Stansfeld and Stansfeld (Child support)

[2022] AATA 4676

Stansfeld and Stansfeld (Child support) [2022] AATA 4676 (1 November 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/AC023541

APPLICANT:  Mrs Stansfeld

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Stansfeld

TRIBUNAL:Member C Breheny

DECISION DATE:  01 November 2022

DECISION:

The decision under review is varied so that for the period 13 September 2021 to 28 February 2022 Mrs Stansfeld’s adjusted taxable income is set at $157,285.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the carer entitled to receive – a ground for departure established – decision to depart - 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. Mrs Stansfeld and Mr Stansfeld are the separated parents of [Child 1], born [date] July 2009 and twins, [Child 2] and [Child 3], born [date] December 2010. A child support case has been registered for collection with Services Australia (then the Department of Human Services) – Child Support (Child Support) since 30 December 2017. From March 2021 child support was payable on the basis that Mrs Stansfeld has 100% care of [Child 1] and that the parents had shared care of [Child 3] and [Child 2]. Care of [Child 2] changed from December 2021 in that Mrs Stansfeld had 100%, which was applied to the assessment from 10 June 2022. Mr Stansfeld was, at all times, assessed as liable to pay child support to Mrs Stansfeld.

2. There have been three previous change of assessment applications in this case. Most recently Mrs Stansfeld lodged an application on 11 March 2020 based on the parties’ income and financial resources and the children’s special needs (medical costs). On 2 July 2020 decision maker (DM) [name] decided to depart from the administrative assessment on the basis of the parties’ income and financial resources and determined that for the period 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2020 Mrs Stansfeld’s adjusted taxable income was set at $94,000 and for the period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2022 Mr Stansfeld’s adjusted taxable income was set at $136,000. On 2 July 2021 Mr Stansfeld applied for an extension of time to lodge an objection to the decision made on 2 July 2020 but the application was refused and no objection decision was made.

3. For the child support period commencing 1 September 2021 Mr Stansfeld’s child support liability was assessed as being $12,768 per annum based on Mrs Stansfeld’s 2020/21 adjusted taxable income of $91,593 and Mr Stansfeld’s adjusted taxable income of $136,000 (as set by DM [name] on 2 July 2020).

4. On 13 September 2021, Mr Stansfeld applied for a further change of assessment on the basis that Mrs Stansfeld’s income, property, and financial resources were not accurately reflected in the assessment and that he had additional necessary self-support expenses. Mrs Stansfeld disagreed, noting that there should be no change to the assessment. On 12 November 2021, DM [Name 1] refused to change the assessment as no reason had been established.

5. On 10 December 2021, Mr Stansfeld objected to the decision, stating that he had medical expenses of over $10,000 per year and Mrs Stansfeld’s actual income was greater than that used in the assessment. Mrs Stansfeld submitted that she incurred additional costs for private school fees and needed to take a higher paying job to pay off her debts.

6. On 27 February 2022 a Child Support objections officer decided to allow the objection. The objections officer determined that for the period 13 September 2021 to 28 February 2022 Mrs Stansfeld’s adjusted taxable income was set at $191,513. The objections officer noted that Mrs Stansfeld had not provided any further evidence regarding private school fees (or any other expenses) and these had therefore not been considered.

7. On 23 March 2022, Mrs Stansfeld applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an independent review of Child Support’s decision. A hearing into Mrs Stansfeld’s application for review was held on 1 November 2022. Both Mrs Stansfeld and Mr Stansfeld attended the hearing by conference telephone and gave evidence on affirmation. 

8. I had before me the statement and documents provided by Child Support pursuant to subsection 37(1) and section 38AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, received on 13 April 2022 and 14 October 2022 respectively and numbered 1–474. I also considered additional documents provided by Mrs Stansfeld (marked A1–A269) and Mr Stansfeld (marked B1–B206) as a result of written directions issued on 30 August 2022.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND ISSUES

1. The legislation relevant to this review is contained in the child support law, in particular the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Registration and Collection Act).

2. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act. This requires the application of a statutory formula, which takes into account factors such as the number of children, the level of care provided and the income of each parent. Either the liable parent or the carer entitled to child support may apply to the Registrar for a determination to depart from the child support administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Act (section 98B). Section 98C provides that the Registrar may make a determination to depart from the formula assessment and establishes a three-step process. The Registrar, and the Tribunal standing in place of the Registrar, must be satisfied that a ground for departure exists and that it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a departure determination.

3. The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are those set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act. If satisfied that a ground or grounds exist, and that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination, the Tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act.

4. In the legislation, each ground for departure is prefaced by the words, “in the special circumstances of the case”. Therefore, when considering whether one (or more) grounds exists, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are “special circumstances” in the case. The phrase “special circumstances of the case” is not defined in the Act. The Full Family Court, in the case of Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279 stated that:

   It is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary. That is, the intention of the Legislature is that the court will not interfere with the administrative formula result in the ordinary run of cases.

5. Subsection 98C(3) of the Act provides that subsections 117(4) to (9) of the Act apply and the Tribunal must consider these when deciding whether it would be just and equitable or otherwise proper to make the departure decision.

CONSIDERATION

A ground for departure

1. Mr Stansfeld asked for a departure from the administrative assessment on the basis that the assessment does not correctly reflect the parties’ respective income, property and financial resources (also known as “Reason 8A”) and that he had out of the ordinary necessary self-support expenses (“Reason 7”).

2. Mrs Stansfeld submitted that the cost of the children’s private school fees (“Reason 3”), medical expenses (“Reason 2”) and child care fees (“Reason 6”) should also be considered.

3. Neither party submitted that the other had additional earning capacity for the purposes of this review. Mrs Stansfeld is working full-time and Mr Stansfeld is in receipt of disability insurance payments. I have thus not considered this issue (“Reason 8B”) further.

Income, property and financial resources of both parties

1. Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act provides that, in the special circumstances of the case, a ground for departure may be established if application of the legislative provisions relating to an administrative assessment results in an “unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent” due to the income, property and financial resources of either parent.

Mrs Stansfeld – income, property and financial resources

1. At the time Mr Stansfeld lodged his application on 13 September 2021, his child support liability was $12,768 per annum, based on Mrs Stansfeld’s 2020/21 adjusted taxable income of $91,153 and his adjusted taxable income of $136,000 (as determined on 2 July 2020).

2. Mrs Stansfeld said that she was involved in a serious car accident in December 2020, which made it difficult for sit at a desk in an office for a long time. This meant she had to give up her job in the office of [Employer 1]. A friend offered her a full-time contract job that could be done from home. The contact was for a period of 10 months.

3. Mrs Stansfeld said that this work was paid at a higher rate than her previous job and she held this job until 30 April 2022. Mrs Stansfeld provided an income summary statement from this employment indicating that she received $135,185.47 in the 10-month period 1 July 2021 to 30 April 2022 (folio A227).

4. Mrs Stansfeld said that she commenced a new full-time job with “[Company 1] ” in April 2022. This is permanent employment and she is paid $2,500 (gross) per week (folios A219-A222). The income summary statement for 2021/22 shows that Mrs Stansfeld received $31,500 in the period 4 April 2022 to 30 June 2022 from this employment (folio A223).

5. Mrs Stansfeld’s gross income from these two employers amounted to $166,685 in 2021/22 and her taxable income in that year was $157,285 (folio A233). Mrs Stansfeld said that she had to “set up a home office from scratch” when she first took the contact job in July 2021. She was thus able to claim significant tax deductions in that year.

6. Records indicate that Mrs Stansfeld’s taxable income in 2019/20 was $95,473 (folio A214) and in 2020/21 it was $91,153. The 2020/21 income tax return (folios 295-301) indicates payments from two employers (total gross earnings of $96,897) plus $243 interest/dividends. Mrs Stansfeld claimed tax deductions of $5,987 for a taxable income of $91,153 in 2020/21.

7. Based on Mrs Stansfeld’s current payslips her gross income for 2022/23 will be about $130,000 ($2,500 per week x 52).

8. Mr Stansfeld submitted that Mrs Stansfeld used to run her own business, [and] questioned whether she would receive additional income from that business. Mrs Stansfeld agreed that she has an ABN and she used to provide consultancy services in 2017. She said the business has not been operational since 2018 and was not sure whether the ABN was still current.

9. I have no evidence before me to indicate that Mrs Stansfeld is operating a business or deriving any income from a business. I thus accept her submission in this regard. I am therefore satisfied that Mrs Stansfeld’s income, property and financial resources are adequately represented by her annual income tax returns.

Mr Stansfeld – income, property and financial resources

1. Mr Stansfeld said that he used to work as a [occupation] for [Company 2] and he and Mrs Stansfeld used to live in [Country 1]. They returned to Australia at the end of 2017. He was diagnosed with [a medical condition] in August 2018 (folio 234). He had been on unpaid sick leave from work before losing his job with [Company 2] in January 2020. Since February 2019 he has been paid disability insurance by [a] company. He is paid monthly in US dollars. Payments are converted into Australian dollars and paid into his [Bank 1] account (folios B3-B23). Payments vary each month depending on the exchange rate.

2. [Bank 1] statements indicate that for the period 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022 Mr Stansfeld’s insurance payments totalled $136,108. Mr Stansfeld agreed that he is currently not paying taxes in either [Country 1] or in Australia but said that he will lodge Australian tax returns in the future and expects to have to pay taxes for the past few years.

3. Mr Stansfeld said that the disability insurance payments will end on 22 February 2024 and he is not sure how he will support himself after that date. He may have to rely on Centrelink payments.

4. Based on the evidence before me I find that Mr Stansfeld has not been working for a number of years but is relying on disability insurance payments of approximately $136,000 per year. I note that this income is currently a “net” income, as Mr Stansfeld does not pay taxes in Australia. He submitted, however, that he will probably have to pay “back taxes” at some point in the future.

5. In this case Mr Stansfeld’s adjusted taxable income was set at $136,000 by DM [name] in a decision of 2 July 2020. There is no objection decision in relation to this income amount and although DM [name]’s income determination ended on 30 June 2022, Mr Stansfeld’s current child support assessment continued to be based on this income amount (folio 437). There is no evidence that Mr Stansfeld has any other financial resources and I will therefore find that his income is $136,000 per annum.

Conclusion – income, property and financial resources of both parties

1. When Mr Stansfeld lodged his departure application on 13 September 2021 (the 2021/22 financial year), the rate of child support was based on Mr Stansfeld’s income of $136,000 and Mrs Stansfeld’s 2020/21 adjusted taxable income of $91,153 resulting in a child support liability of $12,768 per annum.

2. I have found that Mrs Stansfeld’s actual taxable income in 2021/22 amounted to $157,285 and I have estimated that Mr Stansfeld’s child support liability for the children, if calculated on the basis of his income of $136,000 and Mrs Stansfeld’s 2021/22 taxable income would be $5,802 per year at the time that he lodged his application. I find that this represents a significant reduction in Mr Stansfeld’s child support liability such that it gives rise to special circumstances in this particular case.

3. I am therefore satisfied that the ground for departure set out in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act has been made out in respect of Mrs Stansfeld’s income, property and financial resources only.

4. Subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(i) of the Act is satisfied if “one, or more than one” of the grounds for departure are established. Having found one ground for departure established, I deem it not necessary to determine whether any of the other grounds relied upon by the parties have been met. The issues raised by the parties in respect of the other grounds will be considered when determining whether it would be just and equitable to make a departure determination.

Just and equitable

1. The requirement to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable directs that my attention is turned to what is fair to the parents and their children. To do so I must have regard to a number of factors set out in subsection 117(4) of the Act, such as the needs of the children, the parents’ commitments and any hardships that would be caused by departing, or not departing, from the statutory formula.

Mr Stansfeld

1. Mr Stansfeld provided a Statement of Financial Circumstances (folios B195–B203) on which he indicated income of $2,597 per week (about $135,044 per year) from his disability insurance.

2. Mr Stansfeld listed credit card repayments and private health insurance of $196 per week. He also indicated a tax liability of $600 per week but as discussed above, Mr Stansfeld in not currently paying tax in Australia or elsewhere. He told Child Support on 29 June 2022 that his tax issues would be sorted out in 12 months (folio 425). I will thus disregard taxation expenses for the purposes of this review.

3. Mr Stansfeld indicated other household expenses (excluding child support payments) of $2,265 per week, including $307 per week for entertainment, holidays, gifts, books, donations and expenses for his dog. I have disregarded these amounts as they are considered non-essential expenses.[1]

   [1] The Family Court (in Mee and Ferguson (1986) FLC 91–716) has been prescriptive about the types of expenses that can be considered “necessary” expenses and that there are only a few expenses which can be considered to take priority over the parents’ primary duty to support their children. This includes expenses such as a reasonable amount for rent or mortgage payments, food, utilities, and some loans.

4. Mr Stansfeld submitted that he has significant medical expenses (doctors’ appointments and chemist) in relation to illness. He said that these costs would amount to about $10,000 per year. I note Mr Stansfeld included $65 per week medical expenses and $170 per week chemist/pharmaceutical expenses in his weekly budget (a total of $235 per week or $12,220 per year) and I accept that he incurs these expenses.

5. On this basis Mr Stansfeld’s essential expenses amount to $2,154 per week, resulting in an income surplus of about $443 per week. I therefore find that Mr Stansfeld is able to meet all of his expenses, including medical expenses.

Mrs Stansfeld

1. As indicated above, Mrs Stansfeld works full-time and her current salary is $2,500 gross per week or $1,811 net per week (for example, folio A211). Mrs Stansfeld indicated on her Statement of Financial Circumstances (folios A260–A268) health and disability insurance payments of about $82 per week and other household expenses of about $2,193 per week. These include about $139 per week for entertainment, holidays, books and gift, which I have disregarded. On this basis Mrs Stansfeld’s expenses ($2,136) exceed her net income ($1,811) by about $325 each week. Overall it appears that Mrs Stansfeld relies on child support payments from Mr Stansfeld to meet her expenses.

2. Mrs Stansfeld submitted that she has a number of out of the ordinary expenses for the children and Mr Stansfeld ought to contribute to these. Mrs Stansfeld listed child care fees of $135 per week (about $7,020 per year), medical costs $43.20 per week (about $3,000 per year) and private school fees of $393.70 per week (about $20,472 per year), a total of about $572 per week or $29,744 per annum. She also noted that [Child 1] needed orthodontic treatment, which would increase her expenses.

Private school fees

1. [Child 1] attended [School 1] ([School 1]) in 2022 and her school fees amounted to $8,350 (folio A100). In 2023 all three children will attend [School 1]  and the school has advised her that the combined school fees would amount to about $21,100, taking into account “sibling discounts” (folio A89). Mrs Stansfeld said she will also incur about $3,000 additional costs (uniforms, books excursions, extra curricula activities at school), so her total costs will be about $24,000.

2. Mrs Stansfeld said that the children had been enrolled in a private school when the family was still living in [Country 1]. At the time she and Mr Stansfeld had also contemplated sending the children to a private boarding school in Queensland, rather than continue schooling in [Country 1]. Upon returning to Australia in late 2017 they agreed that the children should continue to be enrolled in a private school. Mrs Stansfeld provided evidence that Mr Stansfeld signed the forms for the children to be enrolled at [School 2] in April 2018 (folios A246-A251).

3. Mr Stansfeld said that he was working for [Company 2]when they were living in [Country 1] and his salary included payment of the school fees in 2015/16. He was also still employed by [Company 2] when he signed the enrolment forms in early 2018.

4. Mr Stansfeld said that he is no longer employed and reliant on his disability pension. He therefore wanted the children to attend [School 3] but Mrs Stansfeld wanted the children to be enrolled in [School 1]. He only agreed to have the children enrolled at that school on the basis that Mrs Stansfeld paid the school fees. This was mutually agreed upon and included in the consent orders made on 9 March 2021 in the Family Court (folios 21-25).

1. The consent orders state (at order 12):

   That the parties do all things necessary to enrol the children to commence schooling at [School 1], South Australia for their education from the year that they each commence Year 7 (for [Child 1] in 2022 and [Child 3] and [Child 2] in 2023) to the conclusion of their secondary education noting the mother will pay the costs of the children’s tuition fees at the school.

2. Mrs Stansfeld agreed that the orders were made but submitted that they did not preclude Mr Stansfeld from contributing to the costs via the child support system. She said that Mr Stansfeld ought to contribute about 30% or $8,000 of the total costs (fees and additional expenses) next year.

Orthodontic treatment and other medical costs

1. Mrs Stansfeld stated that [Child 1] will need orthodontic treatment. She provided a statement from [a clinic], dated 31 March 2022 (folio A39), indicating that the braces would cost about $7,900 or $305 per month. Mrs Stansfeld said that she had private health cover which would reduce some of the costs. She would be able to pay the remaining amount in full but Mr Stansfeld ought to contribute 50% of the costs.

2. Mr Stansfeld agreed that [Child 1] needed braces and he was willing to contribute to the costs. He had also recently taken out private health [and] they offered payment for orthodontic treatment, but not until 1 March 2023, that is, 12 months after he joined. He was happy to pay 50% of the costs once [Child 1] commenced her treatment without going through Child Support. He said that he did not want to have the costs included in his child support liability, as he could not be sure that Mrs Stansfeld would actually go ahead with the treatment plan.

3. Mrs Stansfeld stated that she would rather have the costs included in Mr Stansfeld’s child support liability, as she did not trust him to keep his promise and pay half of the costs once [Child 1] commenced treatment.

4. Mrs Stansfeld also submitted evidence that both [Child 3] and [Child 2] attend a private psychologist. [Child 2] attended nine sessions between January 2022 and October 2022 (folios A47-A55). The cost per session is about $220 but most of this cost is covered by Medicare. Mrs Stansfeld’s out of pocket expenses are approximately $86 per session (total of $774). [Child 3] attended about five sessions in 2022 (folios A42-A46), mostly in May/June 2022 for a total cost of about $420.

5. In a report dated 22 July [Dr A] (clinical psychologist) states that [Child 2] has been diagnosed with anxiety/depression and has been attending therapy sessions since January 2022 (folio A35-A37). Mrs Stansfeld said that [Child 2] and [Child 3] will need to continue to attend therapy sessions next year, [Child 2] about once per week and [Child 3] about once per fortnight. These sessions are no longer eligible for a Medicare rebate and she will have to pay the total cost herself.

6. Mr Stansfeld said he had [Child 2] tested when she was still in his care and that she had been diagnosed with [a medical condition]. [Child 2] would have qualified for NDIS payments but Mrs Stansfeld disregarded the assessment. Mrs Stansfeld is now paying for the children to see a private psychologist, but that was her choice and he should not have to contribute to these costs. Mr Stansfeld was also doubtful as to whether Mrs Stansfeld would actually continue with these therapy sessions in 2023 and therefore no additional amount should be added to his child support liability.

Child care fees

1. Mrs Stansfeld submitted that all of the children attended “outside school hours care” (OSHC) in 2018/19 and she paid child care fees of $25,354 in that period (folio A123). OSHC fees in 2020 amounted to $1,064, in 2021 fees were $647 and in 2022 OSHC fees amounted to $1,312 (folio A121).

2. Mrs Stansfeld said the fees were a bit higher because she received a Centrelink debt notice, indicating that she was overpaid child care subsidy payments. An account statement from Centrelink shows that Mrs Stansfeld incurred family tax benefit and parenting payment debts in 2018 and 2019 and one child care subsidy debt of $112.86 in June 2021 (folios A257-A259). Thus child care fees in 2021 would be about $720.

3. Mrs Stansfeld said that she would not incur child care fees to the same extend next year as all three children were attending high school in 2023.

4. Mr Stansfeld said that the child care fees were an unnecessary expense as he had offered on many occasions to care for the children after school. They did not need to attend child care. Mrs Stansfeld, however, refused his offer and that was her choice.

The children

1. Mrs Stansfeld indicated that essential expenses for the children amount to approximately $1,641 per week (or $85,332 per year) and include about $394 per week for school fees and $178 per week for child care and medical costs. Orthodontic treatment would add further costs.

2. Mrs Stansfeld stated that she would like Mr Stansfeld to meet his fair share of the children’s expenses.

3. [Child 1] is now 13 years old and [Child 3] and [Child 2] are nearly 12 years old. They attend school and have no income, property or financial resources relevant to my determination.

Otherwise proper  

1. The requirement to consider whether it is “otherwise proper” to depart from the administrative assessment directs attention to what is fair to the community. It is necessary to consider the effect of any departure from the administrative assessment on entitlements to income-tested pensions, allowances or benefits (subsection 117(5) of the Act).

2. It is a prime objective of the child support legislation that parents should be obliged to support their own children to the extent of their real capacity, and that that obligation should not be unnecessarily abrogated to the public welfare system when the parents themselves have the capacity to maintain their children.

3. Mrs Stansfeld does not appear to be in receipt of government payments which are affected by maintenance payments such as child support. Any increase or decrease in child support payments would thus not affect the extent to which the community is supporting the children. I find that such a result is proper in these circumstances.

Conclusion

1. Section 98S of the Act describes the determinations that the Registrar, and the Tribunal standing in the shoes of the Registrar, may make if it decides to depart from the administrative assessment. It is open to the Tribunal to set a rate of child support payable or set some of the variables used in the administrative assessment formula (for example, vary one or both parents’ adjusted taxable income).

2. When Mr Stansfeld lodged his departure application on 13 September 2021 (the 2020/21 financial year), his child support liability was $12,768, based on Mrs Stansfeld’s 2020/21 adjusted taxable income of $91,153. Mr Stansfeld requested a reduction in his payments because Mrs Stansfeld had a new job and earned a much higher salary than in the previous year. Mrs Stansfeld’s 2021/22 adjusted taxable income was $157,285 and using this income in the assessment would reduce Mr Stansfeld’s child support liability significantly (by more than 50% to approximately $5,800 per annum).

3. Mrs Stansfeld contended that she incurred significant additional costs in raising the children, in relation to private school fees, the children’s medical needs and child care fees. She submitted that Mr Stansfeld ought to contribute his fair share to meet the children’s expenses.

4. Mr Stansfeld acknowledged that Mrs Stansfeld incurred additional expenses but argued that many of these were unnecessary. It was Mrs Stansfeld’s choice to enrol the children in a private school. He only agreed to this arrangement if Mrs Stansfeld was responsible for paying the school fees and this has been provided for in the consent orders made in March 2021.

5. Mr Stansfeld said that he would be willing to pay [Child 1]’s orthodontic costs once treatment commenced but he did not think that the children needed to attend regular counselling session with a psychologist. He also did not agree that the children needed to attend after school child care.

6. I have considered the evidence before me. The objections officer set an income amount of $191,513 for Mrs Stansfeld for the period 13 September 2021 to 28 February 2022. This was based on Mrs Stansfeld’s pay slips at the time. Mrs Stansfeld’s employment contract ended shortly after the objection decision was made and her actual income in 2021/22 was lower. I have thus decided to replace the income amount set by the objections officer with her 2021/22 taxable income of $157,285 for the same period set by the objections officer.

7. I will not add any additional amounts to Mr Stansfeld’s child support liability, as requested by Mrs Stansfeld. I note that the consent orders made in March 2021 expressly state that Mrs Stansfeld is to pay private school fees and I do not consider that it is reasonable that Mr Stansfeld should now be required to contribute to these fees as part of his child support liability.

8. I do not regard the children’s medical costs incurred by Mrs Stansfeld in 2021 and 2022 as being significant as most of the costs were covered by Medicare. Child care costs in 2021 and 2022 were also reasonably low and Mrs Stansfeld noted that she would not incur child care costs in the future as the children would attend high school in 2023.

9. Mrs Stansfeld has not yet incurred any further medical expenses and Mr Stansfeld agreed that he would pay his share of orthodontic costs once treatment commenced. I accept Mr Stansfeld’s statement in this regard. I note that it is open to Mrs Stansfeld to lodge a further change of assessment application should the children’s medical costs prove to be an issue in the future.

10. I have estimated that my decision will create additional arrears of approximately $1,200 for Mr Stansfeld. Records indicate that as of 30 September 2022 Mr Stansfeld’s child support arrears amount to $8,388 but he has only made one payment since March 2022 (folio 465).

11. I note Mr Stansfeld’s current child support liability is $15,359 per year or $294.35 per week (folio 450). As discussed above, Mr Stansfeld’s income currently exceeds his necessary expenses by about $443 per week, so he should be able to increase his payments and reduce the arrears.

12. Mrs Stansfeld’s expenses (including amounts for school fees and medical expenses) exceed her income by about $325 per week and Mr Stansfeld’s child support payments should assist her in meeting these expenses. I am thus satisfied that neither party will be in financial hardship as a result of my decision.

13. I have reached a different conclusion than the objections officer and I will vary their decision accordingly.

DECISION

The decision under review is varied so that for the period 13 September 2021 to 28 February 2022 Mrs Stansfeld’s adjusted taxable income is set at $157,285.