Hannigan and Poeschel (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Hannigan and Mr Poeschel regarding child support. The dispute arose from a non-compliance with existing court orders concerning the percentage of care for the children. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether a change to the likely pattern of care had occurred and, if so, to revoke existing percentage of care determinations and make new ones.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Poeschel had taken reasonable action to ensure compliance with the court orders, despite a reduced level of care, and whether special circumstances existed that would warrant departing from the standard interim period for care determinations. The court also had to consider the application of government policy regarding what constitutes "reasonable action" in the context of child support legislation.

The tribunal reasoned that Mr Poeschel had indeed taken reasonable action to ensure compliance with the court orders, even after providing an undertaking not to actively enforce them. This undertaking was made to facilitate a better relationship with the children, and his subsequent actions, including seeking therapy and engaging with legal processes, were considered reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal found that the children's reluctance to spend time with Mr Poeschel did not constitute "special circumstances" as defined by the Act, and therefore, an interim period for care determination was appropriate.

Consequently, the tribunal affirmed the decision under review. This involved revoking existing care determinations and making new ones based on the court order (76% for Ms Hannigan, 24% for Mr Poeschel) and the actual care occurring (100% for Ms Hannigan, nil for Mr Poeschel), with the interim period to apply for 52 weeks.