Hollier and Hollier (Child support) - [2018] AATA 3490

Hollier and Hollier (Child support) [2018] AATA 3490 (8 June 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2018/PC013661
APPLICANT:  Mr Hollier
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mrs Hollier

TRIBUNAL:Member S Brakespeare
DECISION DATE: 8 June 2018
DECISION:

The decision under review is varied so that the percentage of care determinations reflect that Mr Hollier and Mrs Hollier each had 50% care of [Child 1] from 25 July 2017.

CATCHWORDS
Child support - Percentages of care - The likely pattern of care - Care was shared equally between the parents - 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

Mr Hollier and Mrs Hollier are the parents of [Child 1] who is 9.
On 4 August 2017 Mr Hollier contacted the Child Support Agency to register a child support assessment in respect of [Child 1]. At the time he advised that the care of [Child 1] was shared (50/50).
On 7 August 2017 Mrs Hollier contacted the Family Assistance Office to make a claim for family tax benefit. She advised that her percentage of care was 70%. An officer of the Family Assistance Office made a determination on 7 August that Mrs Hollier’s percentage of care from 25 July 2017 was 70% and that Mr Hollier’s percentage of care was 30%.
On 15 September 2017 an officer of the Child Support Agency made percentage of care determinations which reflected the Family Assistance Office determinations.
Mr Hollier lodged an objection to the percentage of care determinations. An objections officer of the Child Support Agency disallowed the objection on 5 January 2018. Mr Hollier was sent notice of the decision by post on 5 February 2018.
Mr Hollier lodged an application for review of the decision with the tribunal on 26 February 2018.
A hearing was held on 8 June 2018. Mr Hollier attended the hearing and gave evidence on affirmation to the tribunal. Mrs Hollier gave her evidence on affirmation via conference telephone. The Department provided documents to the tribunal and the parties (84 pages). The tribunal also had regard to documents supplied by Mr Hollier (folios A1 to A17).[1] A copy was also provided to Mrs Hollier.
[1] Both parties attempted to provide further documents to the tribunal outside the timeframes provided for in the Child Support Guidelines (that is, less than 14 days before the hearing). The tribunal did not accept the documents on the basis they were not relevant to the period under review.
Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the tribunal will be referred to in the tribunal’s consideration of the issues which it has to decide.

ISSUE

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

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hollier and Hollier (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] AATA 3490
Decision Date: 8 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the father, Mr Hollier, against a decision of the Child Support Registrar regarding the assessment of child support payable by him to the mother, Ms Hollier. The dispute centred on the Registrar's determination of the percentages of care for the parties' two children, which ultimately affected the child support assessment. The appeal was heard by Member S Brakespeare.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the likely pattern of care for the children, specifically whether the care was shared equally between the parents, as contended by the father, or if the mother had a greater percentage of care, as determined by the Registrar. This determination was crucial for establishing the correct child support assessment under the relevant legislation.

Member Brakespeare reasoned that the evidence presented indicated a pattern of care where the children spent approximately equal time with each parent. The court applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* concerning the assessment of care percentages, focusing on the actual and likely future pattern of care. The court found that the Registrar's decision did not accurately reflect this equal sharing of care.

Consequently, the court varied the decision under review, finding that the children’s care was shared equally between the parents. This variation would lead to a revised child support assessment.

Orders