CHILD SUPPORT - particulars of the administrative assessment - adjusted taxable income - ground for departure - insurance pension - special circumstances - inability to work - support for new family - decisions 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 pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

1. Mr Ginsburg (the father) and Ms Domingo (the mother) are the parents of one child relevant to the child support assessment under review. The child is currently 9 years old.
2. A child support case is registered with Services Australia - Child Support ("Child Support") and the case has been registered for collection by Child Support from 1 July 2020. At the time of the decision under review, care was recorded as being 93% to the mother and 7% to the father.
3. On 2 May 2024, the mother applied for a change to the assessment. The father subsequently cross-applied.
4. On 16 August 2024, a Child Support officer, acting as a delegate of the Registrar, found that a ground for departure was established and decided as follows:
   • For the period 2 May 2024 until 31 May 2026 the adjusted taxable income (ATI) for Mr Ginsburg is set at $118,650.

1. On 19 September 2024 the father lodged an objection to this decision. On 18 November 2024, an objections officer found that a ground for departure was established and decided as follows:
   • For the period 2 May 2024 until 1 May 2026 the ATI for Mr Ginsburg is set at $140,402.
2. On 26 November 2024 the father applied to the Tribunal for an independent hearing of Child Support's decision. A hearing for the matter was held on 11 August 2025 by conference telephone. The Registrar did not attend the hearing. Both the father and the mother attended the hearing by conference telephone and gave evidence on oath. I note that the medical evidence before me reflects that the father has significant mental health concerns. I was satisfied that the father was able to give evidence during the hearing to the best of his ability and that at no stage did he state that he was unduly hampered in doing so.
3. Pursuant to paragraph 98C(1)(b) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act), a decision to depart from the administrative assessment may be made if the following requirements are met:

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

(ii) that it would be:

• (A) just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent, and the carer entitled to child support; and
• (B) otherwise proper; ...

1. The legislative grounds corresponding to the mother's original application are set out in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act, commonly referred to as Reason 8, and provides as a ground for departure:

(c) that, in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to the child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child:

(ia) because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent.

1. The term "special circumstances" is not defined in the legislation. In Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279, the Full Family Court indicated that for special circumstances to exist, the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary.
2. The father was employed until late 2023 by [Employer 1]. He is a qualified [occupation 1]. Since then he worked on a full-time basis as a self-employed [occupation 1]. However, his accountant has advised that this business has not received any income since April 2024. The father advised that he has not been able to work since then due to health issues and his business is being shut down.
3. In complying with Directions that I issued the father provided extensive medical evidence. I have reviewed this medical information. This includes medical assessments of the father that have resulted in an insurance pension becoming payable by [Insurer 1] to the father. The medical assessments, conducted by his treating psychiatrist are summarised in a report dated 30 April 2025. This sets out that the father is diagnosed to be suffering major depressive disorder, alcohol abuse, [and multiple conditions]. Both his treating psychiatrist, in the report dated 30 April 2025, and his treating clinical psychologist, in a report dated 12 May 2025, submitted opinions that concluded that the father is unlikely to ever again engage in gainful employment due to his chronic medical issues. The father also submitted his [Insurer 1] physician's report, dated 24 May 2025, which sets out that the father is under specialist psychiatric care and which states that the father is "not capable to hold any form of employment due to his metal health" and that there is no anticipation he will be able to return to work of any kind. I accept this is the situation for the father and that, from April 2024, he is unlikely to work in paid or self-employed work again due to his medical conditions.
4. Before me is the father's bank accounts which reflect that he receives monthly [Insurer 1] payments of $5,765.38 or $69,185.56 per annum or $1,330.50 per week. The father noted these payments will continue until he is 65 years old. His medial information records his date of birth as [DOB 1]. He confirmed the payments are indexed to annual inflation. Aside from this payment he stated that he also receives disability support pension. He supplied a statement that reflected that from October 2024 this was $862.60 per fortnight, rising to $1,000.19 per fortnight in 2025. However, I note that the income test utilised by Services Australia for the payment of disability support pension indicates a nil rate of disability support pension, due to the rate of the father's insurance payment.[1] Therefore I will not assess disability support pension as a financial resource to the father as he may be required to repay any such pension received under these circumstances.
5. The mother submitted that she believed the father has hidden money and may have sold assets and placed this in his superannuation fund. I noted that the father had not complied with my direction to supply his latest superannuation statement. He gave evidence that the balance is around $119,000. After the hearing he submitted a superannuation statement reflective of this balance. There was nothing before me to indicate any significant assets that would alter my assessment of his overall access to financial resources now being most accurately reflected by his insurance income.
6. Given the above considerations I am satisfied that, at the time of the mother's departure application, the father's overall access to financial resources for the purposes of assessing his capacity to support the child is most accurately reflected by his [Insurer 1] pension annual income of $69,185. I note that the father made lengthy submissions as to why this insurance pension should not be considered income or a financial resource to him. His arguments centred on his interpretation of the income tests applied for the purposes of government benefits, which was the reason he estimated a 2024/25 nil income.
7. I explained to the father that child support considerations are not informed by such income tests. Rather the overriding principle is what is a parent's overall financial capacity to support their child as reflected in an assessment of their income, property and financial resources. It is well established that a person's taxable income may not provide an appropriate quantification of their capacity to pay child support.[2] Further case law establishes that financial resource should be broadly defined to any financial benefit that would enhance the capacity of parents to provide a proper level of financial support for their children.[3] I noted that, seen in this context, it is entirely appropriate that his [Insurer 1] pension is taken into account.
8. The mother gave evidence that she is employed at arm's length. Her 2023/24 taxable income was $41,196. She supplied recent payslips reflective of this income. There was nothing before me to indicate that the mother's income, as retained in the administrative assessment, (being $41,977), was not a reasonable basis upon which to assess her overall access to financial resources for the purposes of assessing her capacity to support the child.
9. Under the administrative assessment the annual rate of child support payable by the father, at the time of the mother's application for departure from the administrative assessment, was $689 based upon his 2023/24 estimated income of $32,515 and the mother's 2022/23 ATI of $41,977. Based on my assessment of the parents' annualised incomes above, being $69,185 for the father and $41,977 for the mother, I calculate that the annual amount of child support payable by the father at that date is approximately $6,749 per annum. Such a difference in the child support payable constitutes special circumstances as the application of the assessment would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the father in support of the child. As a result, a ground for departure in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act exists.

1. I note that other grounds for departure from the administrative assessment were also raised in this matter. These were related to the special needs of the child, the father's medical costs, and the costs to the father of supporting dependents (not accounted for in the child support formula), who he stated were his wife and her child. In Marsh & Eccles [2008] FMCAfam 1417, Riethmuller FM stated, in regard to determining multiple grounds for departure from the administrative assessment, as follows:

Once a 'special circumstance' is established, it is then necessary to determine what would be a just and equitable and otherwise proper child support assessment ... once a special circumstance has been established for each period, as only one special circumstance in the period is sufficient to satisfy the first step of the departure process (at para 13).

Would departure from the assessment be just and equitable?

1. In considering this question I had regard to the matters referred to in subsection 117(4) of the Act.
2. I have found that the father is unlikely to work again due to his treating psychiatrist's and other medical health professional's medical opinions reflective of this. [Insurer 1] has accepted this and he is now on an invalid pension. He has also now qualified for disability support pension. I accept that he will likely continue with the pension as his sole source of income until he turns 65.
3. I note that the father recently sold a house located in [Suburb 1], Victoria on 9 December 2024 for $1,253,500. He declared total mortgages of $1,622,432 on 7 October 2024. He told me his other property at [Suburb 2], Victoria, is rented out and he himself rents a cheaper property to live in. On 7 July 2025 he told me that his mortgage was $719,216 on this property. He told me the [Suburb 2] property is negatively geared and he is trying to sell it. It appears from these figures that the father has likely been redrawing on his mortgage or offset account since selling the [Suburb 1] property. I note that he went overseas with his new wife in late 2024 and he also purchased his wife a new car.
4. However, I also note that the father and mother have been engaged in a property settlement process and all assets are considered in that process. I will not consider access to redraw accounts or potential equity in property as a potential financial resource to the father for this reason.
5. The father did not provide me with a Statement of Financial Circumstances; however I am satisfied that he currently has sufficient income from his pension to meet his necessary costs of self-support.
6. I also note the father's evidence that his new wife is an overseas citizen and is on a bridging visa and does not have work rights and she has a dependent child. I accept this to be the case. He was not able to legally demonstrate the father of that child was deceased and as such I do not accept that child is his dependent as child support is between the legal parents of a child. I note he raised these dependent issues as departure reasons. He also informed me that he has a new baby. I do not consider it would be just and equitable to decrease the assessment of the father's overall access to financial resources further due to his current wife being a dependent person. This is because he has the benefit of some carried forward assets, such as a lump sum in his business account, and as such I am satisfied that he has adequate financial resources to support her while she establishes her work rights.
7. I note that the father's recent newborn child will automatically be incorporated into the assessment of child support payable once he informs Child Support of the child.
8. I have considered the father's claimed medical costs and consider my decision allows him sufficient financial resources to meet these claimed $100 per month costs and that they are not significant when seen within the context of his overall pension income which is paid to him in part to meet medical costs.
9. In so far as the mother is concerned there was nothing before me with respect to her circumstances that would lead me to consider a variation to the amount of child support payable by the father would be required under these considerations. Post hearing the father submitted a photo of a woman in a car which he stated was indicative of the mother owning a car. I do not ascribe any weight to such an unidentified photo with no proof of ownership or personal identity. The mother receives family tax benefit, rent assistance and her wage. She did not disclose her weekly costs however I am satisfied that her income is sufficient for her to meet her necessary costs for self-support. Having said that I acknowledge that her income is modest, and she requires as much child support as the formula will allow.
10. In determining the proper needs of the child, it is necessary to have regard to the manner in which the child is being, and in which the parents expected the child to be, cared for, educated or trained, and any special needs of the child (subsection 117(6) of the Act). In Eades & Cadell (SSAT Appeal) [2009] FMCAfam 275, at paragraph 22, Slack FM stated as follows:

In considering the proper needs of the child [s 117(4)(b)], the SSAT:

1. would ordinarily consider the evidence of the parties about the needs of the children to assess the reasonableness and quantum of those needs;
2. may have regard to publish guidelines as to the needs of the children (see Hallinan & Witynski at 94.323);
3. may also have regard to the costs of children used in the assessment of child support under the existing formula arrangements [although it is not sufficient or appropriate to rely upon the formula to perform that task, Lindenmayer J in Dwyer & McGuire (1993) FLC92-420 (and see also Gyselman (supra) at 79.078)].

1. No special needs costs or education costs were raised with respect to the child. The father raised costs associated with the sport of the child however there was nothing before me to indicate his [specified sports] activities constituted special needs. They are clearly ordinary endeavours undertaken by most children of his age.
2. Overall, I consider this an appropriate case to firstly assess the proper needs of the child using the Child Support Calculator maintained by Child Support, which is based on social science research and uses the care recorded and the age of the child, amongst other factors, to calculate child support payable based upon the ATI of the parents.[4] This also automatically adjusts for new dependent children of either parent.

1. I consider that it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment of child support payable in this matter.
2. With respect to an appropriate date range for this departure determination I note that the mother requested backdating before her date of application. I note that the father was running his business prior to his medical diagnosis. I consider the normal reconciliation process of the father's income prior to him being made aware of a potential change in the form of the mother's objection on 2 May 2024, is appropriate, given his current situation.
3. I consider that a longer period of departure is appropriate to provide certainty in this matter. Neither parent raised any potential significant changes in their situations going forward. The father said that his [Insurer 1] is payable until he turns 65. He was born on [DOB 1]. I will set an end date of [2032]to coincide with this. This allows the parents to plan their respective affairs with certainty.
4. As discussed during the hearing the principal object of the Act is to ensure that children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents. Further, the Tribunal notes the statements contained in sections 3 and 4 of the Act to the following effect:
   • parents of a child have a primary duty to maintain the child;
   • the duty has a priority over all other commitments of the parent other than commitments necessary for self-support;
   • the level of financial support to be provided by parents to their children should be determined in accordance with the legislatively fixed standards; and
   • the level of financial support is to be determined according to the capacity to provide financial support and noting that parents with a like capacity to provide financial support should provide like amounts.
5. Taking these principles into consideration I am satisfied that an appropriate departure determination in this matter is as follows:
   • For the period 2 May 2024 to [a date in] 2032 the adjusted taxable income of the father is varied to $69,185 per annum.
   • From 1 July 2024 and annually thereafter on 1 July of each year, the father's adjusted taxable income is to be increased in accordance with the child support inflation factor applicable on 1 July of that year.
6. This departure determination will require the father to make weekly child support payments of around $130 at commencement. It will vary according to the child support inflation factor, the income of the mother, registered dependents and care of the child.
7. I have considered the arguments of the parents with respect to hardship. The mother noted the father's overseas trip in 2024 as a demonstration of why he would not experience hardship at the current rate of child support. However, the father gave evidence that he was visiting family with his new wife, and it was a short one-off trip. He was also working at that stage. I do not consider this demonstrates a capacity to pay more than I have calculated going forward due to the father's changed medical circumstances. On balance neither parent provided compelling evidence that such a departure application would cause them undue hardship. I am satisfied that neither parent will be placed in undue hardship by this decision.
8. Overall, the father is afforded considerable financial relief when compared to the objections officer's decision of payment of child support of some $317 per week, which is in recognition of his diagnosed and accepted medical situation which has occurred since that decision, and his consequent changed income. The mother will also still be provided with child support starting at around $130 per week to assist her. Both parents can now plan their affairs and the support of their child with some degree of certainty. Considering this, and the legislative requirement with respect to the priorities of the legislation, I am satisfied that this departure decision is just and equitable.

1. I am satisfied that changing the amount of child support payable will not have any adverse effect upon the community as this decision results in the parents being required to pay child support according to their actual capacity to do so. Such a result would be otherwise proper.

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

• For the period 2 May 2024 to [a date in] 2032 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Ginsburg is varied to $69,185 per annum.
• From 1 July 2024 and annually thereafter on 1 July of each year, Mr Ginsburg's adjusted taxable income is to be increased in accordance with the child support inflation factor applicable on 1 July of that year.

[1] Income test for Disability Support Payment - Disability Support Pension - Services Australia

[2] Voss & Child Support Registrar & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2009] FMCAfam 1296

[3] Walker and Fielding (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 320

[4] Online estimators - Accessing our services - Services Australia