Skip to content

2021

Sammons and Sammons (Child support) [2021] AATA 470

In this review, the AAT heard from the applicant about his income changes and the effects this has had on his ability to continue paying child support at the fixed rate. Read on to find out what was decided.

Tutton and Tutton (Child support) [2021] AATA 464

After reviewing a change in one parent’s circumstances, the Tribunal has to decide if payments made for school fees should be considered as non-agency payments.

Malghum and Greaves (Child Support) [2021] AATA 468

Does an increase in income and financial resources of one parent necessarily increase the amount of assessed child support to be paid?


2020

Stiglec and Stiglec (Child support) [2020] AATA 4287

The AAT had to decide what to do when a father’s taxable income does not properly reflect his capacity to financially support his children.

Marchand and Christian (Child support) [2020] AATA 4403

The AAT had to decide whether a father’s taxable income truly reflected his financial resources

Hyde and Hyde (Child support) [2020] AATA 2169

The AAT had to decide whether a father had a child support debt after he stopped paying child support.

Heinrich and Bannerman (Child support) [2020] AATA 2670

When a child started living away from home for work, the AAT had to decide whether this changed the amount of time his mother cared for him.

Nelson and Bonham (Child support) [2020] AATA 588

In this review of the pattern of care of a 16 year old child, the AAT had to consider the impact of the mother’s decision to relocate to another country for five months.

Wilder and Southgate (Child support) [2020] AATA 579

The AAT had to decide whether there was evidence a father had regular care of his older child after she relocated interstate.

Kingston and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2020] AATA 270

In making this decision, the AAT had to consider the percentage of care for only the youngest of the former couple’s three children.

Jansen and Secretary, Department of Social Services (second review) [2020] AATA 134

In this decision, the applicant request a review of their disability support pension rejection based on their permanent impairment.

Chilton and Secretary, Department of Social Services (second review) [2020] AATA 130

An applicant who had previously received a disability support pension, but was disqualified because of her financial position, reapplied after her finances and health deteriorated.

Leggett and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2019] AATA 230

The applicant sought a review of a decision refusing to cancel his Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) on humanitarian grounds. The AAT affirmed the decision under review.

Terry and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2019] AATA 2532

The applicant sought an extension of time for an AAT first review of a decision regarding child support payments for school fees. The AAT considered the extension of time unfair to other applicants and refused the application.


2019

Gardner and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2019] AATA 2539

The applicant claimed he provided a higher percentage of care from 28 November 2017.

He reported the change on 11 January 2018. The change was applied by the Child Support Agency (the Agency) from 11 January 2018.

The applicant sought an appeal of this decision at the AAT. The AAT concluded that the decision made by the Agency to apply the change from 11 January 2018 was correct and affirmed the decision under review.

Walton and Cannon (Child support) [2019] AATA 2529

In this case, the applicant made direct payments to the mother for one of their children’s orthodontic treatment, a cello and school books. He made payments after she sent him invoices for the items. The issue which arises is whether or not any of the four payments made by the father can be credited against his child support liability because they relate to specific types of payments made on behalf of the children.

Brigham and Child Support Registrar (Child Support) [2019] AATA 1688

The applicant objected to a decision made by the Child Support Agency (CSA) however lodged his objection after the deadline. The CSA decided not to provide the applicant with an extension of time to lodge his application. The key question for the AAT was whether or not an extension of time should be granted to the applicant for a review of this child support decision. In doing this the AAT had to determine whether the applicant’s reasons for lodging his objection out of time were reasonable, and if so, whether an extension of time would likely support a successful outcome to the original objection.

Thorley and Corliss (Child support) [2019] AATA 1748

The parents in this matter applied to the Child Support Registrar to depart from the assessment of how much child support the father was liable to pay. The AAT found that the difference between the father’s adjusted taxable income and his most recent tax return was a “special circumstance” and that the impact was sufficient to establish a ground for departure. The AAT did not find that the mother had an earning capacity but found that her income, property and financial resources were not properly reflected in the assessment. 

Allman and Setford (Child support) [2019] AATA 1197

The AAT had to consider whether or not child support arrangements had to be amended. The central issue for the AAT in this case was whether the mother was providing care to the child if the child was not living in the mother’s home for an extended period of time.

Cowie and Brelsford (Child support) [2019] AATA 258

This review considered the amount of child support paid based by parents in relation to the children’s education. The AAT found that the children were being educated privately in the manner expected by the parents and that this was a special circumstance that constituted a ground to depart from the assessment.

Tatnell and Tatnell (Child support) [2019] AATA 1216

In this case, a parent who was liable to pay child support had elected to estimate their annual income for the purposes of the child support assessment. The AAT was asked to review the Child Support Agency’s decision to refuse to accept the estimate.  

Gilbert and Bako (Child support) [2019] AATA 692

This review was about the calculation of the amount of child support payable by one parent to another. The calculation takes into account the adjusted taxable income of the party making payments, in this matter the applicant, and this review concerned the amount that should be included in the calculation where there is no adjusted taxable income available.

Ashurst and Robertson (Child support) [2019] AATA 377

This review concerned the collection of unpaid child support payments from the respondent for a three month period. The respondent claimed the payments he made during the period were in advance, while the applicant claimed they were made in arrears.  

Smithson and Smithson (Child support) [2018] AATA 4582

The AAT had to determine whether the child support payable from one parent to another should be changed because of the educational needs of one of their children and the income of one of the parents.  

Bennet and Moven (Child support) [2018] AATA 4517

The AAT had to determine the parents’ percentage of care of two of their children for the purpose of child support payments. 


2018

Mirvac and Caster (Child support) 2018 AATA 3067

The Department of Human Services determined that neither parent was providing eligible care for their child and subsequently that Mr Carter was not required to pay child support. Mrs Mirvac claimed that she was still providing substantial care for the child without living with him. The AAT affirmed the decision.

Carey and Carey (Child support) [2018] AATA 2414

The applicant claimed that the cost of flights which he paid for his child to travel to see him should be credited against his child support liability. The AAT set aside the decision and substituted a reduced amount to be credited.

Wolford and Fendi (Child support) [2018] AATA 2406

The applicant claimed the amount of child support she was paying was unjust and inequitable because of the income, property and financial resources and earning capacity of her former partner. The AAT affirmed the decision not to change the child support payable.

Lander and Child Support Registrar (Child Support) [2018] AATA 1706

The AAT reviewed a decision about the extension of time to object to a child support decision made by the Department of Human Services.

Askey and Askey (Child Support) [2018] AATA 1232

The Tribunal heard a matter about the date that a child support application is considered to have been submitted when a technical error occurred during the application process.

Jennings and Bramley (Child support) [2018] AATA 960

The Tribunal reviewed the assessment of the percentages of care for two separated parents where the care percentages of the children where changed on multiple occasions. 

Carrington and Carrington (Child support) [2018] AATA 953

The Tribunal reviewed the amount of child support payable by a liable party when they had not lodged income tax returns. 

Kendall and Child Support Registrar (Child Support) [2018] AATA 257

The Tribunal reviewed the assessment of the percentages of care for two separated parents where the child support assessment did not reflect the actual care of the child. 

Hellier and Rutter (Child support) [2018] AATA 541

The Tribunal varied a decision made by an objections officer of the Department of Human Services to adjust the applicant’s adjusted taxable income for the purposes of a child support assessment. The decision concerned the application of the assessment formula where a parent's income, financial resources, property and earning capacity may not accurately reflect the income used for a child support assessment.

Dune and Simmons (Child support) [2018] AATA 335

A decision was made by an objections officer of the Department of Human Services – Child Support terminating the child support of the liable parent. The matter concerned the care percentages of the parents and whether a terminating event occurred. The Tribunal found that a terminating event did not occur and set aside the decision, substituting amended care percentages for a certain period. 

Billing and Tillick (Child support) [2018] AATA 220

A decision was made by the Department of Human Services not to change the care percentages in a child support assessment after it was alleged the pattern of care of a child had changed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.

Elson and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2017] AATA 2951

A decision was made by the Department of Human Services not to change the care percentages in a child support assessment after it was alleged the pattern of care of a child had changed. The Tribunal considered whether the rate of child support should change.

Vardy and Wilmot (Child support) [2018] AATA 82

The Tribunal made a decision to depart from the assessment formula and vary the rate of child support payable based on the special circumstances of the children in relation to the cost of education.