Tanden and Hewson (Child support)

[2018] AATA 3288

Tanden and Hewson (Child support) [2018] AATA 3288 (16 July 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2017/MC012768

APPLICANT:  Mr Tanden

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Miss Hewson

TRIBUNAL:Member S Lewis

DECISION DATE:  16 July 2018

DECISION:

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

·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 31 July 2017, the adjusted taxable income of Mr Tanden is set at $50,000;

·       For the period 1 August 2017 to 31 October 2018, the adjusted taxable income of Mr Tanden is set at $57,000;

·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 27 August 2017, the cost of child amount for [Child 1] is increased by $3,600; and

·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 27 August 2017, the cost of child amount for [Child 2] is increased by $8,216.

CATCHWORDS
Child support - Departure determination - High costs of child care - Income, property and financial resources of the liable parent - Business income - A ground for departure established - Adjusted taxable income of liable parent varied - Cost of children increased - 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

1. This application for review has been brought by Mr Tanden who disagrees with a decision made by the Department of Human Services, Child Support (the Department).

2. Miss Hewson and Mr Tanden are the parents of the children, [Child 1] (born March 2011) and [Child 2] (born July 2013). The Department records that Miss Hewson has 99% care of [Child 1] and 100% care of [Child 2] and Mr Tanden has 1% and 0% care respectively. Mr Tanden is the parent liable to pay child support. 

3. On 7 April 2017 Miss Hewson applied to the Department for an increase to the assessed rate of child support on the ground that in the special circumstances of this case:

   ·       the costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected by the high costs of child care; and

   ·       the administrative assessment results in an unjust and inequitable level of child support because of Mr Tanden’s income, property and financial resources.

4. At the time of the application, Mr Tanden was assessed to pay an annual rate of child support of $1,934.

5. On 15 June 2017, Mr Tanden lodged a response to the current application.  On 27 July 2017, a senior case officer, acting as a delegate of the Child Support Registrar, considered the departure application and determined that for the period 24 May 2017 to 31 October 2018 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Tanden is varied to $44,653.

6. On 23 August 2017, Mr Tanden objected to this decision. Mr Tanden’s objection was allowed in part by an objections officer on 17 October 2017.  The objections officer determined that:

   ·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 31 December 2019, the adjusted taxable income of Mr Tanden is set at $48,726;

   ·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 31 December 2017, the cost of child amount for [Child 1] is increased by $3,600;

   ·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 31 December 2017, the cost of child amount for [Child 2] is increased by $7,632.

7. On 25 October 2017 Mr Tanden lodged an application for a review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal) seeking review of the decision of the Department.

8. Prior to the hearing of the application for review, directions were issued to both Mr Tanden and Miss Hewson to provide the tribunal with specified documents. Mr Tanden provided the tribunal with documents (folios A1 to A27). Miss Hewson provided the tribunal with documents (folios B1 to B40). Both parties were provided with a copy.

9. The matter was heard on 18 June 2018. The tribunal and the parties also had access to the statement and documents provided by the Department under subsection 37(1) and section 38AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (folios 1 to 379). Both Mr Tanden and Miss Hewson attended the hearing by conference telephone and gave evidence on affirmation.  Mr Tanden also provided two statements of financial circumstances (A28 to A44).  The tribunal deferred its decision to provide a copy to the parties and to allow further written submissions in relation to the documentary evidence.   Mr Tanden provided a further written submission (A45-A54); a copy has been provided to the parties.

10. The tribunal further considered the matter and made its decision on 16 July 2018.

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are found in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act). The rate of child support payable by the liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Assessment Act. This requires the application of a statutory formula which takes into account such factors as the number of children, the level of care provided, the income of each parent and the costs of the children.

2. The liable parent or carer may apply to the Child Support Registrar for a determination to depart from the administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Assessment 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. In the first instance, a ground for departure from an administrative assessment must be established. The grounds are set out in subsection 117(2) of the Assessment Act. If satisfied that:

   ·       a ground or grounds exist (step one); and

   ·       that it would be just and equitable (step two); and

   ·       otherwise proper to make a particular determination (step three);

   the tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Assessment Act. Section 98S permits a range of determinations, including varying the annual rate of child support payable and/or the adjusted taxable income of a parent.

3. To deal with Mr Tanden’s application for review, the tribunal stands in the shoes of the Child Support Registrar.

CONSIDERATION

Issue 1 – Does a ground exist to depart from the administrative assessment?

1. Miss Hewson has sought a departure from the administrative assessment on the ground that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected because of high child care costs (subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ib)).

2. The term ‘special circumstances’ is not defined in the Assessment Act. In Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279 (Gyselman) 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. The tribunal must be satisfied that the costs ‘are incurred by a parent or a non-parent carer’ and that the child is younger than 12 years at the start of the child support period (subsection 117(3A)). The term ‘significantly affected’ is not defined in the Assessment Act. While referring to this term in the context of education expenses in Potter & Burbage (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1009, Riethmuller FM stated that when considering whether the costs of maintaining the child are ‘significantly affected’ because the child is being educated in the manner that was expected by the parents, it is necessary to take into account not only the rate of child support but also the income of the parents.

4. Child support legislation is interpreted by the Department with the aid of the Child Support Guide (the Guide). The tribunal is not bound by law to apply the policy as set out in the Guide, but, provided the policy is consistent with the legislation, it is required to have regard to it and in the ordinary course follow it (see Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634). Chapter 2.6.12 of the Guide states ‘Costs are incurred if there is a definite commitment to the expenditure even if an actual payment has not been made’. If costs are anticipated costs, the tribunal must be satisfied that the costs will be incurred. The tribunal has taken this into consideration.

5. The costs are high for a carer parent only if during a child support period they total more than 5% of the parent’s adjusted taxable income. The 5% threshold amount is calculated under subsection 117(3B) by:

   ·       dividing the parent’s adjusted taxable income for the child support period (which is expressed as an annual figure) by 365; and

   ·       multiplying by the number of days in the period.

6. Chapter 2.6.12 of the Guide states that, for the purposes of this calculation, the Registrar uses the parent’s adjusted taxable income for the child support period in which the costs are, or will be, incurred (that is, the income for the last financial year that ended before the start of the child support period) unless any of the following apply:

   ·       the parent has made an estimate of his or her income;

   · the Registrar has determined the parent’s adjusted taxable income under section 44 of the Assessment Act (post-separation costs);

   ·       the parent’s adjusted taxable income has been varied by a previous departure determination or order or by a child support agreement.

7. There was no dispute that this ground is established.  Both Miss Hewson and Mr Tanden agreed that the child care fees are high.  Mr Tanden submitted that his concern was with the affordability of any contribution by him; this has been considered in the context of whether it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment. 

8. Applying the formula in subsection 117(3B), the Department calculated that in order for the child care costs to be considered high, Miss Hewson must incur costs of more than 5% of her income for the child support period; that is, more than $5,063 (income for period: $101,268.70).  Miss Hewson told the Department that she incurred net out-of-pocket costs of $8,048.13 for [Child 2] and $3,747.21 for [Child 1] in a 12-month period; this extrapolates to total costs of $15,222 for the child support period.  As this is significantly higher than the threshold of $5,063 and the costs are supported by the documentary evidence, the tribunal was satisfied and finds that the child care costs incurred by Miss Hewson are high and were so at all relevant times.

9. Given that the costs are significantly higher than the rate of child support payable by Mr Tanden under the administrative assessment of child support at the date of application and are approximately 15% of Miss Hewson’s employment income in the period, the tribunal was satisfied that the costs of maintaining [Child 2] and [Child 1] are significantly affected by high child care costs.

10. Given the totality of the findings, the tribunal was satisfied that there are special circumstances in this case and finds that the ground for departure in subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ib) does exist in relation to the high costs of child care for the children. 

11. As a ground for departure has been established, the tribunal then considered whether or not it would be just and equitable to make a departure determination.

Issue 2 – Would it be just and equitable to make a particular departure determination?

1. As the tribunal is satisfied that there is a ground to depart from the administrative assessment of child support, the next step is to consider whether it is just and equitable to make a particular departure determination. In doing so, the tribunal must have regard to a number of matters in subsections 117(4) to (9) of the Assessment Act. In summary this requires consideration of the parents’ duty to support the children, the income, assets and financial resources of the children and of the parents, the children’s proper needs and self-support costs of either parent. The tribunal is not limited to exploring these parameters and is required to consider the global circumstances (Gyselman).

2. The tribunal had regard to the evidence which was presented, including the evidence which has been discussed above. This evidence is further considered below.

The duty to maintain the children

1. Miss Hewson and Mr Tanden each have a duty to maintain the children. Further, the tribunal notes the statements contained in sections 3 and 4 of the Assessment Act to the following effect:

   ·       Parents of a child have a primary duty to maintain the child. The duty has a priority over all commitments of the parent other than commitments necessary for self-support;

   ·       The level of financial support to be provided by parents to their children should be determined in accordance with the legislatively fixed standards;

   ·       The level of financial support is to be determined according to the capacity to provide financial support and noting that parents with a like capacity to provide financial support should provide like amounts.

Proper needs of the children and the income, property, financial resources and earning capacity of the child

1. Aside from the costs of child care, there was no documentary evidence presented to the tribunal that [Child 1] and [Child 2] have anything other than the usual expenses and needs of children of their respective ages (seven and four), expenses that are dealt with in the administrative assessment and addressed in the Costs of the Children Table. Miss Hewson said that both children generally enjoy good health and have no special needs.

2. There was no evidence that the children currently have significant independent income or resources.

Other party receiving money, goods and property for the benefit of the child

1. Given the available evidence, the tribunal concludes that neither party received money, goods or property for the benefit of the children which impacts on their respective abilities to support them.

Income, property,  financial resources and earning capacity of each parent

1. The administrative assessment of child support is calculated for a child support period. The child support period at the time of Miss Hewson’s application for a change of assessment ran from 1 August 2016 to 31 July 2017. The incomes reflected in the administrative assessment at that time were:

   ·       Mr Tanden’s provisional income:  $33,647

   ·       Miss Hewson’s 2016 adjusted taxable income:                  $85,707

2. The current child support period runs from 1 August 2017 to 31 October 2018.  The incomes reflected in the administrative assessment at that time were:

   ·       Mr Tanden’s 2017 income  

   (2/3 male total average weekly earnings (MTAWE)):  $48,308

   ·       Miss Hewson’s 2017 adjusted taxable income:                  $80,882

3. The tribunal notes that Mr Tanden has a history of not lodging income tax returns.  It is for this reason that 2/3 MTAWE has been used in the administrative assessment of child support.  Mr Tanden advised that he is seeking to bring his lodgements up to date.

4. The tribunal then considered Mr Tanden’s income, property, financial resources and earning capacity.

Mr Tanden’s income, property,  financial resources and earning capacity

1. Mr Tanden is an employee and wages are his only source of income.  However, as he does not routinely lodge income tax returns Mr Tanden’s incomes for the relevant child support periods have not been accurately reflected in the administrative assessments of child support. The employment records available to the tribunal support that, in the relevant periods, Mr Tanden has been employed in a number of roles or combination of roles, including as:

   ·       an adult apprentice [tradesperson] earning approximately $700 per week;

   ·       an adult apprentice and a casual [Workplace 1] employee earning approximately $700 per week plus variable casual wages; and

   ·       a full-time [Workplace 1] employee earning around $1,400 per week.

2. Mr Tanden explained that in the 2017 financial year he took a six-month leave of absence from his apprenticeship in order to earn a higher rate of pay at [Workplace 1].  Mr Tanden said that he returned to his apprenticeship on or about 22 April 2017.  He explained that it was very difficult to survive on an apprentice’s wages when he had a household and children for whom he had to provide.  The tribunal accepts this evidence.  Mr Tanden said that his wages varied from time to time – there were many weeks when he only had apprentice wages which were not supplemented by casual earnings.  Mr Tanden told the tribunal that he always wanted to be a [tradesperson]; his mental well-being is dependent on this and he had hoped to finish his apprenticeship but financially could not do so; he finally resigned at the end of January 2018 with four months remaining.  Mr Tanden said that he may still be able to finish the apprenticeship but it is not certain.  Mr Tanden said that since January 2018 he has been working between 32 and 42 hours per week at [Workplace 1] on a casual basis.  He explained that the work is not a long-term proposition and is not necessarily reliable.  Mr Tanden said that it is unfair to calculate his child support on anything other than the apprenticeship wages when he was so employed.

3. The tribunal notes that the wages records supplied by [the labour hire company] ([Company 1]) support that Mr Tanden was paid variable amounts ranging from approximately $400 per week to more than $1,500 per week.  This is consistent with Mr Tanden’s evidence that he worked for both employers at the same time and sometimes for one or the other.  The tribunal further notes the following earnings which are reflected in the 2017 PAYG summaries:

   ·       01/07/2016 – 16/09/2016:     [Company 2]              $9,132;

   ·       26/04/2017 – 30/06/2017:     [Company 2]              $5,703;

   ·       25/09/2016 – 30/06/2017:     [Company 1]  $37,460

   Total wages for year ending 30 June 2017:            $52,295

4. The tribunal also notes the latest payslips provided by Mr Tanden:

   ·       [Company 1]

   28/05/2018 – 03/06/2018 Gross Pay:  $1,430.05;

   Year to date:  $35,810.72

   ·       [Company 2]

   01/01/2018 – 07/01/2018 Gross Pay:  $293.16;

   Year to date:  $19,618.35

5. The tribunal has taken into consideration Mr Tanden’s submissions that his child support obligations should be calculated by reference to his apprenticeship wages only as this was the constant income and the [Company 1] wages are casual.  The tribunal was not persuaded that such an approach would be an accurate reflection of the annual value of his financial resources.  Over the 2017 and 2018 financial years Mr Tanden has clearly endeavoured to complete his apprenticeship while supplementing his income with a casual mix of full-time and part-time (irregular) stints at [Company 1].  Both years were characterised by Mr Tanden stopping his apprenticeship for six months.  Mr Tanden explained that in order to work for both employers, he had to travel from [Company 2] in [one town] to [another town] which is expensive.  On balance, after allowing for a generous level of income tax deductions to account for apprentice costs and work-related travel expenses and adding an estimate of earnings for the last three weeks of the 2018 financial year, the tribunal considers that, Mr Tanden had income, property and financial resources with an annual value of at least $50,000 in the 2017 financial year increasing to at least $57,000 in the 2018 financial year.  Given Mr Tanden’s propensity for changing his pattern of employment, the tribunal acknowledges that at times Mr Tanden may have been paid at less than this annual rate but clearly there are times when he was paid at a much higher rate.  In the circumstances of this case, the tribunal considers that the best measure of Mr Tanden’s income is by reference to the total annual earnings from both employers and not a week by week analysis.

6. Aside from the income and resources discussed above, the tribunal did not consider that any of the items in his Statement of Financial Circumstances (SOFC) have a significant impact on Mr Tanden’s ability to contribute to the children’s support. There was no further evidence that Mr Tanden has significant alternative sources of income or financial resources.

1. In the current child support period, the tribunal did not consider that Mr Tanden has an annual earning capacity any greater than the value of financial resources, income and benefits as identified by the tribunal.

Miss Hewson’s circumstances

1. The tribunal found Miss Hewson to be a credible witness in relation to her financial circumstances. Based on Miss Hewson’s submissions and the documents provided, the tribunal accepts that she is a full-time [employee] earning regular income, the value of which is included in her income tax return. Miss Hewson is employed by [an] organisation – she is paid by way of a combination of cash wages and reportable fringe benefits.  Mr Tanden was concerned that Miss Hewson’s family assistance payments are not reflected in this income.  The tribunal notes that the legislation provides that family assistance is not included in adjusted taxable income for the calculation of child support.   The tribunal was satisfied that Miss Hewson’s income, property and financial resources are adequately reflected in the administrative assessment of child support. 

2. Aside from her employment income, the tribunal did not consider that any of the items disclosed in Miss Hewson’s SOFC has a significant impact on her ability to contribute to the children’s support. There was no further evidence that she has significant alternative sources of income or additional financial resources.

3. Miss Hewson said that she generally enjoys good health. The tribunal was satisfied that Miss Hewson is working full-time and has no additional earning capacity.

The direct and indirect costs incurred by the carer entitled to child support in providing care for the child

1. On the available evidence, the tribunal was satisfied that Miss Hewson is the parent entitled to child support from Mr Tanden for the care of the children.   

2. The tribunal was satisfied that Miss Hewson has full-time employment but, in doing so, incurs significant child care costs.  The child care statements available to the tribunal indicate that [Child 2] attends long day care for five days per week at a net cost of around $158 per week ($8,216 per annum (52 weeks)) and [Child 1] attends before and after school care and vacation care at a net cost of around $75 per week ($3,600 per annum (48 weeks)).  The Department calculated the totals for [Child 2] based on 48 weeks per year; Miss Hewson explained and the tribunal accepts that she pays for [Child 2] whether she attends or not and so 52 weeks should be used.  Mr Tanden was concerned that the calculation for [Child 1] includes amounts for Miss Hewson’s other school age child; the tribunal has confirmed that this is not so.

Necessary commitments to support themselves

1. The self-support amount used in the administrative assessment is approximately $23,750. On the documentary evidence available to the tribunal, including the disclosures to the Department and the SOFCs completed by both parties, the tribunal was satisfied that both Miss Hewson and Mr Tanden have sufficient funds at their disposal to meet their necessary commitments, none of which are extraordinary. Whilst the bank statements indicate that Mr Tanden manages from pay to pay, there was no documentary evidence of mounting debts which would suggest that any expenses associated with Mr Tanden’s self-support impact on his ability to pay child support.

Legal duty to support another person

1. The tribunal must take into account the commitments that are necessary to support any other child or another person that the parent has a duty to maintain. Such commitments shall not however take priority over the obligation to the child whose maintenance is under consideration.

2. Miss Hewson has a child who is taken into consideration in a different child support case; a multi-case allowance has been applied in the current case.  Mr Tanden had a relevant dependant until 27 August 2017; from 28 August 2017, that dependant became a child of another child support case in which Mr Tanden is the paying parent.  The administrative assessment provides for a multi-case capped rate which seeks to ensure that a parent does not pay more for one particular child than if the children all lived in the same household (the Guide, Chapter 2.4.9).  There was no evidence before the tribunal which would suggest that the needs of the other children (not of this case) take priority over the obligation to provide for the children of this case or that the multi-case adjustments within the administrative assessment of child support are not adequate.

3. There was no further evidence before the tribunal that either party has any outlays related to a legal duty to support another person.

Hardship that would be caused to the parents and the child

1. If assessments were made in which Mr Tanden’s adjusted taxable income was increased to $50,000 and Miss Hewson’s adjusted taxable income was calculated under the administrative assessment of child support, the annual child support payable by Mr Tanden at the date of application would be approximately $5,052 decreasing to $4,724 once the multi-case cap is applied from 28 August 2017.   

2. The tribunal also considers that Mr Tanden should contribute to the costs of child care by increasing the costs of the children in the administrative assessment – [Child 2]’s costs by $8,216 and [Child 1]’s costs by $3,600.  By doing so, Mr Tanden will contribute to the high costs of child care reference to his percentage share of combined child support income.

3. This brings the proposed child support payable at the date of application to approximately $8,341 ($160 per week; $695 per month).  This amount would only apply until the multi-case cap is applied from 28 August 2017.  The tribunal considers that payment of child support at this level (being the highest proposed by the tribunal) will not cause Mr Tanden hardship. His household expenses as disclosed to the tribunal are $710 per week.  The pay records support that Mr Tanden often earned more than that per week and he is currently earning around $1,430 per week.  On the basis of the available evidence, the tribunal is satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest that there would be hardship caused to Miss Hewson or the child by any departure from the child support assessment. The proposed change in the child support assessment will ensure that both Mr Tanden and Miss Hewson share in the costs of caring for the children at a level commensurate with their resources. The tribunal was satisfied that no hardship would be caused.

4. There are arrears in this case which Mr Tanden disputes.  The balance at 27 May 2018 was $4,182.91.  The tribunal notes that arrears have arisen following the reconciliation of a prior year estimate (approximately $1,650 on 28 February 2017) as well as in relation to the current change of assessment.  The arrears will increase slightly as a result of this decision. 

5. After consideration of all of the factors in subsection 117(4), the tribunal is satisfied that it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment. Having regard to all of the evidence, the tribunal considered that the decision under review should be set aside and a decision made as follows:

   ·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 31 July 2017, the adjusted taxable income of Mr Tanden is set at $50,000;

   ·       For the period 1 August 2017 to 31 October 2018, the adjusted taxable income of Mr Tanden is set at $57,000;

   ·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 27 August 2017, the cost of child amount for [Child 1] is increased by $3,600; and

   ·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 27 August 2017, the cost of child amount for [Child 2] is increased by $8,216.

6. In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal has applied Mr Tanden’s 2017 and 2018 incomes as calculated by the tribunal to the relevant child support periods.  In this way the lower income for the 2017 financial year applies for the period in which Mr Tanden reported having less reliable [Company 1] earnings. Further, the tribunal did not consider that backdating was appropriate.  The tribunal finds that this generates a just and equitable outcome in circumstances where Mr Tanden’s financial situation was variable.  As to the contribution to child care costs, the adjustment to the costs of the children amounts was the approach taken by the Department and both parties agreed that this was fair.  The tribunal has limited the change by reference to the date from which the multi-case cap applies.  From that date the increased costs have no impact on the assessment.  The tribunal finds that this is a just and equitable outcome.  It adequately reflects that Mr Tanden is the lower income earner and also allows the multi-case cap to have effect.

7. Taking into account the totality of the evidence, the tribunal considers it appropriate to determine that the assessment period should extend from 7 April 2017 (being the date of application) until 31 October 2018 (being the end of the current child support period).  The tribunal was satisfied that the end date does not overreach into the future and will allow Mr Tanden time to bring his personal taxation affairs up to date.

8. In the event that either party’s circumstances change during the assessment period, they have the opportunity to lodge a further change of assessment application. The tribunal considers these dates to be in the best interests of the children and the parents as they promote certainty and consistency for those concerned.

Issue 3 – Would it be otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination?

1. The final step for the tribunal to undertake is to determine whether it is ‘otherwise proper’ to make a particular departure determination (subsection 117(5) of the Assessment Act). 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. Miss Hewson receives family assistance. The proposed departure determination may decrease Miss Hewson’s entitlement to family assistance but will reflect the parties’ real capacities to support the child. The tribunal concludes that it is otherwise proper to depart from the administrative assessment.

DECISION

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

·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 31 July 2017, the adjusted taxable income of Mr Tanden is set at $50,000;

·       For the period 1 August 2017 to 31 October 2018, the adjusted taxable income of Mr Tanden is set at $57,000;

·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 27 August 2017, the cost of child amount for [Child 1] is increased by $3,600; and

·       For the period 7 April 2017 to 27 August 2017, the cost of child amount for [Child 2] is increased by $8,216.