Jantz and Pether (Child support) - [2022] AATA 633

Jantz and Pether (Child support) [2022] AATA 633 (8 February 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/BC022710
APPLICANT:  Mr Jantz
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Pether

TRIBUNAL:Member S Letch
DECISION DATE: 8 February 2022
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – child support agreement – whether a financial agreement meets the requirements of a binding child support agreement – 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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Jantz and Ms Pether are the parents of [the child], born April 2016. Mr Jantz has been assessed by the Child Support Agency (CSA) as liable to pay child support to Ms Pether in accordance with the terms of a binding child support agreement (BCSA) made in October 2017, and received by the CSA on 19 February 2018 (see folio 28 of the CSA materials).
It is convenient by way of background to set out some extracts from the CSA objection officer’s statement of reasons dated 1 October 2021:
…
Ms Pether and Mr Jantz have had a registered child support case for [the child] from 30 January 2018.
On 19 February 2018, we received a copy of the binding agreement signed by Ms Pether and
Mr Jantz on 3 October 2017.
On 23 February 2018, we accepted the agreement and sent letters to both parents notifying the
decision and advising objection rights.
On 22 March 2021, we made the decision to accept Ms Pether`s request to take over collection of
ongoing child support payments for [the child].
Other relevant facts:
We made a decision on 4 March 2019 to reflect the care for [the child] as 51% to Ms Pether and 49% to Mr Jantz from 24 January 2019, reported on 24 January 2019.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The child support legislation allows parents to reach an agreement on the amount of child support to be paid. A child support agreement has to meet the requirements of the legislation and has to
include matters that can be dealt with in a child support agreement. Once parents have made a child support agreement, either parent can apply to the registrar to have it accepted.
Binding child support agreements allow parents to make binding financial agreements about child
support. Binding child support agreements operate in a similar manner to financial agreements that separating parents might make in relation to property, superannuation and spousal maintenance.
Each party to a binding child support agreement must have received independent legal advice
before entering the agreement, and must receive independent legal advice before terminating the
agreement.
When the registrar accepts a child support agreement where child support is not already payable, the Registrar will make an administrative assessment of child…

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.

Continue reading Jantz and Pether (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Jantz and Pether (Child support) [2022] AATA 633
Case: [2022] AATA 633
Decision Date: 8 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia regarding a child support agreement. The parties involved were Jantz and Pether, and the dispute centred on whether a financial agreement they had entered into satisfied the requirements of a binding child support agreement under the relevant legislation. The decision under review was affirmed.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine whether the financial agreement executed by the parties met the statutory criteria to be considered a binding child support agreement. This involved an examination of the specific provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* that govern the formation and validity of such agreements.

The Court considered the nature of the agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution. It applied the principles established in relevant case law concerning the interpretation and application of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* to assess whether the agreement possessed the necessary elements to be legally binding as a child support agreement. The Court affirmed the decision under review, indicating that the agreement did not meet the required standards.

Orders