Castle and Jonas (Child support) - [2022] AATA 1702

Castle and Jonas (Child support) [2022] AATA 1702 (19 April 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/BC022484
APPLICANT:  Mr Castle
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Jonas

TRIBUNAL:Member P Jensen
DECISION DATE: 19 April 2022
DECISION:

The decisions under review are affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – whether there was a change to the likely pattern of care – existing percentage of care determinations revoked and new determinations made – court orders not complied with – whether interim period applies after the maximum interim period of determination – 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

Mr Castle and Ms Jonas are the parents of [Child 1] and [Child 2]. A child support case was registered in February 2013 with what is commonly called the Child Support Agency or CSA. From August 2013, Mr Castle was recorded as providing 27% care and Ms Jonas was recorded as providing 73% care for the children. Court orders were made in August 2015 concerning the parents’ care of the children. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, Mr Castle was to provide care for two nights per fortnight and for one half of all school holidays. The CSA continued to record Mr Castle as providing 27% care and Ms Jonas as providing 73% care.
On 17 May 2021, Ms Jonas informed the CSA of changes in care that occurred on 28 September 2019. The CSA decided to record Mr Castle as providing 8% care for [Child 1] and 0% care for [Child 2] with effect from 28 September 2019, and Ms Jonas as providing 92% care for [Child 1] and 100% care for [Child 2] with effect from 17 May 2021. Mr Castle objected to those decisions. An objections officer disallowed the objections. Mr Castle applied to the Tribunal for further review. I heard the matter on 8 April 2022. Mr Castle and Ms Jonas gave sworn evidence via a Teams conference call.
Both parents agreed that the CSA’s decisions fairly reflected Mr Castle’s actual care for [Child 1] and [Child 2] from 28 September 2019. Mr Castle stated that he had attempted to provide his court-ordered care but Ms Jonas had prevented him from doing so. Ms Jonas denied that she had prevented Mr Castle from providing his court-ordered care.
Care decisions are made pursuant to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”). They involve the revocation of the existing care determinations (which in this case were the determinations to record Mr Castle as providing 27% care and Ms Jonas as providing 73% care) and the making of new care determinations. New care determinations usually reflect the parents’ actual patterns of care. However, in certain…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Castle and Jonas (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] AATA 1702
Decision Date: 19 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Castle and Jonas* concerned a dispute over the percentage of care for a child. The applicant, Castle, sought to have existing percentage of care determinations revoked and new determinations made, alleging a change in the likely pattern of care. The respondent, Jonas, contested these claims. The matter came before the court for review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there had been a change to the likely pattern of care for the child, and consequently, whether the existing percentage of care determinations should be revoked and new ones made. The court also had to consider the application of interim periods following the revocation of determinations, particularly in light of the maximum interim period prescribed by the relevant legislation.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Registrar had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*. The reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the actual and likely future care arrangements for the child. The court determined that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the existing determinations, and that the Registrar had acted within their powers in making the original decisions. The court also considered the effect of non-compliance with court orders in relation to the care arrangements.

Orders