JSGN and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

JSGN and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2021] AATA 4666 (16 December 2021)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2020/6470
Re:JSGN
APPLICANT

AndChild Support Registrar
RESPONDENT

AndWPPN
OTHER PARTY

DECISION
Tribunal:Member M East
Date:16 December 2021
Place:Perth

The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of Administrative Appeals Tribunal, dated 30 September 2020, is set aside, insofar as it determined that neither party had care of the child for the duration of the Relevant Care Period, and substituted with the decision that the Applicant provided 100% care of the child and the Other Party provided 0% care of the child during the Relevant Care Period. The date of effect of the Tribunal’s decision is 19 August 2020.
......................[Sgd]..................................................
Member M East
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 (Cth).
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – whether child was living with the mother – whether actual care changed – date of revocation – date of notification – date of effect – date when mother ceased to provide care for the child – Reviewable decision set aside and substituted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – s 43(6)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) – ss 5, 12(2AA), 49, 50, 54A, 54F, 54G, 54H, 55C, 74
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) – s 95N
CASES
Polec & Staker (2011) 253 FLR 339
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Singleton and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] AATA 766
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guides to Social Policy Law: Child Support Guide – 2.2.1
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member M East
16 December 2021
INTRODUCTION

The decision under review is a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Social Services & Child Support Division (AAT1), dated 30 September 2020 (the Reviewable Decision). The Reviewable Decision affirmed an earlier decision made by the authorised officer (AO) of the Child Support Registrar (the Department) dated 14 July 2020, which disallowed the objection to the decision made by the Department on 26 November 2019 (the Objection Decision).
The Applicant (Mother) and the Other Party (Father) are the separated parents of a child (S) born in 2001. On 26 November 2019, the Department made a decision that neither the Applicant nor the Other Party were eligible carers of the child S since 10 September 2019, and therefore the terminating event in respect of the child S occurred on 10 September 2019.
BACKGROUND
The Respondent summarised the relevant facts in the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 23 July 2021 (SOFIC).
3. Facts
The Applicant and the OP are the separated parents of [the Child].
3.2From 15 July 2019, care of the child was reflected as being 100% to the Applicant (T17/132)).
3.3On [Date of Birth redacted] 2019, the child turned 18 years of age, and the active child support case ended.
3.4On 26 November 2019, the Registrar made a decision that as of 10 September 2019, neither the Applicant nor OP had care of the child (T13/88).
3.5On 28 November 2019, the Applicant objected to the decision (T14/97).
3.6On 15 May 2020, the Applicant lodged the objection, (T14/101), and on 3 June 2020, the Applicant provided written reasons and evidence in support of the objection (T15/103). The Applicant contended that she had 100% care of the child during the relevant period.
3.7On 14 July 2020, an objections officer disallowed the Applicant’s objection (objection decision) (T17/132). By doing so, the objections officer decided that neither parent had care of the child from 10 September 2019. The effect of the decision was to affirm the care percentage decision that was made by the Registrar on 26 November 2019.
3.8On 19 August 2020, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the objection decision with the AAT1 (T19/136).
3.9On 30 September 2021,[1] the AAT1 affirmed the objection decision (T2/6-9).
3.10On 17 October 2021,[2] the Applicant applied to this Tribunal for review of the AAT1 decision (T1/1-5).
[1] The Tribunal notes that the date of the AAT1 decision is 30 September 2020.
[2] The Tribunal notes that the Applicant lodged her application with this Tribunal on 17 October 2020.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The issues that require determination in this matter were summarised by the Respondent in paragraph [2.1] of the SOFIC, as follows:
(a)what percentage of care the Applicant and the Other Party had of the child from 10 September 2019;
(b)the date those percentages can be applied to the Applicant and the Other Party in their care of the child; or
(c)if neither party had care of the child from 10 September 2019, whether a terminating event occurred; and
(d)the date of effect of the new child support assessment.
The Respondent at paragraph [5.12] of the SOFIC relevantly states that the child support assessment in relation to the child S was ended in late 2019, when she turned 18 years old. The Respondent further contends, and Tribunal agrees, that the relevant care period that the Tribunal should consider is from 10 September 2019 to late 2019 (the Relevant Care Period).
TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS
The application was heard by the Tribunal on 19 November 2021. The Applicant and the Other Party were self-represented, and the Respondent was represented by Ms Amy Simpson of Services Australia. The Applicant and the Other Party both gave oral evidence on affirmation.
The Tribunal had the following material before it:
·section 37 “T Documents” consisting of T1-T21, pages 1-157 (Exhibit R1);
·Registrar’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 23 July 2021 (Exhibit R2);
·witness statement of Ms M dated 6 December 2020 (Exhibit A1);
·witness statement of Mr W dated 20 December 2019 (Exhibit A2);
·Applicant’s Submission dated 12 October 2021 (Exhibit A3);
·Applicant’s Submission dated 28 April 2021 (Exhibit A4);
·Applicant’s Submission in reply to the Respondent’s letter dated 14 December 2020 (Exhibit A5);
·Applicant’s letter dated 14 January 2021 addressed to the Tribunal (Exhibit A6);
·Applicant’s Bank Statements from 10 September 2019 to 15 October 2019 (Exhibit A7);
·collages of text messages (Exhibit A8);
·Applicant’s submission to AAT1 dated 29 September 2020 (Exhibit A9);
·original decision with attached annotations by the Applicant (Exhibit A10);
·Applicant’s letter dated 14 November 2019 (Exhibit A11);
·Applicant’s email dated 23 June 2021 (Exhibit A12);
·Applicant’s Submissions dated 10 January 2021 (in four parts) (Exhibit A13);
·Respondent’s letter dated 1 July 2021 in relation to family tax benefit (Exhibit A14);
·witness statement of Mr H dated 17 November 2021 (Exhibit A15).
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The Tribunal is required to consider the provisions of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (the AssessmentAct); the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (the Collection Act); and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act).
The Tribunal is also able to have regard to the relevant policy contained in the Child Support Guide (the Guide). The Tribunal, as a decision maker, will generally apply the guidance contained in the Guide unless there are cogent reasons not to do so (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, (645)).
Percentage of care
Section 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act sets out when a determination of percentage of care must be made.
Section 49 of the Assessment Act applies if, having regard to all the circumstances, the responsible person for a child has no pattern of care for the child, the section states:
49 Determination of percentage of care—responsible person has had etc. no pattern of care for a child
(1)This section applies if:
(a)either of the following applies:
(i)     an application is made under section 25 or 25A for a parent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child;
(ii)     a parent is taken under section 73A to have had a relevant dependent child from a day specified in that section;
and the Registrar is satisfied that a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances; or
(b)both of the following apply:
(i)     the determination of a responsible person’s percentage of care for a child that was made under this section or section 50 is revoked or suspended under Subdivision C of this Division, except under paragraph 54FA(3)(b) or 54HA(3)(b);
(ii)     the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances.
(2)The Registrar must determine the responsible person’s percentage of care for the child during the care period.
(3)The percentage of care determined under subsection (2) must be 0%, unless section 51 applies in relation to the responsible person.
(Original emphasis.)
Section 50 of the Assessment Act applies if, having regard to all the circumstances, the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person has a pattern of care, the section states:
50 Determination of percentage of care—responsible person has had etc. a pattern of care for a child
(1)This section applies if:
(a)either of the following applies:
(i)     an application is made under section 25 or 25A for a parent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child;
(ii)     a parent is taken under section 73A to have had a relevant dependent child from a day specified in that section;
and the Registrar is satisfied that a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances; or
(b)both of the following apply:
(i)     the determination of a responsible person’s percentage of care for a child that was made under section 49 or this section is revoked or suspended under Subdivision C of this Division, except under paragraph 54FA(3)(b) or 54HA(3)(b);
(ii)     the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances.
(2)The Registrar must determine the responsible person’s percentage of care for the child during the care period.
(3)The percentage determined under subsection (2) must be a percentage that corresponds with the actual care of the child that the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, during the care period.
(4)Subsection (3) does not apply if section 51 applies in relation to the responsible person.
(Original emphasis.)
Section 5 of the Assessment Act defines “responsible person for a child” as “a parent or non-parent carer of the child”.
Section 54F, 54G and 54H provides the circumstances under which the existing care determination must be revoked, the sections state in part:
54F Determination must be revoked if there is a change to the responsible person’s cost percentage
(1)The Registrar must revoke a determination of a responsible person’s percentage of care (the existing percentage of care) for a child made under section 49 or 50 if:
(a)the Registrar or Secretary is notified, or otherwise becomes aware, that the care of the child that is actually taking place does not correspond with the responsible person’s existing percentage of care for the child; and
(b)the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person’s cost percentage for the child would change if the Registrar were to determine, under section 49 or 50, another percentage to be the person’s percentage of care for the child; and
(c)section 54G does not apply; and
(d)subsection (2) applies in relation to the individual.
…
(3)The revocation of the determination takes effect at the end of:
(a)if the Registrar or Secretary is notified, or otherwise becomes aware, of the matter referred to in paragraph (1)(a) within 28 days after the change of care day for the responsible person--the day before the change of care day; or
(b)if the Registrar or Secretary is notified, or otherwise becomes aware, of that matter more than 28 days after the change of care day for the responsible person and:
o the responsible person's care of the child has increased--the day before the Registrar or Secretary is notified, or otherwise becomes aware, of that matter; or
o the responsible person's care of the child has reduced--the day before the change of care day.
54G Determination must be revoked if there is less than regular care etc.
(1)If:
(a)a responsible person (the first responsible person) for a child was to have at least regular care of the child during a care period under a determination (the first care determination) made under section 50; and
(b)the first responsible person has had no care of the child, or has had a pattern of care that is less than regular care of the child, despite another responsible person for the child making the child available to the first responsible person; and
(c)a determination of the other responsible person’s percentage of care for the child has been made under section 50; and
(d)the other responsible person notifies the Registrar or the Secretary of the matter referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection within a period that the Registrar considers is reasonable in the circumstances;
the Registrar must revoke both determinations.
(2)The revocation of each determination takes effect:
(a)if the first responsible person never established a pattern of care in accordance with the first care determination—at the beginning of the application day for that determination; or
(b)if the first responsible person established a pattern of care in accordance with the first care determination but later ceased the established pattern of care—at the end of the day before the day on which the person ceased the previously established pattern of care.
(3)To avoid doubt, a responsible person never establishes a pattern of care if:
(a)the responsible person could not have established the pattern of care until a particular period that occurs later in a child support period; and
(b)the responsible person does not establish that pattern during that particular period.
54H Registrar may revoke a determination of a responsible person’s percentage of care
(1)The Registrar may revoke a determination of a responsible person’s percentage of care (the existing percentage of care) for a child made under section 49 or 50 if:
(a)the Registrar or Secretary is notified, or otherwise becomes aware, that the care of the child that is actually taking place does not correspond with the responsible person’s existing percentage of care for the child; and
(b)the Registrar is satisfied that, if the Registrar were to determine, under section 49 or 50, another percentage to be the responsible person’s percentage of care for the child, the other percentage would not be the same as the person’s existing percentage of care for the child; and
(c)sections 54F, 54FA and 54G do not apply; and
(d)subsection (2) applies in relation to the individual.
…
(Original emphasis; notes removed.)
Section 55C of the Assessment Act provides the framework to determine the cost percentage of the parents based upon their percentage of care for the child.
Section 12(2AA) of the Assessment Act explains the “happening of child support terminating event” and states in part:
(2AA)A child support terminating event happens in relation to a child if:
(a)both of the parents of the child are not eligible carers of the child; and
(b)there are no non‑parent carers entitled to be paid child support in relation to the child; and
Section 74 of the Assessment Act states:
74 Registrar to give effect to happening of child support terminating events etc.
(1)If:
(a)child support is payable for a child; and
(b)the Registrar is notified of, or otherwise becomes aware of:
(i) the happening of a child support terminating event in relation to the child, a liable parent, or a carer entitled to child support, or all 3; or
(ii) the happening of an event or change of circumstances that affects the annual rate at which the child support is payable under this Act;
the Registrar must immediately take such action as is necessary to take account of the happening of the event or change of circumstances (whether by amending any administrative assessment or otherwise).
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) is to be taken to prevent the Registrar from taking such action as the Registrar considers appropriate to take account of the likely happening of an event or change of circumstances of which the Registrar is notified or otherwise becomes aware (whether by amending any administrative assessment or otherwise).
(Original emphasis.)
CONSIDERATIONS
As outlined above, there was some dispute between the Applicant and the Other Party in relation to when the Applicant ceased to provide care for child S. The Other Party’s view was that the Applicant ceased to provide care for child S from 10 September 2019 on the basis that child S was no longer living with the Applicant from 10 September 2019. However, the Applicant maintained her position that since May 2019 child S was living with her and she was providing ongoing primary care to the child.
In this matter, therefore, the Tribunal must determine the percentage of care that the Applicant and Other Party had for child S during the Relevant Care Period.
Section 54A of the Assessment Act provides that the actual care for the child can be determined by calculating the number of nights that the child was, or is likely to be, in care of the person, during the Relevant Care Period. The section states:
54A Working out actual care, and extent of care, of a child
(1)The actual care of a child that a person has had, or is likely to have, during a care period may be worked out based on the number of nights that the Registrar is satisfied that the child was, or is likely to be, in the care of the person during the care period.
(2)The extent of care of a child that a person should have had, or is to have, under a care arrangement during a care period may be worked out based on the number of nights that the child should have been, or is to be, in the care of the person during the care period under the care arrangement.
(3)For the purposes of this section, a child cannot be in the care of more than one person at the same time.
(4)This section does not limit section 50, 51, 53B or 54.
In Polec & Staker, the Court has outlined the following factors:[3]
[3] (2011) 253 FLR 339, [56]–[57].
[56]In my view, in determining whether and to what extent a person has care of a child for the purpose of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, it is necessary to consider the following:
a)To what extent does the person meet the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, child care, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra curricular activities?
b)To what extent does the person make arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child?
c)To what extent does the person pay for the costs of meeting the needs of the child?
d)To what extent does the person otherwise provide financial support for the child?
e)To what extent does the child provide for his or her own needs or have those needs met from another source?
f)To what extent is the child financially independent or financially supported from another source?
[57]An analysis of the evidence in relation to these considerations should assist the Tribunal in determining whether or not there has been a child support terminating event or a change in the percentage of care for the child provided by the first respondent.

Further, the Guide at 2.2.1 states:
Determining whether care exists
An object of the CSA Act is 'that persons who provide ongoing daily care for children should be able to have the level of financial support to be provided for the children readily determined without the need to resort to court proceedings' (section 4(2)(c)). The CSA Act does not define the term 'ongoing daily care', however the Registrar will take into account a number of factors in determining whether a person cares for a child.
In most cases, it will be relatively clear whether and to what extent a person is caring for a child. However, where there is doubt, the Registrar will consider whichever of the following are relevant to the particular case:
·To what extent the person has control of the child, including having overall responsibility for the child and making
o major decisions relating to who the child spends time with and the child's health, education, discipline, recreational and/or social activities, and
o arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child (delegated care).
·To what extent the person meets the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, child care, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra-curricular activities.
·To what extent the person pays for the costs of meeting the needs of the child.
·To what extent the person otherwise provides financial support for the child.
·To what extent the child provides for his or her own needs or has those needs met from another source.
·To what extent the child is financially independent or financially supported from another source.
Consideration of the Evidence
During her oral evidence the Applicant maintained her assertion that child S was in her care from May 2019 and did not cease being in her care until July 2021.[4] The Applicant further elaborated on her situation and told the Tribunal that she had left the family home in December 2018 and was in temporary accommodation until May 2019 when she rented a property close to her daughter’s school. The Applicant lodged her application for child support in July 2019, even though her daughter had been living with her since May 2019. Prior to that, the Applicant and her husband separated in December 2016, however they both remained in the same family home until she left in December 2018. From December 2018 until May 2019 child S sometimes stayed with her friend.[5]
[4] Transcript, 15.
[5] Ibid 8–15.
On questioning the Other Party in relation to child S’s living arrangements, the Other Party gave the following response to the Tribunal:[6]
MEMBER:WPPN, you’ve rung the department and told them that [child S] was living – on 9 August 2019 you’ve emailed the department and said, “[child S] just moved in with her mum. Before this, she lived with her girlfriend and parents for a very long time.” There was a letter from [child’s friend’s mother] saying that [child S] had been living with her since April 2017 to now, but for two weeks at the end of August 2019. Is there anything you wanted to add to that?
WPPN:There’s not really much to add, except to say that I would go over there quite often, and [child S] was always there. I have met [child S] at the bus stop and picked her up and taken her back there; I’ve gone to take her to the shops at Coles and bought stuff to take back to [child’s friend’s mother, Ms B]’s. And [child S’s friend] was there all the time, even when – went around there when – and [child S] wasn’t there, [child S’s friend] was. He lived around – he only lives around the corner from that house. It’s where his parents’ house is.
MEMBER:But did you have evidence that [child S] was living at that house?
WPPN: Only that – yes, yes, she was
MEMBER:Or that you just observed her there?
WPPN: Yes, was there all the time. Pick her up, take her home there.
[6] Ibid 16.
In response to direct questioning from the Tribunal regarding whether the Other Party had direct knowledge that child S was living at her friend’s house and not with the Applicant he said that he had not been in the friend’s house to see her living arrangements and referred the Tribunal to the letter from Ms B. This letter dated 17 October 2019 stated: “[t]his is a letter of confirmation that [child S] has been living with myself [name redacted] and my family since April 2017 through to this current date with an exception of a 2 week period at the end of August 2019 when [child S] went and stayed with her mother”.[7] The Tribunal notes that although this letter was signed, it was not sworn by the writer.
[7] Exhibit R1, 50.
The Applicant provided extracts of text messages between herself and child S which tended to indicate that they lived together. The Tribunal was also provided with photographs of child S’s bedroom in her mother’s house. A statement of Mr H was also admitted into evidence. He is a current housemate of the Applicant and stated that child S was living with her mother.
The Applicant has given sworn evidence that child S was living with her from May 2019 until July 2021. The Other Party has said he observed child S at her friend’s house and that the friend’s mother, Ms B had said she was living with them. Ms B did not give sworn evidence and has only provided a letter, referred in paragraph [25] above. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Tribunal will give greater weight to the sworn, oral evidence of the Applicant.
When asked if he had any direct evidence that child S was not living with the Applicant during the Relevant Care Period, the Other Party said he did not. The Tribunal notes that the Other Party failed to provide any direct evidence of child S living in her friend’s house during the Relevant Care Period other than his own testimony that on few occasions he picked up and dropped child S to her friend’s house and that the child also had a room in the house where three children excluding child S were already living.
The Tribunal notes that the evidence provided by the Applicant is corroborated by various text messages which were indicative of a living together arrangement as well as the photos provided of child S’s bedroom. The Tribunal considered the Applicant to be a credible witness, who provided a detailed account of her own recollection and also provided corroborative documentary evidence in the form of text messages and photographs. In circumstances such as this where the Tribunal has the corroborated sworn evidence attesting positively to a fact, the Tribunal will give greater weight to that evidence.
As noted above, the Tribunal can also have regard to “other factors” when considering the percentage of care.
Given that the Other Party did not give any evidence that he provided any care to the child during the Relevant Care Period, rather the Other Party’s evidence was that child S was in the care of the third party, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no basis to find the Other Party had any percentage of care of child S during the relevant period.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that child S was living with the Applicant from May 2019 until July 2021.
As such, without any responsive evidence from the Other Party, the Tribunal finds that the percentage of care attributed to the Applicant during this time is 100%.
Date of effect
Section 43 of the AAT Act states in part:
43 Tribunal’s decision on review
…
(6)A decision of a person as varied by the Tribunal, or a decision made by the Tribunal in substitution for the decision of a person, shall, for all purposes (other than the purposes of applications to the Tribunal for a review or of appeals in accordance with section 44), be deemed to be a decision of that person and, upon the coming into operation of the decision of the Tribunal, unless the Tribunal otherwise orders, has effect, or shall be deemed to have had effect, on and from the day on which the decision under review has or had effect.
(Original emphasis.)
Section 95N of the Collection Act states:
Date of effect of AAT first review decision relating to care percentage decision
(1)If:
(a)on AAT first review, the AAT varies or substitutes a decision on an objection to a care percentage decision; and
(b)the application for AAT first review was made more than 28 days, or, if the applicant is a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction, 90 days, after notice of the decision was given;
then, despite subsection 43(6) of the AAT Act, the decision as varied or substituted by the AAT has or is taken to have had effect on and from the day the application for AAT first review was made.
(2)If the AAT is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the application for AAT first review being made within the period referred to in paragraph (1)(b), the AAT may determine that subsection (1) applies as if:
(a)for an applicant who is a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction--the reference to 90 days in that paragraph were a reference to such longer period as the AAT determines to be appropriate; or
(b)otherwise--the reference to 28 days in that paragraph were a reference to such longer period as the AAT determines to be appropriate.
(3)The AAT must give written notice of a decision to make, or not to make, a determination under subsection (2) in relation to a person, to each person affected by the decision.
Note: The AAT's decision about the determination is reviewable (see paragraph 96A(c)). The review is an AAT second review.
The Respondent contends that s 95N of the Collections Act applies in the present matter which restricts the operation of s 43(6) of the AAT Act. Accordingly, the date of effect of the Tribunal’s decision would be limited to 19 August 2020 being the day on which the Applicant applied to the AAT1 for review.
The Tribunal explained to the Applicant that this could be altered if she was able to demonstrate special circumstances which had prevented her from lodging her application for review on time.
The Applicant said she had been depressed and had been stressed due to her uncertain living situation. Unfortunately, however, no evidence medical or otherwise was provided to the Tribunal.
In Singleton and Secretary, Department of Social Services[8], Member K Parker explained that the special circumstance must have “prevented” the applicant from making its claim and it is not sufficient for the special circumstance to be merely challenging or difficult, the circumstances “must have been such that they served as an insurmountable block, hindrance or impediment to the lodgement taking place within the required time frame”.[9]
[8] [2019] AATA 766.
[9] Ibid [42].
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that special circumstances exist in this matter which prevented the Applicant to lodge her application such that the date of effect of its decision can be changed from 19 August 2020, being the day on which the Applicant applied to AAT1 for review.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal finds that there is sufficient evidence that child S was in the Applicant’s care for the Relevant Care Period. As such, the Tribunal concludes that the care percentage attributed to the Applicant of child S is 100% and therefore, the Reviewable Decision should be revoked and replaced with the decision set out below in paragraph [42].
DECISION
The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of Administrative Appeals Tribunal, dated 30 September 2020, is set aside, insofar as it determined that neither party had care of the child for the duration of the Relevant Care Period, and substituted with the decision that the Applicant provided 100% care of the child and the Other Party provided 0% care of the child during the Relevant Care Period. The date of effect of the Tribunal’s decision is 19 August 2020.

I certify that the preceding 42 (forty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member M East

........................[Sgd]................................................
Associate
Dated: 16 December 2021

Date of hearing: 19 November 2021

Counsel for the Respondent: Amy Simpson

Solicitors for the Respondent: Services Australia

Applicant and Other Party: In person

[2021] AATA 4666

16 December 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Date of hearing:	19 November 2021
Counsel for the Respondent:	Amy Simpson
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Services Australia
Applicant and Other Party:	In person