Key Takeaways
- The parents separated about ten years ago and have undergone numerous child‑support reviews.
- Eddowes obtained a departure order in May 2021 due to high travel costs for maintaining contact with his children.
- In September 2024 he sought another IRD review, which failed because he could not prove his former wife’s higher earning capacity.
- Eddowes then applied to the Family Court for a departure from the IRD formula, alleging that Baker’s involvement in trusts and companies gave her access to substantial financial resources.
- Baker opposed discovery on privacy grounds but eventually provided limited financial affidavits, stating she received no income, drawings or distributions from the entities.
- Judge Claire Mullord found that Eddowes did not meet the evidentiary burden to show the IRD assessment was unjust or that he suffered hardship.
- The care‑time calculation showed Eddowes averaged 100‑101 nights per year, just below the 102‑night threshold for being a recognised carer under the Child Support Act.
- The judge acknowledged that the children benefited from their grandfather’s trusts but stressed that day‑to‑day living costs remain unchanged.
- The Family Court declined the departure order, emphasizing the minimal impact on the children and the lack of sufficient evidence from Eddowes.
- Names have been altered to comply with statutory reporting rules; the article was reported by Tracy Neal of NZME.
Background and History of Dispute
The couple separated roughly a decade ago, and over that period they have requested about eleven child‑support reviews. This long‑standing disagreement reflects the difficulty both parties have had in agreeing on appropriate financial contributions for their children. The Family Court has been repeatedly called upon to assess whether the IRD’s formula assessment accurately reflects each parent’s capacity to pay.
Initial Success with a Departure Order
In May 2021 Eddowes succeeded in obtaining a departure order from the Family Court. Judge Richard Russell granted the order after considering the significant history of difficulty over child‑support arrangements dating back to 2017‑2018 and the high costs associated with Eddowes maintaining regular contact with his children, who lived several hundred kilometres away in South Island towns.
Failed IRD Review Attempt
Eddowes’ most recent attempt to have the IRD reassess his liability occurred in September 2024. The review officer concluded that the application lacked the specific, relevant information and supporting material needed to demonstrate that Baker earned, or was capable of earning, more than her adjusted income. Consequently, the IRD review was denied, prompting Eddowes to pursue a judicial avenue.
Application for a Departure Order Based on Special Circumstances
Undeterred, Eddowes applied to the Family Court for a departure from the IRD’s formula assessment, arguing that special circumstances warranted a variation of the annual child‑support amount he was required to pay. He contended that Baker’s financial situation was more favourable than the IRD assessment suggested, thereby reducing his own liability.
Claims Regarding Baker’s Financial Resources
Eddowes asserted that, although Baker had been made redundant and had chosen not to return to paid employment, she remained financially advantaged through directorships, shareholdings, trusteeships, and beneficiary interests in various companies and trusts linked to her father. He inferred that these structures could generate income exceeding $250,000 annually, citing estimated rental income of $170,000 from property holdings and potential management or director fees.
Discovery Request and Baker’s Opposition
To substantiate his claims, Eddowes sought discovery of financial statements from the trusts and companies. Baker initially resisted, citing privacy concerns related to other individuals involved in those entities. After a procedural hearing late in the previous year, she agreed to disclose information but insisted that any data not directly pertaining to her or the children be redacted.
Evidence from Accountancy Firm and Affidavits
An accountancy firm that acted for several of the named entities prepared an affidavit, which prompted further questions from Eddowes. Baker subsequently filed additional affidavit evidence, including her IRD income assessments for the past two years, and reiterated that the accountant’s documentation showed she received no income, drawings, or distributions from the entities in question. She also addressed how school fees were paid directly to the school, though Judge Mullord noted this did not prove payments were made to third parties for her day‑to‑day expenses.
Judge Mullord’s Assessment of the Evidence
Because the matter proceeded on a submissions‑only basis with both parties’ consent, the accountant’s evidence had not been tested through cross‑examination. Judge Mullord stated that the onus was on Eddowes to establish the grounds for departure. While she accepted that Baker did not earn a greater income during the assessed year, she found that Baker’s other financial resources—namely the support from her father through trusts—had been adequately addressed by the evidence filed, and that Eddowes had not demonstrated hardship arising from the IRD assessment.
Care‑Time Calculation and Recognised Carer Status
The parents lived several hundred kilometres apart, with the children spending fortnightly weekends and school holidays with their father. This arrangement resulted in Eddowes averaging 100‑101 nights of care per year. The Child Support Act sets the threshold for being a recognised carer at 102 nights annually; consequently, Eddowes fell just short of that benchmark, which influenced the IRD’s assessment of his child‑support liability.
Consideration of Impact on the Children
Judge Mullord emphasized that, although the children benefited from their grandfather’s trusts—providing opportunities such as sports and extracurricular activities—the day‑to‑day costs of food, clothing, housing, and transport remained unchanged. She noted that the greater the capacity to provide, the greater may be the proper needs of the children, but stressed that minimizing impact on the children was a crucial factor in her decision.
Conclusion: Departure Order Denied
Ultimately, Judge Mullord declined Eddowes’ application for a departure order. She found that he had not satisfied the evidentiary burden to show the IRD’s assessment was unjust or unfair, nor had he proven that he suffered hardship as a result. The lack of concrete proof regarding Baker’s earning capacity, combined with the insufficient care‑time to qualify as a recognised carer, led the Court to uphold the existing child‑support liability.
Editorial Note and Reporter Information
Names have been changed in keeping with statutory rules around reporting on the Family Court. Tracy Neal, a Nelson‑based Open Justice reporter at NZME, prepared the piece. She previously served as RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson‑Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local‑government matters for the Nelson Mail.