Iverson and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2020] AATA 4772

Iverson and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2020] AATA 4772 (21 August 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/BC019352

APPLICANT:  Ms Iverson

OTHER PARTY:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Member P Jensen

DECISION DATE:  21 August 2020

WRITTEN REASONS FOR DECISION:

On 21 August 2020, I gave oral reasons for my decision to affirm an objections officer’s decision to disallow an objection to an original decision to record Ms Iverson as providing 0% care to [Child 1] with effect from 21 July 2018, and to record Mr [A] as providing 100% care to [Child 1] with effect from 26 October 2018.

Ms Iverson has applied for review of my decision. In accordance with the Tribunal’s current practice in such circumstances, I now provide written reasons for my decision.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – whether there was a change to the likely pattern of care – existing percentage of care determinations correctly revoked and new determinations made – whether an interim period should apply – reasonable action not taken – decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted 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

WRITTEN REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Iverson and Mr [A] are the parents of [Child 1] who was born in 2007. A child support case was registered in 2015 with what is commonly called the Child Support Agency, or CSA. Ms Iverson was recorded as providing 28% care and Mr [A] was recorded as providing 72% care to [Child 1].

2. Court orders (“the Orders”) were made on 16 May 2018 concerning the parents’ care of [Child 1]. Broadly speaking, in the absence of an agreement between the parents, Ms Iverson was to provide care for two nights per fortnight during school terms, and she was to provide some care during school holidays, and Mr [A] was to provide the balance of care.

3. On 26 October 2018, Mr [A] informed the CSA that he had been providing full-time care since 21 July 2018. On 26 November 2018 the CSA decided to record Ms Iverson as providing 0% care with effect from 21 July 2018, and Mr [A] as providing 100% care with effect from 26 October 2018. Ms Iverson objected to that decision. On 20 May 2019 an objections officer disallowed her objection. On the same day the CSA wrote to Ms Iverson and notified her of the objections officer’s decision. On 30 June 2020, Ms Iverson applied to the Tribunal for further review. Mr [A] was invited to apply to be made a party to the proceedings but he did not make that application. I heard the matter on 21 August 2020. Ms Iverson gave sworn evidence by conference phone.

4. Care decisions are made pursuant to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”). As a starting point, decision-makers are required to determine the pattern of care each parent has had, and is likely to have, during the relevant care period. At the hearing, Ms Iverson acknowledged that she ceased providing overnight care on 21 July 2018. In the absence of an interim determination, Ms Iverson would be recorded as providing 0% care with effect from 21 July 2018, and Mr [A] would be recorded as providing 100% care with effect from 26 October 2018 (which was the date on which he belatedly informed the CSA of the change in care): sections 49, 50, 54B and 54F of the Act.

5. The Act provides for an interim determination whereby, if certain requirements are satisfied, parents are recorded as providing the care prescribed by a formal care arrangement, such as a court order, rather than the care they actually provided: section 51 of the Act. One of those requirements is that the person with reduced care “is taking reasonable action to ensure that the care arrangement is complied with.” Ms Iverson was overseas from 24 July 2018 to 7 August 2018, and from 27 September 2018 to 16 October 2018, and she was not taking any action to provide care during those two periods. Between those two periods, she made contact with [Child 1] with a view to providing care, but [Child 1] indicated that she did not want to be in Ms Iverson’s care. Ms Iverson stated that she respected [Child 1]’s decision. Ms Iverson explained that she did not want to force [Child 1] to spend time with her. I find that Ms Iverson took some action to provide care pursuant to the Orders, but, in the context of section 51 of the Act, she did not take reasonable action. That is not a criticism of Ms Iverson; it is simply a finding of fact in the context of section 51. It follows that the requirements of section 51 are not satisfied and the original care decision was the correct decision.

6. It is worth noting that during the hearing, Ms Iverson acknowledged that she received the CSA’s letter dated 20 May 2019 which notified her of the objections officer’s decision.