PYVW and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a child support Registrar's decision regarding the percentage of care of a child. The parties involved were the Applicant and the Other Party (OP), with the Child Support Registrar as the respondent. The core dispute revolved around whether there had been a change in the actual care arrangements for the child, necessitating a revocation of an existing care determination.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the existing care determination, made on 9 November 2018, which allocated 72% care to the Applicant and 28% to the OP, should be revoked. If revocation was deemed necessary, the Tribunal also had to ascertain the date from which such revocation should take effect and the actual percentages of care each party had from that date. The Tribunal was guided by sections 49 and 50 of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth), which require a determination of care percentage based on actual care and the absence of a pattern of care, or a pattern considered appropriate in the circumstances.

The Tribunal found the Applicant to be an honest witness, though her memory of specific dates was not entirely reliable. In contrast, the OP did not appear at the hearing, and his written evidence was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. Specifically, the OP provided conflicting dates for periods of care, including a holiday in December 2018 and a trip to Queensland in February to March 2019, which were contradicted by other evidence such as travel itineraries. The OP also admitted to not communicating disruptions to the care arrangements with the Applicant. Given these inconsistencies and the lack of corroborating evidence for the OP's asserted periods of care, the Tribunal was reluctant to accept his claims.

The Tribunal concluded that the OP's evidence did not demonstrate a consistent pattern of care and contained significant inaccuracies. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision and substituted it with a new determination that the existing care determination should be revoked. The Tribunal found that the OP's actual care percentage had significantly dropped and did not reflect the existing determination.