Franks and Gabriel (Child support)

This case concerned a dispute between Ms Franks and Mr Gabriel regarding child support assessments, specifically concerning the percentage of care each parent had for their child. The matter came before the court for review of a decision made by an objections officer.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether a parent had taken "reasonable action" to ensure compliance with a parenting plan or court order, and whether "special circumstances" existed that would warrant deviating from the standard interim care determination process. The court was also required to determine the duration of any interim care determination and the applicable care percentages for child support assessment purposes.

The court considered section 51 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, which allows for an interim care determination if a care arrangement is not being complied with and the parent with reduced care takes reasonable action. The court accepted government policy, as outlined in the Child Support Guide, as a useful, though not binding, indicator of what constitutes reasonable action. Mr Gabriel's evidence of engaging in mediation and repeatedly contacting Ms Franks was found to constitute reasonable action, despite Ms Franks's differing account. The court declined to find "special circumstances" under section 51(5) as there was insufficient evidence of abuse by Mr Gabriel, and therefore, two percentages of care were determined: 50% for each parent according to the court order, and 0% for Mr Gabriel and 100% for Ms Franks based on actual care. The court also found that Ms Franks had taken reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution, which determined the end date of the interim period.

Consequently, the court ordered that for the interim period from 1 June 2019 to 6 September 2019, Ms Franks and Mr Gabriel were to be recorded as having 50% care each. From 7 September 2019 onwards, Ms Franks was to be recorded as having 100% care and Mr Gabriel 0% care. The decision under review was affirmed.