Larose and Gafford (Child support)

[2018] AATA 3998

Larose and Gafford (Child support) [2018] AATA 3998 (29 August 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2018/MC014692

APPLICANT:  Mr Larose

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Gafford

TRIBUNAL:Member K Buxton

DECISION DATE:  29 August 2018

CATCHWORDS

Child support - Percentage of care - No reasonable prospects of success - Application for review dismissed under paragraph 42B(1)(b) of the AAT Act

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.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

1. In this matter, Mr [Larose] seeks review of a decision of an objections officer of the Child Support Agency (CSA) dated 26 July 2018 in which his objection to a care determination in his child support case was disallowed. That determination recorded care for [Child 1] as in the 100% care of Ms [Gafford] and the 0% care of Mr [Larose] from 24 March 2016 when the child support case was first registered. A subsequent care determination had been made from 1 July 2017 with effect from 8 January 2018.

2. I convened a directions hearing today. Mr [Larose] stated that the decision was wrong because it did not have an “end date” yet Court orders had been made during 2017. It transpired that Mr [Larose] did not agree with the date of effect of the separate decision of the CSA in relation to Court-ordered care from 1 July 2017. That decision is not before the tribunal for review.

3. Mr [Larose] stated that Ms [Gafford] withheld care of [Child 1] in 2016 and he had wanted a higher level of care at that time. Mr [Larose] accepted that he told the CSA on 14 April 2016 that he was having about 52 nights of care of [Child 1], and that this was in the same bracket of care for determining cost percentages (0% to 14%) as in the decision under review. Mr [Larose] did not inform the CSA that the original care determination was incorrect when the decision was made, or during 2016 or prior to objecting to the decision on 29 May 2018 and he did not point to any reasons why he did not so inform them. During the directions hearing the tribunal explained to Mr [Larose] and to Ms [Gafford] why the review application was unlikely to produce a more favourable result. Ms [Gafford] agreed to a dismissal of the application. Mr [Larose] stated that he would not acquiesce to a dismissal but that it was a matter for the tribunal do so determine.

4. It follows that Mr [Larose] does not have any real prospect of obtaining a more favourable decision on review. It is therefore appropriate to dismiss his application under subsection 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success. I determine accordingly.