CNYZ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Child support second review) - [2024] ARTA 290

CNYZ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Child support second review) [2024] ARTA 290 (3 December 2024)
Applicant/s:  CNYZ
Respondent:  Secretary, Department of Social Services[1]
[1] The Respondent’s name was altered on 17 December 2024 under s 114(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) to correct an obvious error.
Other Parties:  JFRP

Tribunal Number: 2024/0314

Tribunal:General Member Gallagher
Place:Perth
Date:3 December 2024

Decision:The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 19 December 2023, is affirmed.

.......................[Sgd].....................................
General Member Gallagher

Catchwords
CHILD SUPPORT – family tax benefit – percentage of care – whether had legal responsibility – decision affirmed
Legislation
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 – ss 21(1), 22(2), 22(2)(b), 22(2)(c), 22(5), 22(5)(a)–(c), 22(7), 25, 58(1)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

Cases
Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79

Reece and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Parsons (Party Joined) [2008] AATA 525
Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment and Awur [2020] AATA 4091
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Lowe [1999] FCA 705

Secondary Materials
Guides to Social Policy Law: Child Support Guide – 1.1.C.90, 2.1.1.20, 2.1.1.60, 2.1.1.85

Statement of Reasons
REVIEWABLE DECISION

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal[2] (AAT1) dated 19 December 2023 (the Reviewable Decision).[3] The Reviewable Decision:[4]
(a)set aside the decision made by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) within Services Australia (the Agency) on 17 March 2022; and
(b)in substitution, decided that from 13 September 2019, the Other Party had 100% care of Child I and the Applicant had 0% care until any further care percentage change recorded by the Agency.
[2] At the time of the Applicant’s application, the Tribunal was known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. On 14 October 2024, a new federal administrative body called the Administrative Review Tribunal commenced, replacing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ceased operations, with all current matters now transferred to the Administrative Review Tribunal. References to ‘the Tribunal’ in this decision refer to whichever of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Administrative Review Tribunal was in operation at the relevant time.
[3] R2, T2.
[4] R2, T2.
ISSUE
The issue for determination by the Tribunal, is whether the Applicant was entitled to Family Tax Benefit (FTB) in relation to Child I.
In turn, this requires the Tribunal to consider:
(a)whether Child I was an FTB child of the Applicant; and (if so),
(b)the percentage of care the Applicant has for Child I.[5]
[5] As the Tribunal has found that Child I was not an FTB child of the Applicant, it has not gone on to consider the percentage of care the Applicant has for Child I. It is not required to do so.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant and the Other Party are the separated parents of Child I.
The Applicant is not the biological father of Child I.
The Other Party is the biological mother of Child I.
The Applicant and the Other Party are the biological parents of Child T who is not the subject of these proceedings.
On 14 April 2020, the Other Party lodged a 'Details of your child's care arrangements' form with the Agency.[6] The Other Party relevantly declared that:
(a)the care arrangement for Child T began on 18 October 2019.
(b)she would have 57% care of Child T.
(c)the Applicant would have 43% care of Child T.
(d)she did not have another child in her care who also spent time with someone other than her current partner.
[6] R2, T4, pages 26 to 33.
On 21 April 2020, data transfer of information was received from the Child Support Agency (CSA), indicating that CSA had made a decision on 18 October 2019 that the Applicant had 43% care of Child T from 13 September 2019.[7]
[7] R2, T4, pages 26 to 33; and T22, page 97.
On 22 June 2020, the Applicant lodged a claim for Child Care Subsidy (CCS) and FTB.[8] He relevantly declared that:
(a)he had 43% care of Child T from 1 October 2019.
(b)he shared care of Child T with the Other Party, on an almost 50/50 basis.
[8] R2, T9, pages 38 to 51.
On 10 September 2020, data transfer of information was received from CSA, indicating that CSA had made a decision that the Applicant had 50% care of Child T from 7 July 2020.[9]
[9] R2, T22, pages 100 to 101; and T23, pages 127 to 128.
On 27 July 2021, data transfer of information was received from CSA, indicating that CSA had made a decision that the Applicant had 33% care of Child T from 21 May 2021 and 50% care of Child T from 29 June 2021.[10]
[10] R2, T22, pages 103 to 108; and T23, pages 131 to 136.
On 12 September 2021, the Applicant lodged a further claim for CCS and FTB.[11] He relevantly declared that:
(a)he had 50% care of Child T from 1 October 2019.
(b)he was the non-biological father of Child I and had 50% care of Child I from 1 September 2019.
(c)he shared care of Child T and Child I with the Other Party, on a 50/50 week about basis.
[11] R2, T9, pages 45 to 51.
On 16 September 2021, the Agency issued a request for further information to the Applicant and Other Party in relation to the care arrangements for Child I from 1 October 2019.[12]
[12] R2, T22, page 110; T24, pages 203 to 204; and T25, pages 262 to 263.
On 16 September 2021, the Other Party advised the Agency by telephone that the Applicant had 50% care of Child I from 5 July 2021 (T22/110).
On 6 October 2021, the Applicant lodged a 'Details of your child's care arrangements' form with the Agency.[13] He relevantly declared that:
(a)he was the non-biological father of Child I and had 50% care of Child I from 1 October 2019.
(b)he had 50% care of Child T from 1 October 2019.
[13] R2, T13, pages 58 to 69.
On 15 October 2021, the Applicant advised the Agency by telephone that he has had 50% care of Child I since 1 September 2019.[14]
[14] R2, T23, page 141.
On 18 October 2021, the Other Party advised the Agency by telephone that the Applicant's care of Child I and Child T has been the same.[15]
[15] R2, T22, page 112.
On 16 October 2021, the Agency made a decision to revoke the existing care percentage determination in respect of Child I which recorded that the Other Party had 100% care from 26 June 2013[16] and determined that the Applicant:[17]
(a)had 43% care of Child I from 13 September 2019 with the Other Party having 57% care.
(b)had 49% care of Child I from 7 July 2020 with the Other Party having 51% care.
(c)had 33% care of Child I from 21 May 2021 with the Other Party having 67% care.
(d)had 49% care of Child I from 29 June 2021 with the Other Party having 51% care.
(e)should be granted FTB in respect of Child I.
[16] R2, T20, page 92; and T21, page 94.
[17] R2, T22, pages 113 to 115; T23, pages 143 to 145; and T25, pages 264 to 266.
On 31 January 2022, the Other Party sought internal review of the Agency's decision made on 19 October 2021.[18]
[18] R2, T22, page 116.
On 17 March 2022, an ARO affirmed the Agency's decision made on 19 October 2021.[19] The ARO found that:
(a)provision of financial support to a child was a key indicator that they were in the care of a person. For example, daily costs such as food, accommodation, and transport and/or in relation to longer-term costs such as school fees, clothing, health, and dental care.
(b)the Applicant's level of involvement in Child I’s life and his development was significant and ongoing, which supported that the care he was providing was considered care for FTB purposes.
[19] R2, T4, pages 19 to 23; T22, page 118; and T23, page 147.
On 10 October 2023, the Other Party applied to the AAT1 for review of the ARO's decision.[20]
[20] R2, T19, pages 89 to 90.
On 19 December 2023, the AAT1 made the Reviewable Decision.[21] In its decision, the AAT1 found that:
(a)the Applicant was not legally responsible for Child I’s day-to-day care, welfare and development during the period under review and there was no real reason, apart from the Other Party's decision, for Child I to reside with the Applicant.[22]
(b)whilst the Applicant was providing care for Child I, this care was by delegation and legal responsibility for the day-to-day welfare of Child I remained with the Other Party.[23]
(c)Child I was not an FTB child of the Applicant, and so the Applicant was not entitled to receive FTB in relation to Child I.[24]
[21] R2, T2, pages 8 to 12.
[22] R2, T2, page 12 at [22].
[23] R2, T2, page 12 at [23].
[24] R2, T2, page 12 at [23].
On 18 January 2024, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the AAT1's decision.[25]
[25] R2, T1, pages 1 to 7.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The relevant legislation is contained in the:
(a)A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Act).
(b)A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the FA Administration Act).
The relevant policy is contained in the Guides to Social Policy Law: Child Support Guide (the Guide). As established in Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79 (G), the Tribunal is to apply Ministerial policy, unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[26]
[26] G at [57]-[62].
Whether a child is an FTB child of an adult
Subsection 58(1) of the Act states that the annual rate of FTB is to be calculated in accordance with the Rate Calculator in Schedule 1.
Subsection 21(1) of the Act prescribes the FTB eligibility criteria.
In the present matter, subsections 22(2), (5) and (7) of the Act sets out when an individual is an FTB child of another individual.
Individual aged under 16
(2)  An individual is an FTB child of the adult if:
(a)  the individual is aged under 16; and
(b)  the individual is in the adult's care; and
(c)  the individual is an Australian resident, is a special category visa holder residing in Australia or is living with the adult; and
(d)  the circumstances surrounding legal responsibility for the care of the individual are those mentioned in paragraph  (5)(a), (b) or (c).
…
Legal responsibility for the individual
(5)  The circumstances surrounding legal responsibility for the care of the individual are:
(a)  the adult is legally responsible (whether alone or jointly with someone else) for the day - to - day care, welfare and development of the individual; or
(b)  under a family law order, registered parenting plan or parenting plan in force in relation to the individual, the adult is someone with whom the individual is supposed to live or spend time; or
(c)  the individual is not in the care of anyone with the legal responsibility for the day - to - day care, welfare and development of the individual.
Percentage of care at least 35%
(7)  If an individual's percentage of care for a child during a care period is at least 35%, the child is taken to be an FTB child of that individual for the purposes of this section on each day in that period, whether or not the child was in that individual's care on that day.
Note: If an individual's percentage of care for a child during a care period is less than 35%, the child is taken not to be an FTB child (see section 25).
Section 25 of the Act provides that if an individual’s percentage of care for a child is less than 35%, the child is taken not to be an FTB child of that individual for any part of the period.
The meaning of ‘care’ for present purposes
Instruction 1.1.C.90 of the Guide provides the following guidance on the meaning of ‘care’ for the purposes of being considered an FTB child:
Care generally includes physical care; however, the importance of physical care decreases as the child (also refers to a young person) becomes older. For example, a baby or toddler's care needs are largely immediate and physical (feeding, nappy changing, bathing, supervision). As the child grows older, they will gradually start to meet many of their physical care needs themselves.
Care also includes mental, moral and emotional support including love, comfort and discipline. Schooling is essential for the child's mental development and attention to matters like healthy activities is also an important aspect of care. This means that the adult must maintain a measure of oversight with a view to protection and guidance of the child.
Some examples of care include:
-    having control of the child, including making major decisions relating to who the child spends time with and the child's health, education, discipline, recreational and/or social activities
-    having major daily responsibility for caring for the child and making the major decisions (for example, meal preparation, hygiene, transport, discipline, emotional and moral support and guidance)
-    bearing the costs of the child's daily life (for example, food, accommodation, transport, clothing, schools fees, health and dental care, etc.)
-    making arrangements related to the child's needs (for example, appointments at school or with doctors or dentists and accompanying them on those appointments), and/or
-    being the main person for the day care, school, or college to contact in emergencies.
When assessing levels of 'care' consideration of the full circumstances of each case must be taken into account to decide whether care remains with a parent, is shared with others, or is not present.
Whether a change of care has occurred
For completeness, a change of care occurs when the full caring responsibility for an FTB child passes to another person. The person who gains the daily care of the child may choose to claim FTB.
Instruction 2.1.1.20 of the Guide confirms that short-term absences do not affect FTB eligibility. A short-term absence is generally less than 4 weeks. The following example is provided:
Sally goes on an interstate holiday with her grandparents for 2 weeks, and then returns home to her parent. Sally's parent does not lose eligibility for FTB for Sally.
Instruction 2.1.1.60 of the Guide provides further guidance on circumstances in which FTB may continue to be paid. It provides:
FTB may also continue to be paid to an individual in circumstances where there is a short-term deviation from the normal care arrangements for a child, such as when care of the child has been delegated to another individual or organisation. …
Instruction 2.1.1.60 of the Guide also provides guidance on how to determine whether there has been a change of care for FTB purposes. It provides:
As part of the process of determining whether there has been a change in care for FTB purposes, the decision maker must verify who is actually caring for the child.
If legal responsibility for the child has been transferred to the new carer (formal care), the relevant court or state/welfare authority can assist in verifying care. However, evidence of who is actually caring for the child should also be obtained. Evidence may be obtained from a range of sources, including:
-    confirmation of play group, kindergarten or school enrolment
-    proof of attendance or membership of local organisations or activities
-    receipts for expenses incurred while the child was in care
-    confirmation of the level of care from close family friends or relatives
-    confirmation from professional members of the community who have regular contact with the family, such as teachers, social workers, police, ministers of religion, accountants, lawyers or doctors, and
-    records from Centrelink or other government agencies which confirm the care.
-    It may be more difficult to verify who is caring for the child where legal responsibility has not been transferred (informal care). If a new carer does not have legal responsibility for the child, it is necessary to confirm that the child is not in the care of a person who does have legal responsibility for the child. Evidence of who is actually caring for the child may be obtained from a range of sources, as outlined above.
Instruction 2.1.1.85 of the Guide covers the payment of FTB in informal care situations, such as private voluntary arrangements with grandparents. It provides (emphasis added):
Informal care
Informal care is a private arrangement between the parent and another party, where there is no change to any form of legal responsibility. Informal carers will usually be grandparents, other relatives or family friends. In informal care situations, who is eligible to receive FTB for the children depends on whether there has been a change of care or a delegation of care.
Delegation of care in informal care situations
Where an individual delegates the care of their child to another individual, FTB is not payable to the other individual. Common examples of delegated care include a child attending child care (either formal child care or care by a relative/friend), attending boarding school or staying with a grandparent, other relative or family friend
The following circumstances should exist for a care arrangement to be considered a delegation of care:
-    The individual should retain overall responsibility for the child including the ability to make major decisions about the child such as those relating to the child's health and education and the length of time they spend with the other carer.
-    The care arrangement should be short term and temporary (rather than open ended or ongoing). There should be a defined end date to the care arrangement. Where there is no documentary evidence which confirms when the care arrangement will end (such as a letter of from an employer, school), the intention of the individual should be considered.
-    The individual should be meeting, or at least substantially contributing to, the child's costs. This includes day to day costs (food, accommodation, transport etc) and long term costs (school fees, clothing, health and dental care).
…
Change of care
If it cannot be established that delegation of care exists, it is likely that a change of care has occurred. Whether FTB can be paid to the new carer will depend on whether the care is of a temporary and short term or an ongoing nature.
Temporary & short term care
Where possible, FTB should be paid to the individual who has the care of a child. However, in some situations, FTB may continue to be paid to a parent who does not have the care of a child. For example, if the change of care is temporary, short term, and informal and the intention is that the child will return to the parent within a short period, the parent will continue to be paid FTB. However in all but the most extenuating circumstances, the total temporary and short term absence for FTB purposes, should not exceed 4 weeks. After this period, the actual carer should receive the FTB, provided they are eligible and entitled. The continued payment of FTB beyond a 4-week absence to the parent could only occur if the parent's involvement in the child's care increased to a sufficient degree.
…
Ongoing care
When it is clear from the outset that a child will be in ongoing care, then the carer will be eligible for FTB from the date the child enters their care. When care has been on a temporary and short-term basis and it subsequently becomes ongoing, a change of care applies at the point it becomes ongoing and FTB may be payable.
…
Where the arrangements for the care of the child were to be ongoing but there is a change in circumstances where the child is returned to the parent after a short period of time, the parent is paid from the date the child returns to their care.
The key consideration identified in the Guide in classifying a care arrangement as a delegation rather than a change of care, is whether the individual concerned retains overall responsibility for the child, including the ability to make major decisions about the child such as those relating to the child’s health and education, and the length of time they spend with the other carer.[27]
[27] Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment and Awur [2020] AATA 4091 at [42].
EVIDENCE

The matter was heard on 26 September 2024. The Applicant and the Other Party were
self-represented. The Respondent was represented by Mr Matt Gauci from Hunt & Hunt Lawyers. The Parties appeared by telephone and no witnesses were called.
The Tribunal admitted the following documents into evidence:
·     Email Titled "[Child I] ASD Assessment" dated 29 August 2021 (Exhibit A1);
·     Email Titled "Re [Child I] reading" dated 27 May 2020 (Exhibit A2);
·     Email Titled "[Child I] interventions" dated 25 March 2021 (Exhibit A3);
·     Letter from Slee Anderson & Pidgeon Lawyers dated 27 May 2022 (Exhibit A4);
·     Email Titled "Re: [Child I] ASD assessment" dated 26 October 2021 (Exhibit A5);
·     Email Titled "Final Parenting Plan PDF" dated 20 July 2021 (Exhibit A6);
·     Email Titled "[Child I] problems with [Child K]" dated 9 November 2021 (Exhibit A7);
·     Email Titled "Speech session summary: IR" dated 20 March 2023 (Exhibit A8);
·     Personal Correspondence with Private Family Based Mediation filed on 19 March 2024 (Exhibit A9);
·     Screenshots filed 19 March 2024 (Exhibit A10);
·     Respondent's Updated Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Exhibit R1);
·     T-Documents Comprised of T1 - T25, pages 1 – 283 (Exhibit R2);
·     Cover Email 1 of 6 dated 2 April 2024 inclusive of attachments A – M (Exhibit OP1);
·     Cover Email 2 of 6 dated 2 April 2024 inclusive of attachments A – S (Exhibit OP2);
·     Email 3 of 6 dated 2 April 2024 inclusive of attachments A – W (Exhibit OP3);
·     Cover Email 4 of 6 dated 2 April 2024 inclusive of attachment A (Exhibit OP4);
·     Cover Email 5 of 6 dated 2 April 2024 inclusive of attachments A – F (Exhibit OP5); and
·     Cover Email 6 of 6 dated 2 April 2024 inclusive of attachments A – H (Exhibit OP6).
The Tribunal is satisfied that all the relevant evidence was before the Tribunal and that the Parties were provided an opportunity to address it, either orally or in writing.
CONSIDERATION
Whether the Applicant was entitled to Family Tax Benefit in relation to Child I
For the Applicant to be entitled to FTB in relation to Child I, the Tribunal must first consider whether Child I was an FTB child of the Applicant.
In summary:
(a)Child I will be an FTB child of the Applicant during a care period if:
(i)Child I is in that individual’s care;
(ii)Child I meets the residency requirements in subsections 22(2)(c) of the Act;
(iii)the circumstances surrounding legal responsibility for care of Child I are one of those set out in subsections 22(5)(a)–(c) of the Act; and
(iv)the individual’s percentage of care for Child I is at least 35% during the care period.
(b)For the purposes of being considered an FTB child, the Act refers to being in the care of an adult.[28] Reference is also made to legal responsibility for the day-today care, welfare and development of the child.
[28] See s 22(2)(b) of the Act.
The Tribunal has taken into account the whole of the arrangements for the care of Child I in considering whether Child I is in a particular parent’s care.[29]
[29] See Reece and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Parsons (Party Joined) [2008] AATA 525 at [27] to [31], adopting the Full Court of the Federal Court’s decision in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Lowe [1999] FCA 705.
There are a number of factual matters that are not in dispute from 13 September 2019. They are:
(a)Child I was under 16.[30]
(b)Child I was in the Applicant’s care.[31]
(c)Child I was an Australian resident, living with the Applicant.
[30] R2, T8, page 37.
[31] R2, T22, page 112 and T23, page 141. The Applicant gave evidence to the AAT1 that child I was in his care at the same time as child T from 13 September 2019: R2, T2, page 10 at [17].
Therefore, what remains for consideration by the Tribunal is:
(a)whether the Applicant had legal responsibility for Child I from 13 September 2019; and
(b)if so, what was the Applicant's percentage of care.
The Applicant’s position
The Applicant's position is that he had legal responsibility for Child I from 13 September 2019 and 50% care.
At hearing, the Applicant gave evidence that he and the Other Party’s relationship ended in early 2019. The Applicant said he moved in with his brother, had care of Child I and Child T every second weekend and was making payments on the Other’s Party’s loan in lieu of paying child support.
The Applicant said that by August or September 2019 the care arrangement was such that the Other Party had care of Child I and Child T on Mondays and Tuesdays, he had care of Child I and Child T on Wednesdays and Thursdays and weekend care alternated.
The Applicant said that in about 2021 this changed to an arrangement whereby he and the Other Party each had care of Child I and Child T with a continuous week about changeover.[32]
[32] See A6.
The Applicant said that he paid for half of Child I’s school fees and school books, took Child I to his tutor when these appointments fell on the weeks the Applicant had care of him and in his view, multiple people had legal responsibility for Child I.
The Respondent provided the following summary of the Applicant's evidence before the AAT1:[33]
[33] R1 [4.58], referring to R2, T2, pages 11 to 12.
(a)regards himself as Child I’s dad.
(b)has paid half of the tuition costs for Child I.
(c)purchased school uniforms and food for Child I and provides a roof over Child I’s head.
(d)paid for child I to have a hearing test and he paid half of the cost for the equipment that Child I uses.
(e)took Child I to the optometrist and paid half of the cost of the glasses Child I required.
(f)from 2019 to 2021, he and the Other Party shared the care of Child I on a 50/50 basis.
(g)took child I to his extra-curricular activities when Child I was in his care.
(h)would collect Child I from school if he was unwell when in his care.
(i)was provided with a photograph of the Other Party's Medicare card with Child I ‘s details which he used when he took Child I to a doctor's appointment.
The Other Party’s position
The Other Party's position is that the Applicant did not have legal responsibility for Child I from 13 September 2019.
At hearing, the Other Party gave evidence that in 2021, the Applicant did not see Child I and Child T for a three month period. The Other Party said the Applicant did not pay for things for Child I, that his being inconsistent was what led to the breakdown of their relationship and that mediation was unsuccessful.
The Other Party said that while she has had care of Child I and Child T “physically, 50% of the time,” she has had to take Child I to every appointment even if it was not her week to do so, and where it had been the Applicant’s responsibility to take Child I to an appointment or activity for example, this was by her delegation.
The Other Party maintains that therefore, she bear the majority of the legal responsibility in relation to Child I.
The Respondent provided the following summary of the Other Party’s evidence before the AAT1:[34]
(a)the Applicant was and is an informal carer of Child I.
(b)the Applicant claimed to be a non-biological stepfather to child I, however, the Applicant was unable to sign any documents for Child I.
(c)she delegated care of Child I to the Applicant.
(d)she was responsible for all decisions regarding Child I and the Applicant was not responsible.
(e)she met the costs of Child I's health needs and took Child I to his appointments.
(f)she was contacted to collect Child I from school if he was unwell which included when Child I was in the Applicant's care.
(g)Child I was listed on her Medicare card and not on the Applicant's Medicare card.
[34] R1 [4.60]. See R2, T2, page 11.
The Tribunal has considered all the evidence surrounding the circumstances of Child I's care from 13 September 2019.
While there is some evidence that the Applicant has met some costs of Child I’s care, including healthcare expenses, school expenses and extra-curricular expenses, this appears to the Tribunal to have been at the delegation of the Other Party. The Tribunal has taken this view because it accepts the Other Party’s evidence that she, rather than the Applicant has overall responsibility for decisions regarding Child I. For example and non-exhaustively:
(a)Correspondence regarding Child I’s ASD assessment was directed to the Other Party and cc’d to the Applicant in the hope he would be included in discussions.[35]
(b)Text message records between the Applicant and the Other Party demonstrate the Other Party had primary knowledge of appointments (of which she would make the Applicant aware), important dates and school and extra-curricular requirements (free-dress day, term-payments being due, parents apps to view school work) and took responsibility for ensuring school fees were paid on time, albeit a shared cost.
(c)The Other Party would relay instructions and feedback from Child I’s speech therapist for him to practise with Child I when Child I was next in his care.
(d)The Other Party made attempts to correspond with the Applicant regarding Child I’s medical appointments.
[35] A1.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is of the view that the Other Party, not the Applicant is responsible for major decisions relation to the Child I’s health, education, discipline, recreational or social activities and who Child I spends time with along with having daily responsibility for these matters, even when Child I is not in her care and the primary contacts with Child I’s school and treatment providers.
Therefore, the Tribunal has found that the Applicant is not legally responsible for the day to day care, welfare and development of Child I.
As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that Child I was not an FTB child of the Applicant from 13 September 2019 and affirms the Reviewable Decision.
DECISION
The decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 19 December 2023 is affirmed.

63. I certify that the preceding 62 (sixty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Gallagher

................[Sgd]..........................
Associate

Dated: 3 December 2024

Date of hearing: 26 September 2024

Applicant: Self-Represented

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr M Gauci, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers

Other Party: Self-Represented

Date of hearing:	26 September 2024
Applicant:	Self-Represented
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr M Gauci, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers
Other Party:	Self-Represented