KMDB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 5536
•23 December 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
KMDB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2019] AATA 5536
[2019] AATA 5536
23 December 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a review of a child support determination made by the Child Support Registrar, which had been affirmed by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred on the percentage of care each parent had for their children, with the Registrar's decision reflecting 35% care for the Father and 65% for the Mother. The Mother sought a review, contending that this determination did not accurately reflect the actual pattern of care arising from the practical application of existing parenting orders.
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there had been a change in the pattern of care since the previous determination, whether the existing care determination should be revoked, and if so, what the correct percentage of care should be and from what date. The Mother argued that care should be assessed based on hours rather than nights, and that the calculation of nights from the parenting orders was incorrect. The Father maintained that the current arrangement, based on nights and in accordance with the parenting orders, was correct. The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate basis for calculating care percentages and to assess the accuracy of the existing care determination.
The Tribunal considered the Social Security Guide, which generally bases care determinations on the number of nights children spend with each parent, with calculations based on hours being reserved for exceptional circumstances. The parenting orders stipulated specific arrangements for school terms and holidays, including overnight stays. The Tribunal found that the previous decision was not based on an accurate calculation of the actual nights spent with each parent according to the orders. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision and remitted the matter for redetermination.
The Tribunal ordered that the care period be 12 months from 29 November 2018, with a revised care arrangement of 32% for the Father and 78% for the Mother.
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there had been a change in the pattern of care since the previous determination, whether the existing care determination should be revoked, and if so, what the correct percentage of care should be and from what date. The Mother argued that care should be assessed based on hours rather than nights, and that the calculation of nights from the parenting orders was incorrect. The Father maintained that the current arrangement, based on nights and in accordance with the parenting orders, was correct. The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate basis for calculating care percentages and to assess the accuracy of the existing care determination.
The Tribunal considered the Social Security Guide, which generally bases care determinations on the number of nights children spend with each parent, with calculations based on hours being reserved for exceptional circumstances. The parenting orders stipulated specific arrangements for school terms and holidays, including overnight stays. The Tribunal found that the previous decision was not based on an accurate calculation of the actual nights spent with each parent according to the orders. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision and remitted the matter for redetermination.
The Tribunal ordered that the care period be 12 months from 29 November 2018, with a revised care arrangement of 32% for the Father and 78% for the Mother.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
XQTJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2023] AATA 50
Cases Citing This Decision
1
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Rebecca Vendrell and Secretary, Department of Social Services Ian Vendrell OTHER PARTY
[2014] AATA 22
Gillson and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs
[2011] AATA 473
Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal)
[2011] FMCAfam 959