Neal and Williamson (Child support)

[2019] AATA 5200

Neal and Williamson (Child support) [2019] AATA 5200 (22 October 2019)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/SC017113

APPLICANT:  Mr Neal

OTHER PARTIES:  Ms Williamson

Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Member P Jensen

DECISION DATE:  22 October 2019

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

The Child Support Registrar is referred, in particular, to paragraph 8 of the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – whether there was a change to the likely pattern of care – whether a child support terminating event had occurred – decision under review affirmed

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

1. Mr Neal and Ms Williamson are the parents of [Child 1]. A child support case was registered with the Department of Human Services – Child Support (“the CSA”), as it is now called, in 2001. From October 2011, Mr Neal was recorded as providing 37% care and Ms Williamson was recorded as providing 63% care to [Child1].

2. On 10 January 2017, Mr Neal informed the CSA of a change in care. He stated, in effect, that neither parent had been providing care since approximately November 2016. He informed the CSA that he would provide a text message from Ms Williamson which would corroborate his account of events, but he did not do so. Ms Williamson informed the CSA that she had been providing, and was continuing to provide, full-time care, and she provided documentary evidence in support of her account of events. Nevertheless, the CSA decided to record each parent as providing 0% care, with effect from 10 January 2017 (and it consequently terminated the child support case). Ms Williamson promptly objected to that decision. On 20 May 2017 an objections officer allowed her objection and decided to record Mr Neal as providing 0% care and Ms Williamson as providing 100% care, with effect from 10 January 2017. That decision was made pursuant to sections 49 and 54G of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. In particular, the decision took effect from the date of notification because the CSA was not notified of the change in care within a reasonable period.

3. The child support case was terminated on 3 July 2018 when [Child 1] turned 18.

4. On 9 August 2019, Mr Neal applied to the Tribunal for review of the objections officer’s decision. I heard the matter on 22 October 2019.

5. On the day before the hearing, Mr Neal provided the following statement from Ms [A]:

   To whom it may concern. [Child 1] was in my care from August 2017 until August 2018. If you need any other information please do not hesitate to contact me on [phone number].

6. Mr Neal explained that he did not have direct knowledge of the care that was being provided to [Child 1] in 2017. He said he subsequently asked [Child 1] about the care he received in 2017, but [Child 1]’s answer was vague, which is why he obtained the statement from Ms [A].

7. Ms Williamson said [Child 1] was still in her full-time care in August 2017, but she ceased providing care in approximately November or December 2017, when she and [Child 1] attended Centrelink and spoke to a [professional] about a possible income support payment for [Child 1]. Ms Williamson said Centrelink (which, like the CSA, is an agency of the Department of Human Services) would have a record of that contact. Ms Williamson acknowledged that the child support case should have been terminated when she ceased providing care.

8. In summary, both parents agreed that Ms Williamson ceased providing care in the second half of 2017, and the child support case should have been terminated from when she ceased providing care, but they did not agree on the precise date on which that occurred. That is a matter that the parents can take up with the CSA directly.

9. Importantly for present purposes, Mr Neal did not dispute that Ms Williamson had been providing full-time care for a significant period prior to 10 January 2017, and she continued to provide full-time care until the second half of 2017, and he consequently did not dispute the correctness of the objections officer’s decision. I explained that I could only review the objections officer’s decision, and based on the evidence contained in the hearing papers and provided during the hearing, I would affirm that decision. Both parents were agreeable to me making that decision.

10. On the day before the hearing, Mr Neal also provided the Tribunal with the first two pages of his 16-page 2017‑18 individual tax return. At the start of the hearing I explained why I had not admitted that documentation into evidence. After the hearing, Mr Neal contacted the Tribunal registry and queried why I had not admitted that documentation into evidence. It was not admitted because it was not relevant to the review of the objections officer’s decision.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.

The Child Support Registrar is referred, in particular, to paragraph 8 of the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision.