Rennold and Gaddis (Child support)

[2019] AATA 4343

Rennold and Gaddis (Child support) [2019] AATA 4343 (29 July 2019)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/BC016536

APPLICANT:  Miss Rennold

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Gaddis

TRIBUNAL:Member M Kennedy

DECISION DATE:  29 July 2019

1. The decision of the Tribunal and the reasons for the decision were delivered orally on 29 July 2019.

2. The oral reasons have been transcribed and edited (. The following paragraphs are the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – decision under review affirmed

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.

Reasons for decision

1.    MEMBER:  This is a decision and reasons for decision in matter BC016536, the applicant is Ms Rennold and the other party is Mr Gaddis.  Ms Rennold and Mr Gaddis are the parents of [Child 1] in respect of whom there is a child support assessment in place.

2.    In March of 2012 Mr Gaddis made contact with the Child Support Agency and applied for an assessment of child support.  In the course of making that assessment the Child Support Registrar took information from both parents about the care arrangements for [Child 1] and in making the initial care percentage determination determined that Mr Gaddis had 86 per cent care of [Child 1] and Ms Rennold had 14 per cent care of [Child 1] from the commencement of the assessment.

3.    A number of years later in March of 2019 the Child Support Agency had some communications with Mr Gaddis that ultimately were interpreted and proceeded as an objection to that initial care percentage decision.  Having discussed the matter with the parents today I wonder whether that contact should have instead been interpreted as notification of a change to the care arrangements but certainly from that point onwards the matter proceeded through the Child Support Agency as an objection to the decision of 2012.

4.    Unfortunately I am not in a position to change the character of that decision and I need to review the matter as an objection to that initial care percentage decision.

5. Upon accepting an application for child support the Child Support Registrar must determine a percentage of care for a person who is responsible for the care of the child during a care period that corresponds with the pattern of actual care of the child that the person has had or is likely to have during the care period and that is required by section 50 of the Child Support Assessment Act 1989.

6.    The evidence before me as to the care arrangements for [Child 1] at that point in time, the initial care arrangements, on the one hand include notations made by Child Support staff in speaking with both parents where both parents informed the Child Support Agency that the care was best reflected by percentage determinations of 86 per cent to Mr Gaddis and 14 per cent to Ms Rennold.

7.    On the other hand during the hearing today both parents are agreed that that arrangement that was in place was on its way out by late 2011 and by the time of the conversation with the Child Support Agency in March 2012 was not really taking place anymore.  I accept the evidence of both parents provided to the tribunal this morning, that by late 2011 that 86 per cent to 14 per cent care arrangement was no longer taking place and by March of 2012 [Child 1] was one hundred per cent in Mr Gaddis’ care when care is assessed on a nightly basis.

8.    During the hearing Ms Rennold has explained that over the years she has taken some action to try and increase the amount of care that she has provided for [Child 1].  And so I have considered the evidence before me against the limited provisions in the Child Support law that will allow for an interim care arrangement to be recognised.

9.    In the case of a new assessment it will allow for a short period of time where care will be assessed on the basis of court orders or formal parenting plan arrangements even though the actual care of the child is not taking place in accordance with those orders.

10.  During the hearing this morning Ms Rennold has described a document that is not before me that may constitute a written care arrangement but certainly there were no court orders or formal parenting plans in place in March of 2012.

11.  In any event it seems quite clear that by March of 2012 whatever had been agreed in a document signed by both parents in 2009 was no longer being followed.  And furthermore, and in any event, no request or no notification was made to the Child Support Registrar that care was not taking place in accordance with whatever care plan was in place for many years.

12.  In these circumstances the Child Support legislation will now allow for an interim care determination to be made and the correct decision will reflect what care is actually taking place on the ground in relation to [Child 1].

13.  For the reasons I have mentioned a moment ago, today before me both parents are agreed that by the time the child support case was put in place in March of 2012 Mr Gaddis had one hundred per cent care of [Child 1] and Ms Rennold had zero per cent care of [Child 1] because she did not have any overnight care.

14.  I understand that Ms Rennold would have liked to have had more care and over time has taken steps to try and obtain more care of [Child 1] but for my purposes that is not to the point.  I need to make a finding about what the care of [Child 1] actually was in March of 2012 and in that regard I accept the evidence of both parents, that [Child 1] was one hundred per cent in Mr Gaddis’ care.

15.  That care determination is the care determination that has been put in place as a result of the objection officer’s decision of 7 May 2019, which is before me.  And so the decision of the tribunal will be to affirm that decision, so I have made that decision now.

END OF ORAL DECISION