Tatro and Tatro (Child support)

[2023] AATA 1047

Tatro and Tatro (Child support) [2023] AATA 1047 (5 April 2023)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/MC025048

APPLICANT:  Mr Tatro

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Tatro

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member K Dordevic, Presiding Deputy President K Synon

DECISION DATE:  5 April 2023

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that for the period 1 January 2022 until a terminating event occurs in relation to the child [Child 1]:

• the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Tatro is varied to $0; and

• the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Tatro is varied to $0.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of both parents - costs of the children include private education - 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 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 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.

2. Ms Tatro (the mother) and Mr Tatro (the father) are the parents of two children aged 13 and 10 as at the date of hearing. This case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (the Agency) on 30 September 2019 and was collectable from that date. The children are recorded as being in the parents’ shared care.

3. The mother lodged a departure application on 6 April 2022. On 10 June 2022 a senior case officer refused the mother’s application. On 13 July 2022 the mother lodged an objection to that decision. On 21 October 2022 an objections officer allowed the objection, determining that for the period 1 October to 31 December 2022 the annual rate payable by the mother and father is varied to $0, and that for the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024 the father’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $85,000 and the mother’s annual rate is reduced by $6,500 per annum. 

4. On 16 November 2022 the father sought further review with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). Directions were issued on 23 February 2023 requiring compliance by 5 April 2023. On the same day the Tribunal issued a summons to [Business 1] to produce a copy of the mortgage, personal and other loan applications lodged by the father from 1 January 2021 to present and a copy of all the documentation in which the father has declared/disclosed his historical or current earnings or sources of income.

5. The hearing took place on 5 April 2023. The mother and father appeared by conference telephone. The Tribunal also considered the documentation provided by the Agency (folios 1 to 346), the father (folios A1 to A30) and the mother (folios B1 to B43) and [Business 1] (folios D1 to D18). At the commencement of the hearing the mother confirmed that she only received the father’s documents some days before the hearing but was nevertheless willing to proceed with the hearing. Post hearing, the father provided additional documents. These were not accepted into evidence as they were not relevant to the Tribunal’s considerations.

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are outlined in section 98C of the Act, which states that a decision to depart from the administrative assessment may be made if the following three requirements are met:

   (i)that one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 117(2) exists; and

   (ii)that it would be:

   (A)just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent, and the carer entitled to child support; and

   (B)otherwise proper;

   to make a particular determination under this Part …

2. Therefore, the issues which arise in this case are:

   ·     Does a ground exist for departure from the administrative assessment of child support? And if so,

   ·     Would it be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination?

CONSIDERATION

A ground for departure

1. Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act provides a ground for departure if the administrative assessment would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent because of either party’s income, property or financial resources. The central issue in this matter is whether the administrative assessment accurately reflects the father’s income, property and financial resources.

2. At the time the mother lodged the departure application under review she was liable to pay an annual rate of child support of $17,718 for the period 1 November 2021 to 31 October 2022 based on the parents’ 2021 adjusted taxable incomes of $24,357 (the father) and $203,026 (the mother). From 1 November 2022 the mother’s annual rate increased to $18,288 and to $20,098 from 7 February 2023 based on the father’s 2022 adjusted taxable income of $23,603 and the mother’s 2022 provisional income of $208,914. The latter increase was on the basis that the older child turned 13 years of age.

3. The mother lodged a departure application on the basis that the father’s income and financial resources are not reflected by his lifestyle. Her position at hearing was that the Agency failed to examine the father’s true financial position, including his loan application with [Business 1]. The mother states that the Agency has correctly assessed the father’s income. For at least three years she has asked that they take into account the father’s lifestyle and cash deposits into account when determining his capacity to contribute to the children’s costs. She also has people in the community reporting to her that the father is seen working in the community and she suspects that the deposits into his account are evidence of his income from underdeclared work. She is of the view that the recently provided bank statements show a significant change in the deposit pattern, which indicates that he is better at hiding his income. His lifestyle reflects his income. He is able to secure a mortgage and meet the payments, yet she has a significant income and is unable to secure a mortgage or build up savings.

4. The father’s position is as follows. He does not earn $85,000 per annum; he simply cannot understand how the Agency reached that figure. He cares for his father and is in receipt of carer payment only. He is dependent on the child support received from the mother to meet the children’s needs whilst they are in his care.

5. The father provided the following work history. Prior to meeting the mother he had a couple of businesses; he recalled that one was [two business lines]. He disposed of the businesses in 2007 as they were a “hindrance” and the economy was going down. He worked from 2007 to 2012 as [an occupation 1], though he didn’t have a professional qualification. He then did [occupation 1] work from 2007 to 2012. His business partner had some health difficulties and was unable to work. As a result he could not work, as it was a “two-man operation”, in fact they were lucky to get more than 10 to 12 jobs per year. He then began working on the parents’ home, though he only had three hours available each day as he was caring for the children. This did not change markedly when the youngest child commenced primary school as he had health complications following weight-loss surgery. He confirmed the mother’s evidence that he secured work whilst the Family Court proceedings were afoot in 2019 and 2020, explaining that it was a full-time role as [an occupation 2]. He recalls his annual income was about $70,000 but the role was only short-lived; he recalls only working for three shifts.

6. The mother gave a different history in relation to the father’s paid work. She stated that during the latter years of the marriage the father did engage in paid work; by way of example, for a period he lived in [Country 1] with his brother and worked with him in construction. In Australia, he also worked for a cousin in providing [specified services] and issued invoices under the name of a friend. The deposits into his accounts are also from family members and friends who work in trades and pay him for his services in cash. He testified in the Family Court that he had secured full-time work at $35 per hour. She believes that his earning capacity is about $100,000 per annum, which incorporates the provision of a motor vehicle.

7. The father’s position is that he is unable to secure similar work as he did during divorce proceedings as he is caring for his father. On that, the father explained that he has been caring for his father “pretty much my whole life”. His mother passed away and then his father’s health progressively worsened. He is now [age] years of age and has spent the last three weeks in hospital. His father usually lives in his own home, about five minutes’ drive from the father’s own home. His father suffers from dementia and has no sense of time. He has been contacted sometimes in the night when his father has been in hospital. His father has a care package in place, where he receives a cleaner, assistance with shopping, has his garden attended to and minor repairs around his home. He assumed the care of the father, as his brother lives in [Country 1].

8. Subsection 117(7B) provides that when considering the earning capacity of a parent a decision maker is required to consider three tests:

   (7B)In having regard to the earning capacity of a parent of the child, the court may determine that the parent's earning capacity is greater than is reflected in his or her income for the purposes of this Act only if the court is satisfied that:

   (a)   one or more of the following applies:

   (i)the parent does not work despite ample opportunity to do so;

   (ii)the parent has reduced the number of hours per week of his or her employment or other work below the normal number of hours per week that constitutes full‑time work for the occupation or industry in which the parent is employed or otherwise engaged;

   (iii)the parent has changed his or her occupation, industry or working pattern; and

   (b)   the parent's decision not to work, to reduce the number of hours, or to change his or her occupation, industry or working pattern, is not justified on the basis of:

   (i)the parent's caring responsibilities; or

   (ii)the parent's state of health; and

   (c)   the parent has not demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of that decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support in relation to the child.

9. The father’s evidence is such that he is not working and that it is “impossible” for him to do so given his “responsibilities”. The Tribunal finds that the father is not working despite ample opportunity to do so. Subparagraph 177(7B)(a)(i) of the Act is satisfied.

10. The father confirmed that he has no legal duty to provide care for his father, though stressed that he does have a moral obligation to do so. He also stressed that in addition to the care he provides his father, he also cares for the children on a week about arrangement. He also stressed that he is heavily involved with the children’s activities including coaching their [sporting] teams. Furthermore, he explained that his decision not to work is also on the basis of his health, though he did not wish to elaborate as “certain people” did not need to know. When pressed, he stated that he has good and bad days and that on his bad days he simply cannot get out of bed.

11. The Tribunal questioned the father about the actual care he provides his father. Apart from the payment of his father’s bills and being contacted in the night by the hospital when the father is an in-patient, the father did not provide other submissions regarding his day to day care of the father and in particular how this impacted on his capacity to engage in any paid employment. The Tribunal also notes that the children are enrolled as full-time students and are aged 10 and 13 years as at the date of hearing. It is on this basis the Tribunal is not persuaded that the father’s caring responsibilities justify his decision not to work. Furthermore, in the absence of medical evidence to support the father’s contention regarding his health, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the father’s state of health justifies his decision not to engage in any paid work. Paragraph 177(7B)(b) of the Act is satisfied.

12. As to the third criterion, the father’s evidence can be summarised as follows. He believes that the analysis is gendered and there is no compassion for him. He stressed that he simply does not have the “headspace” to work and the child support paid by the mother is for the benefit of the children and he simply cannot work given his responsibilities. He stressed that should he be able to work in the future, he will do so. He confirmed that in addition to his caring responsibilities he continues to renovate his home.

13. In order for the Tribunal to be satisfied that the third criterion of subsection 117(7B) of the Act is met it is not necessary for the Tribunal to find that the father’s only reason for deciding to study and not to work was to affect his child support, rather the father must show that it was not a substantial motivation. The father has not persuaded the Tribunal that it was not a major purpose of his decision not to work. He confirmed that in 2019 or 2020 he was able to secure a full-time position as [an occupation 2]. He was unable to provide a satisfactory account about why this work was short-lived and why he did not seek alternative work, particularly prior to him taking on the care of his own father and given the ages of the children and the shared care arrangements and his ongoing renovations of his home. Paragraph 177(7B)(c) of the Act is satisfied.

14. The Tribunal must therefore determine what the father’s current earning capacity is, should he have secured work in an arm’s length arrangement. The parents have provided a largely inconsistent narrative of the father’s work history, though they did agree that the father secured work of about $72,800 per annum some three years ago and prior to this worked in the construction industry. The father’s testimony is that he is currently undertaking renovations to his home and it is “impossible” for him to work. Without documentary evidence regarding the father’s past earning capacity the Tribunal is satisfied that the father’s income is more appropriately reflected by the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings. The Child Support Guide states at Chapter 2.4.2[1] that the relevant quarter ends on 30 June of the calendar year ending before the start of the child support period. In this case the annual figure for 2022 is $81,188 per annum.[2]

    [1] Child Support (Assessment) (MTAWE amount) Determination 2021

15. At the time the mother lodged the departure application under review she was liable to pay an annual rate of child support of $17,718 based on the parents’ 2021 adjusted taxable incomes of $24,357 (the father) and $203,026 (the mother). Application of the father’s earning capacity to the administrative assessment would result in a decrease in the mother’s liability by $7,000 per annum. As the father’s earning capacity is not properly reflected in the child support assessment, there are special circumstances such that the application of the administrative assessment would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of child support payable. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the ground provided for in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ib) of the Act is established.

Just and equitable

1. The requirement to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable directs attention to what is fair to the parents and their children. Regard must be had to a variety of factors such as the needs of the child, the parents’ commitments and any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula assessment.

2. The mother provided a Statement of Financial Circumstances dated 2 March 2023. The Tribunal finds that she has worked on a permanent full-time basis for the last eight years and so is satisfied that she does not have an unused earning capacity. Her declaration of weekly income of $3,264 is consistent with the payslips in evidence and indicate that her 2023 adjusted taxable income is likely to be consistent with her 2022 adjusted taxable income. Her assets include savings of $500, a motor vehicle valued at $14,250, household contents valued at $10,000 and superannuation of $133,484. She lists liabilities including credit card debts totalling $38,038 and outstanding school fees of $23,954 per annum. At hearing she revised the outstanding school fees to $26,895. She is of the view that there should not be a reduction in her child support liability on an ongoing basis, otherwise she may be unable to maintain the children’s enrolment in their private school. She reports her personal expenses are $2,772.71 per week and household expenses are $3,310 per week, of which $860 relate to the children, noting that this does not take into account the costs associated with housing and transporting the children as well as the children’s private school fees. She reports that she is in good health, though notes that the ongoing involvement with the Agency is stressful.

3. The mother explained that after the full sum she received from the property settlement was paid to the children’s school fees; there was about $8,000 outstanding for the 2020 school year. This is her third departure application seeking a contribution from the father in respect of the children’s education costs.

4. It is not in dispute that the parents agreed that the children should attend private school, as evidenced by their enrolment whilst the parents were married. The mother seeks a 50% contribution from the father in respect of the children’s school fees, explaining that their contribution should be consistent with the children’s care arrangements. She submits that it would not be just or equitable that the father contributes commensurate with their respective income and earning capacity as her income is subject to income tax and she alleges that the father is in receipt of cash income.

5. Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act provides a ground for departure when, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected because the children are being educated in the manner that was expected by their parents. The child support assessment is intended to cover the costs of raising children which are common to all parents, such as public school fees. It is not intended to cover additional expenses such as private school fees or other education costs, which are not common.

6. The question of private schooling has been considered by the Full Court of the Family Court in Mee and Ferguson (1986) FLC 91-716. The principle that emerged is that where a parent has agreed to a child attending private school, that parent is liable to contribute to the fees so long and to the extent that they have a reasonable financial capacity to do so.

7. At hearing, the father explained that whilst he did consent to the children attending the private school, this was before the parents’ financial situation changed completely upon the breakdown of the marriage. He simply does not have the financial capacity to contribute to the schooling costs. He thought it more appropriate that the children attend public or Catholic schools given the parents’ financial circumstances. He is of the view that he could contribute about $1,500 per annum should the children attend a Catholic school.

1. The Tribunal finds that the children attend [a named] College (the School) and that in attending the School, they are being educated in the manner expected by the parents. The 15 November 2022 statement of account[3] indicates that $913 was outstanding from 2021. Each of the four school terms attracts compulsory fees of $5,705. Further compulsory charges of $259.50 were also charged. In 2023 each of the four term fees totalled $6,547[4] and further compulsory charges totalling $394[5]. The statements indicate that the mother contributed $5,759.50 towards the children’s education expenses. The father does not contest that he made no contribution towards the children’s private school education costs during the same period. The Tribunal finds that the total costs in the children attending the school in 2022 was $23,079.50. The mother’s 2022 adjusted taxable income was $168,497. This represents 14% of the mother’s gross income. In 2023 her costs will total $28,640, representing 17% of her gross income. The Tribunal is satisfied that the costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected because the children are being educated in the manner expected by the parents.

   [3] At folio B25

   [4] At folio B27

   [5] At folio B28

2. The father provided a Statement of Financial Circumstances dated 24 December 2022. He declared that he is a carer, receiving carer pension and allowance of $578 per week in addition to $95 in family tax benefit. His assets include a home valued at $670,000, savings of $2,500, a motor vehicle valued at $25,000 and nominal household contents and other personal property and superannuation of $100,000. His liabilities include his home mortgage of $310,000 and a personal loan from his father and brother of $174,500. He reports nil personal expenses and his household expenses are $1,340 per week, of which $519 relate to the children, noting that this does not take into account the costs associated with housing the children. As outlined above, the father states that his health is variable, with some days where he stays in bed. He was not willing to elaborate, nor did he provide any medical evidence to support his oral testimony.

3. The Tribunal next considered what, if any, contribution the father should make towards these costs. The Tribunal has already considered the father’s earning capacity. The mother also contends that the father has access to income and financial resources that are not reflected in his adjusted taxable income.

4. Specifically in relation to this, the mother submits that the father would be unable to secure funding for his home purchase on his social security income alone. As outlined at paragraph 4 above, the Tribunal issued a summons to [Business 1] on 23 February 2023 requiring it to produce the loan application lodged by the father. It is apparent that the father was granted a mortgage of $317,000 on a $650,000 property over a 30-year term, on the basis of assets made up of a motor vehicle valued at $42,000 and savings totalling $385,599.36[6]. He reported gross monthly income of $3,787.83 made up solely of his carer allowance, family tax benefit and child care benefits (the Tribunal understands that this was meant to refer to his child support payments) calculated to be $45,323 per annum[7], noting his ongoing liabilities of $3 per month and monthly living expenses of $2,104 with the father apparently stating that he and the children (aged 11 and 9 at the time of application) “live a very simple life” and that the mother meets the children’s education expenses.[8]  It went on to note that the father “plans on working once the boys become self-sufficient and independent allowing him to take up full-time work and payout the loan sooner” than the 30–year loan period.[9] The Tribunal is satisfied that the loan approval was given on the basis of the father’s income support payments only.

   [6] At folios D9 to D10

   [7] At folio D12

   [8] At folio D12

   [9] At folio D12

5. The Agency has already outlined funds being deposited into the father’s account from unknown sources. The Tribunal finds the following deposits (excluding his social security income, child support income, payment reversals/cancellations and energy bill reimbursement apparently paid on the paternal grandfather’s behalf):

Deposit date	Descriptor	Amount
2 June 2022	Repairs to Shop	$    300
21 June 2022	[Person 1]	$    3500
21 June 2022	[Person 2] 18 June 2022	$    300
22 June 2022	[Person 3]	$    450
27 June 2022	Diesel	$    350
27 June 2022	Diesel	$    350
30 June 2022	Work home	$    300
5 July 2022	Cash deposit	$   2,000
5 July 2022	Cash deposit	$   1,600
22 July 2022	Diesel	$    400
28 July 2022	Diesel	$    400
4 August 2022	[Person 3]	$   1,150
4 August 2022	Bills	$2,000
8 August 2022	[Person 3]	$   1,600
9 August 2022	Petty Cash	$   1,500
22 August 2022	[Person 4]	$    200
22 August 2022	[Business 2] Maintenance	$    400
Total	$13,650

1. The father provided the following explanations to the Tribunal. He receives support from his brother who resides overseas. The transfers into his account are not loans, but rather will be taken into account some time in the future when receiving their inheritance upon their father’s death. There is no loan agreement, rather an understanding between the brothers. He also receives financial support from his father. The father denied that the descriptors suggest that he is undertaking work for others; however, he was unable to provide compelling explanations. He reiterated the same explanation as that provided to the Agency as to the cash deposits; he apparently withdraws cash from his account for renovations he is undertaking at his home and when he has remaining cash funds, he deposits them again into his account. The Tribunal notes that the father advised the Agency that the transfer on 22 August 2022 was in relation to him being overcharged a meal one year before and being reimbursed. The Tribunal finds his explanation implausible, given the descriptor includes “Maintenance”. He also advised the Agency that he assists his friends with moving house, and that the descriptors “Diesel” were a transfer from a friend so that his friend could claim a fuel tax deduction. In the Tribunal’s view the father’s explanations were not persuasive.

2. Instead, in the absence of other evidence to support his explanations, the Tribunal is of the view that the father is undertaking undeclared remunerative work and that these deposits represent income and financial resources available to him. That he received $13,650 in an 82-day period suggests that his income is in the vicinity of $60,760; a PAYG earner would need to earn gross income of about $71,000 to have access to such funds. In addition, the father also receives carer payment and carer allowance of about $24,357 per annum.

3. The Tribunal compelled the father to provide his bank statements for the period 1 November 2022 to 31 January 2023. These indicate that during that three-month period, non-social security and child support deposits totalled $4,050. It is also noted that during that period the father incurred significant discretionary spending, which is not consistent with his declaration that he is reliant on social security and child support payments. Further, the statements suggests that his necessary living expenses are minimal. By way of example, during the three-month period he spent more than $800 on alcohol. It is also apparent that the father has access to his father’s bank accounts, as he testified that he transfers money from his father’s account to reimburse the payment of the father’s utilities from his account. The father was directed to provide statements for all accounts to which he was a signatory but did not provide his father’s bank accounts. His failure to comply with the directions is unsatisfactory and leaves him open to adverse inferences being drawn: Humphries & Berry (SSAT Appeal) [2008] FMCAfam 409. At hearing the mother inferred that the father may be using the paternal grandfather’s account to receive undeclared income, given the change in the pattern of deposits into the father’s account following the objection decision.

4. The Tribunal finds that the children are in good health. Apart from the children’s private school fees the children have no out of the ordinary expenses. There is no evidence to suggest that the children are in receipt of income or financial resources that render the assessment unfair or unjust.

5. On balance, the Tribunal concludes that the father’s income and financial resources are most accurately reflected by an adjusted taxable income of about $81,000, which is consistent with the Tribunal’s findings regarding his earning capacity. In the Tribunal’s view, such a finding is the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn on the available evidence. It may well be the case that this underestimates the income and financial resources available to the father. However, the Tribunal’s objectives do not permit a forensic accounting of the parties’ respective financial positions. Amending the father’s adjusted taxable income on this basis would reduce the mother’s current liability from about $16,600 per annum to about $8,500.

6. As outlined above, the children’s 2022 and 2023 education costs were $23,079.50 and $28,640. It is not uncommon in departure applications that it be determined that it is just and equitable that the parents equally contribute to the children’s private education costs. However, expressed as a percentage, the father’s income and financial resources is 33% of the parents’ total income and financial resources. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate that the father contribute to the private education expenses commensurate with his income and financial resources, that is, that he contributes 33% of the private education costs. This would require him to contribute $7,620 towards these costs in 2022 and $9,450 in 2023 and a similar contribution in 2024. It is noted that the education costs significantly increase when the older child commences Year 10.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied that in the circumstances it is appropriate that the father’s income and financial resources and his 33% contribution to the children’s compulsory school fees is reflected in the administrative assessment from 1 January 2022. Whilst this predates the mother’s application by some three months, the Tribunal is satisfied that the father was on notice that the mother sought a contribution from him in respect of the school fees; most recently she had lodged a non-Agency payment application in September 2021[10].

   [10] At folio 70

8. Determining that the father is liable to contribute to 33% of the children’s education costs and varying his adjusted taxable income of $81,000 per annum results in the mother’s child support liability reducing to about $3,400 per annum in the 2022 calendar year. The father would become the paying parent in the 2023 calendar year, required to provide about $1,300 in child support per annum.

9. It is therefore, in the Tribunal’s view, both just and equitable in the circumstances that the mother’s child support liability be reduced to nil from 1 January 2022, recognising that this reflects the father’s actual income and financial resources and his contribution to the children’s education costs. This aspect of the decision will create an overpayment of about $14,000. The Tribunal is satisfied that repayment of this sum by the father will not cause him undue hardship given his savings, income and financial resources. The Tribunal is persuaded that it is appropriate that this departure remain in place until a terminating event occurs in relation to the older child, likely to be when he turns 18 years of age. Certainly, the Tribunal is of the view that the father’s income and financial resources will not be accurately reflected by his taxable income into the foreseeable future. This determination will provide certainty to the parties and minimise the need for repeat proceedings. Of course, it remains open to either parent to lodge a new departure application should their circumstances change.

10. The Tribunal is satisfied that the administrative assessment is unfair given the father’s income and financial resources and because of the costs in educating the children in the manner expected by the parents. This results in an unjust and inequitable level of child support given the circumstances of each parent. For all these reasons it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment.

Otherwise proper

1. The requirement to consider whether a departure would be otherwise proper 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 and benefits. Parents, rather than the community, have the primary duty to maintain a child. The father is in receipt of income-tested benefits. Departing from the administrative assessment will have an impact on the apportionment of financial responsibility between the parents and the community.

2. The determination is otherwise proper.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that for the period 1 January 2022 until a terminating event occurs in relation to the child [Child 1]:

• the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Tatro is varied to $0; and

• the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Tatro is varied to $0.