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

[2020] AATA 572

RCJY and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 572 (18 March 2020)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2018/7584

Re:RCJY  

APPLICANT

Secretary, Department of Social ServicesAnd  

RESPONDENT

AndRPKK

OTHER PARTY

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member B J Illingworth

Date:18 March 2020

Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is affirmed.

..........................[Sgnd].........................................

Senior Member B J Illingworth

CATCHWORDS

FAMILY ASSISTANCE – court orders – non-compliance – reasonable action to comply – interim period – family tax benefit – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth)

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Family Assistance Guide

Social Security Guide

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member B J Illingworth

18 March 2020

INTRODUCTION

1. RCJY (“the Applicant”) and RPKK (“the Other Party”) are the father and mother respectively of T who was born in in 2006.

2. The Applicant has applied to this Tribunal to review a decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT1”) dated 3 December 2018 to affirm the care percentage determination to apply to a 14 week interim care period for Family Tax Benefit (“FTB”) for the period 15 September 2017 to 21 December 2017, and set aside and remit the social security rate decisions or determinations for reconsideration generally to ensure the correct application of the social security law.

   BACKGROUND

3. The Applicant and Other Party have never lived together.

4. On 30 May 2011, the Family Court of Australia made orders regulating the care of T.[1] The effect of that order was that the Other Party had a slightly greater percentage care of T than the Applicant.

   [1] Exhibit F.

5. It is agreed between the parties that from 15 September 2017, the Applicant had 100% actual care of T.

6. On 21 November 2017, the Applicant notified Centrelink of this change in care of T.

7. On 10 January 2018, the Other Party notified Centrelink that the Applicant had taken T without her consent and that she had taken reasonable legal action to regain the care of T. Evidence of this included a draft new parenting plan made at a Family Dispute Resolution (“FDR”) conference held during the interim period.

8. On 14 February 2018, Centrelink revoked the care determination in force that had reflected the care percentage as prescribed by the Family Court Order and replaced it with a new determination reflective of the Applicant having 100% care of T.

9. On 9 July 2018, the Other Party requested a review of that decision on the basis that an interim period should apply.

10. On 3 October 2018, an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) varied the original decision to apply a 14 week interim care period from 15 September 2017 to 21 December 2017 to which social security entitlements could be claimed. The ARO decided that the Other Party had taken reasonable steps to have T return to her care.

11. The Applicant lodged an application for review of the decision of the ARO with the AAT1.  On 3 December 2018, the AAT1 decided that the Other Party had taken reasonable action to ensure that the care arrangement was complied with, and affirmed the decision under review that the interim period should apply.

12. On 21 December 2018, the Applicant applied for a review of the AAT1’s decision with the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT2”).

    LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

13. The relevant legislation and policy is contained in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (“the Act”) and the Family Assistance Guide (“the Assistance Guide”). In particular, several sections of the Act are relevant in determining whether an interim period should be applied.

14. The interim period applicable to this matter arises under s 35C of the Act, which is enlivened in circumstances where a care arrangement is in place, and that care arrangement is not complied with, and the party who asserts non-compliance has made reasonable attempts to have the arrangement complied with or there are special circumstances that would justify lengthening, shortening or waiving the interim period.

15. Once enlivened, s 35C of the Act modifies the calculations of s 35A and s 35B of the Act by establishing a period in which care percentages are allocated on the basis that the parties had under the care arrangements rather than actual care. This is the interim care period that the Applicant disputes.

    ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL

16. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are:

    (a)What percentage of care should be applied for T; and

    (b)Whether, despite the actual percentage of care, an interim period adjusting the percentage of care should be applied according to section 35C of the Act. Therefore, it must also be determined whether:

    (i)There was a care arrangement prior to 15 September 2017 and the nature of this care arrangement;

    (ii)Whether there was a departure from the care arrangement;

    (iii)Whether the Other Party took reasonable action to ensure that the care arrangement was complied with; and

    (iv)Whether there are any special circumstances that would justify lengthening, shortening, or waiving the interim period.

17. It is agreed between the parties that a care arrangement was in place prior to 15 September 2017 pursuant to s 3 of the Act, being the Family Court order of 30 May 2011, and that there was a departure from this care arrangement from 15 September 2017 when the Applicant took 100% of T.

    DID THE OTHER PARTY TAKE REASONABLE ACTION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CARE ARRANGEMENT?

18. The term “reasonable action” is not defined in the Act, however guidance is provided at Item 2.1.1.70 of the Guide which relevantly states that typical examples of reasonable action might include:

    (a)Negotiating with the other party in a genuine attempt to ensure compliance with a written agreement; or

    (b)Making and/or attending an appointment at a Family Relationships Centre or similar dispute resolution service with the aim of ensuring the care arrangement is adhered to; or

    (c)Obtaining or seeking legal advice regarding the making of an order; or

    (d)Filing an application to a Court to have an order made or enforced; or

    (e)Attending a hearing at Court to seek an order to be made or enforced; or

    (f)Notifying the police that the child has been taken without consent.

    THE EVIDENCE

    The Applicant’s Evidence

19. The Applicant described the circumstances in which T came to be 100% in his care from 15 September 2017. He said thereafter that he did not purposefully withhold T from the Other Party in contravention of the Family Court order, and that he encouraged T to go into the Other Party’s care; however, T did not want to.

20. During this time, the Applicant had difficulty keeping T in school. The Applicant would get T ready for school and take him there, however T would not stay. The Applicant stayed home full time with T and they would complete his study at home. The Applicant said that he went to Office Works and purchased relevant textbooks for T’s year of study and he would home-school T. The Applicant was looking to enrol T in another school; however, this was not possible until the following year.

21. The Applicant said he did not tell the Other Party that T was not attending school and so there were occasions when the Other Party would be at the school for a care changeover and T would not be there. The Other Party would send text messages to the effect that she was at the school and that the Applicant was breaching the court order. He would then message her that T would not go to school. The Applicant estimated that this occurred about a half a dozen times. The Other Party was also communicating with the headmaster of T’s school.

22. The Applicant gave evidence that the Other Party would also attend his home to pick up T on multiple occasions (including once with the police); however, T would not want to leave with her. It got to the point where the Other Party would show up at the Applicant’s house, open the back car door for two seconds, and then leave.

23. The Applicant attempted to negotiate the care of T with the Other Party, as he wanted T to have a relationship with the Other Party; however, the Other Party declined all of his suggestions. They eventually came to an arrangement that the Other Party would take T out for breakfast or dinner a couple of times per week.

24. The Applicant also said that the Other Party would speak to T on the telephone approximately five times per week; however, this lessened as time went on and her efforts waned. Eventually, the Other Party was only seeing T once per week.

25. On 19 December 2017, the Applicant and Other Party, together with their lawyers, attended a FDR conference to mediate the care arrangement of T. A handwritten agreement[2] was drafted and provided to the Other Party by the lady conducting the FDR conference. The Other Party said she was uneasy about the care agreement. She had seven days to think about it. She did not agree to, or sign the agreement.

    [2] Exhibit B.

26. Difficulties in the care arrangement continued thereafter. The Other Party would take T for breakfast. On occasions, the Applicant and T would ride their bicycles to the Other Party’s neighbourhood whenever she wanted to see T.

27. In March 2018, the Department for Child Protection intervened, and thereafter T was placed in the care of the Other Party. The reason for that intervention is not before the Tribunal and is not relevant to the issue on review.

28. The Applicant said that both he and the Other Party took reasonable action in relation to the care arrangement of T. However, he said that the Other Party was unreasonable insofar as she rejected every suggestion that he made. For example, he suggested at night he attend and sleep on the couch at the Other Party’s home and they together try and encourage T to go to school; but that T otherwise stay with the Applicant for the time being. The Other party did not agree. He was critical of the Other Party’s refusal to communicate with him or make an effort to negotiate with him. He said ‘[T] was with me and I had to feed him’.

    Ms DB’s Evidence

29. Ms DB is the partner of the Applicant and gave evidence by telephone. She lives with the Applicant part-time and confirmed that the Applicant was making efforts for the Other Party to visit T, including by inviting the Other Party to help the Applicant get T to school. However, the Other Party did not see this as her problem. T was not in her care.

30. DB estimated that T would be in the Other Party’s care for three to four hours once a week, as T did not like to be out of the Applicant’s care for too long. The Other Party and T would talk on the telephone approximately twice a day. She confirmed that on a few occasions the Other Party’s friend, Mr DK would attend with her to see T.

31. DB would also talk to T on the telephone multiple times per day, and said that T had told her that he did not want to go into the Other Party’s care as he did not trust he would be brought back.

32. DB generally corroborated the Applicant’s evidence. She said that she and the Applicant would encourage T to go with the Other Party. They would encourage him to stand out the front of the Applicant’s home and wait for the Other Party but he would refuse. She corroborated the difficulties with T’s school attendance. She confirmed that in 2018, T was enrolled in, and attended a new primary school. He would go to school every day and stay for the morning. DB said that in 2018 the Other Party did not see T as often.

    Ms BM’s Evidence

33. Ms BM is the Applicant’s neighbour and gave evidence by telephone. She confirmed that she has seen the Other Party attend the Applicant’s house periodically and that T expressed to her that he did not want to be ‘taken away’.

    Other Evidence

34. The Tribunal received a number of letters including from Ms DB,[3] Ms BM,[4]  the Applicant’s medical practitioner,[5] the deputy principal of T’s new primary school[6] and another neighbour of the Applicant.[7] Those letters generally confirmed the circumstances involving the difficulties with the care arrangement between the Applicant and the Other Party, but do not assist Tribunal in respect of the question of whether the Other Party took reasonable action to ensure compliance with the care arrangement.

    [3] Exhibit I.

    [4] Exhibit J.

    [5] Exhibit C.

    [6] Exhibit D.

    [7] Exhibit E.

35. At the conclusion of the Applicant’s case the hearing was adjourned to another date. During the adjourned period, the Applicant was given the opportunity to seek legal advice and/or engage a lawyer, and think about whether there was any further evidence he wished to present to the Tribunal.

36. At the commencement of the resumed hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that there was no further evidence that he wished to put before the Tribunal. The Applicant produced a letter written by a barrister to his lawyer for the purposes of the Family Court proceedings; however, the Tribunal did not receive that letter. It was a privileged communication. The Applicant wanted to demonstrate that he had engaged with his lawyers at the relevant time. The contents of the letter were not relevant to an issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepts that he was engaging with his lawyers at the relevant time.

    The Other Party’s Evidence

37. At the resumed hearing, the Other Party gave her evidence.

38. The Other Party agreed that the Applicant had 100% care of T from 15 September 2017. Before that time, the care arrangement was in accordance with the Family Court order, which stipulated a 55/45 split of the care of T between herself and the Applicant respectively. She said T was happy but he did suffer from anxiety, mild asthma and growing pains. There was some trouble with certain things such as getting ready for school and being behind in his schoolwork.

39. The Other Parties said it was hard to get T to go to school. He did not enjoy school. However, she said she was firm but kind with him. His school attendance was non-negotiable and generally he would not make a fuss. She said he was originally enrolled Primary School A where he attended until Year Four. He then went to Primary School B from Year Five.

40. The Other Party described difficulties in caring for T. She sought professional help from a psychologist. T struggles to make friends. He had social interaction issues at Primary School B.

41. On 15 September 2017, the Applicant attended T’s school although it was not his turn to have the care of T. T became unsettled and there was a ‘big kerfuffle’. T did not want to go home with the Other Party. The Applicant took T to the Other Party’s mother’s house to attempt another handover but it was unsuccessful. The Applicant thereafter had the care of T.

42. The Other Party then took steps to take T back into her care. The Other Party would message and call the Applicant to take T to school and would then wait at the school at the finishing time in the hope of picking up T when he was meant to be in her care. She also met with the school principal. Eventually, the Other Party stopped attending the school as T was not there. The Other Party said she asked the Applicant to bring T to her; however, he would either not respond or would deny responsibility. This is what caused her to attend the Applicant’s house. On arrival, she would send a text message to the Applicant to bring T outside. He did not reply and she would go to the front door. Sometimes there were conversations outside the house and they would try to get T to come home with her.

43. On the occasions when the Other Party attended the Applicant’s house, T would come outside but would say he did not want to leave and that he wanted to stay with his father. She would give him a cuddle and leave.

44. The Other Party said that she would go to T’s school every Wednesday and each day after 15 September 2017 when she was due to have the care of T.

45. On the weekends, the Other Party would do the same, namely, she would text the Applicant and attend his house for the purposes of picking up T; however, T would never leave with the Other Party. This continued until about Christmas time.

46. Leading up to Christmas there incidents when the police were called. The Other Party described the events as follows; on the first occasion, the Other Party called the Applicant to ask whether T was ready for her to come and pick him up. The Applicant said it was fine. The police told her that they would not normally attend handovers, but they did come on this occasion. The police spoke with the Applicant and informed him that he was the one who had to return T to the Other Party. The Applicant did not return T. The Other Party obtained a report number from the police as she wanted some evidence that she was trying to follow the Family Court order.

47. The police were called on one other occasion. The Other Party attended the Applicant’s home for the purposes of collecting T. Her friend, Mr DK, was with her. T was agitated and running up and down the street swinging a baseball bat. DB took the baseball bat away and T started screaming. He got angry. The street was busy that afternoon and so the Other Party called the police; she thinks neighbours may have called the police too. When the police arrived, they tried to calm T down. Eventually, the Other Party left with T. T was distraught and asking if he could call the Applicant. The Other Party allowed him to do this. T had asked the Applicant to come and pick him up and the Applicant did so. This event occurred in late September 2017.

48. Following this incident, and up until the FDR conference in late December, the Other Party would see T for breakfast or dinner. The only way she could see him was if she promised to return him to his father. This occurred on approximately 10 occasions. She would see him sometimes on weekends, including for breakfast on Sunday mornings. His birthday was on 18 December and she took him out to dinner.

49. The December FDR conference came about at the Other Party’s request. This was a prerequisite to Family Court proceedings. She said she applied for Legal Aid. The Tribunal received a seven page letter from a family and collaborative lawyer to the Legal Services Commission dated 5 October 2017 written on behalf of the Other Party.[8] That letter gave detailed advice, including the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance with the care arrangement, advice as to how the Other Party should conduct herself in an attempt to best address compliance with the care arrangement, confirmed that police had been called to an incident, referred to a social worker who had notified the relevant authorities that  T was not attending school and that T was in an ongoing relationship with Eastern CAMHS [Child Adolescent Mental Health Service] and a psychiatrist and social worker engaged there, and requesting Legal Aid and the engagement of a particular solicitor for the purpose of initiating court proceedings. That letter corroborates the Other Party’s evidence that she pursued an application for grant of Legal Aid and was granted Legal Aid on 11 October 2017 for the purpose of engaging a lawyer for the purpose of filing an application in the Family Court with respect to the care arrangement of T. The Other Party engaged a lawyer and a Family Court application and supporting affidavit was prepared and filed and they were awaiting the court date. There was a delay in getting a hearing date before Christmas. Her lawyer advised that there needed have a FDR conference before proceeding to the Family Court and so the lawyer asked for the FDR conference.

    [8] Exhibit G.

50. The Other Party attended the FDR conference with her lawyer. At the end of the conference the lady who was conducting it, likely the mediator, produced a handwritten agreement regarding the care of T which was required to be signed by both parties. The Other Party said she felt uneasy about it and did not sign the agreement.

1. The Other Party saw T for breakfast Christmas morning and again on 7 January to celebrate her Orthodox Christmas. They spent the day at her sister’s house but the Applicant would not allow T to stay overnight.

2. After this time, the Other Party continued to make efforts to see T and saw him when the Applicant would bring him to her neighbourhood or to the City for a coffee. It was around this time that the Other Party’s efforts waned as she was in a highly emotional state and decided to give T some distance and allow him to come to her.

3. The Other Party thereafter became concerned when she learned that the Applicant had moved T to a new primary school, without her permission and T was no longer attending school. On one occasion, the Other Party went to his new school early in the school term. She went there for the morning. T was attached to his father and she went and spoke to the principal. She stayed at the school until about 11.30 am. T became increasingly attached to the Applicant and the Applicant would not allow T to spend time with the Other Party without him present.

   Mr DK’s Evidence

4. Mr DK is the Other Party’s friend. He gave oral evidence before the Tribunal and his statement was received into evidence.[9]

   [9] Exhibit K.

5. DK has known the Other Party for over 20 years. He does not know the Applicant personally; only through his friendship with the Other Party, and has known T since he was five or six years of age.

6. Prior to September 2017, DK was present at some of the handovers that occurred at the Applicant’s premises where, DK said, there would be separation issues. He explained that T either would not want to leave or would not want to stay with the Other Party. T was initially attached to the Other Party but things then changed in the opposite direction. From 15 September 2017, the handovers were becoming unsuccessful; T did not want to separate from the Applicant.

7. DK was present at a majority of the handovers after 15 September 2017 to provide support to the Other Party. He described the attempted handovers as taking place at either the Applicant or Other Party’s house. T would not be returned to the Other Party. T would not separate from the Applicant and the Applicant did not assist in separation. He would tell T how much he loves and misses him.

8. DK was also present on the occasion when the police attended the Applicant’s house during an attempted handover. DK recalled this occurred in the mid or latter party of 2017, but after 15 September 2017. DK described the event as follows; T was having a tantrum up and down the street and was swinging a baseball bat. DK, DB and the Other Party were trying to quell the situation. The Applicant was unsure what to do and was wandering around. The police were called and the bat was surrendered. DK and the Other Party managed to get T to their car which was parked down the street; however, T became upset again and was requesting to speak to the Applicant. The Other Party allowed T to call the Applicant. T then became more distraught and started to have a meltdown. This resulted in the Applicant coming and picking up T from the Other Party’s house.

9. DK described other occasions where he was present at attempted handovers, but said things became more difficult towards Christmas time. DK attended legal advice appointments with the Other Party and was also present at the FDR conference.

   CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

   The Applicant’s Closing Submissions

10. In his closing submissions, the Applicant submitted that the steps taken by the Other Party to ensure compliance of the court orders were not reasonable because the ‘communication wasn’t there’, meaning that there was no communication in relation to T’s needs and she should have messaged more about what was going on. The Applicant further submitted that the Other Party was more interested in receiving T than communicating with him.

11. The Applicant also responded to some of the Other Party’s evidence. He stated that he too was attempting to calm T down during the incident when the police were called by throwing a ball. In hindsight, he should have brought out a cricket bat instead because it is heavier and a different shape and T likes cricket. The Applicant did not believe DK was present at the FDR conference and that the Other Party had not filed an application with the Family Court at that stage.

12. The Applicant submitted that the Other Party did everything reasonable, save that she did not communicate with him and sign the order proposed at the FDR conference.

    Other Party’s Closing Submissions

13. In closing, the Other Party submitted that she took reasonable action to ensure compliance with the care arrangement through short and direct text messages, meetings, speaking to T, waiting at T’s school, waiting at the Applicant’s home, asking the Applicant to bring T to her home, and spending time with T on occasion in the presence of the Applicant. The steps were carried out upon the advice of a lawyer. The Other Party repeated these steps but eventually grew tired as the Applicant wanted T to stay in his care.

14. The Other Party stated that she ‘sabotaged’ the orders by returning T to the Applicant’s care after spending time with T; however, she did so because ‘that was what was best at the time’, it was T’s request to return to the Applicant, and she did not wish to break T’s trust.

    Respondent’s Closing Submissions

15. The Respondent maintained a neutral position in this matter.

    CONCLUSION

16. The care arrangements for T were difficult and rendered more so when T declined to be returned to the care of the Other Party from 15 September 2017.

17. The Other Party and Applicant negotiated care arrangements with each other in person, by telephone, text messages and through their lawyers by way of a FDR conference to address the care arrangements. During the relevant period, the Other Party attended the Applicant’s home, including on one occasion with police, and at T’s school in the expectation of taking T into her care. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant did not inform the Other Party that T was not at school on occasions when she was to receive T into her care and that she would text message the Applicant from the school telling him he was in breach of the Family Court order. The Applicant would respond that T would not go to school.

18. The Tribunal accepts that both parties made efforts to ensure T spent time with the Other Party including by arranging T to have breakfast or dinner with T. The incident when police were called because T was distressed and waving the baseball bat highlights the difficulty both parents were having with engaging with T to maintain the Family Court care arrangement.

19. The Applicant said that both he and the Other Party took reasonable action to ensure compliance with the care arrangement, save that the Other Party was not reasonable because she refused to communicate to his satisfaction and embrace his suggestions, such as permitting him to sleep on the couch at her home so that they could take T to school together the following morning. Additionally, she refused to sign the handwritten draft agreement produced at the end of the FDR conference.

20. The fact that the Other Party did not communicate with the Applicant to his satisfaction, agree with his suggestions, such as sleeping over at her home, or sign the draft care arrangement following the FDR conference, are not factors which in the circumstances of this matter rebut the proposition that the Other Party continued to take reasonable action to ensure compliance with the care arrangement.

21. The Tribunal accepts that the Other Party negotiated with the Applicant repeatedly in a genuine attempt to ensure compliance with the Family Court order. She continued throughout the relevant period to attend T’s school, the Applicant’s home, and engage with T as much as possible including by taking him breakfast or dinner, sometimes in the company of the Applicant.

22. The Other Party engaged police who attended at the Applicant’s home on an occasion when the Other Party tried to affect a care handover. The Tribunal accepts that she did this to ensure there was a record that she was endeavouring to ensure compliance with the care arrangement.

23. The Other Party made an application for, and obtained, Legal Aid. She instructed a legal practitioner with respect to reinstating the care arrangement and sought legal advice including with respect to the filing of an application and supporting affidavit before the Family Court. The Other Party, through her lawyer, arranged the FDR conference to address the ongoing care arrangement and attended such conference. This all occurred in the interim period.

24. The Applicant denied that the Family Court application was filed before the court. Albeit, there is no evidence before the Tribunal of the filing of the application and supporting affidavit, the Tribunal accepts that the Other Party instructed her lawyer in respect of making such an application having received legal advice. Whether or not that application and supporting affidavit was filed does not detract from the accepted fact that the Other Party instructed her lawyer to pursue the Family Court proceedings. The Tribunal accepts that there was difficulty in obtaining an urgent date for hearing and prior to Christmas 2017, and that the FDR conference was arranged as a pre-court proceeding in a genuine attempt of ensuring the care arrangement was adhered to. That FDR conference was held on 19 December 2017.

25. The Tribunal finds that the Other Party did take reasonable action to ensure compliance with the care arrangement.

    ARE THERE ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD JUSTIFY LENGTHENING, SHORTENING OR WAIVING THE INTERIM PERIOD?

26. Section 35L(2) of the Act states:

    (2)The interim period for the determination:

    (a)    starts on the application day for the determination; and

    (b)    ends at the end of the earliest of the following dates:

    (i)the day specified by the Secretary;

    (ii)if section 35C applied in relation to the individual – the day before the day on which the action referred to in paragraph 35C(1)(c) ends;

    (iii)if section 35D applied in relation to the individual – the day before the day on which the action referred to in subparagraph 35D(1)(c)(ii) ends;

    (iv)if a care arrangement in relation to the child begins to apply on a day after the application day for the determination – the day before the day on which the care arrangement begins to apply.

27. For the purposes of FTB, the maximum interim period is general 14 weeks from the date that the individual loses care, or has reduced care of the child.[10]

    [10] The Social Security Guide, at 1.1.I.105.

28. In this matter, the interim period has been calculated to begin on 15 September 2017 and end 14 weeks thereafter on 22 December 2017.

29. The length of the interim period depends on a number of factors; however, the maximum interim period will apply in situations where the person with the increased care does not take reasonable action to participate in a FDR at any time during that period.

30. An interim period will not apply in special circumstances where there is, for example, evidence of family violence or other unusual behaviour.[11] That is not the case in that this matter.

    [11] The Assistance Guide, at 2.1.1.70.

31. There was no evidence provided by either the Applicant or the Other Party that enlivened the consideration of special circumstances, and the Tribunal does not find that there are special circumstances in this case which affect the length of the interim period.

    DECISION

32. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding eighty two  (82) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B J Illingworth

....................[Sgnd]................................

Associate

Dated: 18 March 2020

Date of hearing:	26 August 2019 & 26 November 2019
Advocate for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Julie Edwards, Department of Human Services
Advocate for the Other Party:	Self-represented