Bartlett and Fullwood (Child support) - [2024] AATA 2525

Bartlett and Fullwood (Child support) [2024] AATA 2525 (28 May 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/AC027247
APPLICANT:  Ms Bartlett
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Fullwood

TRIBUNAL:Member A Ryding
DECISION DATE: 28 May 2024

DIRECTION TO ALTER DECISION OR REASONS FOR DECISION:

Pursuant to section 43AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the following alterations are made to the decision and the written statement of reasons for the decision:

The date in part b) of the decision is altered from 18 May 2023 to read 30 January 2023.

AND

The date at line three of paragraph 75 of the written statement of reasons is altered from 17 May 2023 to read 29 January 2023.

AND

The date at line two of paragraph 76 of the written statement of reasons is altered from 18 May 2023 to read 30 January 2023.

Member A Ryding
17 June 2024

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/AC027247
APPLICANT:  Ms Bartlett
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Fullwood

TRIBUNAL:Member A Ryding
DECISION DATE: 28 May 2024
DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that:

a) Ms Bartlett’s care percentage for the child [Child 1] remains 0% from 30 January 2023.
b) Mr Fullwood’s care percentage for the child [Child 1] is 48%, from 18 May 2023.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change in care – nights in care – care other than in nights – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – new determinations made – 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 removed 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

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, Ms Bartlett, and one of the other parties to this application, Mr Fullwood, are the parents of three children, one of whom, [Child 1] (born [in] February 2008), is the subject of a child support assessment relevant to this application.
On 10 April 2024, the Tribunal conducted a hearing in this matter by MS Teams audio. Ms Bartlett and Mr Fullwood participated in the hearing. Child Support did not participate and instead relied upon its documents.
Before the Tribunal were hearing papers supplied by Child Support, numbered 1 to 93 and documents provided by Ms Bartlett numbered A1 to A45 (together, the hearing papers). Ms Bartlett provided evidence on affirmation and Mr Fullwood provided evidence on oath at the hearing.
On 10 April 2024 the Tribunal issued directions to Ms Bartlett and…

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 Bartlett and Fullwood (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Bartlett and Fullwood (Child support) [2024] AATA 2525
Case: [2024] AATA 2525
Decision Date: 28 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the dispute between Bartlett and Fullwood concerning the percentage of care arrangements for a child. The applicants sought to revoke existing percentage of care determinations and have new determinations made, which would alter the child support payable.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had demonstrated a sufficient change in the child's nights of care to warrant a revocation of the existing percentage of care determinations and the making of new ones. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented regarding the actual care arrangements, including both nights spent with each parent and any care provided in ways other than overnight stays.

Member A Ryding, in determining the matter, applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) concerning changes in care. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the child's living arrangements and the frequency of care provided by each parent. The Tribunal found that the evidence established a significant change in the percentage of care provided to the child, justifying the revocation of the previous determinations. The Tribunal then made new percentage of care determinations based on the established facts.

Orders