HGNT and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by the Child Support Registrar regarding the percentage of care for a child. The applicant sought to vary the Registrar's decision, arguing that the AAT had erred in its previous determination. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had taken reasonable steps to ensure compliance with a parenting plan, which was crucial for establishing a change in the percentage of care.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had taken reasonable action to ensure compliance with the parenting plan, as required by section 51(1) of the Assessment Act, to warrant an Interim Care Determination. This involved assessing the applicant's extensive correspondence with the other party and her legal representatives, and determining if these actions constituted reasonable steps to enforce his parenting rights under the plan, particularly in light of the child's expressed reluctance to stay overnight.

The Tribunal considered the evidence, including written submissions, text messages, and oral testimony. It noted that the other party had indicated the child's reluctance to stay overnight and that she was hesitant to force the child against her will. The Tribunal also acknowledged correspondence from the other party's solicitors advising a sensitive approach to parenting that respected the child's views. Despite this, the applicant continued extensive dialogue with the other party and her representatives for a considerable period without seeking legal advice or commencing court proceedings to enforce the parenting plan. The Tribunal concluded that, given the circumstances, including the child's reluctance and the advice received, it would have been reasonable for the applicant to initiate court proceedings earlier. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not taken "reasonable action" as required by the Assessment Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that there was no change of care occurring as at the date the applicant notified a change in care.