QXPD and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review by the Tribunal of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar regarding a percentage of care determination for a child. The applicant sought to revoke an existing percentage of care determination. The dispute centred on the actual care arrangements for the child, with conflicting evidence presented by both the applicant and the other party, including differing calendars detailing the child's overnight stays and evidence of conversations between the parties.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the existing percentage of care determination should be revoked and, if so, whether a new determination should be made. Specifically, the court had to consider the provisions of the Child Support Assessment Act 1989 (Cth) concerning the mandatory revocation of care percentage determinations under sections 54F and 54G, and the discretionary revocation under section 54H. This involved assessing whether the actual care of the child corresponded with the existing determination and whether the care provided met the threshold of "regular care" as defined by the Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the legislative framework for revoking care percentage determinations. It first considered section 54G, which mandates revocation if a responsible person has had less than regular care. The Tribunal noted that "regular care" is defined as a percentage of care between 14% and 35%. It then considered section 54F, which requires revocation if actual care does not correspond with the existing determination and a change in cost percentage would result. Finally, section 54H allows for discretionary revocation if sections 54F and 54G do not apply. The Tribunal applied these provisions to the evidence presented, including calendars and other documentary evidence, to ascertain the actual care arrangements and whether they warranted revocation of the existing determination. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support a revocation of the existing percentage of care determination.