the rental costs of $2,400 represent the  personal use of the shed, personal use of the business vehicle of 10% is $507.80, and personal net expenses of $27,442 should all be added back to  the business deductions, these deductions total $30,349. The Tribunal is of the view that business deductions totalling $58,650 should be decreased by $30,349, this reduces Mr Armon’s business expenses/deductions to $28,301 for the 2022/2023 financial year. Adding back business expenses of $28,301 to Mr Armon’s ATI would mean his adjusted taxable income would be $64,657. This is a difference of $2,375 in ATI for Mr Armon when compared with the $62,282 found by the objections officer, which is a difference of $52.59 weekly between the two income amounts.

4. Mr Armon on his Statement of Financial Circumstances (SOFC) indicates weekly expenses of $760 for himself which includes the rental expenses for the shed of $550. As 90% of the cost of the shed is a business deduction Mr Armon’s weekly expenses are reduced by this amount.[25] His other expenses are listed as food $150 weekly, household supplies $30 weekly and telephone $30 weekly. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Armon’s personal expenses are very low at $210 weekly. Mr Armon said his SOFC is an accurate reflection of his financial situation.

   [25] B9 of Mr Armon’s submissions.

5. Mr Armon has a [child] with his current wife who he has a legal duty to support.

Ms Shersby’s income, property and financial resources

1. Ms Shersby said she previously worked as [an Occupation 2] on a casual and at times a part-time basis. She stopped work in December 2022 due to [the child]’s behaviour and special needs but she has commenced employment again as [an Occupation 2]. Ms Shersby will be on maternity leave until December 2024

2. Ms Shersby indicates a weekly income of $2,278 which is the single parent pension, family assistance and child support payments when paid.[26] Ms Shersb owns a property which she is currently renting.[27] Ms Shersby indicates she has $48,925 in superannuation, she confirmed she has not made additional contributions to her superannuation.[28] Her home loan balance is currently around $227,000.[29] Ms Shersby indicates a loan with Zip Money with an outstanding balance of $1,317.30.[30] Ms Shersby indicates monthly expenses of food and her mortgage repayments. Ms Shersby’s monthly expenses are $4,938 monthly.[31]

   [26] A1 and A3 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

   [27] A2 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

   [28] A5 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

   [29] A4 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

   [30] A6 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

   [31] A8 of Ms Shersby’s submissions.

3. Ms Shersby has a legal duty to support another child. Ms Shersby said her SOFC is an accurate record of her expenses and financial situation.

Conclusion

1. The Tribunal has determined that Mr Armon’s ATI is marginally higher than the income set by the objections officer. Mr Armon is currently assessed to pay an annual child support amount of $4,906 for the period 19 April 2024 to 31 October 2024 on an ATI set by the objections officer of $62,282.[32] Increasing Mr Armon’s ATI to $64,657 would increase Mr Armon’s child support by about $163 annually.

   [32] This is according to the CUBA screens on page 305 of the hearing papers.

2. The Tribunal has determined that the ATI set by the objections officer is affirmed, but finds that Mr Armon should also contribute to half the cost of the laptop and half the costs of [the child]’s medication as determined by her paediatrician. The Tribunal has determined that the current cost for [the child]’s medications prescribed by her paediatrician is around $430 annually and Mr Armon’s child support amount should be increased by $215 annually.  Additionally, Mr Armon should contribute to half the cost of the laptop for school of $798, which is a contribution of $399.

3. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that it would be just and equitable to make a departure determination from the administrative assessment and determines that the decision of the objections officer is correct in setting Mr Armon’s ATI as follows:

   ·     For the period 1 March 2023 to 28 February 2025 Mr Armon’s ATI is set at $62,282 per annum.

   However, Mr Armon’s child support amount is increased by $614 for the period 1 March 2023 to 29 February 2024 to assist with the costs of the laptop for [the child] and the costs of her medications for that period, and by $215 annually for the period 1 March 2024 to 28 February 2025 to assist with the additional costs of [the child]’s medications.

Would there be resulting hardship from a departure from the administrative assessment?

1. Subsection 117(4) of the Assessment Act requires the Tribunal to take into account whether any departure determination or failure to make a departure will cause any hardship to the child, the carer, the liable parent or any other person the parents have a duty to support.

2. The Tribunal finds that, based on the evidence and information provided to Child Support and to the Tribunal, it is unlikely that either parent will experience hardship from this departure determination as Mr Armon has capacity to draw on funds that the business has generated. The Tribunal does not find the departure determination would cause hardship to Ms Shersby and finds it strikes a more equitable balance for Ms Shersby given the additional expenses she has incurred for [the child].

3. Ms Shersby also wanted the Tribunal to consider income Mr Armon may generate from the sale of motor vehicles, and the Tribunal did note some expenses from Supercheap Auto and Repco. However, on balance the Tribunal could not determine from the information before it whether this activity generates any profit. Mr Armon denied he was selling cars to make a profit and said he also spent money on the cars before selling them. Mr Armon said the only cars he sold were the [Vehicle] which was registered with [Business name] before the business was deregistered and his wife’s car which was in her name, Mr Armon provided evidence of this in his submissions to the Tribunal.[33]

   [33] B56 – B59 of Mr Armon’s submissions.

Is it otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination?

1. The third step is to consider whether it would be otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination in accordance with sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Assessment Act. Subsection 117(5) of the Assessment Act sets out the matters that must be considered when deciding whether it would be “otherwise proper” to make a departure determination. Subsection 117(5) focuses on the balance of support carried between the parents on the one hand and the taxpayer on the other. It is appropriate for the children to be primarily supported by their parents rather than by government assistance. Paragraph 117(5)(b) of the Assessment Act means that the Tribunal must consider whether the level of a benefit, in particular family tax benefit, received by the party caring for the children may be affected by the level of child support. The Tribunal has concluded that it is otherwise proper in the circumstances to depart from the administrative assessment.

2. The Tribunal notes that it is open to either party to lodge further change of assessment applications should future circumstances of either party change significantly from the circumstances upon which this decision is based.

DECISION

The decision under review is varied so that Mr Armon’s child support is increased by the following amounts:

• $614 for the period 1 March 2023 to 29 February 2024 to pay half the cost of the laptop and medications for [the child]; and

• $215 annually for the period 1 March 2024 to 28 February 2025 to assist with the additional costs of [the child]’s medications

Appendix 1 – Identified personal expenditure from the business account:

Date	Business	Amount	Page
3/7/2023	[Retailer 1]	26.24	B26
3/7/2023	[Bakery]	26.60
3/7/2023	Woolworths	33.40
3/7/2023	Woolworths	34.15
3/7/2023	[Retailer 1]	72.90
3/7/2023	Woolworths	71.30
3/7/2023	[Liquor]	73.00
3/7/2023	[Cafe]	$74.70
3/7/2023	[Coffee]	$11.00
3/7/2023	Paypal	$122.90
3/7/2023	[McDonald’s]	$29.80
4/7/2023	[KFC]	$37.30
4/7/2023	[McDonald’s]	$14.20
5/7/2023	[Bakehouse]	$13.00	B27
5/7/2023	[Restaurants]	$14.96
12/7/2023	[Bakehouse]	$13.00
12/7/2023	Woolworths	$56.60
13/7/2023	[Hobby shop]	$174.00
14/7/2023	Woolworths	$32.48
14/7/2024	[Liquor]	$64.00
17/7/2023	Woolworths	$9.15	B28
17/7/2023	[cheese]	$23.50
17/7/2023	Woolworths	$29.10
17/7/2023	Supercheap Auto	$50.49
17/7/2023	[Liquor]	$107.00
17/7/2023	[Coffee]	$12.70
17/7/2023	[Organisation]	$49.99
17/7/2023	[McDonalds]	$10.60
18/7/2023	[Bakehouse]	$13.00
18/7/2023	[Takeaways]	$13.50	B29
18/7/2023	[McDonald’s]	$13.85
18/7/2023	[McDonald’s]	$11.70
19/7/2023	Woolworths	$11.00
19/7/2023	[Takeaways]	$12.80
19/7/2023	Woolworths	$71.60
19/7/2023	[Takeaways]	$12.60
20/7/2023	Woolworths	$32.98
20/7/2023	[Autobarn]	$21.62
21/7/2023	[Restaurant]	$13.95
21/7/2023	Woolworths	$74.33
24/7/2023	[Takeaways]	$10.80
24/7/2023	Woolworths	$22.00
24/7/2023	[Meats]	$53.55
24/7/2023	Woolworths	$59.40
24/7/2023	[coffee]	$13.40	B30
24/7/2023	[McDonald’s]	$14.60
24/7/2023	[McDonald’s]	$10.05
26/7/2023	Woolworths	$9.00
26/7/2023	[Liquor]	$65.00
26/7/2023	Woolworths online	$149.95
28/7/2023	Woolworths	$41.45
28/7/2023	Snack Bar	$4.70
31/7/2023	[Repco]	$8.50	B31
31/7/2023	Woolworths	$35.72
31/7/2023	Woolworths	$41.68
31/7/2023	Woolworths	$52.50
31/7/2023	[Liquor]	$72.00
31/7/2023	[Barber]	$42.18
Total	$2,286.87