Pridhoe and Pridhoe (Child support) - [2024] AATA 2898

Pridhoe and Pridhoe (Child support) [2024] AATA 2898 (18 June 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2024/BC027600
APPLICANT:  Ms Pridhoe
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Pridhoe

TRIBUNAL:Member R Prasad
DECISION DATE: 18 June 2024
DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that the existing care determination is revoked on 6 May 2023 and a new care determination is made that Ms Pridhoe had 50% care and Mr Pridhoe had 50% care of the child from 7 May 2023.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change to the likely pattern of care – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – decision under review set aside and substituted

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

Since 12 July 2016, Ms Pridhoe (the mother) and Mr Pridhoe (the father) have had a registered child support assessment for their youngest child (the child). Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) has collected child support on the basis the mother had 0% care and the father 100% care of the child from 21 February 2023. These percentages denote the existing percentages of care.
On 25 May 2023, the mother notified Child Support that the child has decided to spend 50% of the time with each parent since 7 May 2023.
On 8 August 2023, Child Support reflected the care of the child as 50% to the mother and 50% to the father from 7 May 2023 (the original decision).
On 10 August 2023, the father objected to the original decision as he had 100% care of the child and from 21 February 2023, the mother had provided care of a total of nine nights.
Following receipt of further evidence from both parents, on 27 February 2024, Child Support allowed the father’s objection in part and reflected the care as 89% to the father and 11% to the mother (the objection decision).
On 4 March 2024, the mother sought review of the objection decision by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).
The matter was heard on 15 May 2024. The Child Support Registrar elected not to attend the hearing but provided documentation (folios 1 to 316). The mother appeared by MS Teams audio and provided documentation before and after the hearing (folios A1 to A52). The father also appeared by MS Teams audio and provided a submission after the hearing (folio B1).

ISSUES

The relevant issue before me is whether there was a change to the child’s care arrangements and, if so, the date of effect of the new care determination.

CONSIDERATION

What is required?

Section 49 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides that if…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Pridhoe and Pridhoe (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Pridhoe and Pridhoe (Child support) [2024] AATA 2898
Case: [2024] AATA 2898
Decision Date: 18 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Child Support Appeals Tribunal regarding a decision made by the Registrar of the Child Support Agency. The appeal was brought by the father, Mr Pridhoe, against the mother, Ms Pridhoe, concerning the percentage of care for their child. The Registrar had previously determined the percentage of care, which the father sought to have reviewed and altered.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there had been a change in the likely pattern of care for the child since the last assessment, and if so, whether the existing percentage of care determination should be revoked and a new one substituted. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented by both parties regarding the actual care arrangements and the future intentions for the child's residence.

The Tribunal found that the evidence demonstrated a significant and ongoing change in the likely pattern of care for the child, with the father now providing a greater percentage of care than previously assessed. Applying the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, the Tribunal determined that the existing percentage of care determination was no longer accurate and should be revoked. The Tribunal then substituted a new percentage of care determination reflecting the changed circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and the Registrar's decision was set aside and substituted.

Orders