Trippier and Desmond (Child support) - [2020] AATA 4405

Trippier and Desmond (Child support) [2020] AATA 4405 (11 August 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/SC018832
APPLICANT:  Mr Trippier
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Desmond

TRIBUNAL:Member M Douglas
DECISION DATE: 11 August 2020
DECISION:

The decision under review is varied so that the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Trippier is varied to $19,500 for the period 1 August 2020 to 31 December 2021

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – costs of education – manner expected by both parents – cost of maintaining the children are significantly affected – financial resources of both parents – decision under review varied

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

Mr Trippier and Ms Desmond are the parents of [Child 1] and [Child 2]. They separated in August 2012, but lived under the one roof in the former matrimonial home until 18 October 2018, when Mr Trippier moved to his parents’ residence. The Child Support Registrar has issued administrative assessments of child support for their children, with the initial assessment taking effect from 26 March 2019.
An assessment of child support is made in accordance with the provisions of Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act). Broadly speaking, those provisions prescribe a formula that applies to several variables to work out the amount of child support one parent has to pay the other. Those variables include such things as the parents’ incomes in the last financial year, the level of care the parents provide for their children, the parents’ costs to support themselves, and the costs of the children. If a parent believes there are special circumstances in their case, the parent may apply to the Registrar under section 98B of the Act for a determination to depart from those provisions of the Act relating to the assessment of child support. The Registrar describes such an application as a “change of assessment application”.
On 16 September 2019, the Department of Human Services (now Services Australia) – Child Support, which is the Commonwealth Government Department through which the Registrar acts, received such an application from Ms Desmond. The assessment of child support in force at that time obligated Mr Trippier to pay child support for [Child 1] and [Child 2] at an annual rate of $435.00. That assessment was based on adjusted taxable incomes of $9,598.00 for Mr Trippier and $148,055.00 for Ms Desmond, which reflected their respective taxable incomes for the 2018 year. The assessment was based on Ms Desmond having 95% care of the children and Mr Trippier having 5% of their care.
On 12 December 2019, a delegate of the Registrar, in response to Ms Desmond’s change of assessment application determined that the following…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Trippier and Desmond (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] AATA 4405
Decision Date: 11 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trippier and Desmond concerned an application for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the costs of a child's education should be considered in the assessment of child support payments, and if so, how these costs should be allocated between the parents. The matter came before the court for review of a previous decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the existing child support assessment should be departed from to take into account the costs associated with the children's education. This required the court to consider whether these costs were of a nature that would have been expected by both parents had they been living together, and whether these costs significantly affected the costs of maintaining the children. Furthermore, the court had to assess the financial resources of both parents in determining any revised child support obligations.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles of child support as outlined in the relevant legislation, particularly concerning the consideration of specific child-related expenses that go beyond basic maintenance. The court examined evidence pertaining to the educational expenses incurred and the parents' respective capacities to contribute. The legal principle applied involved balancing the needs of the children with the financial capabilities of each parent, ensuring that any departure from the standard assessment was justified by the exceptional nature of the educational costs and the parents' prior expectations. The court ultimately varied the previous decision.

Orders