McKeough and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr McKeough against a decision of the Authorised Review Officer (ARO) which affirmed a previous decision by the Department of Social Services. The Department had determined Mr McKeough's percentage of care for his children to be 18% from 1 January 2012, for the purposes of family tax benefit. The dispute centred on the accurate calculation of Mr McKeough's percentage of care, particularly in light of inconsistent record-keeping by both parents. The case was heard by Deputy I R Molloy P.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the correct percentage of care Mr McKeough had for his children during the relevant period, considering the conflicting evidence and record-keeping practices of both parents. This involved assessing the reliability and accuracy of the records presented by Mr McKeough and Ms O’Connor, and determining whether Mr McKeough's claimed percentage of care was substantiated by credible evidence. The court was required to weigh the evidence presented at the current hearing against the findings made in the decision under review.

Deputy I R Molloy P reasoned that Mr McKeough's evidence was inconsistent and unconvincing. While Mr McKeough initially claimed 35% care, his own records at the time of the reviewable decision showed only 24.9% care, and he expressed doubts about their accuracy. Ms O’Connor's records indicated Mr McKeough had 18.6% care, which the ARO accepted and rounded down to 18%. At the current hearing, Mr McKeough presented a new explanation for the inaccuracy of his records, claiming they understated his care due to a failure to record unplanned care, rather than overstating it as previously suggested. However, the court found the connection between his financial transactions and his claim of care to be tenuous, and his revised evidence contradicted his earlier statements and even suggested a care percentage exceeding 50%, which was inconsistent with his previous claims and the court orders. The court found Mr McKeough to be an unimpressive witness. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.