Mitchison and Gregg (Child support)

[2022] AATA 5017

Mitchison and Gregg (Child support) [2022] AATA 5017 (21 October 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/SC024241

APPLICANT:  Ms Mitchison

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Gregg

TRIBUNAL:Member E Kidston

DECISION DATE:  21 October 2022

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides the care percentage determination of 100% to Ms Mitchison is revoked from 17 October 2021 and replaced with a new care percentage of 0% from 18 October 2021.

The Tribunal makes a determination under subsection 95N(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 such that the reference to 28 days in paragraph 95N(1)(b) is a reference to a longer period and the application for review was lodged within that period.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – whether there was a change to the likely pattern of care – existing percentage of care determinations revoked and new determinations made – decision under review set aside and substituted

CHILD SUPPORT – date of effect of the tribunal’s decision – late application for review - whether there were special circumstances that prevented the application for review being lodged in time - special circumstances exist - tribunal decides to make a determination under subsection 95N(2)

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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1. Ms Mitchison and Mr Gregg are the parents of [Child 1], born 2009.

2. This review application concerns whether a change in care causing a terminating event occurred in relation to the child support case registered with the Child Support Agency (CSA) for [Child 1], and if so, the date of effect.

3. From 23 December 2009, the percentages of care recorded by the CSA for [Child 1] were 100% to Ms Mitchison and 0% to Mr Gregg.

4. On 22 November 2021, Mr Gregg notified the CSA of a change in care concerning [Child 1]. Mr Gregg subsequently provided the CSA with evidence comprising of a letter from the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice dated 7 December 2021 and an Interim Care Order made on 25 November 2021.

5. On 16 December 2021, based on the information before it, the CSA determined that each parent had 0% of [Child 1]’s care with effect from 28 June 2021.  This had the effect of revoking the previous care determinations and terminating the child support case. 

6. On 17 January 2022, Ms Mitchison objected to the decision on the basis that she continued to have care of [Child 1] until 25 November 2021, when the Interim Care Order was made.  No evidence was provided by Ms Mitchison to the CSA; however, Mr Gregg provided a letter from MacKillop Family Services dated [in] February 2022 for the CSA’s consideration.

7. On 15 February 2022, an objections officer of the CSA decided to partly allow the objection and determined that Ms Mitchison and Mr Gregg each had 0% care of [Child 1] from 26 June 2021.  A letter dated 15 March 2022 notified the parties of the decision.

8. On 11 July 2022, an application was made with the Social Security and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an independent review of the objection decision.  Ms Mitchison’s application also included written reasons for the delay in making an application to the Tribunal.

9. The application was heard by the Tribunal on 20 October 2022. Ms Mitchison and Mr Gregg participated in the hearing by video conference and each gave evidence on affirmation. Ms Mitchison was represented by [Ms A], Legal Aid NSW.  Ms Mitchison is deaf, and the Tribunal was assisted at the hearing by an AUSLAN interpreter.  As is customary, the Child Support Registrar did not participate in the hearing and did not attend.

EVIDENCE

1. In considering the application, the Tribunal took into account the submissions and evidence provided at the hearing as well as the documentary material in evidence as provided by the CSA in accordance with subsection 37(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 comprising of folios 1 to 97 (marked Exhibit 1) as well as the additional documents provided by [Ms A] on behalf of Ms Mitchison and exchanged with the other parties prior to the hearing comprising of folios 1 to 59 (marked Exhibit A).

2. At the hearing, Mr Gregg told the Tribunal that although he had not received the hearing papers comprising of Exhibit 1, he had received Ms Mitchison’s additional material (Exhibit A) and was willing to proceed with the hearing. For completeness, a copy of the CSA’s material in Exhibit 1 was sent electronically by the Tribunal Registry to Mr Gregg after the hearing.

3. Ms Mitchison’s position in relation to the substantive issue of care is comprehensively set out in the written submissions provided by [Ms A], the relevant parts of which are set out (unedited) hereunder: 

   My client’s submission is that [Child 1] remained in her care until 25 November 2021. She arranged for [Child 1] to go to stay with her grandmother for a week during the school holidays on 28 June 2021. [Child 1] could not return because of the COVID lockdown and there was some dispute about [Child 1]’s living arrangements between my client and her mother. My client submits that she remained responsible for her [Child 1]’s financial support and overall welfare until 25 November 2021. In particular:

   • While she did not pay for food and accommodation, my client continued to meet all other expenses. These included major expenses, such as school fees, and day-to-day expenses, such as clothes, toiletries, entertainment and sporting activities. She also gave [Child 1] pocket money by transferring money to a smart money card whenever she asked for it.

   • My client and [Child 1] used FaceTime every day to remain in touch and my client provided supervision, emotional support and help with her online education.

   • My client does not believe the other parent was providing any financial or other support directly to [Child 1] or her grandmother during this period.

   • [Child 1]’s grandmother made some day-to-day decisions. However, my client continued to be responsible for significant decisions that affected [Child 1]’s welfare.

   For example, [Child 1] was in her last year of primary school and, after talking with her at length, my client made the application (at a cost of $500) for her to go to her preferred private school.

4. During the hearing submissions were made as to the documents contained in Exhibit A comprising of bank statements that support Ms Mitchison’s position of her ongoing provision of financial resources and support to [Child 1] from the end of June 2021 to November 2021 including; pocket money, clothes, sporting equipment, phone and iPad costs, bedding and school fees.

5. The bank statements in evidence show a payment of school fees of $3,3317.00 on 22 October 2021.  Ms Mitchison informed the Tribunal that the payment represented a quarter of the annual school fees, specifically for the last school term (October 2021 to December 2021).  Although not in evidence, Ms Mitchison informed that she also paid for annual scouts fees for 2021 of approximately $1,700. 

6. Submissions were also made that Ms Mitchison offered to provide payment to [Ms B] for having [Child 1]; however, [Ms B] would not accept payment as it was a family arrangement.  Ms Mitchison’s evidence was that she is not aware of [Ms B] receiving social security payments or child support payments for [Child 1] during the relevant period in review.

7. Information was also provided to the Tribunal about the non-financial support Ms Mitchison provided to [Child 1] during the relevant period, including twice daily contact, once during the morning period to assist with online learning (as [Child 1]’s school had transitioned to learning online during the COVID-19 lockdown for Term 3, 2021) and, another call in the evenings.  Ms Mitchison also informed the Tribunal that she sent birthday presents to [Child 1] in October 2021 and made important decisions relating to [Child 1]’s transition to high school in 2022, by making an application and paying a non-refundable enrolment fee of $500 in early September 2021.

8. Not dissimilarly, Mr Gregg told the Tribunal that he agreed with Ms Mitchison’s evidence and submissions insofar as the intention from 26 June 2021 was for [Child 1] to spend time with her grandmother in the school holidays and, accepts this was the usual arrangement between Ms Mitchison and [Ms B].  Mr Gregg said he appreciated that the usual visit period may have been extended due to the COVID-19 travel restrictions that subsequently applied; however, he was not made aware of any of it until he received a Father’s Day card from [Child 1] with [Ms B]’s address.  Mr Gregg said this prompted him to call [Ms B] who informed him that [Child 1] had been staying with her since the school holidays and she had not received any payments from Ms Mitchison.

9. Mr Gregg said that on or about 18 October 2021, he became aware of a separate and external situation involving [Child 1] that prompted an investigation by the Department of Communities and Justice resulting in the Interim Care Order to formally remove [Child 1] from Ms Mitchison’s care.

10. Mr Gregg stated at the hearing that as [Child 1] had not been residing with Ms Mitchison for an extended period of time, relevantly from the end of June 2021, Ms Mitchison has not incurred daily living expenses for [Child 1] (the purpose of child support payments) and as she did not pass on any of the child support payments to [Ms B], he agrees with the child support case ending as determined by the CSA.

11. When asked by the Tribunal whether he accepted Ms Mitchison’s evidence on costs and expenses incurred for [Child 1] as financial support provided during the time she was living away from Ms Mitchison (such as school fees), Mr Gregg told the Tribunal that he has no basis to dispute Ms Mitchison’s expenses as asserted in the hearing; however, he agrees with the decision ultimately made by the CSA.

12. Mr Gregg also informed the Tribunal of a voluntary payment he made directly to [Child 1] after the CSA’s determination to end the child support case, the amount of which, he said, was slightly more than the child support payments reimbursed to him for the relevant period.

13. Exhibit 1 includes copies of CSA’s records of various contacts with Ms Mitchison and Mr Gregg as well as third party correspondence including:

    ·     a letter from the NSW Department of Communities and Justice dated 7 December 2021 to the CSA informing it of the change in care for [Child 1] pursuant to the Interim Care Order dated 25 November 2021 - placing [Child 1] in the care of the Minister for Facilities, Communities and Disability Services until a further care order is made; and

    ·     a letter from MacKillop Family Services dated 3 February 2022 which Mr Gregg had provided to the CSA as a supporting document for the change in care.

14. The letter from MacKillop Family Services dated [in] February 2022 included the following statement:

    [The child] has been living with their Maternal Grandmother [Ms B].  At first this was a family arrangement which started on 26 June 2021 until 18 October 2021 when [the child] was formally taken into care, following a child protection disclosure.

15. The Tribunal referred Mr Gregg to the aforementioned statement (in paragraph 23) and asked if he agreed with it.  Mr Gregg responded affirmatively.  The Tribunal also asked Ms Mitchison whether she agreed with the aforementioned statement and, she also informed the Tribunal that the statement is correct. 

16. The significance of 18 October 2021 noted in the letter from Mackillop Family Services was canvassed at the hearing and both parents agreed that this was the date a child protection disclosure was made to the Department of Communities and Housing and marked a significant change in care event concerning [Child 1].

17. [Ms A] submitted that Ms Mitchison would not dispute, if so determined, that the date of 18 October 2021 was the date of change in care for [Child 1]. That the circumstances for living apart changed on and from that date.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY

1. The legislation relevant for this review include the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Assessment Act”) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (“the Registration and Collection Act”), together referred to as the child support legislation.

2. The child support legislation identifies and delineates between “care percentage” determinations and a “child support terminating event”.

3. A terminating event means that the child support case for a child is ended. Under subsection 12(2AA) of the Assessment Act, a terminating event occurs if both parents are not eligible carers of the child and there are no non-parent carers entitled to be paid child support for the child. Subsection 5(3) and section 7B of the Assessment Act provide that an eligible carer must have at least 35% of the child's care. As such a change in one parent’s care percentage could, in some circumstances, amount to a child support terminating event, where neither parent has at least 35% care of a child of the assessment.

4. The provisions in relation to the revocation of a determination of a percentage of care are in Subdivision C of Division 4 – Percentage of Care of Part 5 of the Assessment Act. Section 49 applies where a parent has no pattern of care of a child and section 50 where there is a pattern of care. Sections 49 and 50 provide that, before a determination can be made in relation to a parent or eligible carer, any care determination already in place must be revoked. Care determinations can be revoked pursuant to section 54F, 54G or 54H.

5. A parent or non-parent carer’s percentage of care for a child is determined based on the care he or she is likely to provide for the child in a care period. The percentage of care is used in a child support assessment to calculate the percentage of the cost of the child that each parent is meeting directly through the care they are providing for the child.

6. The CSA may revoke and make new care determinations to take into account a change in care. In simple terms, existing care percentages generally apply until the CSA is notified of a change in care and a new care decision can be determined if there has been a relevant change in the pattern of care.

7. The decision is made by the CSA with reference to a point in time, and usually corresponds with the actual care based on what has happened up until the change in care is notified and what is the likely pattern of care thereafter. To consider whether any existing care percentages should be changed, it is therefore necessary to examine the likely pattern of care by reference to an appropriate care period.

8. As far as is relevant, a revocation under section 54F can occur only if the CSA were to determine (under section 49 or 50) a different percentage of care for a specified care period and the person's cost percentage would change as a result which impacted the child support payment.

9. It is important to note that not every deviation from an existing pattern of care constitutes a change in care, and depends upon the particular circumstances of the case, as explained in the Child Support Guide at 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. The Child Support Guide is government policy which assists its decision-makers interpreting the child support legislation. The Tribunal is not bound by such policy; however, where the policy is not inconsistent with the law, the Tribunal considers that it is a relevant factor that forms part of the Tribunal’s consideration.[1]

CONSIDERATION

[1] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60

1. In this application, the effect of the Interim Care Order made on 25 November 2021 as to [Child 1]’s care is not in dispute.  However, the Tribunal is required to determine whether a change in care event occurred before 25 November 2021, and if so, the relevant date of effect. In order to determine that issue, the Tribunal must first decide whether or not Ms Mitchison can still be taken to have had care of [Child 1] from the period [Child 1] was living apart from her, that is, from 26 June 2021.

Issue 1 - Change in care or delegated care

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that there were existing percentage of care determinations made under sections 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act to Mr Gregg and Ms Mitchison respectively, and that the CSA was notified that care of [Child 1] did not correspond with the percentage of care in the existing care determinations.

2. As there is no written agreement in place that applied at the relevant time, the only way to determine the correct care arrangement is to look at the actual care that was provided. Based on the evidence, the following details are common ground and the Tribunal finds accordingly:

   ·On 26 June 2021, [Child 1] went to spend time with Ms Mitchison’s mother during the school holidays in accordance with the usual arrangement. 

   ·[Child 1] was expected to return to Ms Mitchison in early July 2021; however, due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, she remained living with Ms Mitchison’s mother.

   ·At all material times [Child 1] has remained living with Ms Mitchison’s mother.

   ·On 18 October 2021 a protection disclosure was made to the Department of Communities and Justice which, after assessment, resulted in an Interim Care Order dated 25 November 2021.

   ·The effect of the Interim Care Order is that all aspects of parental responsibility for [Child 1] were allocated to the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services from 25 November 2021 until further notice. 

3. Submissions to the Tribunal for and on behalf of Ms Mitchison were that she does not dispute an incident occurred in late October 2021 resulting in the involvement of the Department of Communities and Justice.  However, for the period from the end of June until towards the end of October 2021 (“relevant period under review”) Ms Mitchison retained parental responsibility and care of [Child 1], despite them living apart. 

4. [Ms A] submitted that for the relevant period under review, the time [Child 1] spent living apart from Ms Mitchison ought to be considered delegated care to [Ms B] as Ms Mitchison continued her involvement with [Child 1] and falls within the examples and explanations noted in the Child Support Guide at chapter 2.2.1, as follows:

   Additionally, in limited circumstances, a person may have care of a child who is not living with them for a period of time. For example, a person can provide care for a child who is at boarding school, in hospital or in separate accommodation. However, a person who simply supervises the child (e.g. a baby sitter, a child minder such as a grandparent or a schoolteacher) does not provide care.

   Consideration is given to who has responsibility for making arrangements for, and decisions about, the child's welfare, as well as who is meeting the child's costs, rather than just the accommodation arrangements themselves. The Registrar will give weight to statements from both parents and any non-parent carers.

5. The Tribunal notes that the Child Support Guide at 2.2.1 is government policy intended to provide transparency and understanding of decisions that are made where there is doubt as to whether care exists.  It also states the following matters that will be considered by the CSA in such cases:

   In most cases, it will be relatively clear whether and to what extent a person is caring for a child. However, where there is doubt, the Registrar will consider whichever of the following are relevant to the particular case:

   ·     To what extent the person has control of the child, including having overall responsibility for the child and making

   o    major decisions relating to who the child spends time with and the child's health, education, discipline, recreational and/or social activities, and

   o    arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child (delegated care).

   ·     To what extent the person meets the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, childcare, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra-curricular activities.

   ·     To what extent the person pays for the costs of meeting the needs of the child.

   ·     To what extent the person otherwise provides financial support for the child.

   ·     To what extent the child provides for his or her own needs or has those needs met from another source.

   ·     To what extent the child is financially independent or financially supported from another source.

   …

1. It is an object of the Assessment Act, set out in paragraph 4(2)(c), that a person who provides ongoing daily care for a child should be able to have the level of financial support to be provided for the child readily determined without the need for court proceedings. Although the term ‘ongoing daily care’ is not defined in the Assessment Act, the Tribunal is satisfied the aforementioned passages of the Child Support Guide at 2.2.1 accurately detail considerations relevant to assessing care and the notion of delegated care.

2. The issue of delegated care typically arises where a child is residing with a non-parent. Common examples of delegated care include a child attending boarding school, or spending holidays with a grandparent, other relative or family friend. Where delegated care is involved, parents delegate the care they have to the third party involved. This means that the percentage of care each parent has, is retained for child support purposes during the period of delegation.

3. Turning to the facts of this matter, [Child 1] was living with Ms Mitchison and Mr Mitchison until about 25 June 2021 when she went to visit her grandmother during the winter school holidays.  As acknowledged by Mr Gregg, [Child 1] would often stay with Ms Mitchison’s mother during school holidays. Such visits would not create a change in care event as it was consistent with the usual family arrangement made between Ms Mitchison and [Ms B].  As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Mitchison had delegated care of [Child 1] to [Ms B] from 26 June 2021.

4. The Tribunal then considered the duration of delegated care.  It is not in dispute that during the period [Child 1] was visiting [Ms B] in the winter school holidays, COVID-19 lockdown restrictions came into effect and [Child 1] was unable to return to Ms Mitchison on the date planned for the commencement of Term 3 school.  The Tribunal accepts that [Child 1] remained with [Ms B] for the whole of Term 3 (July to September 2021), undertaking online learning as implemented by her primary school during the lockdown period. 

46.The Tribunal also accepts Ms Mitchison provided some financial resources to [Child 1] and incurred expenses that related to her education and extra-curricular interests as evidenced by the bank account statements in Exhibit A for the relevant period under review.  Submissions were made that Ms Mitchison had daily contact with [Child 1] (by video conferencing), provided her with online learning support and continued to make significant decisions concerning her education. Although there is no corroboratory evidence to confirm these matters put forward, the Tribunal accepts Ms Mitchison’s sworn evidence in this regard.

1. The Tribunal was informed by Ms Mitchison that in early to mid-October 2021, as COVID-19 lockdown restrictions eased, [Child 1]’s primary school stopped online learning and students returned to campus.  However, [Child 1] did not return to Ms Mitchison’s care and remained living with [Ms B]. [Child 1] was transported to and from school each day by [Ms B] for the remainder of the school year.

2. Regard is had to evidence of other factors concerning allegations investigated by the Department of Communities and Justice and, although particulars of these factors are not relevant for this review, it is not disputed by the parties that a significant “external” event occurred when a child protection disclosure was made to the Department of Communities and Justice on 18 October 2021.

3. The Tribunal considers the central focus of the child support law is the obligation of parents to meet the financial needs of their children. In circumstances where a child is living apart from their parents and following a usual pattern, in this case spending school holidays with a grandmother (extended here by COVID-19 lockdown), that pattern, coupled with continued financial, educational and emotional support provided by a parent, is a weighty consideration. This being so, the Tribunal's view is that, given the evidence of Ms Mitchison’s continued involvement with [Child 1] during the relevant period, the Tribunal considers the preferred conclusion is that Ms Mitchison delegated care of [Child 1] to [Ms B] on 26 June 2021 and delegated care continued until 18 October 2021, when disclosure was made to the Department of Communities and Justice, resulting in the Interim Care Order dated 25 November 2021.

4. As both parents agree that a significant change in care event for [Child 1] occurred on 18 October 2021, the Tribunal considers this date as being the date for a change in care event concerning [Child 1] and so finds.

5. The care percentages recorded by the CSA were different to actual care from 18 October 2021, the pre-existing care percentage of 100% to Ms Mitchison must be revoked. In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of subsection 54G(1) of the Assessment Act were not all satisfied as the percentage of care determination for [Child 1] had been made under section 49 for Mr Gregg, as 0% – therefore paragraph 54G(1)(c) is not satisfied.

6. The Tribunal then considered the revocation provision under section 54F and is satisfied that it is correct or proper in the circumstances of this matter to revoke the care percentages recorded for Ms Mitchison on the date immediately prior to 18 October 2021 pursuant to section 54F of the Assessment Act and, a new care percentage determination of 0% to Ms Mitchison applies from 18 October 2021.

7. Mr Gregg’s care percentage has not changed from 0% and there was no evidence before the Tribunal of an application for a child support assessment in relation to [Child 1] from a non-parent carer. Therefore, the CSA may consider the application of a terminating event, as defined in subsection 12(2AA) of the Assessment Act, having occurred on 18 October 2021.

Date of effect

1. Tribunal must also consider the date of effect of the new care decision to Ms Mitchison. Section 95N of the Registration and Collection Act determines the date of effect of a Tribunal decision to set aside a care percentage decision.

2. Section 95N provides that a review decision will have effect from the date the application for review was made, if the application was lodged with the Tribunal more than 28 days after notice of the objection decision was given. However, the Tribunal may extend the 28-day timeframe if there are special circumstances that prevented the applicant from applying within that 28-day period.

3. In this matter, Ms Mitchison applied to the Tribunal on 11 July 2022 for a review of the objection decision forwarded by post to her under cover of a letter dated 15 March 2022. As Ms Mitchison’s application was not within the 28 days from when she is deemed to have received the objection decision by post, the date of effect of any new decision by the Tribunal is the date she applied for review, unless the Tribunal is satisfied that special circumstances prevented her from appealing earlier.

4. While the Registration and Collection Act does not define the term “special circumstances”, the Child Support Guide at 4.1.8 provides some guidance. It states that the person’s circumstances must be “sufficiently special for the applicant to receive the benefit of an extension” and provides some examples.

5. At the hearing, it was submitted that Ms Mitchison did not receive the objection letter and was confused as to the overpayment notice she did receive. Ms Mitchison is deaf, she relies on the national interpreting service when contacting the CSA and it was put that she did not properly understand her position and review process despite that contact and service.  Ms Mitchison then sought legal advice from Legal Aid NSW; however, this took some time as she also required the assistance of an interpreting service.  Ms Mitchison first attended with [Ms A] on or about 12 May 2021 and contact was then made with the CSA by [Ms A]. She was informed of the objection decision and terminating event.  As Ms Mitchison did not have a copy of the objection decision, [Ms A] requested a copy from the CSA.  [Ms A] further submitted that there were delays in obtaining a copy of the objection decision from the CSA, as well as other documents and paperwork, necessary to lodge an appeal.

6. In response, Mr Gregg told the Tribunal that the CSA issued notices in writing and contacted parties by telephone to explain the decision and appeal rights.  He does not consider the reasons for making a late appeal as submitted in this case, as special circumstances. Mr Gregg said he received reimbursement of child support after the child support case had ended and had transferred it (and an additional amount) to [Child 1], which he explained represented the child support payments he had paid intended for her care.

7. Regard was had to CSA’s records in Exhibit 1 showing contact by Ms Mitchison using the interpreting service and subsequently contact by [Ms A].  The Tribunal finds the evidence supports Ms Mitchison’s position.

8. The Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances, as submitted for Ms Mitchison, would have prevented her from requesting a review of the objection decision issued on 15 March 2022 within 28 days and considers that extending the timeframe for making an appeal is fair in the circumstances of this matter.  The Tribunal has reached this conclusion on the basis that Ms Mitchison and Mr Gregg ought to be financially responsible for their child during a period of delegated care.  Furthermore, the Tribunal is not persuaded that a decision to extend time would prejudice Mr Gregg. Any voluntary payments made by a parent to a child after a child support case has closed, although considerate, cannot be taken into account.

9. Accordingly, the Tribunal will extend the timeframe under subsection 95N(2) of the Registration and Collection Act such that the reference to 28 days in paragraph 95N(1)(b) is a reference to a longer period and the application for review was lodged within that period.

10. As the Tribunal has reached a different conclusion to the objections officer, the decision under review will be set aside.

Other matters

1. At the hearing, submissions were made as to the impact the CSA care determinations have had on Ms Mitchison’s payments from Centrelink after separating from Mr Mitchison, as well as in relation to Mr Gregg’s transfer of money to [Child 1] after the child support case had ended.  Although such matters are of importance to Ms Mitchison and Mr Gregg respectively, they are not relevant to the issues before the Tribunal and therefore are not necessary to canvass and address in these Reasons.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides the care percentage determination of 100% to Ms Mitchison is revoked from 17 October 2021 and replaced with a new care percentage of 0% from 18 October 2021.

The Tribunal makes a determination under subsection 95N(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 such that the reference to 28 days in paragraph 95N(1)(b) is a reference to a longer period and the application for review was lodged within that period.