Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
1: Stewart & Stewart [2017] FamCAFC 67 | April 13, 2017
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Support, Departure Determination, extra-curricular activities, School Fees, Sole Parental Responsibility
Judges:  Aldridge JBryant CJChief Justice Diana BryantCoates JJustice Michael KentJustice Murray AldridgeJustice Stephen CoatesKent J


Background: A divorced mother, known by her court appointed pseudonym as Ms Stewart, has sought an Order from the Court that her two children, one boy and one girl, upon reaching high school age, should be enrolled in two prestigious same-sex private schools, the son of which to follow in the father's family tradition, she claimed, and attend the father's and grandfather's alma mater. As the Federal Circuit Court heard the previous year prior the case being appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, the estimated cost of the tuition fees alone, if both children attended private school, would be approximately $50,000 a year. The Court further heard that even without taking into account the extra expenses of a private education and probable fee increases, it would cost up to $300,000 in total to 
 
  [Legal Issue]In the original decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Justice Stephen Coates relied on the mother's financial capacity in determining as to whether this case had any merit, and consequently found that Ms Stewart had not established that the cost of private schooling would be affordable. "The mother said she could afford 40 per cent of the fees, yet on her income, I do not see she has proven her case," he said. He ruled that the children should attend a government high school, saying they would not be disadvantaged as the state provides "a capable education system". The judge said the Stewarts' son would cope with not going to the private school "if the mother responsibly handles the situation for the child, even though such an order would be a great disappointment    [Court Orders](1) The application in an appeal filed by the appellant mother on 21 February 2017 is dismissed. (2) The appeal is dismissed. (3) The appellant mother pay the respondent father’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be assessed.      


[  ] Download Decision

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
2: Yip & Wreford and Anor [2015] FamCAFC 21 | February 19, 2015
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Support, Departure Determination
Judges:  May JStrickland JThackray CJ


Background: The appellant father in this case sought a review of a child support departure determination and a subsequent Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision which both determined an increased taxable income for child support purposes. The father’s appeal to the Federal Circuit Court on this matter was dismissed and the father now seeks to appeal that decision. 
 
  [Legal Issue]This was an application for leave to appeal from the dismissal of an appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal which increased the appellant’s taxable income for child support purposes. The application was dismissed with costs. In its judgment, the court analysed and determined a number of significant questions of law arising out of the interpretation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) which would be of interest to family law specialists.   [Court Orders]The appeal application was dismissed. The Court found no error in law by failing to refer to s 117(7A) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth). No issue of procedural fairness arises – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Appellant father ordered to pay costs.     


[  ] Download Decision

Social Security Appeals Tribunal emblem
6: Malcolm v Malcolm [2012] SSATACSA 1 | February 20, 2012
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Child Support, Percentage of Care
Judges:  Anonymous Member


Background: Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm are the parents of Linda, born 2001, and Melissa, born 2003. They have advised that they separated in September 2011. Registration of assessment for child support payments for both children was accepted on 12 September 2011 by the Child Support Agency (the Agency). At that time Ms Malcolm advised that they were separated but living under the one roof. The Agency however recorded Ms Malcolm as having 100% of the care of both the children at that time and wrote to Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm on 17 September 2011 advising of the acceptance of the registration and the percentage of care determined. On 23 September 2011 Mr Malcolm, as the parent liable to pay child support under the assessment, lodged an objection to the assesment that Ms Malcolm had 100% 
 
  [Legal Issue]The issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether the Child Support Agency’s decision that each of Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm had 50% of the care of their daughters Linda and Melissa from 12 September 2011 was correct and, if not, what the correct care percentage should be.   [Court Orders]On 8 February 2012 the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision under review. This means the application for review is unsuccessful and that the assessment by the objections officer that each of Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm should be taken to have 50% care of their children will stand.     


[  ] Download Decision