Battiste and Cokley (Child support)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between Battiste and Cokley concerning child support assessments. The core of the disagreement revolved around the percentage of care each parent provided for their child, [the child], and whether a change in the pattern of care had occurred. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if existing percentage of care determinations should be revoked and new ones made, and from what date any revised assessments should take effect.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: firstly, whether there had been a material change in the pattern of care for [the child], and secondly, if such a change was established, what new percentages of care should be applied and when these new percentages should commence. The father sought to have direct financial contributions made to the child, such as for holidays and gifts, recognised as offsetting his child support obligations. However, the Tribunal noted that such direct payments generally require the agreement of the receiving parent, or specific exceptions under section 71C of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, which were not present in this case.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved assessing the conflicting evidence presented by both parents regarding [the child]'s living arrangements. The mother contended that from 1 January 2023, [the child] primarily resided with her, with weekend and occasional mid-week stays at the father's residence, and only later expressed a desire to live with the father full-time before ultimately deciding to divide her time equally between both parents. Conversely, the father's account suggested significantly lower percentages of care for both parents. The Tribunal found the evidence irreconcilable and attached little weight to statements from the father's partner and the mother's father due to concerns about their independence. The Tribunal also considered the Child Support Guide, acknowledging its persuasive value for consistency in administrative decision-making, while noting it was not strictly bound to follow its policy. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the existing determinations and substituted new ones based on its findings.