Monagahn and Monagahn (Child support)

[2022] AATA 3064

Monagahn and Monagahn (Child support) [2022] AATA 3064 (15 June 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/BC022794; 2022/BC023218; 2022/BC023276 and 2022/BC023277

APPLICANT:  Ms Monagahn

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Monagahn

TRIBUNAL:Member E Kidston

DECISION DATE:  15 June 2022

DECISION:

All of the decisions under review are affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – whether there was a change to the likely pattern of care – no change to the likely pattern – refusal to revoke the existing percentage of care determinations – date of effect provisions – whether there were special circumstances that prevented the objection being lodged in time – special circumstances exist – decisions under review affirmed

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 – date of effect provisions – whether there were special circumstances that prevented the objection being lodged in time – special circumstances exist – decisions 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. Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn are the separated parents of [Child 1] (born 2003) (the child).

2. This review application is about the percentages of care for Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn that apply in relation to the child support case registered with the Child Support Agency (CSA) for the child from 15 February 2020.

3. The pre-existing care for the child as recorded by the CSA from 25 February 2014 was 0% to Ms Monagahn and 100% to Mr Monagahn. 

4. On 23 July 2020 Ms Monagahn contacted the CSA to advise that the child was not in the care of either parent from 1 July 2020.  This information was taken by the CSA as a terminating care event notification.

5. In a subsequent telephone conversation on 29 September 2020, Ms Monagahn advised the CSA of an increase in her care of the child from 0% to 100% for a certain period from 15 February 2020 to 30 June 2020.  This was taken as notification of a change in care event concerning the child that preceded the terminating care event notified on 23 July 2020.

6. On 2 November 2020 the CSA made the following decisions:

   a)First, the CSA revoked the existing care percentages and recorded new percentages of care for the child for the care period from 15 February 2020 as 100% to Ms Monagahn and 0% to Mr Monagahn. The date of effect of the decreased percentage of care of 0% to Mr Monagahn was from the date of the accepted change in care – 15 February 2020.  However, the CSA determined that as Ms Monagahn notified the change of care more than 28 days after it occurred, the date of effect of the increased care percentage from 0% to 100% to her would only take effect from the date the CSA recorded her notification – 29 September 2020. 

   This had the practical effect that the care percentage recorded for assessment purposes was: 0% to Mr Monagahn from 15 February 2020; and 100% to Ms Monagahn from 29 September 2020.

   b)Second, as the recorded care percentage for both Mr Monagahn and Ms Monagahn was less than 35% care of the child for the period 15 February 2020 to 28 September 2020, the child support assessment for the child was suspended by the CSA.

   c)Third, the CSA accepted a change in care event occurred on 1 July 2020 such that care percentage that applied from 1 July 2020 would be 0% to Ms Monagahn and 0% to Mr Monagahn.

7. On 13 July 2021, albeit late, Mr Monagahn objected to the original decision made by the CSA on 2 November 2020 in relation to the revocation of the pre-existing care percentages and application of care percentage of 0% to him from 15 February 2020 on the grounds that no change in care occurred at or about that time.

8. On 1 October 2021 an objections officer of the CSA allowed the objection and also determined that reasonable grounds existed for Mr Monagahn’s late objection.  This had the practical effect of refusing to change the pre-existing care for the child from 15 February 2020 with effect from that date, such that the care percentages of 100% to Mr Monagahn and 0% to Ms Monagahn from 15 February 2020 were reinstated (the October Decisions).

9. On 19 October 2021, later again, Mr Monagahn objected to the CSA’s other decision made on 2 November 2020 in relation to the terminating care event on 1 July 2020 and its application of 0% care percentage to both parents from that date.  In his request for review, Mr Monagahn informed the CSA that he was of the understanding that his earlier request for review would apply to all decisions made by the CSA on 2 November 2020, not just to the determinations that applied to the care period from 15 February 2020 to 30 June 2020.

10. On 22 November 2021, Ms Monagahn made an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an independent review of the October Decisions. As this application was made after 28 days of its notification on 1 October 2021, a separate application was made to the Tribunal on 26 November 2021 to request an extension of time for Ms Monagahn’s application for review of the section 87AA determination in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Registration and Collection Act). The extension of time was granted by this Tribunal, differently constituted, on 2 February 2022.[1]

    [1] EOT Matter Reference 2021/BC022824.

11. On 17 December 2021 an objections officer of the CSA determined to allow Mr Monagahn’s objection to the decision concerning care of the child from 1 July 2020, and also determined that reasonable grounds existed for Mr Monagahn’s late objection.  This had the effect of refusing to accept a terminating care event concerning the child occurred on 1 July 2020 and that the pre-existing care percentages would continue apply with effect from 1 July 2020 to 1 October 2020 (the December Decisions).

12. Of note, the December Decisions, although made by a delegate of the CSA on 17 December 2021, were only issued in writing to Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn on 9 February 2022.  As Ms Monagahn had already appealed the October Decisions to the Tribunal, on 11 February 2022 she also requested that the Tribunal review the CSA’s December Decisions.

13. The application concerning the substantive October Decisions is referenced by the Tribunal as 2021/BC022794 and the application concerning the substantive December Decisions is referenced by the Tribunal as 2022/BC023276. As the evidence relating to the 2 applications were intertwined, it was convenient and proper for the applications to be heard contemporaneously by the Tribunal together with Ms Monagahn’s other applications to review decisions made by the CSA concerning the date of effect of the CSA’s determinations under section 87AA of the Registration and Collection Act (Tribunal references 2022/BC023218 and 2022/BC023277 respectively). Therefore, the evidence taken in the hearing was to be evidence in all 4 applications before the Tribunal.

14. The Tribunal heard all 4 applications on 25 May 2022.  Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn appeared at the hearing by conference telephone and each gave evidence on affirmation. As is customary, the Child Support Registrar did not participate in the hearing and did not attend.

15. In considering the applications, the Tribunal took into account the oral evidence of Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn as well as documentary material in evidence provided by the CSA in accordance with subsection 37(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 as: Exhibit 1 – numbered 1 to 221 in matter reference 2021/BC022794; and Exhibit 2 – numbered 1 to 202 in matter reference 2022/BC023276; supplementary documents in accordance with subsection 38AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Exhibit 1A – numbered 1 to 33 in matter reference 2021/BC022794), Ms Monagahn’s documents to the Tribunal and exchanged before the hearing (Exhibit A – numbered 1 to 144) and Mr Monagahn’s documents provided to the Tribunal and exchanged before the hearing (Exhibit B – numbered 1 to 57).

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

1. The legislation relevant to this review is found in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act) and the Registration and Collection Act, together the child support legislation. The legislation sets out the rules for making and revoking care determinations which are then used as part of the child support formula to assess child support payment rates.

2. Pursuant to Division 4 of Part 5 of the Assessment Act, the Registrar, that is, 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 – including one that will impact cost percentage.

3. 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.

4. In making its decision the CSA refers to the Child Support Guide, a departmental policy to assist decision-makers when deciding whether there has been a change in the pattern of care. The Tribunal is not bound by departmental policy but will apply it unless there is a reason to do otherwise.[2]

   [2] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409 and Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs(No 2) [1979] AATA 179.

5. The Child Support Guide also explains that there may be situations where conflicting information exists as to the care provided by the parents, and in that event, consideration will be given to the information provided and obtained and whether there is some common expectation about future care. It further states that if the information and evidence provided by the parents cannot be reconciled, the decision maker will weigh the evidence and information provided by the parents about past care to determine the pattern of care likely to occur from the relevant date.

6. The CSA revokes care percentages in the circumstances set out in sections 54F, 54G and 54H of the Assessment Act and can then make new care determinations to take account of a care change.

7. Any new care determination takes effect from the date that care changed or, if the Registrar is not notified within 28 days of care changing, then the date of the notification: subsection 54F(2) of the Assessment Act. As regards the date of effect of revocation of care percentage determinations, there is the possibility of differential dates of effect depending on when the CSA is notified of the change and whether there is an increase or a decrease in the care level.

8. The Registration and Collection Act provides a mechanism for parents who are dissatisfied with a care percentage decision to seek a review of the decision by lodging an objection. However, if an objection concerning care percentages is lodged more than 28 days after notice of the care percentage decision is given, section 87AA of the Registration and Collection Act provides that the date of effect in relation to any successful objection is the date of the objection. The effect of an objection decision can only be backdated if there are special circumstances which prevented the person from lodging their objection within 28 days.

ISSUES

1. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are the likely pattern of care concerning the child in relation to the notifications of change of care made by Ms Monagahn, and whether the existing percentages of care determinations in respect of the child should be revoked. If so, the Tribunal must then decide what new care percentages are to be attributed to Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn, and the dates of effect, if relevant.

2. Where a parent advises more than one change in care has occurred, each care change notification is treated as a separate event, even if the notification is out of order – as had occurred in this matter by Ms Monagahn notifying of a terminating care event before notifying of the change in care event that occurred earlier in 2020.  The Tribunal will first determine whether there was a change in the pattern of care concerning the earlier care period from 15 February 2020 under the heading “Issue 1”, as though the terminating care event had not occurred and will then address the subsequent terminating care event under the heading “Issue 2”.

3. It is also convenient for the Tribunal to note that during the hearing, submissions were made regarding certain matters between the parties concerning the preceding care, notifications to the CSA, and its review and appeals processes. As discussed at hearing, the Tribunal is required to consider the issues before it based on the relevant facts and application of the law and it is not the role of the Tribunal to adjudicate on other areas of dispute that may exist between the parties and the CSA. However, in stating that, the Tribunal does not disregard that issues can arise when disputed care arrangements are under review and the possible difficulties in navigating the review process and subsequent notification of changes.

EVIDENCE

1. Ms Monagahn challenged the October Decisions and December Decisions on essentially 3 grounds.  Firstly, she stated that the objections officer wrongly applied more weight to Mr Monagahn’s evidence that he provided late in his objection to the CSA (documents contained in Exhibit 1 at folios 140 to 144 inclusive and 146) and that a change in care event concerning the child in fact occurred in early 2020 when the child did not want to reside with Mr Monagahn in [Suburb 1], away from his family and friends.  Ms Monagahn’s position is that she had sole care of the child from 15 February 2020 and the care percentage should be recorded as 100% to her from that date.  Secondly, the child left her care and lived independently with his girlfriend from 1 July 2020 such that neither parent had care of the child from that date. Thirdly, she disagrees with the CSA’s decisions in finding special circumstances to give effect to an earlier date in relation to Mr Monagahn’s late objections to both the October Decisions and the December Decisions.

2. In her opening statement to the Tribunal, Ms Monagahn explained that the child had been in Mr Monagahn’s sole care up until the end of 2019 and they also resided in [Town 1].  Towards the end of 2019 Mr Monagahn purchased a house in [Suburb 1] and relocated there.  However, the child had friends, his girlfriend and band commitments in [Town 1] and wanted to remain living in [Town 1].  Ms Monagahn said that from early 2020 the child returned to [Town 1] from [Suburb 1] and started living in her home.  At her home, the child had his own bedroom and Ms Monagahn had purchased a bed for him as well as other essential items (such as clothes) from time to time. 

3. Ms Monagahn told the Tribunal that during the March and April 2020 COVID-19 lockdown period, the child and his girlfriend resided with her in her home. Ms Monagahn said she provided a lot of care and support to the child during the first half of 2020 and considers that she became the sole carer of the child from 15 February 2020 as that is the date she returned from an overseas holiday and the child was already living in her home. Ms Monagahn said that the child only returned to [Suburb 1] on a couple of occasions during the relevant period and was mostly living in [Town 1] under her care, as recorded in a care calendar she had compiled from other source documents (in Exhibit A folios A4 to A29). 

4. Ms Monagahn told the Tribunal that the child, whilst residing with her, did not contribute financially towards accommodation or food and although he did not spend every night in her home during the period 15 February 2020 to 30 June 2020 as he would sometimes stay at his girlfriend’s parent’s residence, Ms Monagahn said she was responsible for the child during that time and had given him spending money from time to time.  Ms Monagahn also acknowledged at the hearing that the child received funds from Mr Monagahn during the same period of time and that Mr Monagahn paid for the child’s certain expenses (such as phone bills).

5. Mr Monagahn told the Tribunal that he disagreed with Ms Monagahn’s evidence.  He considered that the CSA’s October Decision and December Decision were correct, in that he continued to be responsible for the child and his care of the child did not change in or about 15 February 2020 although their accommodation and living circumstances had.

6. At the hearing Mr Monagahn wished to clarify a point made by Ms Monagahn about responsibility for the child.  He said that the child has been in his sole care since 2013.  The child finished his schooling at the end of Year 10 in 2018 and was involved with a band and wanted to pursue a vocation in music.  Mr Monagahn said that at the end of 2019 he purchased a property at [Suburb 1].  It was a project that he and the child would renovate together.  Although the child had friends and his band commitments at [Town 1], they came to an arrangement that they would spend the working week in [Suburb 1] renovating the house and on the weekends they would travel to [Town 1] together so that the child could attend band practice and spend time with his friends. This also provided the child with an opportunity to accrue “learning to drive” hours on the highway between [Suburb 1] and [Town 1]. When in [Town 1], the child would either stay with him in the camper van or stay at his girlfriend’s parent’s [place]. Mr Monagahn said that on some occasions the child would choose to stay at [Town 1] and not travel back to [Suburb 1] with him and when that happened, the child would stay with his girlfriend or stay at Ms [A]’s place in [Suburb 2] (Mr Monagahn’s sister) or at Ms Monagahn’s [place].    

7. Mr Monagahn considers that he continued having sole care of the child in 2020 until 2 October 2020 when the child moved to [Suburb 2] and started living independently.  He said that his evidence to the CSA in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 and the additional evidence in Exhibit B proves that he travelled between [Suburb 1] and [Town 1] regularly from early February 2020 to October 2020 and was committed to supporting the child’s social and vocational interests at [Town 1].  He said that he continued to provide emotional and financial support to the child from early 2020 despite the child being in a different location to him at times.  Mr Monagahn referred the Tribunal to the bank statements and other evidence in Exhibit B which corroborated that he paid for the child’s phone bills, music course, clothes, sporting equipment, purchased vehicles for the child (one vehicle was purchased by Mr Monagahn to restore as a joint project with the child in [Suburb 1] and the other vehicle was the practical car for driving) and also provided the child with weekly funds for food and accommodation.  

8. Mr Monagahn acknowledged at the hearing that the child had stayed at Ms Monagahn’s place from time to time in 2020 but that it was sporadic except for a period in March and April 2020 when the child was residing with Ms Monagahn for 2 to 3 weeks during the COVID-19 lockdown.  Mr Monagahn argued, in effect, that the care provided at this time by Ms Monagahn was a minor variation to his sole care as the lock-down mandate was unexpected and out of his control and further, he had continued to provide financial support to the child. 

1. Mr Monagahn considered a terminating care event did occur, but that it did not occur on 1 July 2020 as stated by Ms Monagahn but instead on 2 October 2020 when the child moved to [Suburb 2] and started receiving independent youth allowance from Centrelink.

CONSIDERATION

Issue 1 – Did the existing pattern of care for the child change on 15 February 2020 and should the existing care percentage be revoked?

1. As conveyed at the hearing, in light of Ms Monagahn’s notifications, the legislation requires the Tribunal to assess what is the likely pattern of care as at 15 February 2020 going forward for the child for a care period. 

2. Exhibits 1 and 2 include copies of the CSA’s records of various contacts with Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn, as well as their supporting evidence including third party statements. The third party statements in evidence include statements from the child’s girlfriend, the child’s adult siblings (other children of the relationship), other family members and a statement from the child in question.  As conveyed at the hearing, caution is attributed when considering statements from children of the relationship as there are generally other factors at play not expressly stated therein.  Notwithstanding, the Tribunal notes that the child’s statement was written when the child was over the age of 18 years and living independently.

3. Additional material was provided to the Tribunal by both Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn which included text messages between Mr Monagahn and Ms Monagahn as well as their separate communications with the child. 

4. Notably the evidence concerning actual care, both documentary and oral, is mostly conflicting between the parents.  Despite this, there was some common factual evidence in terms of the child residing in [Town 1] from early 2020 and returning to [Suburb 1] on a couple of occasions.

5. Generally, the care percentage reflects the actual care a person has had or is likely to have during the care period. Section 54A of the Assessment Act provides for care to usually be based on the number of nights of care a person has for a child. 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 child is living in a separate location to the parent. In such circumstances, 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 accommodation arrangements.

6. The Tribunal notes that during the period in question, Mr Monagahn and Ms Monagahn resided in different locations, approximately 4 to 5 hours’ driving distance.  Mr Monagahn’s evidence consists of his travel log (derived from transactions made in either [Suburb 1] or [Town 1]) as well as bank statements that record the expenses he incurred at various times in [Suburb 1] and at [Town 1] during the relevant period. 

7. The Tribunal considers Mr Monagahn’s explanation for the separate living arrangements and changing accommodation arrangements in place for the child in early 2020 is plausible and consistent with the evidence before the Tribunal.  Mr Monagahn’s position that he continued to support and be responsible for the child, although apart, is credible and supported by corroborative records that he travelled numerous times between [Suburb 1] and [Town 1] during the relevant period, regularly transferred funds to the child’s account and paid for the child’s additional expenses. 

8. Having regard to all of the evidence, in particular the points of consistency, the Tribunal is satisfied that in early 2020, the intention was for the child to travel between [Suburb 1] and [Town 1] and that the child would, at times when at [Town 1], stay in separate accommodation to Mr Monagahn. 

9. The Tribunal also recognises that both parents acknowledge that the child would stay at Ms Monagahn’s residence however, there are a number of inconsistencies as to what care was actually happening on and from 15 February 2020.

10. It is difficult to determine with certainty what the pattern of care for the child was from mid-February 2020 given the conflicting evidence given by Ms Monagahn and Mr Monagahn.  The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the evidence in this matter and determines that the best evidence available is the evidence provided by Mr Monagahn. It records particular details concerning travel, care expenses, payment of funds to the child for general living expenses, the child’s phone bills, vocational and educational costs relevant for the period under review in 2020 and is verified by bank statements. Third party statement provided by the child’s girlfriend is also compelling. The Tribunal accepts, on balance, that Mr Monagahn’s records are an accurate detail of the care he continued to provide to the child despite the child not residing with him at all times during the relevant period.

11. In relation to the lockdown period in March and April 2020 when both parents agreed that the child was residing with Ms Monagahn, the Tribunal considers this to be a minor variation to the care and not dissimilar to when a care pattern differs due to temporary illness.  Further, Mr Monagahn continued to provide financial support to the child during that time as evidenced in the additional material in Exhibit B.

12. The Tribunal therefore finds that, as at 15 February 2020, the likely pattern of care of the child continued with Mr Monagahn despite the child not residing with him at all times. It follows that the determinations of care percentages of 100% to Mr Monagahn and 0% to Ms Monagahn existing at 15 February 2020 should not have been revoked.

13. As regards to the date of effect, or dates for which those percentages of care apply, Mr Monagahn objected to the CSA’s original decision on 13 July 2021. As Mr Monagahn lodged an objection more than 28 days after 2 November 2020, the date of effect of the decision in his favour is limited to the date of his objection unless there were special circumstances preventing him from lodging the objection within 28 days.

14. The Tribunal acknowledges Mr Monagahn’s submissions to the CSA that he was not contacted about the original decision and had no correspondence to advise of changes.  He does not have reliable access to the internet, thereby requiring notifications to be issued in writing by post. As Mr Monagahn was notified by the CSA in a manner contrary to that as specifically stated to the CSA and was not otherwise contacted by the CSA of the original decision, the Tribunal is satisfied that there were special circumstances preventing him from lodging an objection within 28 days.

15. It follows that the successful objection and resulting reinstatement of the previous care percentage determination of 100% to Mr Monagahn takes effect from 15 February 2020.

16. As this is the same decision made by the objections officer on 1 October 2021, accordingly the October Decisions under review (relevantly matters 2021/BC022794 and 2022/BC023218) are affirmed.

Issue 2 – Was there a terminating care event concerning the child on 1 July 2020?

1. On 23 July 2020 Ms Monagahn notified the CSA that the child was in neither parent’s care from 1 July 2020.

2. The CSA determined on 2 November 2020 that there was a terminating care event for the child on 1 July 2020 and applied care percentages as 0% to Mr Monagahn and 0% to Ms Monagahn with effect from 1 July 2020.

3. On 19 October 2021, Mr Monagahn objected, markedly late, to the decision to record 0% to both parents from 1 July 2020 and argued that a terminating care event occurred later on 2 October 2020.

4. Ms Monagahn disagreed with Mr Monagahn’s date for terminating care and considers that the child left her sole care from 1 July 2020.  Ms Monagahn told the Tribunal that she was desirous for the child to become a responsible and capable young adult and supported the decision for him to seek independence with financial support from Centrelink. 

5. At the hearing Mr Monagahn told the Tribunal that the child and Ms Monagahn had an argument in early July 2020 and the argument prompted Ms Monagahn to notify the CSA of a change in care. Mr Monagahn argued that he continued to support the child financially from 1 July 2020 until the start of October 2020 and that nothing had changed in regards to “their arrangement” until 1 October 2020 when the child decided to move to [Suburb 2] and live independently. 

6. The Tribunal notes from evidence before it that the child’s relocation to [Suburb 2] from early October 2020 is corroborated by a number of third party statements. Banking statements in evidence also shows that Mr Monagahn continued to provide financial support to the child well after 1 July 2020. The Tribunal also had regard to the CSA’s evidence that the child applied for social security (youth allowance) as an independent person and was granted payments in October 2020 (Exhibit 2 – folio 7).  An inference may be drawn that the child would have required continued support, in particular financial support, until he started receiving the Centrelink payments.

7. In considering all the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Monagahn continued to provide care to the child until the child started receiving social security payments at about the time he moved to [Suburb 2] on 2 October 2020 to live independently, and so finds.

8. It follows that a terminating event did not occur on 1 July 2020 and the care percentages of 100% to Mr Monagahn and 0% to Ms Monagahn existing at 15 February 2020 should continue to 1 October 2020.

9. Despite this finding, as Mr Monagahn objected to the CSA’s decision concerning a terminating event on 19 October 2021 being a date more than 28 days after 2 November 2020, the date of effect of the decision in his favour is limited to the date of his objection unless there were special circumstances preventing him from lodging the objection within 28 days.

10. Mr Monagahn’s submission to the CSA was that he was of the understanding that his objection to the original decision on 13 July 2021 related to both the care percentage determination for the care period from 15 February 2020 as well as the determination of a terminating event on 1 July 2020.  It was only when he received the objections officer’s decision dated 1 October 2021 that he realised it did not relate to the care period after 30 June 2020 and this prompted him to contact the CSA on 19 October 2021.  Taking that explanation into account, the Tribunal is satisfied that there were the same special circumstances preventing Mr Monagahn from lodging an objection to all of the decisions made by the CSA on 2 November 2020 within 28 days.

11. It follows that the successful objection and resulting reinstatement of the previous care percentage determinations of 100% to Mr Monagahn and 0% to Ms Monagahn apply from 1 July 2020 and a terminating care event occurred on 2 October 2020 such that the care percentage attributable to each of them is 0% from 2 October 2020 with effect from that date.

12. As this is the same decision made by the objections officer on 17 December 2021, the December Decisions under review (relevantly matters 2022/BC023276 and 2022/BC023277) are affirmed.

Conclusion

1. For clarity the Tribunal has, for the reasons canvassed above, determined the following care percentage determinations concerning the child:

   ·      from 15 February 2020 the care percentage is 100% to Mr Monagahn with effect from 15 February 2020, and 0% to Ms Monagahn with effect from 15 February 2020; and

   ·      from 2 October 2020 the care percentage is 0% to Mr Monagahn with effect from 2 October 2020, and 0% to Ms Monagahn with effect from 2 October 2020.

Other matters

1. The Tribunal acknowledges the legislative framework in relation to how care is to be recorded for child support purposes is not uncomplicated and the Tribunal does not disregard the possible difficulties that can arise where a parent notifies of a care event out of order and/or objects late to the CSA’s determinations.  The Tribunal also acknowledges that the manner in which the CSA made its original decisions and issued subsequent determinations to the parties may have added to the complexity of this matter however, this conduct has not impacted upon the outcome of this review as the Tribunal is required to only consider the relevant issues before it based on the facts and apply the child support legislation.

2. As the Tribunal’s view on the application of the law is the same as the objections officers, the decisions under review will therefore be affirmed. 

DECISION

All of the decisions under review are affirmed.