PCXM and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by the Child Support Registrar regarding the care arrangements for a child. The parties involved were PCXM (the applicant) and the Child Support Registrar, with VTPB identified as the other party. The central dispute revolved around whether an interim care determination should apply following a change in the child's care on 17 January 2016, which resulted in VTPB having 100% care of the child.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there had been a change of care, whether court orders concerning the child had been complied with, and consequently, whether the provisions for an interim care determination under section 51 of the relevant Act were applicable. PCXM argued that an interim care determination should apply because she had been prevented from exercising her care rights under court orders dated 27 October 2015 and had taken reasonable steps to enforce those orders. This involved a contention that clause 6 of those orders, which PCXM argued afforded the child a choice regarding time with VTPB, had been misinterpreted.

The Tribunal considered the evidence, including court transcripts and correspondence, and noted that neither party disputed the change of care on 17 January 2016, nor that VTPB had 100% care thereafter. The Registrar's analysis indicated that the court orders of 27 October 2015 were not ambiguous and that extrinsic material was not required for their interpretation. The Tribunal found that clause 6 of the court orders afforded the child a choice as to spending time with VTPB, and that these orders had been complied with. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that while there was a change of care, the conditions for applying the interim care determination provision were not met due to the compliance with court orders.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that PCXM had taken reasonable action to have the child returned to her care, but that the court orders had been complied with. Therefore, the interim care determination provision in section 51 of the Act did not apply.