HMXZ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned two reviews brought by the Applicant (HMXZ) concerning decisions of the Child Support Registrar regarding the percentage of care for three children. The Applicant sought to revoke existing care determinations and substitute them with new ongoing determinations, and also sought interim care determinations. The Applicant had unilaterally withheld care of the children from the Respondent (the Other Party) on multiple occasions, citing concerns about the children's safety and alleging abuse. The Respondent maintained that the Applicant's actions were retaliatory and unfounded, and that he had attempted to enforce existing court orders.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the existing care determinations should be revoked and substituted with new ongoing determinations, and whether interim care determinations should be issued. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if there were "special circumstances" that would prevent an interim care period from applying in favour of the Respondent, as contemplated by subsection 51(5) of the relevant Act. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented by both parties, including affidavits, court documents, and oral testimony, to determine the appropriate care arrangements.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the Applicant's claims of abuse and the Respondent's assertions that these were unfounded and that he had acted on legal advice. The Tribunal noted that while allegations of abuse were made, no court orders had been issued as a consequence of these allegations. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's actions in withholding care were not supported by evidence of special circumstances that would warrant refusing an interim care period in favour of the Respondent. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed that the requirements for an interim determination were satisfied for all three children.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions in both review matters. The decision in the first matter, 2019/8139, concerning Children J and N, was affirmed. The decision in the second matter, 2020/0581, concerning Child C, was also affirmed.