Adams and Hill (Child support) - [2024] AATA 4116

Adams and Hill (Child support) [2024] AATA 4116 (29 August 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2024/BC028087
APPLICANT:  Miss Adams
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
MrHill

TRIBUNAL:Member A Ryding
DECISION DATE: 29 August 2024
DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that care of the child [Child 1] should remain reflected as 77% to Miss Adams and 23% to Mr Hill from 1 September 2022.

The date of effect of this decision is 25 July 2023.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – no change in pattern of care – existing determination of care not revoked – date of effect – decision 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 so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of theChild Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

This is an application to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision of Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) regarding the percentage of care attributable to each of the parents in this matter.
The applicant, Miss Hill, and one of the other parties to this application, Mr Hill, are the parents of [Child 1], born [date] December 2006. Miss Adams and Mr Hill have had a registered child support case in relation to [Child 1] since 7 February 2007.
As at May 2023, care was recorded as 77% to Miss Adams and 23% to Mr Hill.
On 19 May 2023, Mr Hill informed Child Support that [Child 1] was in the care of his maternal grandparents and had been since September 2022 (folio 71). He informed Child Support that Miss Adams used to live with her parents but moved 65 km away from them in September 2022. [Child 1] remained with his grandparents.
On 5 June 2023, Child Support made a care determination that care was 0% to Miss Adams and 6% to Mr Hill, from 1 September 2022, notified 15 March 2023 (folio 78).[1] Child Support appears to have taken Mr Hill’s 23% and changed it to 23 nights, which gave Mr Hill 6% care.
[1] Child Support’s internal determination at folio 78 gives 15 March 202U as the date of notification, clearly in error and intended to read 15 March 2023. Refer the letters to the parties dated 5 June 2023 beginning at folio 80.
On 18 July 2023, Child Support made a further care determination, that from 1 June 2023, Miss Adams’s mother, Mrs [A] , had 80% care, Mr Hill had 6% care and Miss Adams had 14% care. This was the subject of a separate application to the Tribunal by Mr Hill and involving Mrs [A] . This was heard by a differently constituted Tribunal to the present one,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams and Hill (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Adams and Hill (Child support) [2024] AATA 4116
Case: [2024] AATA 4116
Decision Date: 29 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Adams against a decision of the Child Support Registrar concerning the percentage of care for the parties' child. The dispute arose because Adams sought to have the existing percentage of care determination revoked and a new one made, asserting a change in the pattern of care. The decision under review was made by the Child Support Registrar.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the existing determination of the percentage of care should be revoked. This required the court to consider whether there had been a change in the pattern of care that would justify such a revocation, and if so, what the date of effect of any new determination should be.

Member Ryding found that there had been no material change in the pattern of care since the last assessment. Consequently, the Registrar's decision to revoke the existing determination and make a new one was set aside. The court substituted its own decision, finding that the existing determination should not be revoked.

Orders