BYKM and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 70
•25 January 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
BYKM and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2022] AATA 70
[2022] AATA 70
25 January 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a second review of a child support decision, brought by the mother (BYKM) against the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on the correct assessment of the percentage of care each parent had for their three children, following a decision by a first-tier review Tribunal. Both the mother and the father contended that the first-tier decision was affected by error, specifically concerning the calculation of the father's actual nights of care. The review was heard by D. J. Morris SM.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the correct assessment of the actual percentage of care each parent had for the three children, particularly in light of disagreements regarding school holiday arrangements and the father's nights of care. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented by both parents to ascertain whether the first-tier decision had made a calculation error, as alleged by the mother, and to determine the accurate care percentages for the period from 24 February 2020 onwards.
The Tribunal found that there was general agreement between the parents regarding the pattern of care being consistent with a 2018 Court Order, which stipulated that the children reside with their mother, with specific periods of care for the father. While the mother raised concerns about the father's stated nights of care and the application of state school holidays, the Tribunal was satisfied, based on the evidence from both parents that the 2018 Court Order was generally followed, that an error had been made in the first-tier calculation. The Tribunal considered the actual care provided, rather than just point-in-time care, and found that the father's actual care was less than what was initially calculated.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the first-tier review Tribunal. A new decision was substituted, determining that from 24 February 2020, the mother had 65 per cent of the care of the three children, and the father had 35 per cent of the care.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the correct assessment of the actual percentage of care each parent had for the three children, particularly in light of disagreements regarding school holiday arrangements and the father's nights of care. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented by both parents to ascertain whether the first-tier decision had made a calculation error, as alleged by the mother, and to determine the accurate care percentages for the period from 24 February 2020 onwards.
The Tribunal found that there was general agreement between the parents regarding the pattern of care being consistent with a 2018 Court Order, which stipulated that the children reside with their mother, with specific periods of care for the father. While the mother raised concerns about the father's stated nights of care and the application of state school holidays, the Tribunal was satisfied, based on the evidence from both parents that the 2018 Court Order was generally followed, that an error had been made in the first-tier calculation. The Tribunal considered the actual care provided, rather than just point-in-time care, and found that the father's actual care was less than what was initially calculated.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the first-tier review Tribunal. A new decision was substituted, determining that from 24 February 2020, the mother had 65 per cent of the care of the three children, and the father had 35 per cent of the care.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Hadcock and Yonge (Child support) [2022] AATA 2366
Cases Citing This Decision
2
JWTJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
[2024] AATA 630
Hadcock and Yonge (Child support)
[2022] AATA 2366
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority
[2008] HCA 31
SHQY and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
[2021] AATA 930
P v Child Support Registrar
[2013] FCA 1312