JWKX and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by the Child Support Registrar regarding the percentage of care for a child between the applicant father (NDWG) and the respondent mother (JWKX). The core dispute revolved around determining the appropriate percentage of care for the child during specific periods, with the father contending for a 50%/50% arrangement from November 2018 onwards, while the mother argued for a 72%/28% split in her favour for most of that period, with a brief 50%/50% period in mid-2019.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included determining the actual percentage of care provided by each parent during relevant periods, assessing the credibility and quality of the evidence presented by both parties, and considering the jurisdictional limitations on the Tribunal's review powers, specifically concerning matters that had been before the Registrar or an objections officer. The Tribunal also had to decide whether to delay its determination pending the outcome of separate Federal Court proceedings involving similar issues, ultimately opting not to do so in favour of timely resolution.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on evaluating the competing calendars of care, text messages, and other documentary evidence. It found the father's evidence, supported by letters from his mother and grandmother, to be marginally more credible than the mother's, particularly in light of the mother's failure to effectively contradict it. The Tribunal noted that while a parenting plan suggested a 72%/28% split, the evidence indicated this was not adhered to, with the father claiming to provide more care. The extensive text message exchanges revealed a contentious discussion about a 50%/50% arrangement, with the mother eventually agreeing to trial it. Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that care took place in line with the existing care determination.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding no need to revoke the existing care determination based on the evidence presented and its assessment of the care percentages.