Ridley and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2020] AATA 577

Ridley and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2020] AATA 577 (28 January 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/BC017450

APPLICANT:  Ms Ridley

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Member S Letch

DECISION DATE:  28 January 2020

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

(a)care for [Child 2] is to be recorded as 100% to Ms Ridley and 0% to Mr [A] from 11 March 2019;

(b)care for [Child 1] is to be recorded as 93% to Ms Ridley and 7% to Mr [A] from 11 March 2019.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – whether there was a change to the likely pattern of care – existing percentage of care determinations revoked and new determinations made - decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted 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. Ms Ridley and Mr [A] (who did not apply to be a party to these proceedings) are the parents of [Child 1] and [Child 2]. The Child Support Agency (CSA) recorded care for the children as 74% to Ms Ridley and 26% to Mr [A] when, on 12 March 2019, Ms Ridley contacted the CSA to advise that she had 100% care of the children from 11 March 2019.

2. On 27 June 2019, the CSA decided it was not satisfied on the evidence there had been a change in care. On 11 July 2019, Ms Ridley objected; on 12 September 2019, an objections officer disallowed Ms Ridley’s objection.

3. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 24 January 2020. Ms Ridley participated by conference telephone.

4. Simply put, Ms Ridley says she stands by the recorded care identified and summarised at folio 171 of the CSA materials. That reveals [Child 2] had not spent any nights with Mr [A] beginning in March 2019; in respect of [Child 1], it is recorded she spent two nights with Mr [A] in March 2019; two nights in April 2019; one night in May 2019; four nights in June 2019; two nights in July 2019; and five nights in August 2019.

5. It appears to the Tribunal that Mr [A]’s position is summarised in his correspondence to the CSA on 11 October 2019, conveniently set out below:

   After a decade of pain and heartache and the recent decision from [Ms Ridley] to again challenge the decision of the Child Support Agency for a third time my Family and I have agreed for the benefit of ourselves and for the well‐being of both children to shelter them from anymore conflict and suffering that we will not be challenging the final decision from the CSA.

   We can not maintain the level of stress and anxiety involved in disputing this matter with [Ms Ridley] any more.

   I have endured over a decade of this and have battled away almost every day in an attempt to maintain some sort of contact with my children. I have done everything in my power to prove I am a good Father by supporting my children through paying my child support regularly and consistently and also giving additional support on a regular basis and have already explained and told of my Family and I giving extra support financially and emotionally to both children.

   I have fought back from no contact with my children 10 years ago to raising the percentage of care to 11% than eventually 26%. The entire time fighting to maintain contact and not knowing if I will ever see them again even with a Family Law Court Order in place. With many occasions when I was scheduled to collect the children from [Ms Ridley] I was left with no answers to why the children never arrived or were at the agreed location for me to take home.

   I have never mentally or physically hurt my children and have given them everything I have as a decent human being, as well as my Family’s unwavering support towards both children.

   We can not maintain a sustained defensive position to this level of malicious and intentional harassment from [Ms Ridley] any more, as I believe it is directly affecting my children and their lives.

   It is more productive for myself and my Family to pull away from pursuing this dispute any further than today as we as a united group have put our case for the 26% of care to continue as normal forward to the Authorities.

   I sincerely hope that the Child Support Agency can understand my situation and that by maintaining a 26% level of care in my children’s lives that it can do nothing but enrich their situation with the benefits of being interactive with myself their Grandparents and extended members of my Family who all cherish and love both [Child 1] and [Child 2] dearly and by doing this it is in the best interest of both [Child 1] and [Child 2].

   By the CSA allowing this level of care to continue as it, it is my responsibility to my children and my relationship with them both to making everything flourish.

6. It appeared to the Tribunal that Mr [A] was not strongly contesting the dates advanced by Ms Ridley recording care; rather, he points to the previously agreed care arrangements, and fatigue in dealing with care and related matters. The Tribunal understood Mr [A]’s position; however, ultimately, these determinations are based on the actual nights in care.

7. On the evidence available to it, the Tribunal had no reason to doubt the evidence put forward by Ms Ridley concerning the nights of care. The Tribunal finds that the existing care percentages should be revoked, and that care for [Child 2] should be recorded as 100% to Ms Ridley from 11 March 2019 (the notification on 12 March 2019 was provided within 28 days). In respect of [Child 1], the Tribunal considers it seemed the pattern of nights with Mr [A] appeared to settle to around one night a fortnight, on average, or 7%.

8. As the Tribunal has reached a different conclusion to the objections officer, the decision under review will be set aside.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

(a)care for [Child 2] is to be recorded as 100% to Ms Ridley and 0% to Mr [A] from 11 March 2019;

(b)care for [Child 1] is to be recorded as 93% to Ms Ridley and 7% to Mr [A] from 11 March 2019.