Lacey and Crawford (Child support)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by the Registrar of Child Support regarding the percentage of care of two children attributed to their parents, Mrs Lacey and Mr Crawford. The dispute arose from Mrs Lacey's objection to a care determination made by a delegate on 19 June 2020, which was subsequently disallowed by an objections officer. Mrs Lacey then sought a further review by the AAT.

The Tribunal was required to determine the previously recorded percentages of care, whether a change in the pattern of care had occurred for either child, and if so, what that change was and when it commenced. The Tribunal also needed to ascertain which provisions of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1988* applied, and what the correct care percentages were for each child and from what dates they should be effective. The Tribunal's role was to review the legal correctness of the delegate's decision of 19 June 2020, considering the evidence available at that time, as supplemented by further material provided to the objections officer and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the previous pattern of care, for the purposes of the review, was the 100% care attributed to Mrs Lacey from 5 April 2020, which had not been objected to. By early May 2020, the parents had made an arrangement for sharing care, with different levels of care for each child. The Tribunal considered the actual care that had occurred since May 2020, noting that much of the evidence provided was based on expectations rather than actual occurrences. For the younger child, the Tribunal determined that Mrs Lacey had 33% care and Mr Crawford had 67% care from 5 May 2020. For the older child, the Tribunal found that Mr Crawford had 33% care and Mrs Lacey had 67% care from 12 May 2020 until 18 October 2020.

The Tribunal affirmed the objections officer's decision, concluding that the care percentages determined by the delegate on 19 June 2020, and subsequently upheld by the objections officer, were correct based on the evidence of the pattern of care that had emerged. Consequently, the application for review was not successful, and there would be no changes to the child support assessment.