Awur; Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment and (Social services second review)

This matter concerned a review of decisions made by the Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment, regarding the respondent's entitlement to Family Tax Benefit (FTB), Parenting Payment (PP), and Child Care Benefit (CCB) for two of her daughter's children. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent was the adult legally responsible for the children and whether they were in her care, making her eligible for these payments. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine these questions.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were: (a) whether the respondent was entitled to FTB, PP, and CCB during the period of 16 February 2016 to 25 August 2016; (b) if not, whether payments made to her during that period constituted recoverable debts; and (c) if they were recoverable debts, whether any or all of them could be waived or written off. The Tribunal considered documentary and oral evidence, including witness statements from the Authorised Review Officer (ARO), Ms Jagota, and the respondent's daughters, Ms L Maker and Ms A Maker, as well as the respondent herself.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the definition of "informal care" and the distinction between a delegation of care and a change of care, as outlined in the Family Assistance Guide. The Applicants contended that Ms A Maker retained overall responsibility for the children, particularly regarding major decisions about their health and education, based on a recorded telephone conversation between Ms A Maker and the ARO. The Tribunal noted that while the Family Assistance Guide is not binding, it is customary to apply it. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of Ms A Maker, who stated she was responsible for major decisions concerning the children's health and education, and that she had left the children with the respondent to look after them on a full-time basis when she travelled overseas. The Tribunal acknowledged the language and literacy limitations of the respondent and her daughters, which were relevant to understanding the care arrangements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision regarding the FTB and PP, finding that the respondent was not entitled to these payments during the relevant period. However, the decision regarding the CCB was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.