Moultrie and Poe (Child support)

[2021] AATA 1278

Moultrie and Poe (Child support) [2021] AATA 1278 (19 March 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/MC020374

APPLICANT:  Mr Moultrie

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Poe

TRIBUNAL:Member S Brakespeare

DECISION DATE:  19 March 2021

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – date of effect of care decision – whether there were special circumstances that prevented the objection being lodged in time – no special circumstances exist – decision 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. Mr Moultrie is the parent liable to pay child support to Ms Poe in respect of their child [Child 1], who was born in April 2019.

2. On 11 December 2019 an officer of the Child Support Agency made a care percentage decision that reflected that Ms Poe had 100% care of the child and Mr Moultrie had 0% care of the child with effect from 23 November 2019 (the original decision). Mr Moultrie lodged an objection to the decision on 6 August 2020.

3. An objections officer allowed the objection determining that both Mr Moultrie and Ms Poe had 50% care of the child from 23 November 2019 (the objection decision). The objections officer further decided that the date of effect of the objection decision was 6 August 2020 (the date of effect decision). The objections officer found that Mr Moultrie did not have special circumstances that prevented him from lodging his objection within time and therefore the date for lodging the objection could not be extended.

4. Mr Moultrie lodged an application for review of the date of effect decision with the tribunal. A hearing was held on 19 March 2020. Mr Moultrie and Ms Poe both gave evidence on affirmation to the tribunal via conference telephone. The Child Support Agency provided the tribunal and the parties with documents relevant to the review. Mr Moultrie provided the tribunal  with additional documents (folios A1 to A16). Ms Poe was provided with a copy of the additional documents prior to hearing.

5. Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the tribunal will be referred to in the tribunal’s consideration of the issues which it has to decide.

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act).

2. The issues which arise in this case are:

   ·whether special circumstances prevented Mr Moultrie from lodging his objection to the original decision within time; and, if so,

   ·for what period should the period to object be extended.

CONSIDERATION

Issue 1 – Was Mr Moultrie prevented by special circumstances from lodging his objection in time?

1. Section 87AA of the Act restricts the date of effect of a care percentage decision made on review, to the date the objection was lodged, if that objection was lodged more than 28 days after the person was notified of the original decision.

2. The tribunal is satisfied that the original decision was a care percentage decision and that Mr Moultrie was notified of the decision on 11 December 2019. Mr Moultrie lodged an objection to the decision on 6 August 2020.

3. Subsection 87AA(2) of the Act provides that if there are special circumstances that prevented the person from lodging the objection within the 28-day period, then that period may be extended.

4. Extending the period for lodging the objection has the effect of backdating the date of effect.

5. Mr Moultrie told the tribunal that when the percentage of care decision was made in December 2019, he and Ms Poe had a private arrangement with respect to child support. Therefore he did not think the percentage of care decision would have any effect. Mr Moultrie said that at the time he was suffering from mental health issues and he decided that he would pursue the child support issues at a later date when he was more able to deal with them.

6. The tribunal is not satisfied that special circumstances prevented Mr Moultrie from lodging his objection within time. Mr Moultrie decided not to pursue the objection initially as the case was registered as private collect. The tribunal finds that he rested on his rights. Whilst Mr Moultrie states that he had issues with his mental health, the tribunal is not satisfied that his medical condition prevented him from lodging the objection within time.

7. The tribunal therefore finds that it is not appropriate to make a determination under subsection 87AA(2) to extend the time for lodging the objection.

8. As the first issue has been decided in the negative, the tribunal is not required to consider the second issue.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.