Metcalfe and Slocombe (Child support)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the Child Support Agency regarding the care percentages of a nine-year-old child between Mr Metcalfe and Miss Slocombe. The dispute arose from Miss Slocombe’s notification to the Child Support Agency on 12 December 2017 of a change in care arrangements, leading to a revised assessment of 93% care for Miss Slocombe and 7% for Mr Metcalfe, effective from 20 January 2018. Mr Metcalfe subsequently objected to this decision on 23 July 2018, asserting significantly different care arrangements since 2016. An objections officer partially allowed Mr Metcalfe's objection, reverting the care percentages to the pre-existing 72% for Miss Slocombe and 28% for Mr Metcalfe, but deemed this effective only from the date of objection, 23 July 2018, due to a lack of special circumstances preventing a timely objection.

The Tribunal was required to determine the actual care arrangements for the child during the relevant period, whether a new determination of care percentages should be made, and if so, what those percentages should be and from what date they should apply. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to consider whether there were special circumstances that prevented Mr Metcalfe from lodging his objection within the prescribed 28-day period following the Child Support Agency's initial decision on 20 January 2018.

The Tribunal considered sworn evidence from both parties and extensive documentation. It applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) and relevant case law concerning the assessment of care percentages and the definition of "special circumstances" for extending objection periods. The Tribunal found that Mr Metcalfe's evidence regarding the care arrangements was more credible and established that he had substantially more than 7% care of the child. However, the Tribunal also found that Mr Metcalfe had not demonstrated special circumstances that prevented him from lodging his objection within the statutory timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that a new determination of care percentages be made, reflecting 72% care for Miss Slocombe and 28% care for Mr Metcalfe. This revised determination was to be effective from 23 July 2018, the date Mr Metcalfe lodged his objection, as the Tribunal found no special circumstances to justify an earlier retrospective effect.