Wodefold and Duke (Child support) - [2022] AATA 4680

Wodefold and Duke (Child support) [2022] AATA 4680 (31 October 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/SC023954
APPLICANT:  Ms Wodefold
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Duke

TRIBUNAL:Member J Leonard
DECISION DATE: 31 October 2022
DECISION:

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

·   for the period from 11 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Duke is varied to $114,296;
·   for the period from 1 July 2021 to 31 October 2024 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Duke is varied to $111,163; and
·   for the period from 1 August 2021 to 31 January 2023 the annual rate of child support is increased by $462 to reflect Mr Duke’s contribution to [the child]’s child care costs.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the liable parent – costs of child care - a ground for departure established – decision to depart - 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

This review is about whether there should be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.
Mr Duke and Ms Wodefold are the parents of [the child] (born June 2017). There has been a child support assessment in place since 9 July 2018 with collection by Services Australia (Child Support). Mr Duke is the parent liable to pay child support under the assessment. [The child] is recorded as being in the above primary care of Ms Wodefold.
For the period 11 July 2020 to 31 October 2020 Mr Duke was assessed to pay an annual rate of $1,478 based on his estimate of $46,928 and Ms Wodefold’s adjusted taxable income of $47,165. When Mr Duke’s estimate of income was reconciled , Mr Duke was assessed to pay an annual rate of $2,940 from 11 July 2020.
From 1 November 2020 Ms Wodefold’s 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $54,379 was used in the assessment, however this did not change the annual rate of child support.
From 1 July 2021 to 31 July 2021 Mr Duke was assessed to pay an annual rate of $2,940 based on his 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $69,323 and Ms Wodefold’s 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $54,379. His 2019-20 adjusted taxable income was later amended to $69,173.
For the period 1 August 2021 to 30 April 2022 Mr Duke was assessed to pay an annual rate of $1,956 based on his 2020-21 provisional income of $55,300 and Ms Wodefold’s 2020-21 adjusted taxable income of $50,338.
On 29 October 2021 Ms Wodefold applied to Child Support for a change to the assessment on the basis of a parent’s income, property, financial…

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 Wodefold and Duke (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Wodefold and Duke (Child support) [2022] AATA 4680
Case: [2022] AATA 4680
Decision Date: 31 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia regarding a child support departure determination. The appeal was brought by the liable parent, Wodefold, against a decision made by the Registrar of the Child Support Agency. The dispute centred on whether the Registrar had erred in refusing to depart from the administrative assessment of child support payable by Wodefold to Duke, the recipient parent, for the benefit of their child.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Registrar had correctly applied the provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) in refusing to make a departure determination. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Registrar had given sufficient weight to the specific circumstances of the liable parent, including their income, property, and financial resources, and whether these circumstances warranted a departure from the standard assessment. The Court also considered the impact of the costs of childcare on the liable parent's capacity to pay.

Justice Leonard M found that the Registrar had failed to adequately consider the evidence presented by Wodefold regarding his financial position and the significant costs he incurred for childcare. The Court held that the Registrar’s decision was not open to them on the evidence before them and that a departure from the assessment was justified. The Court applied the principles outlined in the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), which permit departure from an assessment where it would be fair and just to do so, having regard to a range of factors including the financial circumstances of the parties and the costs associated with the child.

The Court set aside the Registrar's decision and substituted its own determination, ordering a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.

Orders