Goode and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2020] AATA 273

Goode and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2020] AATA 273 (22 January 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBERS:  2019/PC017719

APPLICANT:  Ms Goode

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Member S Hoffman

DECISION DATE:  22 January 2020

DECISION:

The tribunal varies the decision under review such that Ms Goode’s care of [Child 1] reduced from 100% to 35% on 17 February 2019.   

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 determination made for one parent only – decision under review varied

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

1. Ms Goode and [Mr A] are the parents of [Child 1] who turned 18 years old [in] June 2019. The case was first registered with the Department of Human Services – Child Support  (the CSA) on 22 July 2011.

2. Until a change of care decision made by the CSA on 24 June 2019, [Child 1] was recorded as being in Ms Goode’s 100% care. According to that decision, Ms Goode provided 30% of [Child 1]’s care from 17 February 2019.

3. On 4 July 2019 Ms Goode objected to that decision and on 20 September 2019, a CSA objections officer decided that Ms Goode had been providing 35% of [Child 1]’s care from 4 February 2019.

4. On 28 October 2019 Ms Goode lodged an application for review by this tribunal. [Mr A] was invited to be added as a party to this review but did not respond to the invitation and is therefore not an added party.

5. The matter was heard 22 January 2020 via conference telephone. The tribunal had before it a bundle of documents provided by the CSA (numbered 1 to 133), copies of which were given to Ms Goode before the hearing.

ISSUE

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).

2. The issues which arise in this case are as follows:

• The percentage of care that corresponded with the actual care Ms Goode was providing after [Child 1] started university and was living in residential college; and

• The date of effect of the change in Ms Goode’s care percentage.

CONSIDERATION

1. Section 50 of the Act requires the CSA to determine a person’s percentage of care during a care period, if the CSA is satisfied that the person has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care during the care period. The percentage of care so determined must be a percentage that corresponds with the actual care of the child that the CSA is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, during the care period.

2. Ms Goode had been providing 100% care of [Child 1]. They lived in [Town 1]. He started studying at the [University 1] in [City 1] in February 2019 when he was 17 years old. The distance between [City 1] and [Town 1] is about 1,700 kilometres.

3. Ms Goode said that she knew the child support case would end when [Child 1] turned 18 years old in June 2019.

4. Ms Goode said that once he started university, [Child 1] lived in the residential college as did other young people from [Town 1] who attended university in [City 2]. He paid for that himself which covered food and accommodation. Ms Goode said it cost about $420 a week.[1]

   [1] It is apparent from the documents that the residential college to which Ms Goode referred was part of the [University 2], and [Child 1] was living in [City 2] rather than [City 1].

5. Ms Goode said that [Child 1] had been working part-time since he was 14 years old. In 2016, when he was 15 years old, he started his own business – [Company 1]. Between February and June 2019, he earned $5,000 videoing five weddings for which he charged $1,000 each. Ms Goode said that [Child 1] started working 19 hours a week at [Company 2] from 30 March 2019. According to his LinkedIn profile, a copy of which was in the departmental papers, he was employed as a [Occupation 1]. Ms Goode said she did not know how much he earned and suggested it was $35 an hour which the tribunal considers is probably too high.

6. The tribunal asked Ms Goode how [Child 1] covered the cost of residential college, and if he did so from savings for the weeks before he found work in [City 2]. Ms Goode said that she did not think he had savings. It is therefore unclear how [Child 1] covered the cost of the residential college when he first started living there. Ms Goode confirmed that she did not pay for the residential college and that [Child 1] did. Logically he did so from savings and/or his part-time work. There is no evidence of him receiving a grant or scholarship or similar to cover his accommodation costs.

7. Ms Goode’s position was that she continued to provide financial and emotional support to [Child 1] after he started university, and that if her percentage of care was no longer at 100%, it would be about 75% care.

8. Ms Goode said that she purchased a car for [Child 1] which was costing her $440 a month. She was paying for his health insurance premiums and phone bills during the period from February to June 2019 as well as giving him cash during that period. They spoke a couple of times a week. According to CSA records, Ms Goode told them that she is still largely involved in his day-to-day decision-making, and by way of example, she booked for him to attend the dentist and to have his car serviced when he was back in [Town 1] for a semester break.

9. Ms Goode said that [Child 1] returned to [Town 1] once a month for the weekend during the semester and would return home for semester breaks. She said that she also drove to [City 2] to see him.

10. The tribunal accepts Ms Goode’s evidence as to the ongoing support she provides to [Child 1]. As discussed at hearing, it is difficult to arrive at an appropriate percentage of care in situations such as this. The costs incurred by Ms Goode in running her home, such as her rent and power costs, are not relevant here.

11. Of the various relevant factors, the tribunal gives greatest weight to the evidence that [Child 1] was paying for the cost of residential college between February and June 2019, which provided food and accommodation for him during term time. That represented a significant proportion of his daily expenses. It acknowledges the costs Ms Goode incurred during the relevant period by purchasing a car for him and covering his phone bills. The tribunal concludes that 35% adequately reflected the ongoing contribution by Ms Goode to his care.

12. The tribunal also considered the date from which CSA should record the change in Ms Goode’s care from 100% to 35%.

13. [Mr A] informed the CSA that [Child 1] moved to [City 2] on 4 February 2019. Ms Goode said that he started university on 17 February 2019 and the discrepancy between the dates was that in the intervening period, he was house-sitting for his sister. Ms Goode said that she was in [City 2] during that two-week period, and [Child 1] did not move into the residential college until 17 February 2019.

14. The 2019 calendar for the [University 1] records that orientation week started on 11 February 2019 and the first teaching week started 18 February 2019. This would suggest that [Child 1]’s university experience started on 11 February 2019. However the tribunal accepts Ms Goode’s evidence that [Child 1] moved into the residential college on 17 February 2019, as that makes sense in light of when teaching started. The tribunal is of the view that [Child 1]’s independence increased significantly when he started paying for his food and accommodation at the residential college. It finds therefore that the care provided by Ms Goode reduced from 100% to 35% on 17 February 2019.

15. The tribunal will now consider the date of effect of its decision. Relevant to this, it notes that [Mr A] contacted the CSA on 22 March 2019 about the change in care.

16. Section 54F of the Act includes provisions to do with the date of effect of changes in the care percentage or percentages.

17. When the CSA is notified of a change in care, if that change was notified within 28 days of the change, the date of effect is when the care change occurred.

18. If the change in care was notified more than 28 days after there was a change, as in this case, it is more complicated depending upon whether a parent’s care increased or decreased. If a parent’s care percentage decreased, the date of effect of the change in that parent’s care percentage is when the change occurred. [2]

    [2] By way of contrast, if a parent’s care percentage increased, but notification was made more than 28 days after the change in care, the date of effect of the change in the care percentage of the parent with the increased care is the notification date (subparagraph 54F(3)(b)(i)).

19. As there was no change to [Mr A]’s percentage of care, which remained at nil, there is no need to consider the date of effect provisions in relation to his care percentage.

20. The tribunal has found that Ms Goode’s care decreased, from 100% to 35%, on 17 February 2019. As it was a decrease in care, the tribunal finds that the date of effect of this change in her care percentage was the date the change occurred, which was 17 February 2019 (subparagraph 54F(3)(b)(ii) of the Act.)

DECISION

The tribunal varies the decision under review such that Ms Goode’s care of [Child 1] reduced from 100% to 35% on 17 February 2019.