Locastro and Keogan (Child support)

[2021] AATA 3348

Locastro and Keogan (Child support) [2021] AATA 3348 (29 July 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/PC021468

APPLICANT:  Miss Locastro

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Keogan

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis

DECISION DATE:  29 July 2021

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – particulars of assessment – whether multi-case allowance was properly applied – whether other parent was party to multiple child support assessments – decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted 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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1. This review is about the decision to apply a multi-case allowance in the child support assessment for Mr Keogan.

2. Ms Locastro and Mr Keogan are the parents of [the child] (born March 2019). 

3. On 23 February 2021 the Child Support Agency made the decision to register a child support assessment for [the child] commencing from 8 January 2020.  Mr Keogan is the liable parent under the assessment which includes a multi-case allowance as Mr Keogan has another registered child support case.

4. On 25 March 2021 Ms Locastro objected to this decision and on 10 May 2021 the Child Support Agency disallowed the objection (the objection decision).

5. On 10 May 2021 Ms Locastro applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of the objection decision.

6. The Tribunal conducted a hearing into the application on 29 July 2021.  Ms Locastro gave evidence on affirmation by conference telephone.  The Tribunal wrote to Mr Keogan on 2 July 2021 advising that the application for review would be heard on 29 July 2021 at 11:30 am.  The Tribunal attempted to contact Mr Keogan on 7 July 2021 but without success.  On 28 July 2021 the Tribunal sent Mr Keogan an SMS text reminding him of the details of the hearing.  The Tribunal attempted to contact Mr Keogan at approximately 11:30 am on 29 July 2021 but was not successful.  Mr Keogan did not participate in the hearing.

7. The Child Support Agency provided the Tribunal and the parties with papers relevant to the matter (203 pages).  The Tribunal also received additional information from Ms Locastro (A1–A229).

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).

2. The Child Support Agency makes child support assessments for a child support period using a formula outlined in Part 5 of the Act.  The variables in the formula include the adjusted taxable incomes of both parents.  Section 40E of the Act provides a simplified outline of the income used in determining a parent’s capacity to meet the costs of their children.  It states that a parent’s income might be reduced by, amongst other things, a multi-case allowance if that parent has multiple child support cases.

3. The issue which arises in this case is whether or not the Child Support Agency made the legally correct decision to apply a multi-case allowance in the child support assessment for Mr Keogan.

CONSIDERATION

1. Ms Locastro told the Tribunal she did not dispute that Mr Keogan currently had another child support case registered with a third party, in this case, [Ms A].  Ms Locastro argued that because Mr Keogan had reconciled with [Ms A] he should no longer be eligible to receive a multi-case allowance on the basis of this other child support case.

2. Ms Locastro said that [Ms A] had informed her on 10 July 2019 that she was back together with Mr Keogan.  Ms Locastro said, in addition, Mr Keogan’s mother had also told her that he had reconciled with [Ms A].  Ms Locastro explained this was around the time in mid-2020 when she was trying to prove that Mr Keogan was [the child]’s father and was speaking on a regular basis to Mr Keogan’s mother who had been very supportive.

3. Ms Locastro told the Tribunal she was aware that Mr Keogan and [Ms A] had renewed their wedding vows in around November 2019, were having family holidays together and were a couple in every aspect.  Ms Locastro said Mr Keogan and [Ms A] were living together in a home in the [City] region of Queensland, although Mr Keogan still had his mail directed to his mother’s residence.  Ms Locastro said she had provided substantial evidence from social media to support her belief that Mr Keogan and [Ms A] had reconciled.  She said the social media posts highlighted the many activities Mr Keogan and [Ms A] were doing together as a couple and it was very telling these posts stopped as soon as the Child Support Agency began investigating the matter.

4. Ms Locastro said Mr Keogan would do anything to avoid paying child support for [the child].  She added that it was vey unfair Mr Keogan was receiving a multi-case allowance through deception and [the child] was getting less child support as a result.

5. The Tribunal notes in evidence provided by Ms Locastro a number of social media posts which show a couple socialising together, spending time with children at what appear to be family events and discussing their relationship.  Ms Locastro told the Tribunal the posts were of Mr Keogan and [Ms A].  Ms Locastro drew the attention of the Tribunal to one such post, dated 22 July 2019, from [Ms A] to Mr Keogan.  The post includes a photograph of a couple and states:

   I knew we’d always find our way..when two people have what we have and have always had…then there is no stopping true love..you are my soul mate..the love of my life the father to our babies, my best friend my husband…us Vs the world baby..

6. The Tribunal also notes a further post, dated 15 September 2019, where [Ms A] refers to renewing her wedding vows in November.  In a later post, dated 30 January 2020, [Ms A] refers to a photograph of a couple smiling as “#hubbywifey”.  Ms Locastro told the Tribunal this was a photograph of [Ms A] and Mr Keogan.

7. The application requirements for a child support assessment are in Division 1 of Part 4 of the Act.  A child support assessment must be amended or ended in circumstances where a child support terminating event happens.  Section 12 of the Act provides for the “happening of child support terminating events” including when the parents of the child, to whom the child support assessment relates, become members of the same couple for a period of six months or more.

8. Based on the evidence provided it appears likely that Mr Keogan and [Ms A] may have reconciled and at some point become members of the same couple.  The Tribunal nonetheless finds that Mr Keogan was assessed to pay child support in another child support case.  Pursuant to section 41 of the Act the child support assessment between Ms Locastro and Mr Keogan correctly includes a multi-case allowance for Mr Keogan.

9. While Ms Locastro is indirectly impacted by the ongoing child support case between Mr Keogan and [Ms A] the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review an administrative assessment in such circumstances.  Ms Locastro is not a party in the assessment between Mr Keogan and [Ms A] and cannot, therefore, object to Mr Keogan having another child support case.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.