QKTZ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

QKTZ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 133 (6 February 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/5975
Re:QKTZ (a pseudonym)
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

AndJLWR (a pseudonym)
OTHER PARTY

And CTDD (a pseudonym)
OTHER PARTY

DECISION
Tribunal:Member G Hallwood
Date: 6 February 2020
Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is affirmed.
.........................[sgnd]......................................
Member G Hallwood
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – Family Tax Benefit – Three non-government parties – eligibility of grandparent for Family Tax Benefit – meaning of care – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999
Family Law Act 1975
Social Security Act 1991
Cases
Department of Family and Community Services and Barrett [1999] AATA 196
Reece and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Parsons [2008] AATA 525
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Field (1989) 25 FCR 425
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Lowe (1999) 92 FCR 26
Secondary Materials
Families Assistance Guide
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member G Hallwood
6 February 2020

This application now before the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerns a dispute between the applicant, QKTZ (the Grandmother) (who is paternal grandmother to three children) and the children’s mother, JLWR, (the Mother) as to who was entitled to Family Tax Benefit (FTB) as care provider in respect of three children in the period 1 January 2017 - 5 July 2017. The children’s father, CTDD, (the Father) is also a party to this dispute. FTB is a payment that helps with the cost of raising children.
The Grandmother’s application seeks review of a 1 September 2018 decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division (AAT1). The AAT1 had affirmed the decision under review, namely a 20 March 2018 decision of an Administrative Review Officer (ARO), that for the purpose FTB entitlements:
(a)A change in care occurred for the eldest child from 31 January 2017 to 15 March 2017 and only during this time he was in the care of the Grandmother.
(b)The two younger children remained in the care of the Mother and were not the FTB children of the Grandmother between 1 January 2017 and 5 July 2017.
There are significant debts payable to the Commonwealth in this matter as a consequence of changing percentage of care determinations.
The Secretary, while nominally the respondent, was represented at the hearing in a role limited to identifying the relevant facts in the dispute and assisting the Tribunal in applying the appropriate legislative provisions.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.
The Secretary provided the Tribunal with 293 pages of T-Documents[1] and its statements of facts, issues and contentions with annexures[2]. The Grandmother provided the Tribunal with 66 pages of documents, including a number of written statements, a bundle of text message screen shots, and copies of two intervention orders.[3] And the Mother provided the Tribunal with 12 pages of documents, including two written statements and a copy of a family court order.[4]
[1] Ex 1.
[2] Ex 2.
[3] A1 – A66.
[4] OP1 – 12.
THE ISSUES
The Tribunal is required in this matter to decide:
(a)Were any or all of the children an FTB child of the Grandmother during the period 1 January 2017 to 5 July 2017?
(b)If so, for what period were any of the children the FTB child of the Grandmother?
It is uncontested between the Grandmother and the Mother that the children were 100% in the care of the Mother prior to 1 January 2017 and also after 5 July 2017.
Usually in these matters they relate to two people that have legal responsibility for the care of the FTB child. Here that is not the case for reasons that will become apparent so there is no scope for the “shared care” provisions of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Act).
BACKGROUND
The Mother and the Father were married on 5 June 2008, approximately a year after they met. They had three children together and the children were born in 2009, 2013 and 2014 respectively.
The Father and the Mother separated in 2015. There was an Intervention Order in place from November 2015 preventing the Father from having direct or indirect contact with the Mother and the children. The Father has a new partner (the Father’s Partner).
The Grandmother is the Father’s mother. The Grandmother lived with the Father and the Mother in what the Tribunal will describe as the family home from the time of their marriage, while they were bringing up their children, and until the time of the Father’s and the Mother’s separation. At all relevant times, the Grandmother lived in the home in suburb A. The Mother had moved into accommodation in town B.
On 15 May 2017 the Grandmother lodged a claim for FTB for the three children stating that the children had been 100% in her care from 1 January 2017.
On 20 June 2017 the Father lodged a form “Details of your child’s care arrangements” indicating that the children were 100% in the Grandmother’s care from 1 January 2017.
On 5 July 2017, with the assistance of the police, the Mother collected the children from the Grandmother.[5]
[5] Ex1, T27 p 95.
On 2 August 2017 the Department of Human Services decided that the Grandmother had had 100% care of the three children from 1 January 2017.[6]
[6] Ex1, T52 p 232.
On 25 September 2017 the Mother requested that the decision of 2 August 2017 be reviewed.
On 20 March 2018 an ARO decided to change that decision and determined:
(a)A change in care occurred [for the eldest child] from 31 January 2017 to 15 March 2017 and only during this time he was in the care of the Grandmother.
(b)The two younger children remained in the care of the Mother and were not the FTB children of the Grandmother between 1 January 2017 and 3 October 2017.
The Grandmother sought a review of the ARO’s decision and on 1 September 2018 the AAT 1 affirmed the ARO’s decision.[7] The Grandmother now seeks to have the decision reviewed by the Tribunal and that is the subject of this hearing.
[7] Ex1, T2 pp 5-14.
THE LEGISLATION
The relevant law is contained in the Act and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
Subsection 21(1) of the Act prescribes the FTB qualification criteria and includes the requirement that the person have at least one FTB child (sub-paragraph 21(1)(a)(i) of the Act).
Subsection 22(2) of the Act sets out the requirements for an individual to be considered the FTB child of an adult.
23.The care of the individual as referenced in paragraph 22(2)(d) of the Act is further defined in subsection 22(5) of the Act.
Section 25 of the Act provides:
Effect of an individual's percentage of care for a child being less than 35%
If an individual's percentage of care for a child during a care period is less than 35%, the child is taken, despite section 22, not to be an FTB child of that individual for any part of the period.
To apply section 59 of the Act, there must be a determination of the individual's percentage of care. That determination is made under section 35A or section 35B of the Act.
Sections 35P and 35Q of the Act set out the circumstances in which an existing care determination must be or may be revoked.
CONSIDERATION – Were any of the children an FTB child of the Grandmother during the period 1 January 2017 to 5 July 2017?
The starting point in this matter is that the children were each in the care of the adult legally responsible for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the child and that was the Mother. There is no dispute that the Mother had legal responsibility for the care of the children prior to 1 January 2017. However, little is agreed between the parties as to who was caring for the children between 1 January and 5 July 2017.
For the Grandmother to be entitled to claim FTB in respect of a child, that child must be considered an FTB child of the Grandmother under the Act.[8] In order to be considered an FTB child of the Grandmother, the criteria set out in Subsection 22(2) of the Act must be met:
(2) An individual is an FTB child of the adult if:
(a)the individual is aged under 16; and
(b)the individual is in the adult's care; and
(c) the individual is an Australian resident, is a special category visa holder residing in Australia or is living with the adult; and
(d) the circumstances surrounding legal responsibility for the care of the individual are those mentioned in paragraph (5)(a),(b)or (c).
[8] Sub-paragraph 21(1)(a)(i) of the Act.
All three children meet the age and residency requirements in paras 22(2)(a) and 22(2)(c).
Before dealing with subsection 22(2)(b), I will first consider subsection 22(2)(d). Importantly, for the children to be considered an FTB child of the Grandmother the circumstances surrounding the legal responsibility for the care of the children must match those described in subsection 22(5) of the Act, which provides:
(5) The circumstances surrounding legal responsibility for the care of the individual are:
(a)the adult is legally responsible (whether alone or jointly with someone else) for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the individual; or
(b)under a family law order, registered parenting plan or parenting plan in force in relation to the individual, the adult is someone with whom the individual is supposed to live or spend time; or
(c)the individual is not in the care of anyone with the legal responsibility for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the individual.
In respect of subsection 22(5)(a), the Family Assistance Guide (the Guide) at 1.1.L.20 provides a definition for legal responsibility:
For the purposes of [the Act], legal responsibility is the right to have and to make decisions concerning the day-to-day care, welfare and development of a child. Both parents are legally responsible for their child, except where:
· they agree that one parent should have greater or sole responsibility, or
· a court makes an order that changes their responsibility in a particular matter.
In Department of Family and Community Services and Barrett,[9] the Tribunal considered the term legal responsibility and stated:[10]
Legal responsibility is not determined by who has the actual physical care and control but by a consideration of those who, either at common law, or as a result of an order of the Family Court, have that responsibility. Such responsibility may flow from a person's entitlement to custody of a child or, in certain circumstances, from his or her having access. The Field case is authority for this proposition.
[9] [1999] AATA 196.
[10] Ibid, [40].
In Reece and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Parsons,[11] the Tribunal considered section 61B of the Family Law Act 1975 and the meaning of parental responsibility; namely, "all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children."[12] The Tribunal in Reece went on to find that the grandparent did not have legal responsibility for the child as there was no court order removing the parent's legal responsibility.
[11] [2008] AATA 525.
[12] Ibid, [25].
Accordingly, the Grandmother (as the children’s grandmother), cannot satisfy the requirement in subsection 22(5)(a) in circumstances where there is no evidence that there was a change in legal responsibility for the children from either parent in favour of the Grandmother.
The Tribunal is not aware of any relevant family court orders or plans in place during the period. Therefore, the children cannot be considered FTB children in respect of the Grandmother pursuant to subsection 22(5)(b).
Subsection 22(5)(c) provides that the children may be considered FTB children in respect of the Grandmother if they were ‘not in the care of anyone with the legal responsibility for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the individual’.
In order for any or all of the children to have been FTB children of the Grandmother, they must be found to have not been in the care of anyone with the legal responsibility for their day-to-day care, welfare and development. For this reason if the child was the FTB child of the Mother as the person with legal responsibility for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the child; the child cannot be in the care of the Grandmother. This is also true the other way around. If by virtue of not being in the care of anyone with legal responsibility, and if they are found to be in the Grandmother’s care they cannot be in the Mother’s care. It is for this reason the “shared care” provisions of the Act[13] do not apply.
[13] Clause 11 of Schedule 1 of the Act.
The children were not in the care of the Father during 1 January 2017 to 5 July 2017. He was the subject of an Intervention Order preventing him from having contact with the children. He stated that he did not know where the Mother and the children had gone since she left the family home in 2015 up until she contacted him for help in January 2017.
Were any or all of the children in the Mother’s care from 1 January 2017 – 5 July 2017
The term 'care' is not defined in the Act. Instruction 1.1.C.90 of the Family Assistance Guide (the Guide) defines 'care':
For the purposes of being considered an FTB child, FA legislation refers to being in the care of an adult. Reference is also made to legal responsibility for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the individual.
Care generally includes physical care; however, the importance of physical care decreases as the child (also refers to a young person) becomes older. For example, a baby or toddler's care needs are largely immediate and physical (feeding, nappy changing, bathing, supervision). As the child grows older, they will gradually start to meet many of their physical care needs themselves.
Care also includes mental, moral and emotional support including love, comfort and discipline. Schooling is essential for the child's mental development and attention to matters like healthy activities is also an important aspect of care. This means that the adult must maintain a measure of oversight with a view to protection and guidance of the child.
Some examples of care include:
·having control of the child, including making major decisions relating to who the child spends time with and the child's health, education, discipline, recreational and/or social activities,
·having major daily responsibility for caring for the child and making the major decisions (e.g. meal preparation, hygiene, transport, discipline, emotional and moral support and guidance),
·bearing the costs of the child's daily life (e.g. food, accommodation, transport, clothing, schools fees, health and dental care etc.),
·making arrangements related to the child's needs (e.g. appointments at school or with doctors or dentists and accompanying them on those appointments), and/or
·being the main person for the day care, school, or college to contact in emergencies.
When assessing levels of 'care' consideration of the full circumstances of each case must be taken into account to decide whether care remains with a parent, is shared with others, or is not present.
In Secretary, Department of Social Security v Lowe the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the meaning of ‘dependent child’ which was defined in s 5(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 in terms which are identical to those set out in s 22(b) and (c) of the Family Assistance Act:[14]
... It is wrong to regard these words as requiring the adult's immediate physical presence at all times over a period of a fortnight, or any other period. After all, most children will be at school for a large part of each year, and a few may board for weeks or months at some institution, such as a hospital, or a boarding school. Children stay at times with relatives. The delegation of daily care involved in such arrangements need not be regarded as denying the enduring role of a caring parent. While a child is at school, or in hospital, or staying with a relative, the child may remain, in a perfectly intelligible sense, "in the ...care" of a parent or parents...
[14] (1999) 92 FCR 26 [19].
Little is agreed as to who was caring for the children in this matter between 1 January and 5 July 2017. Further, a large amount of the evidence (from all parties) provided was in the form of personal attacks. Those opinions concerning the character of those involved did not assist the Tribunal in determining who was caring for the children during the relevant period, that being a factual matter.
In her application for FTB dated 15 May 2017[15] the Grandmother stated that all three of the children were 100% in her care from 1 January 2017, and that the Mother had left the children in the Grandmother’s care from 1 January 2017.
[15] Ex1, T11 pp 58-65.
A form “Details of your child’s care arrangements” dated 19 June 2017 and signed by the Father also states that all three children were 100% in the Grandmother’s care since 1 January 2017. He also stated: “My mother is going to court to take full custody of my children I agree with it”.[16]
[16] Ex 1, T41 pp144-155.
Letters of support for the Grandmother’s position were provided by others including the Father’s Partner, a school principal,[17] the Grandmother’s sister and a number of the Grandmother’s neighbours. I have placed little weight on the Grandmother’s letters of support as they appear to have been requested to support a position and the deponents did not give oral evidence (except for the Grandmother’s sister), the content generally does not rise above mere assertions that happen to support the Grandmother’s position, they contain little specific detail regarding the care arrangements of the children, and conflict directly with the letters supporting the Mother’s position.
[17] The principal of the school attended by the eldest child.
One example of a letter supporting the Grandmother’s position, the school principal’s letter, commences with “…it has been brought to my attention that the Grandmother has above mentioned children under her care from 1 January 2017”. There is no indication that the school principal has any first-hand knowledge that supports assertions in her letter that “[the Grandmother is] the one who provides roof over [the children’s] heads, clothes them and feeds them due to the dysfunctional relationship of their parents”. In oral evidence the Grandmother stated that the eldest child only attended the school on Saturdays, and then only three or four times.
The Father’s Partner letter notes: [18]
…On new years day January 1^st 2017 [the Mother] asked me to pick up her children from her house in [town B] and bring them down to stay with their grandma [the Grandmother], she told me that she needed them to be looked after until she could find a new house to live in…
[18] Ex1, T16 pp 73 – 74.
An affidavit affirmed by the Grandmother on 20 July 2017[19], was apparently prepared with the assistance of a legal practitioner for the purpose of providing in support of an urgent family court application for orders to allow for the Grandmother to have access to the children. This affidavit provides some details regarding the care arrangements and circumstances in respect of the children. I note the following content of that affidavit:[20]
…In or about January 2017, [the eldest child] came to live with me so he could go to school with my older grandson [redacted] who lives with me. [redacted] my niece, found the mother online and contacted her. To the best of my knowledge [my niece] found her on Facebook, I am not sure of the details. The mother agreed to meet with [my niece] and agreed that [the eldest child] would live with me so he could go to [school] with [the grandson]. We met in a park in [town B].
…
Shortly after [the eldest child] came back into my care, the mother also brought the two younger children to live with me. She said that she would ‘come back’ meaning she would be moving back into the house and living again with the Father…
[19] Ex1, T27, pp93 -100
[20] Ex1, T27, p 94.

The Grandmother’s affidavit is inconsistent with her application for FTB and her evidence to the Tribunal, both of which asserted that all three children came to live with her on 1 January 2017. The affidavit is also inconsistent with the Father’s Partner’s letter which indicated it was the Partner and not the Mother that brought the children to live with the Grandmother.
The Mother contends that her eldest child moved into the family home with the Grandmother on 31 January 2017 in order to start the school year with his cousin who also lived in the family home. The Mother also contends that the eldest child was intended to spend weekends with her although because of accommodation difficulties and pressure from the Grandmother to lift the Intervention Order on the Father the eldest child stayed weekends with the Grandmother.
The Mother confirmed in oral evidence that she was living in town B with her two other children at that time.
Letters of support for the Mother’s position were provided by others including friends, neighbours, baby sitters, her doctor and landlord. I have placed little weight on the Mother’s letters of support as they appear to have been requested to support a position and contain evidence that directly conflicts with the letters in support of the Grandmother’s position.
The Grandmother’s oral evidence in relation to when the eldest child came to live with her was often evasive and vague. At one stage when questioned about it she stated that she “could not recall anything that happened, the exact date”. She stated that she relied on her son.
I find there were inconsistencies in the Grandmother’s evidence described above. I favour the Mother’s evidence as the dates are consistent throughout her evidence and as a result I find that the eldest child moved in with the Grandmother on 31 January 2017 in order to attend school.
Was the eldest child ever not in the care of someone with the legal responsibility?
For the same reasons as I favour the Mother’s evidence with respect to the date the eldest child moved in with the Grandmother, I also accept the Mother’s evidence in relation to the care she provided for the eldest child at that time. The Mother told the Tribunal that although her intent was to have her eldest child spend his weekends with her, this did not happen for a number of reasons between 31 January 2017 when she placed him in the Grandmother’s care and the date on which she resumed caring for the eldest child.
Subsection 25 of the Act provides that a child cannot be considered an FTB child in respect of that individual, despite section 22, if the individual’s percentage of care for the child is less than 35% during a care period.
The Mother had initially intended to delegate responsibility for the care her eldest child to the Grandmother while he was living over 50 kilometres from where the Mother was living. Circumstances led to the Mother being unable to deliver care and control to her eldest child from 31 January 2017.
In order to determine whether the eldest child remained in the Mother’s care I look to examples such as those contained in the Guide. The Mother had made the decision of where the eldest child would be attending school, where he would be living, who he would be living with, and accepted that the Grandmother would be providing his meals and caring for him from day to day.
The question is whether, from 31 January 2017 onwards, the Mother delegated care responsibility to the Grandmother, or whether the arrangement went beyond delegation in that the Grandmother cared for the child to the extent that the child was not in the Mother’s care for subsection 22(5)(c) purposes.
I accept that the Grandmother ensured the day to day physical needs of the eldest child were being met and to a large extent provided day-to-day for his mental, moral and emotional support including love, comfort and discipline. While it can be argued that allowing the Father to visit against the directions contained in the Intervention Order may not have been wise, it also demonstrates the level of control the Grandmother had in relation to the eldest child’s care.
I find that this arrangement went beyond a delegation of care by the Mother to the Grandmother. In the absence of the Mother providing day-to-day care, and with the Mother’s consent to that arrangement, the eldest child was in the Grandmother’s care from 31 January 2017. Conversely, the eldest child was not in the Mother’s care for a period of time beginning on 31 January 2017.
The Grandmother has satisfied the Tribunal that for a time starting on 31 January 2017 in the absence of the Mother, she made the wide range of decisions concerning the daily care and control of the eldest child without any reference to or input from the Mother.
The Mother contends that this care arrangement ceased on 15 March 2017 when she moved back into the family home. The Mother says that from 15 March 2017 onwards, she resumed caring for the eldest child. The Mother indicated that while the Grandmother paid private school fees for her eldest child, from 15 March 2017 the Mother purchased food, clothes, bedding and other household products and maintained control over all of her children including the eldest child.
The Mother said that she had contacted the Father on 7 March 2017 for him to arrange collection of the two younger children and take them to live temporarily with the Grandmother at the family home. This was because her lease was due to run out on the property she was living at in town B on 10 March 2017, and she was unable to renew that lease. The Mother told the Tribunal that at that time she did not expect to take long to find new accommodation, only a few days. She then had some difficulties finding alternative accommodation quickly, so she moved back into the family home, on 15 March 2017 and resumed caring for all of the children. The Mother says that she stayed in the family home during the period 15 March 2017 to 23 May 2017 apart from a few days when she stayed with others in town B while seeking new accommodation for herself and her children. The Mother stayed with the children in the family until 23 May 2017, when she left under duress of the Father.
The Grandmother submitted that the Mother did not return to live in the family home at any stage during the period 1 January 2017 to 5 July 2017. The Father supported the Grandmother’s position by stating that the Mother had never moved back into the family home in that period.
In response to questions put by the ARO the Father told the ARO that “she [the Mother] was there for about 3 months and now he has to pay the huge electricity bill she left behind”. At the hearing the Father denied that he had said that to the ARO. I note that on the Mother’s evidence, she lived in the family home for around two and a half months, a time period which is consistent with a description of ‘around 3 months’. I do not accept the Father’s more recent account. This recent account appears to be designed to attain a favourable outcome for his mother, and an unfavourable outcome for his ex-partner, in this application for review.
The Tribunal is satisfied from the Mother’s evidence that from 15 March 2017, being the date on which the Mother moved to the family home with the younger children, she resumed caring for the eldest child. It is clear from her evidence that the Mother was in charge of caring for all of her children and was attempting to bring them back together under one roof.
The Mother put to the Tribunal orally, and it is corroborated by an affidavit confirming a statement provided to police on 4 July 2017, that after she moved back into the family home she became aware that the Father was attending the family home in contravention to the Intervention Order that was in place. [21] It was from this time that the Mother determined to take full responsibility for the care of her older child as well as her two younger children.
[21] Ex1, T34 p123.
The Mother stated that she moved out of the family home on 23 May 2017. The Mother left the family home following a violent incident between herself and the Father. From 23 May 2017 onwards all three children lived with the Grandmother in the family home, while the Mother sought alternative accommodation for herself and the children. Thereafter but until 5 July 2017 all three children were living with the Grandmother in the family home.
Centrelink records state that a rental tenancy agreement was signed by the Mother on 31 May 2017. The Mother’s affidavit states that she ‘spent the next few weeks setting up the new house and preparing furniture for the children’s bedrooms’. The Mother said that during those few weeks she hoped the new house would be in order and the Grandmother would facilitate the return of the children to her. That did not eventuate, and the Mother made numerous attempts to contact the children by calling both the Father and the Grandmother and sending text messages to them. These attempts, according to the Mother, went unanswered by the Father and the Grandmother.
On 16 June 2017, the Mother attended the town B Police station for advice regarding the children’s situation. There was then an attendance by police officer (without the Mother) on the family home, followed by a further attendance by the Mother at which the Grandmother told her that she was not allowed to see the children. On 5 July 2017 the Mother and the police attended the family home and retrieved the children.
A statement provided by the Mother to the police on 4 July 2017 is consonant with the Mother’s oral evidence and indicates that she had become desperate to gain access to her children who she believed to be in danger.
There is sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the Mother attempted to recover all three of her children on a number of occasions between the end of May and 5 July 2017 when she was assisted by police to remove the children from the family home.
I find that when the Mother left the children with the Grandmother between the end of May 2017 and 5 July 2017 she did so on a temporary and informal basis which means that she continued to have legal responsibility for the care of all three of her children extending from 15 March 2017.
It is not contested that on 5 July 2017 the police attended the family home with the Mother to ensure she was able to remove the children from the family home.
I find that the Grandmother’s recollection of events was less reliable than the Mother’s. Taking into account the Mother’s contemporaneous statement to police[22] I do not accept that all of the children stayed with the Grandmother for the entire period or that the Mother did not stay in the family home for any of the period. I accept the Mother’s evidence regarding the care arrangements for the three children.
[22] Ex1, T34 pp 121-125.
In evidence, the Grandmother expressed many times how much she cared about her grandchildren and how disappointed she was that the Mother had taken them away from her on 5 July 2017.
While the Tribunal has some empathy for the Grandmother’s situation and loss, there was nothing in her evidence that satisfied the Tribunal that all of the children were not in their mother’s care from 15 March 2017 or that the two younger children were not in their mother’s care during the entire period.
For the above reasons I find, as did the Secretary at ARO and AAT1 that:
(a)A change in care occurred for the eldest child from 31 January 2017 to 15 March 2017 and only during this time was the Grandmother entitled to FTB for the eldest child;
(b)The two younger children remained in the care of the Mother and were not the FTB children of the Grandmother between 1 January 2017 and 5 July 2017.
Summary
The outcome of the Tribunal’s finding in this matter is the same as the Secretary’s which was affirmed by AAT1.
DECISION
For the above reasons the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding eighty (80) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of

Member G Hallwood

....................[sgnd]...............................
Administrative Assistant Legal
Dated: 6 February 2020
Dates of hearing:   14 June 2019 & 22 August 2019
Applicant’s (QKTZ) representative:               In person
Respondent’s representative:   Ms L Odgers, Department of Human Services
Other party’s (JLWR) representative:           In person
Other party’s (CTDD) representative:           In person

[2020] AATA 133

6 February 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness