Bartram and Bartram (Child support) - [2024] AATA 1885

Bartram and Bartram (Child support) [2024] AATA 1885 (18 March 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/MC026885
APPLICANT:  Mrs Bartram
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Bartram

TRIBUNAL: Member J Nalpantidis
DECISION DATE: 18 March 2024
DECISION:

The Tribunal affirmed the decision.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – terminating event and suspension of assessment – notification of reconciliation not accepted and assessment not suspended – separation under one roof, then living at different addresses with separate finances, assessed payments made and care changes reported – communications, joint activities, occasional sexual relations, pregnancy, mother’s travel and second child born overseas – objective assessment of relationship – 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

The issue in this case is whether Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) was correct in not suspending the child support assessment for [the child] (born in January 2015), from 24 December 2018, on the basis that Mrs Bartram and Mr Bartram had not reconciled on this date.
Mrs Bartram and Mr Bartram are the parents of the child. A child support assessment has been in place between Mrs Bartram and Mr Bartram for the child since 6 February 2018, with the date of marriage listed as 28 April 2012 and the separation date listed as 15 January 2018. By separate letters dated 2 March 2018, Mrs Bartram and Mr Bartram were notified by Child Support that Mrs Bartram’s child support application was accepted.
On 1 January 2023, Mrs Bartram provided information that her marriage with Mr Bartram had not irretrievably broken down and the parties reconciled in December 2018. On 9 January 2023, Mrs Bartram advised that she and Mrs Bartram reconciled on 24 December 2018, including living together in a genuine domestic relationship.
On 8 February 2023, an employee of Child Support decided that the parties had not genuinely reconciled at any stage of child support registration, to the end of the liability, the assessment should not be suspended and that a terminating event has not occurred.
On 16 March 2023, Mrs Bartram objected to this decision.
On 8 September 2023, an objections officer of Child Support considered and disallowed the objection, which means the original decision not to suspend the child support assessment for the child from 24 December 2018 on the basis of a reconciliation of the parties, was not changed. The objections officer was not satisfied the parties reconciled on 24 December 2018, as claimed by Mrs Bartram. There was therefore no change to the administrative child support assessment.
On 9 October 2023, Mrs Bartram applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an independent review of Child Support’s decision.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 15 March 2024,…

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 Bartram and Bartram (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Bartram and Bartram (Child support) [2024] AATA 1885
Case: [2024] AATA 1885
Decision Date: 18 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the dispute between the parties, identified as Bartram and Bartram, concerning child support assessments. The core of the disagreement revolved around whether a reconciliation had occurred, which would have triggered a terminating event or suspension of the existing child support assessment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties had reconciled their relationship to the extent that the child support assessment should have been terminated or suspended. This involved an objective assessment of the nature of their relationship following a period of separation, including whether they had resumed living together as a couple.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the parties had not objectively reconciled. Despite some communications, joint activities, occasional sexual relations, and the birth of a second child overseas, these factors did not demonstrate a resumption of a genuine spousal relationship. The Tribunal considered the separation under one roof, subsequent living at different addresses with separate finances, and the reporting of care changes as indicative of ongoing separation rather than reconciliation. The objective circumstances did not support the conclusion that the parties had ceased to be separated.

Orders