QQSF and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

Case •

[2025] ARTA 49

•

7 January 2025

QQSF and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 49 (7 January 2025)

Applicant:QQSF

Respondent:  Child Support Registrar

Other Parties:  FHPR

Tribunal Number:                2023/9511

Tribunal:Senior Member J Walsh (second review)

Place:Brisbane

Date:7 January 2025

Date of written reasons:     23 January 2025

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 23 January 2025 at 2:14pm

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.

Catchwords:

Child support – review of objection decision finding no special circumstances preventing timely objection to primary care percentage decision – jurisdiction considered – adequacy of notice of care percentage decision considered – whether special circumstances prevented objection within 28 days of service of notice – decision under review affirmed.

Legislation:

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, cl 24, Sch 16
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, para 79(2)(f)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, ss 4, 87AA(2), para 96A(b)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, Part 5, Division 4, Subdivision B
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Regulations 2018, s 31(2)
Evidence Act 1995, ss 160, 163

Cases:
Child Support Registrar v MQMV [2019] FCA 1171

Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services v Rogers [2000] FCA 1447

Statement of Reasons

  1. The applicant father, QQSF, and the mother, FHPR, are separated parents of two children. Late in 2021, the mother applied to Child Support (the agency responsible for administration of the child support scheme) for a child support assessment. One of the key variables in determining the quantum of a liable parent’s child support obligation is the percentage of care each parent provides for their children. The mother claimed majority care of one child and 100% care of the other. The father claimed care was as agreed at 50% to each parent.

  2. On 10 January 2022, a delegate of Respondent, the Child Support Registrar, accepted the mother’s application for a child support assessment and determined care percentages of 86% to the mother and 14% to the father for one child and 100% to the mother for the other child. A written notice dated 10 January 2022 was sent by prepaid post to both parents advising of the acceptance of her child support application; child support assessments for the period 24 November 2021 to 23 February 2023 were also enclosed. The assessment did not require the father to pay any child support to the mother; the way the child support formula works, his care of 14% of one child was recognised as meeting his share of the costs of the children, having regard to each parent’s modest income.

  3. On 24 February 2023, the father contacted Child Support and disputed the care percentages determined in the mother’s favour; he maintained each parent had 50% care from late 2021. His disagreement was taken to be an objection to the care percentage decision made in January 2022. On 21 April 2023, an objections officer considered the father’s objection and made:

    ·a decision to allow his objection to the original care percentage decision dated 10 January 2022, and to determine care percentages of 50% to each parent for both children; and

    ·a decision that these care percentages should have effect in the child support assessment from 24 February 2023 and not earlier; this flowed from a determination not to decide under subsection 87AA(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 that there were special circumstances which prevented the father from objecting within 28 days of service of notice of the original decision.

    This latter decision was based on the objections officer’s view that the father had not objected to the original care percentage decision until 24 February 2023 and a finding that there were no relevant special circumstances.

  4. The father then applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the adverse date of effect decision. On 11 December 2023, the AAT agreed with the view there were no special circumstances which had prevented the father from objecting within 28 days of notification of the care percentage decision; the AAT affirmed the adverse date of effect decision. On 15 December 2023, the father sought further AAT review (AAT second review), as he was entitled to do.

  5. On 14 October 2024, the AAT was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). AAT applications for review not finalised before that date transitioned to the ART to be considered and finalised in a manner the ART considered efficient and fair: clause 24, Schedule 16 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024. As far as possible, such applications were to be continued under the ART legislation.

  6. I conducted a hearing on 17 December 2024 and heard evidence from both parents. At the hearing, both the father and the mother indicated that they wished to call witnesses to give evidence. I considered the statements of evidence which had been provided and was not persuaded that the likely evidence from any of the prospective witnesses would materially assist me. Accordingly, I determined not to hear from other witnesses: see paragraph 79(2)(f) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. 

  7. I gave all parties time after the hearing to provide additional material. Additional material received from the Respondent and the mother was provided to the father for any reply. Nothing has been received from the father post-hearing.

    Jurisdiction

  8. Early in the course of the application, the Respondent had made submissions to the effect that the AAT lacked jurisdiction to consider the father’s matter. When the father applied for AAT second review in December 2023, paragraph 96A(b) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Collection Act) provided for the right to make a further AAT application for review from an AAT first review of a care percentage decision.

  9. The Respondent’s initial submission was based on a narrow construction of the term “care percentage decision”. The proper approach in this context was considered by the Federal Court in Child Support Registrar v MQMV [2019] FCA 1171. Flick J considered the definition of the term “care percentage decision” in section 4 of the Collection Act and held that such a decision need not be one made exclusively under Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989; it had to be a decision as to the particulars of an administrative assessment, to the extent that the decision involved a determination under Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 5.

  10. After MQMV, the Respondent’s position changed and the AAT’s jurisdiction in the father’s case was conceded. I consider that concession to have been properly made. A decision under section 87AA of the Collection Act is a decision as to the particulars (or material details) of the administrative assessment which involves, at least partly, percentages of care determined under Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 5 of the Assessment Act; it impacts the date of effect of the care percentage determination in the assessment. It follows there is no jurisdictional impediment to the ART making a decision on the father’s second review application.

    The notice issue

  11. Little substantive attention has been given to this issue to date; the effectiveness of the notice dated 10 January 2022 appears to have been assumed. Just as the objections officer had to consider section 87AA of the Collection Act, so too am I required to do so. Section 87AA provides:

    87AA  Date of effect of objections relating to care percentage decisions that are allowed

    (1)  If:

    (a)  a person lodges, under section 80A, an objection to a care percentage decision; and

    (b)  the objection is lodged more than 28 days or, if the person is a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction, 90 days after notice of the care percentage decision was served; and

    (c)  the Registrar decides (the review decision), under section 87, to allow the objection in a way that has the effect of varying the determination to which the care percentage decision relates, or substituting a new determination;

    the date of effect of the review decision is the day on which the person lodged the objection.

    (2)  If the Registrar is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the person from lodging the objection within the period referred to in paragraph (1)(b), the Registrar may determine that subsection (1) applies as if:

    (a)  in a case where the person is a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction—the reference to 90 days in that paragraph were a reference to such longer period as the Registrar determines to be appropriate; or

    (b)  otherwise—the reference to 28 days in that paragraph were a reference to such longer period as the Registrar determines to be appropriate.

    (3)  If:

    (a)  the Registrar decides to make a determination under subsection (2) in relation to a person; or

    (b)  the Registrar decides not to make such a determination in relation to a person;

    the Registrar must give written notice of the decision to each person affected by the decision.

    The practical effect of subsection 87AA(1) of the Collection Act, in this case, is the father’s successful care percentage objection could only take effect from the date of his objection in February 2023, provided notice of the care percentage decision was served. If he was not served with notice of the care percentage decision, the objection decision of 50% care to each parent can take effect from the start of the child support assessment. The Respondent relies on the notice dated 10 January 2022 and, in particular, parts of the accompanying enclosure, to satisfy this notice requirement.

  12. The general approach to what constitutes sufficient notice in a statutory context was considered by the Federal Court in Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services v Rogers [2000] FCA 1447. At [31] – [33], Cooper J said:

    31       A notice is a notification, a making known, a communication of some matter from one person to another.  In the statutory context, the statute identifies the matter to be notified by the notice.  Notice is given when it is received by the person to whom the notice is to be given:  the giving and receiving of the notice are two aspects of the same action and are simultaneous.  Consequently, the giving of notice ordinarily will require that the person to be given notice actually receives notification of the matter to be communicated.  Of course, whether by statute or contract, this two-sided act of giving and receiving of notice may be deemed to be done by some act other than actual receipt of the notification by the recipient:  Sun Alliance and London Assurance Co Ltd v Hayman [1975] 1 WLR 177 (CA) at 183, 184, 185.

    32         A requirement that a person be given notice of something does not demand that the matter be brought home to the person’s understanding or knowledge;  nor is notice synonymous with knowledge:  Nguyen v Refugee Review Tribunal (1997) 74 FCR 311 (FC) at 320, 325, 332 citing with approval Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co (GB) Ltd v Lancashire Batteries Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 857 at 863 and Cresta Holdings Ltd v Karlin [1959] 1 WLR 1055 at 1057-1058.  However, notice requires that the matter of which a person is to have notice must be brought clearly to the person’s attention:  Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co at 863; Austin at 146 - 147.

    33          In my view, the matter to be communicated by the “notice” referred to in subsections 299(2), (3) and (4) is the making of a decision in relation to a sole parent pension which is a reviewable decision under s 1240 of the Act.  That involves two elements; the fact that a decision has been made and the content of the decision… 

  13. I considered the subject notice. There is firstly a letter dated 10 January 2022 which I am satisfied was correctly addressed to the father, given he has not contended otherwise. Relevant parts of this letter include:

    Dear (omitted)

    CHILD SUPPORT ASSESSMENT APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE

    Laws relating to the payment of Government benefits often require separated parents to apply to us for child support. We are writing to advise you that we have accepted a child support application from (omitted). We have calculated the amount of child support you should pay.

    What this means for you
    We have enclosed your child support assessment/s for the period24 November 2021 to 23
    February 2023.
    …
             Please refer to your assessment notice/s for the full details of your child support.

    Important

    You need to tell us within 14 days of any changes to your circumstances, such as care
    arrangements, income, employment status or contact details. In most cases, changes can only be

    made from the date you tell us.

    …

    If you think this decision is incorrect
    If you believe that you are not a parent of the child(ren), you need to apply to a court for a parentage
    decision. The court order should be made under section 107 of theChildSupport (Assessment) Act 1989. Please note that time limits may apply. We recommend you seek legal advice before applying
    to the court.

    …

    This letter notifies the father of the acceptance of the mother’s application for a child support assessment. It details that the amount of child support he is to pay has been calculated, albeit that the actual amount is not included. Full details require consideration of the enclosed child support assessments. If the father disagrees with this decision (which is plainly the acceptance of the application for an assessment), and believes he is not a parent of the children, he can apply to court. In my view, there is no rational basis upon which it is open to find this letter constitutes notice to the father of any care percentage decision.

  14. Relevant parts of the enclosed child support assessment follow:

    Your Child Support Assessment

    Your reference number: (omitted)

    Issue date: 10 January 2022

    We have calculated the

    annual amount of child support of$0

    payable by (omitted) to (omitted)

    for the support of the children in this assessment.

    …

    Assessment period: 24 November 2021 to 23 February 2023

    How your child support is calculated

    The amount of child support to be paid is based on a formula that looks at both parents' incomes how much it costs to raise the children, and the percentage of care each parent provides.

    We follow eight steps to calculate child support using a legislative formula - an explanation is below. For more information, go toservicesaustralia.gov.au/childsupportassessment and select 'Basic formula'.

    Steps 1 to 3: Income

    The following income details were used in your assessment:

    (Father’s first name)              (Mother’s first name)

Provisional $22,455 adjusted taxable income $27,970 Provisional
$26,319 less the self support amount $26,319
$0 child support income $1 651
$1,651 combined child support income $1,651
0.00% income percentage 100.00%

Adjusted taxable income: the total of taxable income plus other income such as gross reportable fringe benefits total, target foreign income, net investment losses, some tax-free pensions or benefits and reportable superannuation contributions.

Provisional: the income we use when you have not sent your tax return to the Australian Tax Office.

Self-support amount: the amount that is deducted from each parent's adjusted taxable income for their own support. This is a set amount and is the same for each parent.

If the parent's adjusted taxable income is less than the self-support amount, the child support income we use in the assessment will be $0.

Child support income: the income used to calculate child support. This is each parent's adjusted taxable income minus the self-support amount and allowances for relevant dependent children and children from other child support assessments.

Combined child support income: both parents' incomes added together. Income percentage: each parent's share of the combined child support income.

Steps 4 and 5: Care and cost percentages

We have decided the amount of care you have for (older child’s name) and (younger child’s name) are based on the care information in our records. The care percentage is usually worked out using the number of nights you care for the children.

If you do not tell us about an increase in your care percentage within 28 days, it may not be used in the assessment until the day you do tell us about the change.

If you have 14 per cent or more care of your children a year, we consider that you are directly meeting some of the child's costs through care - this is called thecost percentage. When you care for the child you have extra costs for such things as accommodation and food and the cost percentage takes this into account.

Under the formula, we take the cost percentage (share of costs met directly) from the parent's income percentage (share of costs to be met) to get the child support percentage. The child support percentage is applied against the costs of the children (worked out at Step 7) to arrive at the child support amount payable at Step 8.

(Mother’s name)

For (older child’s name), (mother’s name) care percentage is 86% and her cost percentage is 76%.

For (younger child’s name), (mother’s name) care percentage is 100% and her cost percentage is 100%.

(Father’s name)

For (older child’s name), (father’s name) care percentage is 14% and her cost percentage is 24%.

For (younger child’s name), (father’s name) care percentage is 0% and her cost percentage is 0%.

Step 6: Child support percentage

Under the formula, we take the cost percentage (share of costs met directly) from the parent's
income percentage (share of costs to be met) to get the child support percentage. The child support
percentage is applied against the costs of the children (worked out at Step 7) to arrive at the child support amount payable at Step 8.

Step 7: Costs of the children

The costs of children are worked out using both parents' incomes, the number of children and the ages of the children. For your assessment, the costs of the children have been calculated as follows:

ꞏ (omitted) born (omitted) 2018 (age range: under 13 years, a cost of $198)
ꞏ (omitted) born (Omitted) 2020 (age range: under 13 years, a cost of $198)

Where there are children over 13 years of age and under 13 years of age in the assessment, we use the 'children of mixed age' category in the 'cost of children' table. The 'Children of Mixed Age' category is an average of the 0-12 years and 13+ years tables. This means the cost for each child is the same.

Step 8: Child support amount payable

…

(Father’s name) is required to pay (mother’s name) an annual child support amount of $0. (Mother’s name) is required to pay (father’s name) an annual child support amount of $0.

Final annual Child Support Amount: (Father’s name) is to pay $0 to (mother’s name) for the support of the children in this assessment.

….

Call us if you think this decision is incorrectbecause information was not provided or taken into
account; or the legislation has not been applied correctly. We will check the details and explain the
decision. You can ask us to review the decision (we call this an objection) within28 days from the
date you receive this letter. For more information about how to objectgo to our website

servicesaustralia.gov.au/reviewsandappeals

  1. Not all the content of the child support assessment has been included above. It seems fair to suggest it is a busy document. At hearing, the father, when attempting to read it, described it as confusing. For the average person unfamiliar with matters relating to child support, I accept that to be a reasonable observation. However, the reality is that the child support formula requirements involve several steps and determinations as part of the process of coming to an ultimate annual rate of child support payable by the liable parent. Here, the father was assessed to pay an annual amount of $0 (how one pays $0 need not be further considered in this application).

  1. I also note the latter part of the assessment content above includes advice to call Child Support if the father thought this decision was incorrect. It proceeds to advise that he could ask for the decision to be reviewed (referred to as an objection). What is the decision being referred to? The Respondent says this content is apt to cover the care percentage decision. Fairly read, I consider the advice relates to only a single decision, being the decision as to the amount of child support payable. This is highlighted at the start of the assessment and again at the conclusion after Step 8, the final step in the assessment process. I do not consider the father was notified he could object to any care percentage decision contained in the assessment document. However, there is nothing in the child support legislation that sets out any requirements as to notice of a care percentage decision. It follows the failure to advise that the father could object to that decision does not invalidate the notice.

  2. In my view, it can reasonably be said that, for the average recipient, notice of the care percentage decision can only be found by closely attending to the detailed content in the enclosed child support assessment (the term “fine print” is not entirely inapt). The reader would need to be motivated in some measure to go through the detail. Here, when the father’s liability was assessed at $0, any such motivation may have been lacking.

  3. Was sufficient notice of the care percentage decision given? The Respondent relies on the content under the sub-heading “Steps 4 and 5: Care and cost percentages”, contending that the key details of the care percentage decision are adequately set out. Focusing on this content alone, I accept that the information set out informs that a decision has been made and the actual care percentages determined are detailed. I note, however, that the father was also informed that his amount of care was based on the care information in Child Support’s records. The evidence shows that was not necessarily correct; evidence the father provided by 30 December 2021 in support of his claim of equal care does not appear to have been taken into account in the original decision. This does not invalidate the decision. Provided he was given notice of the care percentage decision in fact made, he ordinarily had to object within 28 days of notification to have a successful objection outcome take effect from a time prior to his objection.

  4. Ultimately, I am persuaded that sufficient notice of the care percentage decision was given in the context of the assessment notice. The key factors in reaching this view are the reference to a decision about care being made and the actual care percentages determined being set out. The cover letter directed the father to the assessment notice for full details of his child support. With a degree of hesitation, I find that notice of the care percentage decision was clearly enough given in the circumstances. This is despite the need to find this content under the Steps 4 and 5 sub-heading. I should add that, in circumstances where there was a dispute between the parents as to care arrangements in place, this mode of notification is less than desirable. I am aware from other matters, for example where there is an existing child support assessment and a subsequent dispute about a change in care, Child Support sends a notice relating specifically to the care percentage decision made in that context. The parents are not simply left to scan the fine print in the assessment notices which may issue to discover what care percentage decision has been made. It is not clear why there is different approach to notification taken in a care dispute on a new child support assessment application as opposed to a care dispute when a child support assessment already exists.   

  5. The father has contended he did not actually receive the notice dated 10 January 2022. As was noted by the AAT, there are deeming of service by post provisions to be considered in this context. Having regard to subsection 31(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Regulations 2018 and sections 160 and 163 of the EvidenceAct 1995, the AAT considered that service of the subject notice was taken to have been effected by 26 January 2022. I note that was a public holiday; the correct date is 27 January 2022. The effect of these provisions is to deem service of the notice by 27 January 2022, unless the contrary is proved. To do so requires proof of non-delivery; evidence of non-receipt is not sufficient. The father had suggested the notice may have been stolen, although he did not pursue this at hearing. In any event, that would not prove non-delivery. There is no evidence to disprove service here; the deeming provisions apply. The father’s objection in February 2023 was plainly made more than 28 days after 27 January 2022, so that he needs a favourable finding under subsection 87AA(2) to succeed on this application.

    Special circumstances

  6. The question to be considered here is whether there were special circumstances which prevented the father from objecting within 28 days of notification in January 2022. His primary contention related to claims of physical and mental ill health and his dire financial position combined, impacting his capacity to object. On the morning of the hearing, the father also emailed further submissions seeking to rely on the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He raises claims of inequity, lack of procedural fairness, failure of Child Support to properly take account of his disability and others to support his case. I am satisfied none of these Acts or claims have any bearing on my considerations, which turn on the application of the provisions of section 87AA of the Collection Act. I consider the father’s contentions in this respect to be misconceived.

  7. The father’s claims that he was physically and psychologically unable to deal with any child support issues find some support in the form of a report from his treating general practitioner dated 10 June 2024. His doctor details several matters:

    ·a concerning tumour in the father’s upper back, confirmed by MRI in 2020, which may have been producing hormones affecting his health and wellbeing. Around that time, the doctor reports that the father began to experience episodes of a range of symptoms potentially consistent with a heart attack. There were several emergency department presentations in this context, resulting in the father becoming depressed, anxious, hyper-vigilant and fatigued. I note the father has provided photographs indicating eight ED presentations between March 2019 and December 2022 in this context; two photos dated 21 July 2022 and 23 December 2022 fall within the period from service of the notice in January 2022 to his objection in February 2023;

    ·mild sleep apnoea diagnosed in 2020, affecting the father’s sleep, energy levels and concentration to a variable extent;

    ·significant intermittent back pain from spinal degeneration; and

    ·the breakdown of his relationship with the mother left the father depressed to the point of experiencing suicidal ideation. His home life was disrupted in many ways; the need to focus on his children affected his attention to and time for his work commitments.   

    The doctor concluded the report by opining that the combination of these matters over the last four years had very significantly affected the father’s cognition and physical functioning.

  8. The father’s material includes a statement in which he also explains that he experienced significant financial pressure in the period post-separation in late 2021. Once the mother left, he had to bear the whole cost of their rent without any contribution from her. His financial position became so dire that he had to make withdrawals from his superannuation on hardship grounds. Despite this, he had still accumulated substantial debts since separation. He accepted he attempted to continue to run his business, organising some solar panel jobs. He said he did not really spend a lot of time on the business.

  9. Based on all of these issues, the father’s contention was that he was barely able to function prior to contacting Child Support in February 2023. There were times when he was in so much pain that he couldn’t get out of bed. His focus was on the welfare and needs of the children; he did not have capacity to try to deal with any child support issues. He was generally avoidant of anything which might involve stress or upset in the relevant period. The error in the care percentages determined in January 2022 should be corrected from the outset.

  10. The mother accepted that the father had a tumour in his back. However, she contended that the extent of disability and loss of function claimed by the father was exaggerated. She mentioned Facebook photographs showing him out at night, dancing and enjoying himself in the relevant timeframe. She attributed his failure to read or respond to the January 2022 notice to his negligence; when they were together, he routinely failed to check his mail and nothing he had raised would have prevented him from opening and reading the child support correspondence. The father conceded that there was some substance to the claim he wasn’t good at checking his mail. However, he attributed this to his generally avoidant approach in the period I am considering.

  11. After the hearing, the mother provided several photos of the father engaging in various physical activities between September 2021 and August 2023. In particular, there are photos of him demonstrating what appears to be a trampoline move involving quite significant stretching (24 December 2021) and engaging in energetic dancing (23 December 2022). The father has not responded to these photos, although he did say at hearing that he may have participated in dancing by using painkillers. In my view, these photos lend some support to the mother’s contention that the father was not as physically incapacitated as he attempted to make out.

  12. In answer to my questions, the father accepted it was possible that he did receive and read the 10 January 2022 notice but paid it little attention, once he realised he was not required to pay anything to the mother. He did recall receiving a subsequent notice dated 15 March 2022 which advised his liability had been reassessed on a much higher income of over $150,000 per annum backdated to November 2021; his new child support liability exceeded $2,000 per month from November 2021 to 23 February 2023 after which it was again $0. He recalled contacting his accountant to try to find out the basis for the increased income; he also thought he had contacted Child Support about the income issue around this time and he may have lodged an application to have this income reviewed.

  13. I asked the Respondent to have a check of records made to ascertain whether the father had lodged either an income estimate or change of assessment application at any time relevant to the March 2022 notice, since these were the most likely ways to address the father’s concerns about the increased income assessment. The information provided by the Respondent after the hearing was that the father had lodged a change of assessment application on 12 March 2024; he had not lodged any income estimates. Since his change of assessment application came two years after the March 2022 notice, I am not persuaded that the father took any timely, active steps in response to receiving advice of his increased income and his significant child support liability of more than $2,000 per month. There is certainly no evidence of him contesting the care percentage decision in response to the March 2022 notice. I note the evidence at hearing was that this was a private collect matter and that the father had never paid any child support to the mother. He explained he could not afford to pay and the mother explained that she had never pursued him for payment.

    CONSIDERATION

  14. Having considered the matter carefully, I find that the father did receive the notice dated 10 January 2022. It is entirely possible he did not open the correspondence or, if he did, paid it little attention because he did not have to pay anything to the mother. I am satisfied the notice of the care percentage decision made was sufficient to constitute effective notice. I am prepared to find that the combination of the father’s physical, psychological and financial difficulties is sufficiently uncommon or unusual to be capable of amounting to special circumstances.

  15. However, I do not accept that these circumstances prevented the father from objecting within 28 days of the 10 January 2022 notice being served. I find that his usual approach to postal correspondence lacked diligence whilst the parents were together and this did not change after separation. The father was able to contest the mother’s care claims in December 2021 and send in additional evidence to support his position. No doubt he expected the care issue to be resolved in his favour at that point. He provided appropriate care for his children after separation. He was able to conduct his business, although only intermittently. He was able to engage in leisure activities requiring physical exertion from time to time. I note his evidence that he contacted Child Support in February 2023 because he thought he might be entitled to receive child support payments from the mother. It was only in this context that he discovered the care percentages determined in January 2022. I consider the father’s contact with Child Support was motivated by the prospect of potential gain; his various difficulties did not prevent him from contacting Child Support in that context.

  16. I take the view the father did not read or consider the detail of the enclosed assessment notice in January 2022 and that this was consistent with his general approach to correspondence, both before and after the parents separated. His physical, psychological and financial difficulties did not prevent him from reading or considering the child support correspondence or from objecting to the care percentage decision notified in the child support assessment. In those circumstances, I find that the father has not made out his case for a change to the date of effect of the objection officer’s favourable care percentage decision.

  17. Finally, I note that the subsequent notice dated 15 March 2022 included an enclosed assessment notice for the period 24 February 2023 to 23 May 2024. The same content under the sub-heading Steps 4 and 5 was again included in this document, including the reference to a decision having been made and setting out the relevant care percentages. I am inclined to view this as a further notice of the primary care percentage decision. However, nothing turns on this since the father’s objection in February 2023 was also more than 28 days after service of this notice.

  18. It follows that the decision under review should be affirmed.

Applicant: QQSF
Solicitors for the Respondent: Services Australia  
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0