LTPT and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) - [2025] ARTA 1205

LTPT and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1205 (30 July 2025)
Applicant/s:  LTPT
Respondent:  Child Support Registrar
Other Parties:  RLHJ

Tribunal Number: 2024/7496

Tribunal:Senior Member J Longo (second review)
Place:Melbourne
Date:30 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that there has been no change in the care of the child from 7 August 2023.

Statement made on 30 July 2025 at 11:56am
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 (Cth).
Catchwords
CHILD SUPPORT – review of care percentage determinations – whether there has been a change in the pattern of care – whether existing determination of care should be revoked – from what date revocation should take effect if existing determination of care is revoked – late lodgement of objection – whether special circumstances existed that prevented lodging objection – decision under review set aside.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases
Child Support Registrar v MQMV [2019] FCA 1171
Coshott v Prentice [2014] FCAFC 88; (2014) 221 FCR 450
G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229
Gyselman & Gyselman [1992] FLC 92-279
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi [1980] FCA 85; (1980) 31 ALR 666
Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959.
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Child Support Guide
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

The applicant mother, Ms LTPT, and the father, Mr RLHJ, are the separated parents of the two children. This application is in relation to one of their children. Since 8 July 2017, Ms LTPT has had 100% care of the child and Mr RLHJ has had 0% care.
On 4 September 2023, Mr RLHJ contacted the Child Support Registrar (the Registrar) and advised that the care of the child had changed from 7 August 2023 and that neither he nor Ms LTPT had care of the child. On 24 October 2023, a delegate of the Registrar accepted that Ms LTPT and Mr RLHJ had 0% care of the child from 7 August 2023.
Ms LTPT lodged an objection with the Registrar on 30 January 2024. On 26 April 2024, an objections officer of the Registrar allowed the objection and determined not to revoke the care percentage for the child.
On 9 May 2024, Mr RLHJ applied for review of the objection decision with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT).…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading LTPT and Child Support Registrar (Child support second revie...

Details

AGLC: LTPT and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1205
Case: [2025] ARTA 1205
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of LTPT and the Child Support Registrar, the case involved a review of the care percentage determinations under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. The central issue before the tribunal was whether there had been a change in the pattern of care for the child, which would necessitate a revocation of the existing care percentage determination. Additionally, the tribunal had to decide from what date any revocation would take effect if the existing determination was revoked. The tribunal also needed to assess if there were special circumstances that justified the late lodging of an objection to the initial care percentage determination. The decision under review was set aside by the tribunal.

The tribunal examined the evidence provided by Ms LTPT, including her statements, school reports, and tenancy agreements, to determine if there had been a change in the care of the child. Ms LTPT claimed that the child had remained in her care continuously since August 2023, with only brief visits to the paternal grandparents. The tribunal found that while there had been an error in the tenancy agreement regarding the child's occupancy, this did not indicate a change in the child's care. The tribunal concluded that there was no basis to revoke the existing care percentage determination as there had not been a change in the care of the child. The tribunal also addressed the timing of the objection and determined that special circumstances had prevented Ms LTPT from lodging the objection within the required timeframe.

The tribunal ruled that the objection was validly lodged despite the late submission due to special circumstances. It noted that the objection was made within a reasonable time after Ms LTPT became aware of the decision. The tribunal considered the provisions of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and relevant case law, concluding that the objection could be effective from the date of the original care percentage determination if special circumstances applied. The tribunal found that such circumstances existed in this case, allowing the objection to be considered. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the decision under review.

The tribunal ordered that the existing care percentage determination should remain in effect, as there was no evidence of a change in the child's care. The tribunal also directed that the objection, despite being lodged late, should be considered from the date of the original care percentage determination due to the special circumstances identified. This decision ensures that the child's care arrangement is accurately reflected in the care percentage determinations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In making this decision, I have considered all the evidence before me, to determine the relevant facts (including by resolving any disputed assertions of the parties that need to be determined) and independently decide what care percentages should be applied to Mr RLHJ and Ms LTPT in this application.Ms LTPT’s evidence Ms LTPT’s oral evidence was that in August 2023 she separated from her partner and moved to her mother’s house with the child for about three months. She then signed a tenancy agreement in November 2023 for her own property with her eldest daughter. This tenancy was for 6 months and the child should have been listed as an occupant at the property but the real estate agent made a mistake and did not include the child as an occupant. Ms LTPT stated that the child never left her care from August 2023 except for visiting her paternal grandparents. Ms LTPT stated that the child’s paternal grandparents paid for these flights.[7] [7] [S11], [S14] and [S17]. Ms LTPT stated that she attended parent-teacher interviews, but couldn’t recall exactly when these occurred and whether any occurred. She stated that she attended without the child and also with the child, but could not recall any from August 2023. She stated that if the child did not go to school, she would be notified via message, telephone or email. She stated that the child never left her care and never lived with the paternal grandparents, apart from visiting during the trips paid for by the grandparents. She stated that the child did have a boyfriend but they only started seeing each other in or around December 2023 and would occasionally, maybe one day per fortnight, stay at his house. Ms LTPT stated that he would mostly stay at her house. In support of Ms LTPT’s assertion that the child was still in her care, as referred to above, Ms LTPT provided extracts from the child’s school reports. The report card cover emails are for July and October 2023. Ms LTPT also included emails regarding the child’s school work sent to her in October 2023. In addition, Ms LTPT provided psychology appointments organised and received on behalf of the child in or around August 2023. Ms LTPT also provided a written statement from the paternal grandfather with the objection, dated 11 April 2024, which stated as follows:To Whom It May ConcernI, [paternal grandfather], do solemnly swear that my granddaughter, [the child], does not permanently reside with myself and her grandmother and has never done so. A written statement from Ms LTPT’s other child, dated 10 April 2024 and who is over 18 years of age, was also provided with Ms LTPT’s objection to the Registrar. The letter stated that the child was living with her and Ms LTPT and that the child was in the care of Ms LTPT ‘for the last 6 years’. Ms LTPT also provided the tenancy agreement for the period from November 2023 but this did not include the child’s name as a tenant or as an occupant and specified two occupants on the tenancy agreement. A later tenancy agreement provided in the review, from 17 September 2024 shows the child as an occupant of the premises.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I am prepared to accept that the child was mistakenly omitted from the tenancy agreement from November 2023. The child is listed as an occupant in the later tenancy agreement from September 2024. Even if I do not accept the child’s omission from the tenancy agreement was an error, it does not mean that I must reject the other of Ms LTPT’s evidence. In addition, this evidence is not evidence that the child’s care has changed. I am not persuaded, based on the evidence before me, that there has been a change in the care of the child as determined by the Registrar and as was being applied since 8 July 2017. I therefore find there is no basis to revoke the existing care percentage determination.What is the date of effect of this decision? The documents provided by the Registrar show that Mr RLHJ and Ms LTPT were sent written notification of the decision on 24 October 2024.[11] The Registrar submits that the letters should be deemed to have been received by Ms LTPT and Mr RLHJ on 24 October 2024.[12] I agree with these submissions and am satisfied that the written notification of the decision made on 24 October 2024 is deemed to have been received by Ms LTPT and Mr RLHJ on 24 October 2024.[11] Page 83 of Tribunal documents.[12] Per section 14A of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) and section 161 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). In the objection decision the Registrar’s delegate states that Ms LTPT lodged an objection on 30 January 2024. As discussed above, Ms LTPT contacted on 13 November 2023.[13] During this conversation, Ms LTPT stated that she had 100% care of the child ‘as of yesterday’ and further explained that she has had the care of the child for 10 years and that she didn’t have care for two weeks while she was staying with her grandparents. [13] Page 85-87 of Tribunal documents. The Registrar’s delegate determined the objection by Ms LTPT was made more than 28 days from the date the determination was deemed to have been served on Ms LTPT, but found special circumstances[14] applied that prevented Ms LTPT from lodging the objection within time. Ordinarily, if an objection to a care percentage determination is made within 28 days from the date of the decision, any objection that is allowed will be given effect from the date of the care percentage determination. [14] See Gyselman & Gyselman [1992] FLC 92-279 and the Child Support Guide 10.2.8. Section 87AA of the Collection Act, prescribes the date of effect of any objection allowed related to a care percentage that is allowed where the objection is lodged more than 28 days from the date of the notice of the care percentage decision. Subsection 87AA(1) of the Collection prescribes that the date of effect of any objection allowed to a care percentage determination to apply from the date of the objection. Subsection 87AA(2) of the Collection Act permits an allowed objection to a care percentage to apply from the date of the original care percentage determination if there are special circumstances that prevented a person from lodging the objection within time.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.