Yapo and Rogers (Child support)

In the matter of Yapo and Rogers, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning child support. The applicant, Yapo, sought to have child support payments assessed under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (the Act) based on the respondent, Rogers', actual income. Rogers, conversely, argued that the assessment should be based on a notional income, contending that Yapo had deliberately underemployed himself to reduce his child support obligations.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it had the power to depart from the child support assessment based on Rogers' actual income and instead assess child support based on a notional income. This required the Court to consider the provisions of the Act relating to the assessment of child support, particularly those concerning the imputation of income where a parent is found to be deliberately underemployed or unemployed. The Court also had to determine if the circumstances presented by Rogers met the threshold for such a departure.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of section 117 of the Act, which permits a departure from a child support assessment where a parent has, without reasonable cause, voluntarily retired from employment or reduced their earnings. His Honour Dordevic SM found that Rogers had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that Yapo had deliberately underemployed himself without reasonable cause. The Court applied the principle that the onus rests on the party seeking the departure to prove the necessary conditions are met. Without such proof, the assessment would proceed based on the actual income of the parties.

The Court ordered that child support be assessed based on Yapo's actual income, dismissing Rogers' application to depart from the assessment and impute income to Yapo.