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 Searle and Ms Searle are the parents of [Child 1], born 2010. Ms Searle is recorded as having 95% care of [Child 1], and Mr Searle 5% care of [Child 1], from 15 February 2023.
2. The administrative assessment for the period 1 July 2023 to 31 July 2023 is based on an adjusted taxable income (ATI) of $160,000 for Mr Searle (set by a previous departure decision) and an ATI of $178,727 for Ms Searle (based on her 2021/22 income). Mr Searle is assessed to pay child support at a rate of $23,002 per annum (including an increase of $8,591 per annum in relation to [Child 1's] school fees).
3. The administrative assessment for the period 1 August 2023 to 31 December 2023 is based on an ATI of $160,000 for Mr Searle (set by a previous departure decision) and an ATI of $136,783 for Ms Searle (based on her 2022/23 income). Mr Searle is assessed to pay child support at a rate of $25,776 per annum (including an increase of $8,591 per annum in relation to [Child 1's] school fees).
4. The administrative assessment for the period 1 January 2024 to 30 June 2024 is based on an ATI of $160,000 for Mr Searle (set by a previous departure decision) and an ATI of $136,783 for Ms Searle (based on her 2022/23 income). Mr Searle is assessed to pay child support at a rate of $27,870 per annum (including an increase of $10,685 per annum in relation to [Child 1's] school fees).
5. The administrative assessment for the period 1 July 2024 to 24 July 2024 is based on an ATI of $160,000 for Mr Searle (set by a previous departure decision) and an ATI of $0 for Ms Searle (an estimate of income). Mr Searle is assessed to pay child support at a rate of $35,075 per annum (including an increase of $10,685 per annum in relation to [Child 1's] school fees).
6. The administrative assessment for the period 25 July 2024 to 31 October 2024 is based on an ATI of $160,000 for Mr Searle (set by a previous departure decision) and an ATI of $79,257 for Ms Searle (an estimate of income). Mr Searle is assessed to pay child support at a rate of $31,806 per annum (including an increase of $10,685 per annum in relation to [Child 1's] school fees).
7. The administrative assessment for the period 1 November 2024 to 31 December 2024 is based on an ATI of $160,000 for Mr Searle (set by a previous departure decision) and an ATI of $79,257 for Ms Searle (an estimate of income). Mr Searle is assessed to pay child support at a rate of $32,071 per annum (including an increase of $10,685 per annum in relation to [Child 1's] school fees).
8. The administrative assessment for the period 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2025 was based on an ATI of $43,216 for Mr Searle (based on his 2023/24 income) and an ATI of $79,257 for Ms Searle (an estimate of income). Mr Searle was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $3,342 per annum.
9. The administrative assessment for the period 1 July 2025 to 31 August 2025 was based on an ATI of $43,216 for Mr Searle (based on his 2023/24 income) and an ATI of $205,459 for Ms Searle (based on her 2023/24 income). Mr Searle was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $2,345 per annum.
10. The administrative assessment for the period 1 September 2025 to 30 November 2026 was based on an ATI of $62,457 for Mr Searle (based on his 2024/25 income) and an ATI of $68,000 for Ms Searle (based on her 2024/25 income). Mr Searle was assessed to pay child support at a rate of $7,381 per annum.
11. On 16 June 2024, Mr Searle applied for a departure from the administrative assessment of child support, under Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).
12. On 31 October 2024, the Child Support Registrar (Child Support) made a decision to vary Ms Searle's ATI used in the assessment to $58,677 for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 and to increase the annual rate of child support otherwise payable by Mr Searle by $11,433 for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, by $12,005 for the period 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026 and by $12,605 for the period 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027.
13. Mr Searle objected to the decision. On 18 January 2025, a Child Support objections officer partly allowed the objection and made a decision to vary the ATI being used in the assessment for Mr Searle to $160,000 from 1 January 2025 until the end of the child support case; vary the ATI being used in the assessment for Mr Searle to $137,944 for the period 25 July 2024 to 24 July 2025; and increase the annual rate of child support otherwise payable by Mr Searle by $11,750 for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 and by 50% of the net tuition costs for [Child 1] from 1 January 2026 until the end of the child support case.
14. Mr Searle then applied for review of the decision by the Tribunal.
15. The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 28 October 2025. Mr Searle and Ms Searle attended the hearing by telephone conference and gave sworn evidence. The Tribunal deferred making a decision to allow Mr Searle to provide further evidence.
16. The Tribunal took into account the relevant documents provided by Child Support to the Tribunal prior to hearing: pages 1 to 612 (the hearing papers), additional evidence provided by Mr Searle (marked A1 to A77), additional evidence provided by Ms Searle (marked B1 to B29) and additional evidence provided by Child Support after the hearing (marked C1 to C4).

1. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act. A formula is used. It takes into account variables including each parent's ATI, the number of children, and the level of care provided by each parent.
2. Part 6A of the Act allows for a departure from an administrative assessment (a process commonly known as a "change of assessment"). Under subsection 98C(1) of the Act, the Registrar may make such a departure determination if 3 matters are established:
   • one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 98C(2) exists (subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(i));
   • a departure is just and equitable as regards the children and each parent (sub‑subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(A)); and
   • it is otherwise proper to make a departure decision (sub‑subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(B)).
3. Subsection 98C(2) provides that the grounds for departure are the same as the grounds set out in subsection 117(2).
4. If satisfied that a ground or grounds exist and that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination, the Tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act. It permits a range of determinations, including varying the rate of child support payable, the ATI or the cost percentage for a child.

Income, property and financial resources and earning capacity

1. Paragraph 117(2)(c) - commonly referred to as Reason 8 - 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; or

The words "in the special circumstances of the case" are not defined in the legislation. Whilst it is not possible to define with precision the meaning of that term, it is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary. That is, the intention of the legislation is that the Tribunal will not interfere with the administrative formula result in the ordinary run of cases. In Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279, it was held that "special circumstances" were "facts peculiar to the particular case which set it apart from other cases". The Tribunal's approach to the interpretation and application of the particular grounds in subsection 117(2) must be guided by that qualification.

1. Mr Searle said, in May 2023, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) varied the ATI being used for him in the assessment to $160,000 until 31 December 2024. Child Support has now continued to vary his ATI to $160,000 from 1 January 2025 to until 31 December 2026.
2. Mr Searle said he is well over retirement age. He would like to stop working or work part-time to transition to retirement. That desire has been ignored for many years. He was forced by the AAT and Child Support to stay in the workforce and continue to seek contract work, which is unfair as he is entitled to retire.
3. Ms Searle submitted that Mr Searle works through his own company, [Business 1].
4. Mr Searle confirmed his company contracts for [occupation 1] work, and he performs the work.
5. At page A52 is a copy of Mr Searle's 2023/24 income tax return. The return records $40,224 salary and wage income from [Business 1], $5,002 interest income and $2,010 in deductions.
6. At page 357 of the hearing papers is a copy of the 2023/24 tax return for [Business 1]. The return records $274,978 income and $73,001 expenses, resulting in a $201,977 profit. The expenses claimed included $7,043 interest, $4,879 depreciation, $4,739 superannuation, $2,497 for motor vehicles and $1,520 for telephone and internet.
7. At page A48 is a copy of Mr Searle's 2024/25 income tax return. The return records $60,994 salary and wage income from [Business 1], $3,611 interest income and $2,148 in deductions.
8. At page A33 is a copy of the 2024/25 financial statements for [Business 1]. The Profit & Loss Statement records $235,252 income and $88,416 expenses, resulting in a $146,836 profit. The expenses included $7,014 superannuation, $5,320 for motor vehicles and $2,160 telephone and internet.
9. The Balance Sheet records that Mr Searle has a director's loan of $133,110 owed to [Business 1] (which was an increase of $20,000 from the balance of the loan at the end of the 2023/24 year).
10. Mr Searle told the Tribunal that he did not have a contract in January and February 2025. He said his current contract ends at the end of October 2025. He said he applied for the age pension with Centrelink.
11. Mr Searle said Child Support has issued a garnishee order to the company [Business 1] has a contract with.
12. Mr Searle told the Tribunal that he will have to repay the director's loan to [Business 1]. He said the loan was given to him to buy a car, for [surgery] and for a dental [treatment]. He said he has not made any loan repayments yet, as he cannot afford to do so.
13. The Tribunal asked Mr Searle where he spends his income, given [Business 1] has made a significant profit each year. He said he paid for the medical surgery and spends money on his health. He said the company profit is not his money. He needs the funds to support or improve his health, so he can continue to work and pay child support.
14. Mr Searle said, if he stops working, he needs to pay himself $35,000 per annum to meet his living expenses, as he is not entitled to age pension. He said his superannuation balance is low (about $237,000) as, when the parents were together, he withdrew $250,000 from his superannuation account as a deposit for their house. He lost that money in the parents' property settlement. He therefore needs to support himself for the rest of his life. He said he has a small buffer in the company savings to allow him to do this.
15. Ms Searle submitted that Mr Searle had not provided statements for 3 accounts, which his income tax returns record he is earning interest from.
16. At page A71 is a copy of part of a contract between [Business 1] and [Business 2]. The contract is noted as "Contract [Number]". The contract is stated to commence on 23 January 2025 and continues until 23 January 2026.
17. In written submissions provided by Mr Searle after the hearing, at page A67, Mr Searle states that the full-time work under the contract finishes on 25 November 2025. From 26 November 2025 to 12 December 2026, he will be required to work 25 hours per week. The Tribunal notes that unfortunately the part of the contract provided by Mr Searle does not set out his rate of pay under the contract.
18. By letter dated 14 November 2025, Mr Searle advised the Tribunal that, on 13 November 2025, he was advised by the [Business 2] [specified] manager that his services will not be required after 20 November 2025.
19. At page A77 is a copy of an email, dated 20 November 2025, from [Mr A], [specified] Manager with [Business 2]. The email states:

As discussed, with [occupation 1] virtually complete on the [Project 1], the [occupation 1] team is being consolidated to support construction.

From this Friday (21/11/25) onwards there is no further work required from you on the [Project 1].

1. For the 2023/24 year, Mr Searle's personal taxable income was $43,216. [Business 1]1 also made a profit of $201,977, after the expenses of earning the income were deducted. Mr Searle owns and controls [Business 1], and he performs the work under the contract [Business 1] has with [Business 2]. Therefore, the profit of [Business 1] is income Mr Searle has earned from his personal exertion.
2. Whilst it may be desirable to retain the profit of a company for taxation or other purposes, the Tribunal finds that, in this matter, that results in Mr Searle's personal taxable income not providing a fair reflection of his capacity to support [Child 1] financially. By way of comparison, if Mr Searle operated his business as a sole trader, the entire profit of the business would also be included as taxable income for Mr Searle and would therefore be used in assessing his capacity to support [Child 1] through child support.
3. It would not be fair if Mr Searle could reduce the child support he pays for [Child 1] just because he operates his business through a company, rather than as a sole trader or as an employee.
4. Therefore, for child support purposes, the Tribunal finds it fair to use an ATI of $245,193 ($43,216 + $201,977) for Mr Searle for the 2023/24 year.
5. Similarly, for the 2024/25 year, the Tribunal finds it fair to use an ATI of $209,293 ($62,457 + $146,836) for Mr Searle, for child support purposes.
6. As the administrative assessment was based on ATIs of $160,000 for Mr Searle up to 31 December 2024 and $43,216 for Mr Searle from 1 January 2025, the Tribunal finds that Mr Searle's true income and financial resources make the administrative assessment unfair.
7. A ground for departure is established.

Just and equitable and otherwise proper: general observations

1. The requirement to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable and otherwise proper directs attention to what is fair to the parents, their children and the community. A decision maker must have regard to a variety of factors such as the needs of the children, the parents' commitments, any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula and the effect on any income-tested benefits: subsections 117(4) to (9). Parents rather than the community have the primary duty to maintain a child: paragraph 117(5)(a). It is necessary to consider the effect of any departure from the administrative assessment on entitlements to income-tested pensions, allowances and benefits: paragraph 117(5)(b). Relevantly, this requires consideration of the effect on either parent's entitlement to FTB Part A, which is subject to a maintenance income test.
2. A decision maker must bear in mind the duties of parents and the objects of the Act, set out in sections 3, 4 and 114.
3. The duty of a parent to maintain his or her child 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.
4. The level of support should be determined in accordance with the costs of the children, and according to the parent's capacity to provide the support.
5. Parents should share equitably in the support of the child, and the child should have his or her proper needs met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both parents.

Would departure from the formula assessment be just and equitable?

1. The Tribunal has found there is a ground to depart from the administrative assessment. The Tribunal must also consider, pursuant to subsection 117(4) of the Act, whether it would be just and equitable to make a particular order. The Tribunal has considered the matters set out in subsections 117(4) and 117(6) to (8). The Tribunal does not propose to explore every matter in detail but will discuss those it regards as pertinent to this application.

1. Mr Searle's financial circumstances have been considered above.
2. The Tribunal also considered whether Mr Searle can be assessed on an earning capacity. Paragraph 117(7B)(a) of the Act provides that, before a person can be assessed on an earning capacity, the following 3 criteria must be satisfied:

• not working despite ample opportunity to do so;
• has reduced their weekly hours of work to below full-time work; or
• has changed their occupation, industry or working pattern.

2. The parent's decision about their work arrangements is not justified by either:

• their caring responsibilities; or
• their state of health.

3. The parent has failed to show that the decision about their work arrangements was not substantially motivated by the effect this would have on the child support assessment.

1. Mr Searle has continued to work until the work under his current contract with [Business 2] ceased on 21 November 2025.
2. In his written submissions, at page A68, Mr Searle states:

In summary, I wish to stop working and provide the child support based on my actual and ATO approved taxable income, based on my actual earning future capabilities. I need to look after my health and medical conditions.

1. Based on those submissions, it seems Mr Searle's desire is not to seek further work. However, in that regard, the Tribunal notes Ms Searle's written submissions, at page B29:

... it is highly likely that [Mr Searle] will continue working for [Business 2] and seek further extensions of this contract. His past conduct demonstrates a consistent pattern of renewing contractual arrangements despite earlier statements to the contrary.

1. The Tribunal notes that Mr Searle has been recorded as stating consistently, over a number of years, that he will cease working as he wishes to retire. However, he has continued to obtain regular contract work.
2. The Tribunal has no reason not to believe that, if Mr Searle sought further work, he would be able to obtain such work.
3. Given Mr Searle's work under his current contract only ceased very recently, the Tribunal is not able to find, at this time, that there has been any change in Mr Searle's work arrangements.
4. Therefore, as the requirements of paragraph 117(7B)(a) of the Act are not satisfied the Tribunal cannot further consider Mr Searle's earning capacity.

1. At page B25 is a copy of Ms Searle's 2023/24 income tax return. The return records $141,894 salary and wage income, $1,265 in allowances, a $87,285 lump sum payment, a $6,600 reportable superannuation contribution, $86 interest income and $3,063 in deductions. Her ATI was $205,459.
2. At page B20 is a copy of Ms Searle's 2024/25 income tax return. The return records $49,269 salary and wage income from [Business 3], $19,053 salary and wage income from [Agency 1], a $1,200 reportable superannuation contribution, $61 interest income, and $1,583 in deductions. Her ATI was $68,000.
3. From page B13 are copies of payslips for Ms Searle from [Business 3] for the paydays 16 July 2025, 16 August 2025 and 15 September 2025. Her year-to-date income was $22,740 as at 30 September 2025. That equates to income of about $90,000 per annum.
4. Ms Searle told the Tribunal that her she started her current employment on 2 December 2024. Prior to that, she was doing contract work from mid-July 2024 to late November 2024. She was previously made redundant in May 2024, after 17 years employment.
5. At page B1 is a copy of a Statement of Financial Circumstances form completed by Ms Searle on 2 March 2025. The statement records that Ms Searle's income is $1,730 per week (about $90,000 per annum) and her household expenses total $1,450 per week.
6. Mr Searle submitted that the balance of Ms Searle's loan, which is recorded in her Statement of Financial Circumstances form, has been about $220,000 for many years. He doubts whether that balance is still correct, as it should have reduced.
7. Ms Searle told the Tribunal that the loan balance has fluctuated. She is remaking loan repayments of $800 per fortnight but she needs to redraw on the loan at times. She noted that Mr Searle owes a lot of child support currently.

1. There is no evidence that [Child 1] has any income, property or financial resources which should affect the rate of child support payable.
2. Ms Searle seeks a contribution from Mr Searle to the costs she incurs for [Child 1] to attend [School 1].
3. Ms Searle said there is an enrolment form, signed by both parents, for [Child 1] to commence at [School 1] from Prep. She said no further enrolment forms were required by the school after that, including for secondary school.
4. Mr Searle submitted that it was Ms Searle who decided to educate [Child 1] at [School 1]. He said there is only one document signed by both parents, which was for pre-school education. He said the school has not been able to provide an enrolment form for Year 1 and later years. He submitted that enrolment does not exist. He submitted the school requires an enrolment for Year 1.
5. Ms Searle said the parents separated in 2016, when [Child 1] was in Year 1. Mr Searle said the parents separated in August 2015, before [Child 1] was in Year 1.
6. Mr Searle said he does not object to supporting [Child 1] at school, but the assessment needs to be fair based on his actual income.
7. Mr Searle also submitted that he has previously been assessed to contribute to the full school fees, even though [Child 1] was receiving a bursary. Ms Searle submitted that the bursary [Child 1] receives has been taken into account in all decisions which have been made.
8. At page C1 is a copy of an enrolment form for [School 1], signed by Mr Searle and Ms Searle on 27 May 2014. The enrolment is for [Child 1] to commence at [School 1] in Prep in 2015.
9. In Queensland, Prep is the first year of school. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in attending [School 1], [Child 1] is being educated in a manner expected by both parents. Both parents signed the enrolment form for [Child 1] to commence her schooling at [School 1] in Prep in 2015. [Child 1] has continued to attend [School 1] since that time.
10. At page 443 of the hearing papers, is a copy of the fees for [School 1] for 2024. The tuition fees were $29,036.
11. The Tribunal notes that the objections officer found that the 2024 tuition fees for [Child 1] were $21,777, after the bursary was applied. That is a 25% reduction of the tuition fees.
12. From page B16 are copies of account statements from [School 1] for 2025. The statements record that the 2025 tuition fees for [Child 1] were $7,833 per term, less a bursary of $1,958.25 per term. The 2025 tuition cost was therefore $23,499.
13. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tuition costs significantly affect the costs of maintaining [Child 1].

1. Using ATIs of $245,193 for Mr Searle and $205,459 for Ms Searle from 1 January 2024 to 30 June 2024 would provide an assessment for Mr Searle to pay child support at a rate of about $17,250 per annum.
2. Using ATIs of $209,293 for Mr Searle and $68,000 for Ms Searle for the 2024/25 year would provide an assessment for Mr Searle to pay child support at a rate of about $27,400 per annum.
3. Using ATIs of $209,293 for Mr Searle and $90,000 for Ms Searle from 1 July 2025 would provide an assessment for Mr Searle to pay child support at a rate of about $26,500 per annum.
4. If Mr Searle is also assessed to contribute 50% of [Child 1's] tuition costs at [School 1], Mr Searle would be assessed to pay child support at annual rates of about:
   • $28,100 for the period 1 January 2024 to 30 June 2024;
   • $38,200 for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2024;
   • $39,100 for the period 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2025; and
   • $38,300 from 1 July 2025.
5. The current child support assessments are for annual rates of:
   • $27,870 for the period 1 January 2024 to 30 June 2024;
   • $35,075 for the period 1 July 2024 to 24 July 2024;
   • $27,785 for the period 25 July 2024 to 31 October 2024;
   • $28,389 for the period 1 November 2024 to 31 December 2024;
   • $29,454 for the period 1 January 2025 to 24 July 2025;
   • $25,583 for the period 25 July 2025 to 31 August 2025; and
   • $34,111 from 1 September 2025.

1. As can be seen, using the ATIs determined by the Tribunal, and assessing Mr Searle to contribute 50% of [Child 1's] tuition fees, would result in significantly increased child support assessments from 1 July 2024.
2. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Searle has additional costs in relation to his health. The Tribunal therefore finds it would not be fair to retrospectively increase Mr Searle's child support liability, which would increase the child support arrears Mr Searle currently owes.
3. However, as Mr Searle has been assessed to pay less than he may otherwise have been since 1 July 2024, the Tribunal finds it fair that he continues to pay child support based on an ATI of $160,000 until the end of the child support case for [Child 1], as well as contributing 50% of [Child 1's] tuition costs.
4. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Searle has the income and financial resources to meet such an assessment, as well as meeting his health and other living expenses. He has significant retained profits in [Business 1] and funds in other bank accounts, as evidenced by the interest income he records in his income tax returns.
5. In his Statement of Financial Circumstances form, at page A5, Mr Searle lists very modest household expenses he meets. He has no accommodation costs.
6. It seems clear that the accrual of child support arrears by Mr Searle is not the result of a lack of funds to pay the assessed rate. Rather, Mr Searle has elected to retain funds to meet his future needs.
7. The Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Searle's future need for financial support should take priority over [Child 1's] current need for financial support. It is for Mr Searle to decide how he will meet the child support liability and, in particular, where he wishes to continue to work to do so.
8. The Tribunal is satisfied the decision under review is just and equitable.

1. In considering whether a departure is otherwise proper, the Tribunal must take into account subsection 117(5) of the Act, which provides as follows:

(5) In determining whether it would be otherwise proper to make a particular order under this Division, the court must have regard to:

(a) the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (as stated in section 3) and, in particular, the fact that it is the parents of a child themselves who have the primary duty to maintain the child; and

(b) the effect that the making of the order would have on:

(i) any entitlement of the child, or the carer entitled to child support, to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit; or

(ii) the rate of any income tested pension, allowance or benefit payable to the child or the carer entitled to child support.

1. The child support law recognises that each parent has a primary duty to maintain their child. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is satisfied it is appropriate to depart from the administrative assessment.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied the decision under review appropriately reflects both parents' capacities to support [Child 1] during the departure period and the decision is otherwise proper.