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 pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

1. Mr Bostead (the father) and Ms Hamshaw (the mother) are the parents of twins, born [in] November 2011. Since 30 October 2015, this case was registered with Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support). The existing percentages of care are that the father has 36% care and the mother has 64% care of the children from 17 February 2017.
2. The father lodged an application to change the child support assessment (the departure application) on 28 February 2024. On 25 June 2024, Child Support decided not to change the child support assessment as a reason to change had not been established.
3. On 14 July 2024, the father lodged an objection. An objections officer, on 17 October 2024, disallowed the objection and decided that while a reason had been established, it was not just and equitable to change the assessment.
4. On 14 November 2024, the father sought review of the objection decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
5. A directions hearing was held on 2 April 2025. Directions were issued on 7 April 2025 to the parties to provide further information, requiring compliance by 28 April 2025. Directions were also issued to Child Support requiring further information to be provided by 16 May 2025.
6. The hearing took place on 14 May 2025. The mother appeared by MS Teams audio and provided documentation,[1] as did the father.[2] The Child Support Registrar elected not to be represented at the hearing, but provided documentation.[3]

1. The issues before me are:
   1. does a ground exist for departure from the administrative assessment of child support; and if so,

1. would it be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination.

What does the law say in relation to departure from administrative assessments?

1. Section 98C of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides that a decision to depart from an administrative assessment may be made if each of the following requirements are met:
   1. at least one ground for departure referred in subsection 117(2) of the Act exists;
   2. it would be just and equitable as regards to the child and the parents to the assessment; and

1. Section 117 of the Act provides the matters that must be considered before being satisfied in making an order in relation to a child in the special circumstances of the case. The phrase 'special circumstances of the case' is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary, and peculiar to the particular case which sets it apart from other cases.[4] A number of grounds have been raised which I must consider in this assessment:
   1. Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) provides that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining a child are significantly affected because the child is being cared for, educated or trained in the manner that was expected by the parents. Once the costs associated with educating, maintaining or training a child in the manner expected by the parents have been calculated, the additional amount must be significant in relation to the assessed costs of the child. If it is not, then the costs of maintaining the child may not be significantly affected and there would be no reason to change the assessment.
   2. Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ii) states that, in the special circumstances of the case, the child support assessment is unfair because a parent has paid or transferred money, goods or property to the child, the other parent, or a third party for the benefit of the child.
   3. Lastly, in the special circumstances of the case, there is an unjust and inequitable level of financial support to be provided because of either parent's income, property and financial resources as set out in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia), or their earning capacity pursuant to subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ib). A child support assessment is generally calculated using the parent's most recent taxable income. This requires consideration of whether a parent's current income is not adequately reflected in the child support assessment. Special circumstances may exist if one parent has substantial property or financial resources that have not been properly taken into account in the child support assessment.[5] A parent's earning capacity can be considered to be greater than currently reflected in their income, if, among other reasons, they do not work despite ample opportunity to do so, they have reduced the number of hours per week below the normal full time hours for their occupation or the industry they work in, or they have changed occupation, industry or working patterns. Further, the parent's decision not to work, reduce hours, or to change their occupation, industry or working pattern is not justified on the basis of their caring responsibilities or their health, and they have not demonstrated it was not a major purpose of that decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support.
2. In deciding whether a decision is fair, consideration is given to the amount and duration of any proposed change and the factors listed in subsection 117(4) of the Act which are relevant to a particular case. Particular factors may be given more weight depending on the circumstances of the case.
3. Subsection 117(5) of the Act provides that in determining whether it would be 'otherwise proper' to change the assessment, consideration must be given to:
   1. the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child and, in particular, the fact that it is the parents of a child who have the primary duty to maintain the child; and
   2. the effect that any proposed change would have on the child or the receiving parent's entitlement to, or the rate of, an income tested pension, allowance or benefit.

1. There were various matters that were raised by the parties but I will only address and form findings in relation to those that are pertinent to the issues before me.

1. In the departure application, the father stated that he was seeking a decrease in the rate of child support from 23 January 2024 as he had purchased the children's mobile phones for $1,588 in December 2023 and mobile phone plans for $640 in January 2024, He subsequently purchased phone plans for $700 in January 2025. The mother has refused to contribute and pay half the costs. He asserted that the mobile phones were to meet their school and home education needs. In this regard, the father stated that the children attend a school that had been agreed by the parents and that at the time of enrolment, the parents were aware of the school's requirement that the students have computers. The school also uses digital applications and emails to manage the children, such as having daily rosters available online as well as camp and assessment dates.
2. The father also stated that the mobile phones facilitate the children's safety. In particular, the children use public transport to travel to and from school and bus and train timetables can be accessed on the phones, and noted that bus stops no longer show any timetables. If the children were to be late or there is an issue with the public transport, they can notify the school and him through their phones. He stated in his written submissions that:

vii. As mobile phones are an integral element of daily life, it was incumbent upon the Parents to instruct the children on issues such as:

1. Digital privacy;
2. Identifying scam emails;
3. Responsible social media use; and
4. Accessing bank accounts and making payments with their phones, given most everyday transactions are now cashless and many vendors do not accept cash.

1. Keep important telephone numbers;
2. Engage in written communication (i.e. emails);
3. Keep diary entries;
4. Access news, maps and directions; and
5. Take and keep photographs.

1. The father asserted that neither the mother or Child Support saw the utility in mobile phones even where pointed out that it allowed a parent to immediately locate the children and vice versa. He disputed the mother's claims that the parents were to each give the children a spare phone each and a cheaper plan, but this was not appropriate or viable as her phones were old and he queried the battery life of her phones, and said his phone no longer worked. He noted that iPhones are convenient and the children's plans have unlimited calls and data usage. The mother has not put any documentary evidence to the Tribunal about cheaper phone plans as she has asserted.
2. The father has indicated the mother has also had the benefit of the mobile phones given to the children as she contacts them directly on their phones and does not ask that the children not use the phones when they are in her care. He asserted that she should therefore also contribute to the phones.
3. The father referred to the mother's submissions about the children's extracurricular activities and stated that club [sport 1] is a luxury and as he is paying a lot in child support, if he makes a commitment about paying half the costs and she is unable to pay her share, then he may have to pay for all of it. He noted that the children have also participated in other luxuries like [specified activities], all of which was decided unilaterally by the mother. He makes a budget and is unable to afford to pay for all of these extra expenses. He noted he pays for a top rate private health insurance on a family plan to cover the children if they get hurt while undertaking these extracurricular activities.
4. In relation to the parent's earning capacity, income, property and financial resources, the father disputed the Child Support's consideration that he had derived a benefit from a lower administrative assessment in 2024 as he had been unemployed for three months in 2022, and when he found new employment, it was a higher paying role which he had informed Child Support about. He said that he was working 50 hours a week but the mother chose to work part time for 26 hours a week, and also received an annual rate of child support of $11,256. If this amount was added to her income, then their income would almost be the same. By working part time, she had reduced her income by $29,000, and could instead earn $132,000 per annum. He also stated that she has flexibility in her hours and can work longer when the children are not in her care, and noted the children are self-sufficient and wash and cook at his place. When asked about her work arrangements prior to their separation on 30 April 2015, the father could not recall how many days of the week or what her hours were as he was a shift worker at the time. He did confirm that she worked part time for the entirety of the period as far as he could recall, but said they were both caring for the children as equally as possible, although she may have done more. He noted there were discussions about her returning to work full time. In relation to his own circumstances, the father stated that he was looking for positions in [Town 1] and had an opportunity to apply for a job, not that he had been offered a job. If he had obtained this role, his costs would have increased including his accommodation and flying the children a few times a year to see him. However, he had told the mother if he did that, he would see the children less and then he would pay less, and she refused.
5. The Child Support papers indicate that the father had a taxable income of $91,610 for the 2023 financial year and $115,955 for the 2024 financial year. His statement of financial circumstances indicates he has worked full time as [an occupation 1] with his current employer for the last 1.5 years, earning $2,314 gross per week. The total value of his property comprising a home, savings, a car, household contents and other personal property is $654,434. He has $769,923 in superannuation. He has a credit card debt of $6,371 and has total personal expenditure comprising income tax, superannuation, child support, and health insurance premiums of $1,854 per week. His total household expenditure is $381 per week.

1. The mother advised that the father had approached her about purchasing the mobile phones at Christmas in 2023. She had refused and has provided the correspondence that was sent between them. She had instead proposed that the children use existing handsets and then review within six months, as the children were 12 years old at the time and did not need new iPhones. She advised that she had three mobile phones and she sent the children with a mobile phone each when they were in the father's care. The mobiles were in perfect working order and on plans for $8 per month. She noted that her own plan is cheaper than the plans the children are currently on. She also noted that there are alternatives to iPhones, and the children's whereabouts can also be tracked on android phones. However, the father proceeded to purchase the gifts which the children told her through text messages. She disputes that she has an indirect benefit from the purchase as the girls had contacted her, and as they were a gift, she cannot tell them to turn off the phones and not use them when they are in her care as the consequences would be great. Rather, she encourages the children to use their phones and contact their father. She noted that the children's laptops also have digital applications and they check their rosters every morning and night, the school issues diaries to the children, and the bus stops and train stations have timetables. She also stated that the children communicate with many people and they are not being asked to contribute to the payment of the phones. While she has contacted the children on their phones in March 2025 about their [sport 1] being cancelled, she had also emailed them as the children are not allowed phones in the classroom.
2. The mother advised that she has paid for the children's activities and clubs, which she organises for the children to be involved in teambuilding, but when the father was asked to contribute to these, he refused and she provided emails to this effect. The children have been playing [sport 1] since 2024 as an extracurricular activity and while there are other costs like bringing oranges to the games, from the invoices, the overall annual cost, including registration, fees and uniforms, is around $1,000. She advised that she has not chosen to pursue these costs but is not sure if they should be considered as part of this review. The mother noted she also has private health insurance, which covers the children.
3. In relation to her income, property, financial resources and earning capacity, the mother advised that she has been working part time even before entering the child support system. She has not changed her occupation or industry. Since the children were born, she has been the primary care giver and did not agree that the parents had equal responsibility. Prior to separation, the parties made decisions jointly, contributed to the joint account and paid for things together. The children were in day care for three days a week while she worked and then in her care for two days a week as they were not able to secure places at the day care for the whole week. After separation, this arrangement has continued and she still has majority care of the children. She is a single mother who facilitates the children's extracurricular activities. She also noted that there is more to caring for the children than just washing the laundry and that if she makes dinner for them then it is her decision to make. She is now working four days a week, Monday to Thursday, but her hours might change as the hours must all zero out. The mother noted that if earning capacity is considered, the father is also able to pursue regional opportunities and earn a far greater income.
4. The Child Support papers indicate that the mother had a taxable income of $100,680 for the 2023 financial year and $103,364 for the 2024 financial year. Her statement of financial circumstances (the mother's statement) indicates she has worked part time as an [occupation 2] with her current employer for almost 18 years, and also receives government benefits and child support payments, totalling $2,317 per week. She has a home, car, household contents, personal effects, superannuation, and also has a mortgage, car loan and credit card debts but has not disclosed the approximate value of these. She has also not advised the value of her total household expenditure, but has indicated what it would comprise.

Should the administrative assessment be changed in the special circumstances of the case?

Has a reason to depart from the administrative assessment been established?

1. The father is seeking for the costs of the mobile phones and phone plans he has purchased for the children to be considered as part of the administrative assessment. I have been asked to consider a number of grounds to change the assessment and note that if I consider one ground to be established, then I will consider the other grounds in the just and equitable considerations.
2. The information before me indicates that the father bought each of the children a mobile phone costing $1,588 as well as phone plans for $640 in 2024 and $700 in 2025. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the father has transferred items to the children for their benefit. Comparing these costs to the costs accounted for the child in the child support assessment of $11,256, the costs are 26% of the annual costs. I consider these costs to be significant, which makes the child support assessment unfair. While the mother has asserted that these costs were discretionary and there were more economical options which were equally viable, I will consider her assertions in my just and equitable considerations below if I am satisfied that the costs should be attributed.
3. Overall, I consider that the ground provided for in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ii) of the Act, is established as the child support assessment is unfair because the father has paid or transferred money, goods or property to the children for the benefit of the children.
4. As a reason for changing the assessment has been established, I must now consider whether the proposed decision to change the assessment is both 'just and equitable' and 'otherwise proper'.

Would it be just and equitable to depart from the assessment?

1. In order to determine whether a departure would be just and equitable, I must consider the factors set out under subsection 117(4) of the Act, as far as they are relevant to this case.
2. Section 3 of the Act provides that a parent's duty to maintain their children has priority over all commitments of the parent other than commitments necessary to enable the parent to support himself or herself and any other child or person that the parent has a duty to maintain. Further, the objects of the Act, among others, are to ensure that the level of a parent's financial support for a child is to be determined by their capacity to provide financial support, and the change of the assessment provisions are to ensure that parents share equitably in the support of their children.[6] In this regard, I note that the mother, as well as the father, should contribute to the costs of raising their children to the extent of their financial capacity.
3. The evidence before me does not indicate the children have resources available to them. I will proceed to consider the earning capacity, income, property and financial resources of each parent.
4. The Child Support records indicate the mother's taxable income for the 2023 financial year was $100,680 and $103,364 for the 2024 financial year, which comprises her earnings from part-time employment, government payments, and child support. The father stated the mother had a higher earning capacity and that she is able to work full time. However, in determining a person's earning capacity, the Act is particular on the matters that must be considered. From the information before me, the mother does in fact work, having worked part time since prior to the parent's separation, which is not in dispute. She has not reduced her hours per week and her evidence is that her arrangement has continued over the years, and she has worked with the same employer as an [occupation 2] for almost 18 years. Accordingly, I am not satisfied any of the prerequisites in determining the mother has a higher earning capacity has been satisfied. Similarly, while the father may have had an opportunity to work in a remote location and earn higher income, there is no evidence that he was in fact offered such employment and I am therefore not satisfied he has a higher earning capacity. Accordingly, I do not consider either parent has any unused earning capacity.
5. The father noted that the mother had not disclosed all of her financial circumstances by not fully completing the mother's statement. I accept his submissions to this point and note that I am able to draw adverse inferences where necessary. However, I do not have cogent evidence to indicate that the mother's income, property and financial resources are not otherwise accurately reflected in the administrative assessment, and the father's submissions focussed on the mother's earning capacity which I have considered above. Similarly, there is nothing before me to suggest the father's income, property and financial resources are also not accurately reflected.
6. The father also disputed the objections officer's finding that he had been assessed for a majority of 2024 on an income amount lower than his actual income. In this regard, the objections officer noted that in the departure application, the father had indicated that his gross income was $107,518 per annum, however he had been assessed as having adjusted taxable incomes of $89,000 from 1 November 2023 to 15 May 2024, $91,610 from 16 May 2024 to 30 September 2024, and $95,274 from 1 October 2024 to 31 December 2025. The Child Support papers show that the annual rate of child support paid by the father in 2024 was $5,606 until 16 May 2024, $5,924 until 30 September 2024, and $9,350 to 20 November 2024, after which the current annual rate of $11,256 was determined. The objections officer noted that during the period 28 February 2024 (date of departure application) to 30 September 2024, the father was paid $1,430 less than if he had been assessed using the correct and higher adjusted taxable incomes. Having considered this information, I do not understand that the father's unemployment for a few months in 2022 has affected his overall adjusted taxable income for the relevant period, being $91,610 for the 2023 financial year and $115,955 for the 2024 financial year. I note that his taxable income for the 2024 financial year was higher than what the objections officer had considered, being the estimated amount noted in the father's departure application. As such, I agree that the father did pay less child support for a period.
7. I also note that the Child Support Guide (the Guide) at 5.2.5 discusses circumstances where money, good or property received by the child for the benefit of the child can be a reason to change an administrative assessment and whether it just and equitable to do so. Referring to the Family Court decision of Strauss and Strauss [1998] FamCA 2, the Guide states that "[a]n uninvited, voluntary or excessive payment for the benefit of the child by a parent, outside the child support assessment, should not affect the payee's entitlement to receive child support to meet the day-to-day needs of the child". Further, while a parent is not legally required to pay more than the rate of child support payable, they "may choose to pay additional amounts of child support without any expectation of a change being made to the assessment". The information before me indicates that the mother has not agreed to the purchase of the mobile phones and plans, and as she has an entitlement to receive child support to meet the needs of the children, I do not consider it would be fair to require the mother to contribute to the voluntary purchase of the mobile phones and plans. While I understand the father concerns regarding the children's safety and he has made assertions regarding the utility of the phones for school purposes, I am not satisfied that these were necessary expenses. Further, I note that the mother similarly pays for the children's extracurricular activities which she asserts is for the children to be involved in teambuilding and costs around $1,000 per annum, which I also accept are not necessary expenses. However, overall, I do not consider it would be just and equitable for the mother to contribute to the costs of the mobile phones and ongoing phone plans.
8. In light of the above, and taking into account the parent's income, property and financial resources, I am unable to be satisfied that hardship will be caused by refusing to make a change to the assessment and take into account the costs associated with the mobile phones.
9. Having considered the factors in subsection 117(4) of the Act, as mentioned above, I am unable to be satisfied that it would be just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment. Accordingly, I will not proceed to consider whether it would otherwise be proper to change the assessment.

[4] Gyselman and Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93 at [39]; Philippe and Philippe (1978) FLC 90-433.

[5] Ross and McDermott [1998] FamCA 134; (1998) FLC 98-003.

[6] Paragraph 4(2)(a) and paragraph 114(b) of the Act.