MRLH and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a review of a Child Support Registrar's decision regarding the care percentage of a child between the parents, MRLH and YTSS. The dispute arose after YTSS reported a change in care arrangements, claiming 100% care of their now 17-year-old child from 30 December 2018, leading the Registrar to update MRLH's care percentage to 0%. MRLH objected, asserting that YTSS was withholding care and that prior care arrangements were in accordance with court orders from 13 June 2013. The Registrar initially disallowed MRLH's objection, finding that while MRLH had taken reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the court-ordered care, special circumstances existed that warranted an immediate assessment based on actual care, without an interim period.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether an interim care period should apply, whether MRLH had taken reasonable action to ensure compliance with the care arrangements, and whether special circumstances existed that justified departing from the court-ordered care percentage. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented, including an interim intervention order against MRLH, a police statement from the child, and a victim impact statement, to determine if there was a substantial risk to the child's well-being if the previous care arrangement continued. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the cessation of the intervention order and the non-pursuit of charges by the police altered the assessment of special circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessment Act does not permit the determination of an interim period after the event. It found that on 30 December 2018, when the care arrangements ceased, there was sufficient evidence, including the child's police statement and an intervention order, to suggest MRLH posed a risk to his child, thus warranting the refusal of an interim care determination. Although the Tribunal noted that the child was 15 at the time of the statement and that the intervention order had concluded and charges were not pursued, it still considered that the risk was present for the maximum period of 26 weeks. The Tribunal concluded that MRLH had taken reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the court orders, but the existence of special circumstances at the time of the care change meant no interim period should apply.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding no basis to determine a later interim care period.