Kocaburak and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2018] AATA 942

Kocaburak and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 942 (16 April 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2017/3071
Re:Mrs Gulter Kocaburak
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Ms Anna Burke, Member
Date:16 April 2018
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...........[sgd].............................................................
Ms Anna Burke, Member
SOCIAL SECURITY – entitlement to age pension – residence requirement – requirement of 10 years qualifying Australian residence – whether claimant had resided in Australia for a continuous period of not less than 10 years – where Act requires decision-maker to have regard to nature and extent of various factors – decision affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Cases
Hafza v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 6 FCR 444
Re Houchar and Director-General of Social Security [1984] AATA 47
Re Moore and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 669
Secretary, Department of Families and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs v Baccon (2006) 90 ALD 557
Secondary Materials
Guide to Social Security Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms Anna Burke, Member
16 April 2018
INTRODUCTION

Mrs Kocaburak (the Applicant) is seeking a second tier review of the decision made by a delegate of the Secretary, Department of Social Services (the Respondent) to refuse to grant her the age pension.
On 10 October 2016 Centrelink found that Mrs Kocaburak did not have 10 years qualifying Australian residence as required by the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and rejected her claim for the age pension. Centrelink is the service provider for the Department of Social Services.
The application was heard on 31 January 2018. Mrs Kocaburak was not present at the hearing, her son Mr Bilgin Kocaburak acted as her representative. Mr James Henderson, government lawyer in the Freedom of Information and Litigation Team, Department of Human Services appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal was assisted by a Turkish interpreter, Ms Hulya Kasap.
THE ISSUES IN CONTENTION
The issue in contention is whether Mrs Kocaburak has 10 years qualifying Australian residence to qualify her for the age pension.
BACKGROUND
Mrs Kocaburak, is a 69 year old widow who first migrated to Australia from Turkey in 2006 on a subclass 143 Contributory Parent (Migrant) Permanent Resident Visa. On arrival in Australia she stayed with her daughter, who was in full-time employment, having migrated to Australia in 1993. Mrs Kocaburak currently resides with her son in a home owned by her daughter. Her son, Mr Bilgin Kocaburak migrated to Australia in 2007, after his mother. He is her full-time carer due to her mental and physical impairments; she has been assessed as needing assistance with her personal, domestic and community tasks. Mrs Kocaburak currently receives a pension from Turkey and is in receipt of a widow allowance from Centrelink.
On 11 September 2006 Mrs Kocaburak first arrived in Australia.
On 16 October 2007 Mrs Kocaburak departed Australia for Turkey with her son.
On 20 March 2008 her son returned to Australia while Mrs Kocaburak remained in Turkey.
On 22 May 2013 Mrs Kocaburak returned to Australia from Turkey after around five years and seven months.
On 19 September 2016 Mrs Kocaburak made an application for the age pension.
On 10 October 2016 Centrelink rejected Mrs Kocaburak’s claim for an age pension as she did not have 10 years qualifying residence in Australia as required by the Act.
On 31 October 2016 on internal review, a departmental Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed the original decision and found that:
You have said that originally you left Australia with your son to accompany him to Turkey. When he returned to Australia you remained in Turkey. You have said that you were ill and unable to return to Australia and that your health was deteriorating while you were in Turkey.
The reason your claim was rejected was because it was determined that you were living in Turkey and not in Australia between October 2007 and May 2013 and therefore were not a resident of Australia in this period. You have said that you were wanting to return to Australia and were unable to because of your medical conditions and that you needed assistance to return and your children could not help you.
That withstanding, my underlying opinion is that you were living in Turkey and not in Australia regardless of your intentions to return to Australia at some stage in the future and therefore that in this period you were not a resident of Australia. The decision to reject your claim is therefore correct.
On 10 May 2017 the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal (AAT1) affirmed the decision of the ARO finding that Mrs Kocaburak did not meet the requirements of having 10 years qualifying Australian residence as required under subsection 43(1)(a) of the Act when she lodged her claim for age pension on 19 September 2016. The Member found:
In relation to the factors set out in subsection 7(3) of the Act the tribunal has found that when she was outside Australia from October 2007 to May 2013 Mrs Kocaburak lived in a house which she partly owned, she received a widow pension and she maintained relationships with family and neighbours from whom she received assistance while living in the village. The tribunal has also found that Mrs Kocaburak’s strongest family ties and relationship were with her daughter and son who lived in Australia. She had stable accommodation in Australia. Her only asset in Australia was her bank account. The tribunal had no reason to doubt the evidence Mrs Kocaburak presented that she intended to return to Australia and to live in Australia permanently as her home. However, after having regard to the length of time for which Mrs Kocaburak was outside Australia the tribunal was satisfy, after taking into account all the factors set out in subsection 7(3) of the Act that the weight of evidence was consistent with Mrs Kocaburak not being an Australian resident under subsection 7(2) of the Act from 16 October 2007 to 23 May 2013.
On 25 May 2017 Mrs Kocaburak sought a review of the AAT1 decision by this Division of the Tribunal claiming the decision was wrong: because I think the decision is wrong as the information I have provided through my submission and hearing was not taken into consideration and the law was not applied correctly.
Relevant Legislation and Issues
Section 43 of the Act provides that a person is qualified for an age pension if:
(1) A person is qualified for an age pension if the person has reached pension age and any of the following applies:
(a) the person has 10 years qualifying Australian residence;
(b) the person has a qualifying residence exemption for an age pension;…
Section 7(2) of the Act defines Australian resident as a person who:
(a) resides in Australia; and
(b) is one of the following:
(i) an Australian citizen;
(ii) the holder of a permanent visa;
(iii) a special category visa holder who is a protected SCV holder.
Section 7(3) of the Act outlines how to determine whether or not a person is residing in Australia, stipulating that regard must be given to:
(a) the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia;
and
(b) the nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in
Australia; and
(c) the nature and extent of the person’s employment, business or
financial ties with Australia; and
(d) the nature and extent of the person’s assets located in Australia;
and
(e) the frequency and duration of the person’s travel outside
Australia; and
(f) any other matter relevant to determining whether the person
intends to remain permanently in Australia.
Section 7(5) of the Act states a person has 10 years qualifying Australian residence if and only if:
(a) the person has, at any time, been an Australian resident for a
continuous period of not less than 10 years; or
(b) the person has been an Australian resident during more than one
period and:
(i) at least one of those periods is 5 years or more; and
(ii) the aggregate of those periods exceeds 10 years.
The Guide to Social Security Law (the Guide) at 3.1.1.10 outlines residence requirements when determining whether a person is residing in Australia:
1. Frequency & duration of the person's travel outside Australia
A person does not need to be continuously present in a country in order to be residing there. A person holidaying or working temporarily overseas does not necessarily cease to reside in Australia while they are away.
It is necessary to find the reason for being overseas and to look closely at the pattern and duration of time spent outside Australia in order to ascertain whether a person continues to reside in Australia. For Australian residence to be maintained during an absence, a person must demonstrate continued physical ties to Australia, the absence must be for a short duration, there must be a purpose for the absence and there must be a proposed end date for the absence.
Taken in isolation, a 3 year continuous absence would be regarded as an upper limit to still being considered residing in Australia, unless there are special circumstances delaying a return. When looking at the pattern and duration of time spent outside Australia, if a person regularly spends more than 6 months a year outside Australia, then their residence in Australia is questionable.
The purpose of an overseas absence may indicate whether a person continues to reside in Australia. The reason should be consistent with the intended length of the absence. For example, a person working on an 18 month overseas contract posting would still be considered to reside in Australia as long as they have demonstrated ongoing physical ties to Australia and a commitment to return to Australia at the end of the posting.
It is not uncommon for a person to remain overseas for a lengthy period of time but state that they intend to return to Australia to live at some uncertain, future date. In general, when a person states that they are leaving Australia temporarily with the intention of returning to Australia, the person's 'intent' becomes less of a factor as the length of the absence increases. A person's physical ties with a country will normally take precedence over their intentions when lengthy periods of time are involved.
A person who has spent the majority of their time overseas in the last few years and who returns to Australia to claim a benefit will not necessarily be eligible from the day they return to Australia. The person must demonstrate that their physical ties with Australia have been re-established, or are in the process of being established and that they intend to reside again in Australia.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The evidence before the Tribunal included documents provided pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, referred to as the “T documents”, the Applicant’s application for review and submissions provided by Mrs Kocaburak’s son.
Mrs Kocaburak has only been physically present in Australia for some six years. Having arrived in Australia in 2006, she was only here for 13 months before she accompanied her son on a trip to Turkey and remained in Turkey for some five years and seven months, returning to Australia in 2013.
Mrs Kocaburak has consistently maintained that her intention was to remain in Australia permanently when she migrated in 2006. However, in 2007 when her son decided to return to Turkey for a holiday she felt compelled to accompany him as she was greatly concerned about his mental health; he was suffering severe depression and anxiety at the time. Their intention was to remain in Turkey for no longer than a few months, staying in the house her husband had left her and the children which she had left furnished when she had migrated in 2006. Mrs Kocaburak’s son advised the Tribunal at the hearing that his mother had relocated to this house in 2003 when his father had passed away, that she had taken all her furniture and heavy stuff to the house in the village. That when she migrated to Australia she had left all this behind as it was too difficult and heavy to relocate. That she had only brought clothing and other small items, he thought at best she had taken one cooking pot and a Turkish coffee kettle when she migrated to Australia. Mrs Kocaburak and her son did not purchase a return ticket when they left for this short stay.
Mrs Kocaburak and her son maintain they argued whilst they were in Turkey and he returned to Australia in March 2008 leaving his mother behind, he expressed some guilt for this action during the course of the Tribunal hearing. Mrs Kocaburak and her son then maintain that she was physically and mentally unable to return to Australia unaccompanied until 2013 when the family finally had the financial and physical means to accompany her on her return journey.
The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether Mrs Kocaburak could be considered as residing in Australia as required by subsection 7(2)(a) of the Act during the period 16 October 2007 to 23 May 2013 in order to satisfy the age pension requirement of 10 years qualifying residency.
Submissions
Mrs Kocaburak’s son contended that his mother had 10 years qualifying residence in Australia as she was still a resident of Australia despite her absence for about five years and seven months.
The Respondent contends that Mrs Kocaburak did not have the necessary connection to Australia whilst in Turkey from October 2007 to May 2013. He argued that Turkey was her home and had been since her birth except for the brief period of 13 months she had stayed in Australia (at least until 2013).
The Respondent submitted Mrs Kocaburak was not entitled to an age pension as she did not satisfy the 10 years qualifying Australian residence requirement, had only spent about six years residing in Australia and the rest of her life had been settled in Turkey.
Mrs Kocaburak’s son contended that it is well-established in the law and case law that residency has two parts, one being physical presence in a place and the other being an intention to live in that place permanently. When there is an absence, the test to follow to determine residency is to look at the ties maintained with the place and the intention to return and to treat that places as home.
In order to continue to be a resident, an intention to return to Australia and treat that Australian residence as a home should exist during the absence; not at some time in the future. Intention to return during an absence should be realised as soon as possible when there are no impediments delaying a return or when the purpose of the temporary absence ends. When there is a lengthy period of absence, the absence should not be chosen willingly but it should be caused by compelling reasons preventing someone from returning to Australia such as ill-health, war, natural disaster or visa problems. Or some responsibility or obligation such as being sent overseas for work or mission, family problems and caring for a sick relative. Staying in a place long-term willingly, without any compelling reason may indicate attachment to the place and therefore an indication of residency. However, this is not true when there are conditions preventing someone from returning to a place and living there permanently. Mrs Kocaburak’s son referred to the case of Hafza v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 6 FCR 444 (Hafza); where the appellant had been absent Australia for four years. Wilcox J stated that:
The Tribunal accepted that, if these reasons had in truth prevented an earlier return, the extension period would be a “temporary” absence. I think that this is correct because, under those circumstances, the absence would remain governed by the intention to fulfil a particular purpose and then return to Australia, the prolongation of the absence being imposed upon the appellant and her husband against their will. There may be a point at which an extension becomes so great that, even under these circumstances, the absence can no longer be described as “temporary”, but that is probably not so this case.
Mrs Kocaburak’s son argued that his mother’s case was analogous to that considered by Justice Wilcox above and therefore consideration should be given to her special circumstances, her dependent nature, her declining mental, physical health and cognitive abilities, her financial hardship and the fact that she needed assistance returning to Australia. That in Australia she had continued family ties, access to permanent accommodation, financial and emotional security and her personal belongings, even though they were not of substantial value. He argued she does not have any strong attachment to Turkey.
Mrs Kocaburak’s son asserted that the numerous factors in section 7(3) of the Act which are used to determine residency could not be considered exhaustive and should not be assessed mechanically, as indicated by the case law. He argued that some of these factors may show stronger indications in regards to someone’s connection to a place and intention to live in that place when compared to other factors. Further, some of the factors were not relevant or important but others were obviously of significant importance and he contended that her strongest family connection was to Australia, her permanent accommodation was here and this indicated she was resident at all times in Australia.
Mrs Kocaburak’s son also cited numerous Federal Court and Tribunal decisions which have considered the concept of residency on numerous occasions over many years. One such case he relied upon was Re Moore and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 669. In this instance, the applicant was an Australian citizen and the issue in question was residency. The Senior Member found:
It is inescapable that the Applicant was not physically present in Australia during the relevant period. However, he did not intend to make any other place – neither Asia in general nor Thailand in particular – his “home”.
The respondent referred me to Re Issa and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1985) 8 ALN N177, [1985] AATA 184, where it was held that if a person continues to reside overseas after fulfilling their singular specific, passing purpose, their absence may be considered indefinite rather than temporary. In this case before me now, at the conclusion of the work contract the Applicant returned to Australia.
In summary therefore I find that, taking the evidence as a whole, that the Applicant remained an Australian resident during the relevant period.
Mrs Kocaburak’s son argued that this case and numerous others cited supported his contention that his mother was a resident of Australia at all times regardless of her temporary absence in Turkey. However, counter arguments have also been put such as in the decision in Secretary, Department of Families and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs v Baccon (2006) 90 ALD 557 as per Branson J:
The nature of residence
[7] Residence, like domicile, is a factor that connects a person with a place. It is not a term of art; the precise meaning of expressions such as “resident”, “resides in” and “is residing in” in legislation will depend upon the context provided by, and the purpose of, that legislation.
[8] As a general concept, residence has two elements: a physical presence in a particular place and the intention to treat that place as home (Hafza v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 6 FCR 444 at 449; 60 ALR 674 at 680; Taslim v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2004) 138 FCR 70; 83 ALD 398; [2004] FCA 789 at [36]).
[9] Of course, once a person has established a home in a place, temporary absence from that place (for example, to take a holiday) does not bring the residence to an end. However, a person’s residence in a place in which he or she is not present, depends on an intention to return and continue to treat that place as home (Hafza at FCR 449-50; ALR 680-1).
[10] Again, as a general concept, although most people reside in only one place, residence need not be exclusive; a person may reside in more than one place (Re Taylor; Ex parte Natwest Australia Bank Ltd (1992) 37 FCR 194 at 198). For example, an individual who maintains two homes (say, one in Melbourne and one on the Gold Coast) and moves between them according to the seasons may be a resident of both places.

He also outlined to the Tribunal the numerous issues, including her physical and mental well-being and financial constraints, which had prevented his mother returning to Australia for such a lengthy period of time, and indicated that all these factors were beyond his mother’s control.
Mrs Kocaburak’s son advised the Tribunal that neither his mother nor he or his sister were aware of the 10 years qualifying residency requirement when they applied for his mother’s Australian age pension. They were aware of her contributory parent visa requirements which prohibited his mother from accessing the age or disability pension for 10 years from the date she arrived in Australia. They had been advised that if his mother had applied for any such benefit an equivalent amount would have been deducted from his sister’s $10,000 assurance bond the government was holding. He also rejected the Respondent’s assertion that his mother returned to Australia in 2013 because she had reached pension age, this he strongly asserted was not supported by the evidence as his mother had not sought to claim any benefit until 2016.
The Respondent submits that Mrs Kocaburak did not have the necessary connection to Australia whilst in Turkey from October 2007 to May 2013 as Turkey had been her home for nearly 60 years, except for a brief 13 month stay in Australia. The Respondent submitted Mrs Kocaburak was settled in Turkey during this lengthy period living independently and her centre of gravity could not have shifted from Turkey to Australia, after a brief 13 months. The Respondent did not accept that Mrs Kocaburak was unable to return to Australia during this period having noted she travelled to Australia in 2006 on her own, had elected to accompany her son back to Turkey in 2007 and there was no corroborating evidence of her medical or financial condition to support such a lengthy forced absence from Australia.
Mrs Kocaburak’s son advised the Tribunal at the hearing that he and his sister could not simply put their lives on hold during the period 2007 to 2013 when his mother was temporarily in Turkey. They needed to work and study to provide for themselves and their mother, his sister had purchased a house and needed to pay the mortgage, he stated there were issues associated with his military service in Turkey if he returned during that period, he was dealing with his own mental health issues, and his mother’s return visa had expired and this needed to be dealt with. Further, no relative in Turkey was able to accompany his mother due to financial difficulties and work commitments, his mother’s health prohibited her travelling alone, he had explored assistance through various airlines to support his mother’s return travel to Australia but no such service was available and it was not until 2013 that he could afford to return to Turkey and bring his mother home.
CONSIDERATION
The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mrs Kocaburak’s absence from Australia could be considered temporary, as it was not relatively short in duration, noting the findings in Re Houchar and Director-General of Social Security [1984] AATA 47 as per Deputy President Thompson:
23…For a person's absence from Australia to be 'temporary only' for the purposes of sections 103 and 104 it must be intended not to last indefinitely. The intention may change during the period of absence; Re Kehagias was such a case.
24. Probably, if a person intends that the period of his absence should be related to a certain event...he should be taken to intend not to be absent indefinitely. There is, however, also another element in the concept of temporariness; that is transience. For an absence to be temporary, not only must it be intended not to last indefinitely but the time for which it is intended to last must not be of great length. That involves considerations of questions of degree which must be decided by reference to all the circumstances of the particular case…It may not have lasted as long as another person's absence which has been accepted as having been temporary. However, the question whether it was 'temporary only' has to be decided not by viewing it in retrospect but by reference to the person's intention during his absence, or rather to his intention at different stages of the absence.
And as per Wilcox J in Hafza at 17-18:
...it seems to me to be implied in the concept of "temporary" absence that the absence will be relatively short and that its duration will be either defined in advance or be related to the fulfillment of a specific, passing purpose…
The intention to return to Australia at the expiration of a particular time -- being, in recognition of the word "passing", relatively short -- will normally be a feature of an absence which, within the meaning of s.103(1)(d), may properly be described as temporary.
Additionally, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mrs Kocaburak’s absence from Australia was prolonged by an intention to fulfil a specific purpose, indeed the stated purpose of Mrs Kocaburak’s absence from Australia ceased when her son returned from Turkey in 2008 leaving his mother behind. In Hafza, regarding the appellant’s contention that their return to Australia was hampered by three factors, Wilcox J said the following at 21:
The Tribunal accepted that, if these reasons had in truth prevented an earlier return, the extension period would be a "temporary" absence. I think that this is correct because, under those circumstances, the absence would remain governed by the intention to fulfil a particular purpose and then return to Australia, the prolongation of the absence being imposed upon the appellant and her husband against their will. There may be a point at which an extension becomes so great that, even under those circumstances, the absence can no longer be described as "temporary" but that is probably not this case. The Tribunal put to Mrs Kocaburak’s son that the Australian public expect that recipients of taxpayer benefits, such as in the form of an Australian age pension, would necessarily have some connection to Australia. Particularly through having contributed to the taxation system as succinctly expressed in the decision of Secretary, Department of Families and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs v Baccon (2006) 90 ALD 557 by Branson J:
Residence for the purpose of the Social Security Act
[11] Pensions and other benefits under the Social Security Act are, of course, not available to everyone. A recipient of benefits paid for by Australian taxpayers is expected to have a connection with Australia. The necessary connection in the case of pensions and benefits payable under the Social Security Act, generally speaking, involves Australian residence.
…
[14] Section 7(3) of the Act recognises that an element of judgment is involved in determining whether or not a person is residing in Australia.
…
[15] As s 7(3)(f) reveals, for the purposes of the Act, it is, at the least, a relevant factor in determining whether a person is residing in Australia that he or she intends to remain permanently in Australia. ‘Permanently’ in this context does not mean forever, and it does not mean without ever leaving Australia whether for business or recreational purposes. It requires the person to have an enduring commitment to Australia as home (Taslim).
[16] It seems to me that it may be arguable that, in the context of the Act, a person cannot be an Australian resident and the resident of another country at the same time. Alternatively, it may be arguable that, in the context of the Act, a person cannot have been an Australian resident for any continuous period if he or she has, during that period, been a resident of, and resident in, another country.
Mrs Kocaburak’s son did not accept this proposition stating that he had seen a lot of people living in Australia who were not paying any taxes but were receiving benefits and that a lot of people avoid paying their taxes. He concurred that this argument had put been put to him on numerous occasions but he did not accepted that it applied to his mother who he said had paid in excess of $30,000 to secure her visa to come to Australia. He asserted that this application was not to do with being greedy or getting a benefit for which his mother was not entitled. He did not agree that his mother had been living independently in Turkey and stated that if Australia had not considered her resident in this period; he could not understand why had they kept his sister’s assurance of support and had continued to provide his mother with an Australian Medicare card.
The Tribunal having considered all the factors outlined in subsection 7(3) of the Act is not satisfied that Mrs Kocaburak was resident in Australia during her absence in Turkey from 2007 to 2013. Whilst the case law makes it clear that when making a determination there is no single factor which of itself is conclusive, the majority of cases and the Guide place most weight on time spent in Australia. Additionally, the Guide also states that taken in isolation, a three-year continuous absence would be the upper limit considered as residing in Australia unless there are special circumstances delaying return. The case law clearly articulates that the purpose of an overseas absence is relevant as an indication of whether a person continues to reside in Australia. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Mrs Kocaburak’s enduring ties were with Turkey, given Mrs Kocaburak’s short time spent in Australia before her departure and her lengthy stay in Turkey with no defined purpose.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal found little evidence beyond Mrs Kocaburak’s assertion that she intended to return one day to Australia and which she claimed proved her stay in Turkey was of a temporary nature. She had been resident in Australia for a very short time before her return to Turkey, which was of a significant duration. Mrs Kocaburak had few assets in Australia beyond a bank account, she did not hold a return air ticket when she left in 2007, she was residing in her furnished family home (be it of modest means) in Turkey, living independently and continuing her lifelong connection to that place.
The Tribunal accepts Mrs Kocaburak’s connection to Australia were her children, one whom she had supposedly argued with while on the return trip to Turkey, and one she had only seen 3 or 4 times at best over 16 years. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the alleged reasons for her non-return were established.
The Tribunal found Mrs Kocaburak had made little connection to Australia to consider her a resident of Australia whilst absent from Australia for such a lengthy period of time while in her country of birth.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 44 (forty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Anna Burke, Member

.............[sgd]......................................................
Associate
Dated: 16 April 2018

Date of hearing: 31 January 2018

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Bilgin Kocaburak

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr James Henderson
Department of Human Services

Date of hearing:	31 January 2018
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Bilgin Kocaburak
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr James Henderson Department of Human Services