Bostick and Chaucer (Child support)

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal) for a review of a decision made by an objections officer regarding child support. The applicant, Ms Bostick, sought to challenge the disallowance of her objection. The respondent was Mr Chaucer. The central dispute revolved around the percentage of care attributed to each party for [Child 1] from April 2020 onwards, and whether a child support terminating event had occurred.

The tribunal was required to determine the likely pattern of care for [Child 1] from April 2020, considering the impact of a significant incident that occurred at Ms Bostick's home in that month. This incident led to [Child 1] being arrested and an intervention order being granted, which prevented [Child 1] from approaching or remaining within a specified distance of Ms Bostick and her home. The tribunal also had to consider whether [Child 1] was living independently and if this constituted a child support terminating event under the relevant legislation.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal applied the principles of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* and the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*. The tribunal considered sworn evidence from both Ms Bostick and Mr Chaucer, as well as documentation provided by Child Support. The tribunal found Ms Bostick's oral evidence regarding the pattern of care for [Child 1] from April 2020 to be inconsistent and at times incoherent. Despite Ms Bostick's assertions that [Child 1] had returned to her care periodically, the tribunal noted discrepancies in her accounts of the timing and duration of these returns, and the circumstances surrounding them, including the impact of the intervention order and the COVID-19 pandemic. The tribunal also referred to the Child Support Guide, acknowledging its persuasive authority as policy, provided it was not inconsistent with the legislation.

The tribunal affirmed the decision under review.