Cramton and Cownies (Child support) - [2024] AATA 2018

Cramton and Cownies (Child support) [2024] AATA 2018 (24 April 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2024/PC027498
APPLICANT:  Mr Cramton
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Cownies

TRIBUNAL:Member A Ryding
DECISION DATE: 24 April 2024
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

(That means that this application is unsuccessful.)

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – change of assessment – percentage of care – there has been no change in care – care percentages are accurately reflected in the administrative assessment – decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed 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

BACKGROUND

This is an application to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision of Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) regarding the percentage of care attributable to each of the parents in this matter.
The applicant, Mr Cramton, and one of the other parties to this application, Ms Cownies, are the parents of two children, one of whom is relevant to the present application, [Child 1] (born [date] 2006).[1]
[1] The Tribunal notes that Mr Cramton and Ms Cownies’ other child, [Child 2], was the subject of a separate application to the Tribunal in 2023.
On 19 April 2024, the Tribunal conducted a hearing in this matter by MS teams audio. Mr Cramton and Ms Cownies participated, Child Support did not participate and instead relied upon its documents. The hearing took place by way of a shuttle hearing, in which the Tribunal spoke with and took evidence from each party separately. This is addressed further below.
Before the Tribunal were hearing papers supplied by Child Support, numbered 1 to 162 (the hearing papers).
Mr Cramton and Ms Cownies provided evidence on affirmation at the hearing. Mr Cramton did not have the hearing papers with him. However, as discussed below, this matter turns almost entirely on oral evidence.
The Tribunal has had regard to all of the documents provided to it that appear relevant to the matters in issue, and to the evidence provided by Mr Cramton and Ms Cownies. Reference below is made only to the documents and evidence relevant to this decision.
Mr Cramton and Ms Cownies have had a registered child support case in relation to [Child 1] since 23 June 2008.
The Tribunal understands that a court order providing for care of [Child 2] and [Child 1] was made by the Family Court on 30 August 2014 but has not seen that court order.[2]
[2] The Tribunal’s understanding comes from Child Support’s file note of a call with Mr Cramton on 30 August 2023 (folio 66).
From 1 February 2022, care was recorded as 0% to Mr Cramton and 100% to Ms Cownies.

10. On 30…

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 Cramton and Cownies (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: [2024] AATA 2018
Decision Date: 24 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Cramton, sought a review of a child support assessment concerning the percentage of care for the child. The respondent was Cownies. The matter was heard by Member A Ryding of the Child Support Assessment Review Board.

The primary legal issue before the Board was whether there had been a change in the percentage of care provided by each party since the last administrative assessment, and if so, whether the existing assessment accurately reflected the current care arrangements.

Member Ryding considered the evidence presented and found that there had been no material change in the care arrangements for the child. The Board concluded that the percentages of care reflected in the existing administrative assessment were accurate and did not warrant variation. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.

Orders