GKVX and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

[2022] AATA 832

GKVX and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2022] AATA 832 (22 April 2022)

AppID:  GKVX and Child Support Registrar

MatterType:  Child support second review

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):2020/6777      

Re:GKVX  

APPLICANT

Child Support RegistrarAnd  

RESPONDENT

AndLBBV

OTHER PARTY

Tribunal:Senior Member B. Pola

Date:22 April 2022

Place:Brisbane

DECISION

Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division, dated 23 October 2020.

................................[SGD].................................

Senior Member B Pola

Names used in this published decision 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 (here in referred to as the “Collection Act”).

Catchwords

CHILD SUPPORT – objection to care percentage change – reasonable action – Family Court parenting orders – actual care – conflicting evidence – decision affirmed

Legislation –

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases –
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) 1979 2 ALD 634

Secondary Materials –

Guides to Social Policy Law, Child Support Guide, Version 4.57, released 1 July 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION

Belinda Pola, Senior Member
22 April 2022

BACKGROUND

1. The Applicant in this matter is the father of a child, 15 years, and he has been assigned the pseudonym GKVX. The Other party in this matter is the mother of the child and she has been assigned the pseudonym LBBV.

2. On 17 March 2020, LBBV applied to register a child support case with the Child Support Agency (here in referred to as the “Agency”).

3. On 18 March 2020, a determination was made, and the Agency wrote to LBBV and GKVX notifying them that a child support case had been registered with effect from 17 March 2020, with GKVX providing 40% care, and LBBV providing 60% care for their child[1]. The Tribunal observes that these percentages accord with Family Court consent orders (here in referred to as “parenting orders”) with respect to care arrangements between LBBV and GKVX for their child[2].

   [1] Exhibit R1, T5, pages 38 and 42.

   [2] Exhibit R1, T6, page 47 - 52.

4. On 25 May 2020, LBBV contacted the Agency to object to the 18 March 2020 care determination with respect to the percentage of care split between LBBV and GKVX, and as the objection was lodged more than 28 days following the 18 March 2020 decision, LBBV was advised that a special circumstances determination would be required to apply the objection decision from a date earlier than 25 May 2020[3].

   [3] Exhibit R1, T17, page 117.

5. On 29 July 2020 an objections officer with the Agency allowed LBBV’s objection to the 18 March 2020 care determination, and found that[4]:

   a)care was 67% to LBBV and 33% to GKVX;

   b)the decision had effect from 18 March 2020 as it was determined that special circumstances prevented LBBV from objecting to the 18 March 2020 at an earlier date, on the basis that an officer of the Agency had incorrectly determined the Family Court consent orders with respect to the care arrangements between LBBV and GKVX for their child (with the Agency informing LBBV of the error on 23 May 2020); and

   c)the new care determination had effect from 17 March 2020.

   [4] Exhibit R1, T17, pages 115 and 119.

6. On 17 August 2020, GKVX applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division (here in referred to as the “SSCSD”) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (here in referred to as the “Tribunal”) for review of the objections officer’s decision of 29 July 2020[5].

   [5] Exhibit R1, T14, page 84.

7. On 23 October 2020, the SSCSD of the Tribunal affirmed the objections officer’s decision to record care percentages for GKVX of 33%, and LBBV of 67%[6].

   [6] Exhibit R1, T2, pages 6 to 9.

8. On 30 October 2020, the Applicant, GKVX applied for a second review of this decision with the General Division of the Tribunal[7].

   [7] Exhibit R1, T1, pages 1 to 5.

9. The Tribunal notes that on 25 February 2021, the father sought first review of a decision made by an objections officer on 29 July 2020 pursuant to section 87AA(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (here in referred to as the “Collection Act”); regarding the back dating of the decision to 18 March 2020, being the date upon which the Agency wrote to the mother and father advising them both of registered child support case with respect to their child (where the Agency had first incorrectly calculated the original care determination per the parenting orders in place)[8].  

   [8] Exhibit R1, T5, pages 38 and 42.

10. On 4 June 2021, the SSCSD of the Tribunal at first review of the above decision, set this decision aside and in substitution decided that special circumstances did not apply to the mother, with respect to her being granted an extension to the period to lodge an objection; the effect of which being the decision regarding the revised calculations with respect to the relevant care percentage of the child takes effect from 25 May 2020[9].

    [9] Exhibit R3.

11. The effect of the above decision with respect to the present application is that if the General Division of the Tribunal were to vary the care percentages it would only have affect from 25 May 2020.

    JURISDICTION

12. Division 4, section 96A of the Collection Act states that an application may be made to the Tribunal for second review of the following decisions:

    Application for AAT second review

    An application may be made to the AAT for review (AAT second review) of the following decisions of the AAT:

    (a)a decision under section 92 to refuse an extension application;

    (b)a decision under subsection 43(1) of the AAT Act on AAT first review of a care percentage decision;

    (c)a decision under subsection 95N(2) to make, or not to make, a determination.

13. Section 4 of the Collection Act defines a “care percentage decision” to be:

    care percentage decision means a decision as to the particulars of an administrative assessment, or as to the particulars of a notional assessment, to the extent that the decision involves (wholly or partly):

    (a)a determination of a person’s percentage of care for a child that was made under a provision of Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 5 of the Assessment Act; or

    (b)a determination relating to a person that has effect, under section 54K of that Act, as if it were a determination made under such a provision.

14. The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision of the SSCSD of the Tribunal of 23 October 2020 made pursuant to section 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), with respect to its decision to affirm the earlier care percentage decision of the objections officer with the Agency made on 29 July 2020, and is therefore a reviewable decision by the General Division of the Tribunal on second review, pursuant to section 96A(b) of the Collection Act.

    ISSUES

15. The Tribunal must review the application before it and determine what percentages of care did the Applicant and the Other Party each have of the child from the commencement of the child support case?

    RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

16. Subdivision C of Division 4 of Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (here in referred to as the “Assessment Act”) outlines circumstances where an existing care determination must or may be revoked in the event the Registrar (or Tribunal) decide a new care determination should be made.

17. The effect of sections 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act require the Tribunal to determine whether there was a pattern of care during the care period. If no such pattern is found, then the Tribunal must determine the percentage of care to be zero. If a pattern of care is found, the Tribunal must determine the percentage of care that corresponds to actual care of the child/ren which has occurred or is likely to occur during the care period.

18. The Assessment Act provides the following with respect to section 49 of the Assessment Act:

    49 Determination of percentage of care—responsible person has had etc. no pattern of care for a child

    (1) This section applies if:

    (a) either of the following applies:

    (i) an application is made under section 25 or 25A for a parent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child;

    (ii) a parent is taken under section 73A to have had a relevant dependent child from a day specified in that section;

    and the Registrar is satisfied that a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances; or

    (b) both of the following apply:

    (i) the determination of a responsible person’s percentage of care for a child that was made under this section or section 50 is revoked or suspended under Subdivision C of this Division, except under paragraph 54FA(3)(b) or 54HA(3)(b);

    (ii) the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances.

    (2) The Registrar must determine the responsible person’s percentage of care for the child during the care period.

    (3) The percentage of care determined under subsection (2) must be 0%, unless section 51 applies in relation to the responsible person.

19. Section 50 of the Assessment act further provides:

    50 Determination of percentage of care—responsible person has had etc. a pattern of care for a child

    (1) This section applies if:

    (a) either of the following applies:

    (i) an application is made under section 25 or 25A for a parent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child;

    (ii) a parent is taken under section 73A to have had a relevant dependent child from a day specified in that section;

    and the Registrar is satisfied that a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances; or

    (b) both of the following apply:

    (i) the determination of a responsible person’s percentage of care for a child that was made under section 49 or this section is revoked or suspended under Subdivision C of this Division, except under paragraph 54FA(3)(b) or 54HA(3)(b);

    (ii) the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances.

    (2) The Registrar must determine the responsible person’s percentage of care for the child during the care period.

    (3) The percentage determined under subsection (2) must be a percentage that corresponds with the actual care of the child that the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, during the care period.

    (4) Subsection (3) does not apply if section 51 applies in relation to the responsible person.

20. Section 51 of the Assessment Act relates to an interim care percentage to be determined where action has been taken to ensure that a care arrangement in relation to a child is complied with.

21. Section 54A of the Assessment Act sets out how the actual care, and extent of care, is to be calculated, it provides:

    54A Working out actual care, and extent of care, of a child

    (1)The actual care of a child that a person has had, or is likely to have, during a care period may be worked out based on the number of nights that the Registrar is satisfied that the child was, or is likely to be, in the care of the person during the care period.

    (2)The extent of care of a child that a person should have had, or is to have, under a care arrangement during a care period may be worked out based on the number of nights that the child should have been, or is to be, in the care of the person during the care period under the care arrangement.

    (3)For the purposes of this section, a child cannot be in the care of more than one person at the same time.

    (4)This section does not limit section 50, 51, 53B or 54.

    The Child Support Guide

22. The Child Support Guide (here in referred to as the “Guide”), is a document which provides further guidance to the Child Support Registrar and officers when making decisions about care percentages.

23. With respect to taking into account relevant ministerial policy documents, the Tribunal refers to His Honour Brennan J in the decision of Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2)[10], where he stated the following practice in relation to the Tribunal applying Ministerial policy:

    In my view, the Tribunal, being entitled to determine its own practice in respect of the part which Ministerial policy plays in the making of Tribunal decisions, should adopt the following practice:

    When the Tribunal is reviewing the exercise of a discretionary power reposed in a Minister, and the Minister has adopted a general policy to guide him in the exercise of the power, the Tribunal will ordinarily apply that policy in reviewing the decision, unless the policy is unlawful or unless its application tends to produce an unjust decision in the circumstances of the particular case. Where the policy would ordinarily be applied, an argument against the policy itself or against its application in the particular case will be considered, but cogent reasons will have to be shown against its application, especially if the policy is shown to have been exposed to Parliamentary scrutiny.

    The general practice of the Tribunal will not preclude the Tribunal from making appropriate observations on Ministerial policy, and thus contributing the benefit of its experience to the growth or modification of general policy; but the practice is intended to leave to the Minister the political responsibility for broad policy, to permit the Tribunal to function as an adjudicative tribunal rather than as a political policy-maker, and to facilitate the making of consistent decisions in the exercise of the same discretionary power.

    The general practice will require the Tribunal to determine whether the policy is lawful, not in order to supervise the exercise by the Minister of his discretion, but in order to determine whether the policy is appropriate for application by the Tribunal in making its own decision on review.

    [Tribunal bold for emphasis]

    [10] [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.

24. The Tribunal will take into account the established practices set out in the relevant sections of the Guide, as consistent application of the relevant policies is desirable unless cogent reasons exist not to.

25. Chapter 2.2.1 of the Guide provides that “care will generally be worked out based on the number of nights that the child is likely to be in the care of the person during the care period (CSA Act section 54A).”  Further, chapter 2.2.1 of the Guide provides that:

    The Registrar must make a determination of the care a parent or non-parent carer is likely to have of the child during the 12-month care period, which will often be at least partly prospective.  In making a determination, the Registrar may use or request information about past care to form a judgment about likely future care.  In doing this, the Registrar may consider patterns of care that have been established in recent months if it is satisfied that the pattern is likely to continue.

26. The Guide at chapter 2.2.1 further states that:

    A care period is the period over which care is assessed to determine the care percentages for each parent or non-parent carer.  A care period is generally a 12-month period from the day on which the actual care of a child began or changed (the date of event).  The same care arrangements will be assumed to apply for the subsequent 12-month period, unless otherwise advised.

27. To determine whether care exists the Child Support Registrar relies on Chapter 2.2.1 of the Guide which outlines the factors that might be considered in order to determine the extent of caring.  They include:

    ·To what extent the person has control of the child, including having overall responsibility for the child and making:

    omajor decisions relating to who the child spends time with and the child's health, education, discipline, recreational and/or social activities, and

    oarrangements for others to meet the needs of the child (delegated care).

    ·To what extent the person meets the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, childcare, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra-curricular activities.

    ·To what extent the person pays for the costs of meeting the needs of the child.

    ·To what extent the person otherwise provides financial support for the child.

    ·To what extent the child provides for his or her own needs or has those needs met from another source.

    ·To what extent the child is financially independent or financially supported from another source.

28. The Guide at chapter 2.2.2 provides the following guidance with respect to considering a change in the pattern of care:

    Change in pattern of care

    When considering a change in care, the Registrar will consider the reason for the request for a new care calculation. If there has been a change to the pattern of care, the Registrar will need to identify the event that is relevant. The event may be used to determine the commencement (i.e. date of effect) of the care period (2.2.1). The Registrar will need to determine the percentage of care that is likely to occur in the care period. Not all changes will result in the calculation of a different care percentage.

    …

    What constitutes a change to the pattern of care will depend upon the individual circumstances of the case.

    CONSIDERATION

29. The application was heard in Brisbane on 24 March 2022, with the Applicant (or the father, GKVX), the Other Party (or the mother, LBBV) and the Respondent (represented by Mr Andrew Summers (Services Australia)) all appearing by telephone.

30. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the mother and father, and their geographic locations. The Tribunal also had regard to its objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone.  

31. Both the mother and the father were self-represented, and the Tribunal considered oral submissions from both parties under affirmation, in addition to submitted written evidence, as outlined in the Exhibit Register (Annexure 1). The Tribunal notes that both the mother and father filed submissions and evidence to the Tribunal with respect to this application.

32. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent adopted a neutral position in respect of whether the evidence and contentions of the Applicant or the Other Party should be preferred in this application[11].

    [11] Exhibit R2, page 2, paragraph 2.

33. The Tribunal is in the difficult position of determining this application with negligible corroborating evidence from either the father or the mother, in addition to being presented with both of their differing factual accounts. To this point, the Tribunal observes that a comparison of the calendars of care provided by both the father and the mother have mutual dates where both parties claim that the relevant child was in their care[12]. The Tribunal will now provide an overview of the evidence of the father and mother.

    [12] Exhibit A2; and Exhibit O1.

    Applicant’s Evidence

1. The Applicant (or the father, GKVX) submitted the following evidence before the Tribunal for consideration, to support his application:

   a)A statement from a friend dated 13 June 2020 who has known the father since 2017 and lives within walking distance, confirming that the child has lived with the father, and attends the local High School which is walking distance from the father’s place[13].

   b)A debtor statement from the child’s Highschool dated 13 May 2020[14].

   c)A printout from his child’s school portal which states that the care arrangement from 22 August 2019 was “50/50 living arrangement. Verbal only at this stage”[15].

   d)A completed calendar of care at the request of the Tribunal annotated for the nights which he states the relevant child was in his care, in addition to the following partial flight records[16]:

   i.Ticket issued in the name of the father for a Jetstar flight, departing on 28 June 2020, from Cairns for Brisbane at 12pm;

   ii.Ticket issued in the name of the father for a Jetstar flight, departing on 2 April 2020, from Cairns for Melbourne at 6.15am (submitted to the Tribunal three times); and

   iii.Ticket issued in the name of the relevant child for a Jetstar flight, departing on 7 April 2020, from Melbourne to Cairns at 4.55pm.

   [13] Exhibit A1, repeated at Exhibit R1, T10, page 62.

   [14] Exhibit A1, repeated at Exhibit R1, T10, page 63.

   [15] Exhibit A1.

   [16] Exhibit A2.

2. The father confirmed that he and the mother had separated, which lead to the issuing of historical parenting orders by the Family Court, but sometime following these orders having been issued, they both reconciled. The father confirmed that he separated again from the mother in early 2019, and that the parenting orders had been followed on a “spasmodic” basis since their most recent separation[17].

   [17] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 14, lines 33 to 43.

3. The father stated that both he and the mother returned to the Family Court in March 2020, but that the Family Court did not rule that the original parenting orders were to apply from 11 March 2020 (as contended by the mother in evidence to the Child Support Agency, discussed in the later reasons of this decision).

4. The Tribunal questioned the father as to how he would describe the pattern of care of the relevant child, to which he described it as a “rough pattern”, on a “week rough cycle, but it does - you know, it does change every now and then depending on what The Child wanted to do”[18]. The Tribunal questioned the father as to how he prepared a detailed calendar of care with respect to nights the relevant child spent with him, to which the father stated it was prepared from his “old paperwork” [19].

   [18] Ibid.

   [19] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 15, lines 1 to 29.

5. The father confirmed that his previous evidence given to SSCSD of the Tribunal at first review was accurate when he had stated that he was providing “next to no care” prior to 17 March 2020, but that this had increased to “about 50%” care when he had phoned the Child Support Agency on 18 May 2020[20]. The Tribunal then questioned the father as to a record of conversation with the Child Support Agency on 18 May 2020, where a file record of the conversation at the time recorded[21]:

   “… Confirmed with [GKVX] there are court orders, I asked if they were being followed prior to the 04/04/2020. [GKVX] confirmed they were being followed. [GKVX] stated that he is still having overnight care, just not as much.

   I asked how often is he having [relevant child], he stated it chops and changes, he stated last week he had her overnight Wednesday night, then prior to that he had [relevant child] 01/05/2020, 02/05/2020, 03/05/2020 & 04/05/2020 overnight. [GKVX] stated even though the pattern is all over the place, he could still equate to having 40% care.

   Reconfirmed with [GKVX], from the 04/04/2020 he agrees there has been a change in care for [relevant child], however it is not 100% to the other parent as he is still having overnight care…”

   [20] Exhibit R1, T2, page 8, paragraph 10; Transcript 24 March 2022, page 15, lines 46 to 47; page 16, lines 1 to

   [21] Exhibit R1, T17, page 113:

6. The above record listed specific dates which the father stated the relevant child was in his care in early May 2020, the Tribunal questioned the father as to why those dates did not align with the annotated calendar he provided the Tribunal, as the calendar did not have the relevant child recorded as being in his care on the nights he told the Child Support Agency[22]. The Tribunal notes the father was unable to explain this omission from his records created for the purposes of the hearing and submitted on 22 March 2022, almost two years later[23].

   [22] Exhibit A2.

   [23] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 18, lines 19 to 35; page 25, lines 21 to 25.

7. With respect to the partial flight records the Applicant submitted to the Tribunal he stated that the relevant child was with him in Melbourne from 2 April 2020 to 7 April 2020[24].

   [24] Exhibit A1; and Transcript 24 March 2022, page 19, lines 40 to 43.

8. The statement from the father’s friend dated 13 June 2020, which stated that the relevant child spends one week with the father in every fortnight and comes and goes as she pleases[25]. The Tribunal questioned the father as to why this stated arrangement was not reflected in the calendar of nights in care which he submitted to the Tribunal, to which he responded that the relevant child was with him about half of the time[26]. The Tribunal places little weight on this statement submitted by the father, on the basis that there is little corroborating evidence to substantiate claims made.

   [25] Exhibit A1, repeated at Exhibit R1, T10, page 62.

   [26] Exhibit A1; and Transcript 24 March 2022, page 20, lines 14 to 23.

9. The Tribunal notes that in the evidence before it there is a protection order in place dated 30 May 2019, protecting the father from the mother, which orders the mother to be of good behaviour towards the father and to not commit acts of domestic violence[27]. The Tribunal notes the order prohibits contact from the mother towards the father, except for the purposes of having contact with children only (relevantly) when in compliance with an order under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

   [27] Exhibit R1, T14, page 90.

10. The Tribunal notes there is no evidence before it to suggest that the relevant child was subjected to the volatile relationship between either the father or the mother.

    Other Party’s Evidence

11. During the course of the hearing the mother confirmed that she had separated from the father of the relevant child, and parenting orders were issued by the Family Court back in 2007, and not long after these orders were issued both the mother and father reconciled, only to separate again in January 2019[28].

    [28] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 21, lines 4 to 18.

12. The mother stated that with respect to the attendance of Family Court in March 2020, they had sat down with a mediator and the outcome of which was to follow the original parenting orders, and that they still follow the parenting orders[29].

    [29] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 21, lines 22 to 35.

13. The Other Party (or the mother) submitted an annotated calendar of care with diary printouts for the Tribunal to consider with respect to the Application[30].

    [30] Exhibit O1.

14. The Tribunal questioned the mother as to how she would describe the pattern of care of the relevant child, to which she described as the father having next to no care of the relevant child, despite giving evidence to the Tribunal that they were both following the parenting orders[31]. The Tribunal gives little weight to the mother’s claims that the father had next to no care of the relevant child, in circumstances where such claims have not been substantiated and evidence before the Tribunal indicates the child was plausibly in the care of the father with respect to evidence of flight bookings outlined in earlier reasons.

    [31] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 24, lines 5 to 17.

15. The mother further stated that when the relevant child was supposed to be spending time with the father, they were in fact with friends. The mother also claimed that the father had spent six months overseas during the relevant care period. In the mother’s calendar of care where she stated that her daughter was in Brisbane during the period she claimed the father was overseas, that this was with friends and she was alone, and not in the care of her father[32]. The Tribunal is of the view that there is insufficient evidence to support these claims made by the mother.

    [32] Ibid.

16. The mother also claimed the father had resided overseas during the relevant care period, yet did not substantiate such claims[33]. The father refuted these claims of the mother during the course of the hearing[34].

    [33] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 24, lines 9 to 17.

    [34] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 25, lines 34 to 40.

    CONCLUSION

    What percentages of care did the Applicant and the Other Party each have of the child from the commencement of the child support case?

17. After review of the evidence before the Tribunal and consideration of contentions between the Applicant and the Other Party, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there was a change to the pattern and percentage of care that the Applicant provided to their children in the care period, with reference to:

    a)The contemporaneous file note from the Child Support Agency dated 18 May 2020 where the father stated that parenting orders were being followed prior to early April 2020[35]; and

    b)The mother’s evidence to the Tribunal that both she and the father were still following the parenting orders[36], also noting the mother’s earlier evidence to the SSCSD of the Tribunal at first review where it was recorded that she stated that parenting orders were being followed from 17 March 2020[37].

    [35] Exhibit R1, T17, page 113.

    [36] Transcript 24 March 2022, page 21, lines 22 to 28.

    [37] Exhibit R1, T2, page 9, paragraph 12.

18. Given the many unsubstantiated and conflicting claims by both the mother and the father, the Tribunal is of the view that this is the only possible finding that can be made with any reliability.

19. As the Tribunal has found that there was no change to the pattern and percentage of care that the Applicant provided to their children in the care period, the original decision under review is affirmed, that the Applicant and Other Party shared care of the relevant child during the care period at 33% to GKVX and 67% to LBBV.

    DECISION

20. Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division, dated 23 October 2020.

    I certify that the preceding 53 (fifty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B.Pola

    ……………[SGD]………………

    Associate

    Dated: 22 April 2022

    Date of hearing:  24 March 20222

    Applicant:  GKVX (self-represented)

    Other Party:  LBBV (self-represented)     

    Respondent:      Mr Andrew Summers (Services Australia)

    ‘Annexure 1 – Exhibit Register’

Exhibit Number	Description of Exhibit	Party	Date of Document	Date of Receipt
R1	Section 37 T Documents (pages 1 to 136)	R	Various dates	3 December 2020
R2	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (pages 1 to 10)	R	28 January 2022	28 January 2022
R3	Respondent Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions – Attachments A to C	R	28 January 2022	28 January 2022
A1	Applicant Submissions – One School Extract; Debtor Statement; Witness Statement	A	Various dates	10 December 2021
A2	Applicant Calendar of Care	A	Undated	22 March 2022
O1	Other Party Calendar of Care	A	Undated	23 March 2022

   13.