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. Ms Gettys and Mr Laverty are the parents of [the child], who is currently aged 10. A child support case for [the child] commenced on 16 December 2020. The care percentages reflected in the child support assessment for [the child] are 85% to Ms Gettys and 15% to Mr Laverty. Mr Laverty is the parent required to pay child support.
2. In the child support period commencing 1 February 2024 Mr Laverty was required to pay an annual rate of child support of $6,335, based on an adjusted taxable income of $162,204 for Mr Laverty and an adjusted taxable income of $166,757 for Ms Gettys.
3. On 28 April 2024 Ms Gettys applied to Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) for a departure from the administrative assessment. In her application Ms Gettys submitted that the costs of maintaining [the child] are significantly affected by [the child]'s special needs, and that the costs of maintaining [the child] are significantly affected by the costs of caring for, educating or training her in a way that both parents intended.
4. On 29 May 2024 a Child Support decision maker decided that there should be no departure from the administrative assessment as no ground for departure had been established. Ms Gettys objected to that decision, and on 9 August 2024 a Child Support objections officer dismissed her objection, agreeing with the original decision maker that no ground for departure had been established.
5. On 13 September 2024 Ms Gettys applied to this Tribunal for an independent review of Child Support's decision. A hearing took place on 12 August 2025. Ms Gettys and Mr Laverty attended the hearing by telephone and gave sworn evidence. At the time of the hearing the Tribunal had before it documents submitted by Child Support numbered 1 to 666, documents submitted by Ms Gettys numbered A1 to A9 and documents submitted by Mr Laverty numbered B1 to B9.
6. Following the hearing of the matter the Tribunal gave leave to Ms Gettys to file further documentary evidence. Further documents were received from Ms Gettys on 20 and 21 August 2025, and have been numbered A10 to A161. A copy of those documents was exchanged with Mr Laverty.

1. The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 ("the Act") provides for an administrative assessment of child support payable. It uses a formula which contains variables such as the parents' adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of care for the child. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.
2. Paragraph 98C(1)(b) of the Act relevantly provides that a departure decision may be made in respect of a departure application if:

(i) ... one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in [subsection 117(2)] exists; and

(ii) ... it would be:

(A) just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent, and the carer entitled to child support; and

to make a particular determination under this Part; ...

1. Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ia) of the Act, commonly referred to as Reason 2, provides as a ground for departure:

that, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected:

1. The term 'special needs' is not defined in the Act. In the decision of Lightfoot v Hampson [1996] FLC 92-663 the court stated that the special needs of the child:

encompasses a wide range of needs of a child which is seen as "special" in the sense of necessary or at least desirable for the child's welfare but outside the "normal" needs of a child which would be catered for within the formula. This would include such things as unusual medical expenditure, facilities for handicapped child, etc. if necessary it could include "special needs" in education.

1. There is evidence before the Tribunal that [the child] has a diagnosis of ADHD, and that she has also required treatment and surgery for an ear condition including most recently in June 2025.
2. In respect of [the child]'s ADHD, Ms Gettys provided to Child Support and to the Tribunal the following medical evidence:
   • a comprehensive psychological report prepared by [Dr A] and dated 30 June 2020;
   • a comprehensive psychological report prepared by [Dr A] and dated 1 September 2023; and
   • a letter from [Dr B] dated 31 October 2024.
3. Ms Gettys told the Tribunal that she incurs a number of costs associated with meeting [the child]'s special needs relating to her ADHD, but the main cost is the cost of additional tuition, which Ms Gettys said is necessary to enable [the child] to reach her potential particularly in the area of written expression. Ms Gettys submitted to the Tribunal that [the child] has learning difficulties that require intervention.
4. In relation to learning difficulties, [Dr A]'s reports both state that a diagnosis of Specific Learning Disorder is not warranted. [Dr A]'s 2020 report says:

[The child]'s academic attainments in Reading, Mathematics, and Written Expression were not found to be significantly and substantively (i.e., (ii) because the child is being cared for, educated or trained in the manner that was expected by his or her parents; ...

1. [The child] attends the [School], which does attract tuition fees. Ms Gettys and Mr Laverty told the Tribunal that they have a private agreement whereby they each meet 50% of [the child]'s school fees. It was not argued by either parent that there should be any adjustment to the child support assessment on that basis.
2. I have considered whether the costs of [the child]'s attendance at the [Organisation 2] program are because [the child] is being educated in the manner that was expected by her parents.
3. Ms Gettys told the Tribunal that both she and Mr Laverty would like [the child] to apply to a selective high school, although they have not agreed on the particular school at this stage. In respect of the [Organisation] program itself, Ms Gettys said she selected the program in order to increase [the child]'s chances of doing well in the GATE, and therefore to increase her chances of being accepted to a selective high school. She said she discussed the program with Mr Laverty because it was outside school hours and therefore required some of [the child]'s extracurricular activities to be moved around in her schedule. She said Mr Laverty agreed to [the child] attending the [Organisation 2] program.
4. Mr Laverty told the Tribunal that his understanding is that the [Organisation 2] program is for parents who want their kids to do well and increase the chances of getting into particular high schools. He said that Ms Gettys told him about the program and asked if he was willing to take [the child] to the class on days when [the child] was in his care, which he agreed to. There was no other discussion of the program or whether [the child] should attend.
5. Ms Gettys provided to the Tribunal a copy of an email that she sent to Mr Laverty on 16 April 2025, in which she says:

[The child's Art teacher] highlighted the need for [the child] to attend academic classes for the written tests as some of her most talented art students were not accepted last year because of the academic requirements. I have found an organisation who deliver academic support but more specifically GATE testing support. They run a session for the 4 areas, Reading Comprehension, Communicating Ideas in Writing, Quantitative Reasoning and Abstract Reasoning on Saturday mornings at [Venue] 0930 - 1200

Are you willing to take her to the educational classes in lieu of art classes on Saturday mornings?

1. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that [the child]'s attendance at the [Organisation 2] program is a result of her being educated in the manner expected by the parents. There is no evidence that Mr Laverty had any expectation of [the child] attending a tutoring program to increase her chances of doing well in the GATE, or that he was in any way involved in the decision to enrol [the child] in such a program, other than Ms Gettys seeking his agreement to take her to the program classes on Saturdays when [the child] is in his care.
2. Ms Gettys also told the Tribunal that [the child] attends a number of extra-curricular activities. In her written submission to the Tribunal Ms Gettys said in part:

With respect to extra-curricular and intra-curricular activities; there is a 50% cost agreement with the school including school music program. Per the parenting plan agreed to be both parties [the child] would continue to attend the below activities. She has participated in these same three activities prior to our separation, Mr Laverty does not contribute to those activities. Mr Laverty has declined to take [the child] to the art classes this term. Mr Laverty has independently enrolled [the child] in gymnastics, from time to time [the child] does attend gymnastic while in my care and I pay for those sessions (noting that extra-curricular are not considered in this application.)

1. Ms Gettys provided the Tribunal with evidence of her costs associated with [the child]'s extra-curricular activities including [Martial art] at a current cost of approximately $60.90 per fortnight, swimming at a cost of $173 per term, art classes at a cost of $275 per term, piano lessons at a cost of $135 per month and some costs associated with gymnastics classes. Ms Gettys has also included costs incurred for equipment for each of those activities from time to time.
2. I accept that Ms Gettys incurs costs in respect of [the child]'s various extra-curricular classes and activities. There is evidence that Mr Laverty also incurs some costs in respect of extra-curricular activities for [the child], in particular gymnastics. However, such activities are not unusual for a child of [the child]'s age, and those circumstances do not constitute special circumstances.
3. Reason 3 is not established.
4. I have considered the other grounds for departure from a child support assessment set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act. There is no evidence before me to suggest that any of those grounds apply.
5. As none of the grounds set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act have been established, a departure from the administrative assessment of child support is not available. I must therefore affirm Child Support's decision.