Teasley and Teasley (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by the father, Mr Teasley, for a departure from the child support assessment made under the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) in relation to his two children, born in 2009 and 2011. The mother, Ms Teasley, opposed the application. The application was heard by Magistrate Dordevic in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the father had established that the existing child support assessment was unjust or inequitable having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. This required the Court to consider whether any of the grounds for departure listed in section 117(2) of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* were met, and if so, whether it was just and equitable to make an order for a departure. The father sought to argue that the assessment was unjust and inequitable due to the significant difference in the parties' incomes and the father's increased capacity to earn income.

Magistrate Dordevic considered the evidence presented by both parties, including financial statements and employment histories. The Court applied the principles established in case law regarding applications for departure, particularly the need to demonstrate that the existing assessment is unjust or inequitable. The Court found that while there was a disparity in the parties' incomes, the father had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the current assessment was unjust or inequitable under section 117(2) of the Act. The Court noted that the father's earning capacity was a factor that had been considered in the original assessment and that there had not been a significant change in circumstances to warrant a departure.

The Court therefore dismissed the father's application for a departure from the child support assessment.