Altman and Altman (Child support)

[2023] AATA 4004

Altman and Altman (Child support) [2023] AATA 4004 (17 October 2023)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/BC026212

APPLICANT:  Mr Altman

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Altman

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member K Dordevic

DECISION DATE:  17 October 2023

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – non-agency payment – condition for crediting as prescribed payment not satisfied – refusal to credit non-agency payment – decision under review affirmed

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 the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Altman (the father) and Ms Altman (the mother) are the parents of two children.

2. A child support case has been in place with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) since 14 August 2021 and collectable from 19 January 2023.

3. On 14 February 2023 the father advised Child Support that he had also made a non-Agency payment of $6,800 on 17 January 2023. Child Support refused to credit his child support liability on the same day. The father lodged a timely objection and on 9 May 2023 his objection was disallowed. 

4. The father requested a review of the objections officer’s decisions by application to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 6 June 2023.

5. The father and mother attended the hearing convened on 17 October 2023 by MS Teams audio.[1] In reaching its decision the Tribunal considered the sworn evidence of the mother and father as well as the documents provided by Child Support (folios 1 to 134). 

   [1] The father confirmed he was not seeking a review of the objection decision, also dated 9 May 2023, whereby Child Support determined that the father was liable to pay $1,134.51 in unpaid child support during the period 16 December 2022 to 18 January 2013, as outlined at folios 123 to 125

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act).

2. The issue in this case is whether all or part of the $6,800 payment may be credited as a non-Agency payment against the father’s child support liability.

CONSIDERATION

1. It is not in dispute that on 17 January 2023 the mother withdrew $6,800 from an account held by both her and the father.[2] There was no agreement between the parents that the mother would withdraw these funds and the father was only made aware of the withdrawal after it occurred. The mother applied these funds towards her own and the children’s living expenses. The Tribunal finds accordingly.

   [2] At folio 17

2. Section 71 of the Act allows Child Support to credit an amount received from a payer intended by both the payer and payee to be paid in satisfaction of a child support liability. Application of the above findings leads to a conclusion that this section is not applicable in this case. There was no agreement that all or part of the funds withdrawn from the parents’ joint account was in satisfaction of the father’s child support liability.   

3. Sections 71A and 71B of the Act also have no application in this case, as the withdrawal was not intended by the parents to be in part or full satisfaction of the child support liability.

4. Section 71C of the Act states payments made by a liable parent for certain specified items may be taken into account in partial satisfaction of the liable parent’s child support liability. Joint intention or agreement is not required. However, the payments must be of the kind specified in regulation 19 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Regulations 2018:

   19 Specified payments

   For the purposes of paragraph 71C(1)(b) of the Act, payments of the following kinds in relation to an enforceable maintenance liability are specified:

   (a) child care costs for the child who is the subject of the enforceable maintenance liability;

   (b) fees charged by a school or preschool for that child;

   (c) amounts payable for uniforms and books required by a school or preschool for that child;

   (d) fees for essential medical and dental services for that child;

   (e) the payee’s share of amounts payable for rent or a security bond for the payee’s home;

   (f) the payee’s share of amounts payable for utilities, rates or body corporate charges for the payee’s home;

   (g) the payee’s share of repayments on a loan that financed the payee’s home;

   (h) costs to the payee of obtaining and running a motor vehicle, including repairs and standing costs.

5. Clearly, the withdrawal does not fall into any of the above categories. Paragraph 71C(1)(b) is not satisfied and therefore the withdrawal cannot be credited under this provision.

6. The Tribunal has carefully checked the legislation and is satisfied that there are no other provisions under the Act that would permit the withdrawal from the joint account to be credited towards the father’s child support liability.

7. Thus, the Tribunal concludes that Child Support was correct to refuse to accept the father’s non-Agency payment application. That is, the decision under review is correct.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.