Stansfield and Stansfield (Child support) - [2018] AATA 1239

Stansfield and Stansfield (Child support) [2018] AATA 1239 (12 March 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2017/MC012523
APPLICANT:  Mr Stansfield
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Stansfield

TRIBUNAL:Member P Noonan
DECISION DATE: 12 March 2018
DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

·From 1 January 2017 until a terminating event has occurred in respect to both [Child 1] and [Child 2], Mr Stansfield’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $65,676 and Ms Stansfield’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $78,082.
·For the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Stansfield is increased by $5,556 and by $5,834 from 1 January 2018 until a terminating event occurs in respect to Lily.

CATCHWORDS
Child support – Departure from assessment – Income and financial resources of parents – Business income – Education costs of child – Period of departure – 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

The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of the child support payable. It uses a formula, which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of care of the children. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.
Mr Stansfield and Ms Stansfield are the parents of [Child 1] aged 17 and [Child 2] aged 15. [Child 1] is currently in year 12.
A child support case was registered with the Department of Human Services (the Department) for collection of child support on 5 March 2014. The care of the children is recorded as being 51% to Ms Stansfield and 49% to Mr Stansfield.
On 24 February 2016 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) (differently constituted) decided to depart from the administrative assessment of child support payable in the following terms:
·For the period 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015 no child support is payable by either parent;
·For the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 an annual rate of child support of $9,199 is payable by Mr Stansfield;
·For the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017 an annual rate of child support of $9,542 is payable by Mr Stansfield.
On 30 January 2017 Mr Stansfield applied for a departure from the decision of the Tribunal, (which for the purposes of this review effectively constitutes the underlying administrative assessment).
On 5 May 2017, a Department officer, acting as a delegate of the Child Support Registrar, found that a ground for departure was established due to the costs of educating the children. The officer decided to depart in the following terms:
·The 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.

Continue reading Stansfield and Stansfield (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Stansfield and Stansfield (Child support) [2018] AATA 1239
Case: [2018] AATA 1239
Decision Date: 12 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Stansfield and Stansfield* concerned an application to depart from a child support assessment. The applicant sought to vary the assessment based on the respondent's income and financial resources, specifically relating to business income, and also sought to account for the child's education costs. The matter was heard by P Noonan M.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the existing child support assessment was unfair and whether a departure from that assessment was justified. This involved considering the income and financial resources of both parents, with a particular focus on the respondent's business income, and assessing the impact of the child's education costs on the fairness of the assessment. The court was required to determine if these factors warranted a departure from the standard assessment under the relevant legislation.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented regarding the respondent's income and financial resources, including the complexities of business income. The court also took into account the significant costs associated with the child's education. Applying the principles governing departures from child support assessments, the court found that the existing assessment was indeed unfair in light of these circumstances. Consequently, the court set aside the original decision under review and substituted its own decision. The final orders reflected a revised child support assessment that took into account the established factors.

Orders