HYHY and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding a child support case between the Applicant and the Other Party, the separated parents of a 16-year-old child. The dispute centred on the percentage of care each parent had for the child, specifically whether there had been a change in care from 23 May 2022. An existing determination stipulated that the Other Party had 100% care and the Applicant 0% care from 26 November 2018. The Applicant notified Services Australia on 23 November 2022 that the child had been living with her grandparents 100% of the time since 23 May 2022. A delegate of the Child Support Registrar subsequently revoked the existing determination and made a new one stating both parties had 0% care from 23 May 2022. The Other Party objected to this decision, asserting she had maintained 100% care throughout.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there had been a change in the child's care arrangements between 23 May 2022 and 13 January 2023, and if so, the date from which any such change took effect. The Applicant contended that neither parent had care during this period, with the child staying with friends and family. Conversely, the Other Party maintained that she retained 100% care, even when the child stayed with friends, her boyfriend, or her grandmother.

The Tribunal considered the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties. It found the Other Party's account of her care arrangements to be consistent and internally coherent, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal considered the Other Party to be a credible witness who provided a clear historical account of her care responsibilities. While acknowledging that the child sometimes stayed with friends, the child's boyfriend, or her grandmother, the Tribunal accepted that the Other Party remained the child's primary carer and was responsible for her during these absences. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Other Party had 100% care of the child during the period in question.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the existing care percentage determination, finding that the Other Party had 100% care of the child and the Applicant had 0% care.