Robben and Robben (Child support)

[2020] AATA 4276

Robben and Robben (Child support) [2020] AATA 4276 (11 August 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/AC019250

APPLICANT:  Mr Robben

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Robben

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis

DECISION DATE:  11 August 2020

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – dismissal of application for review – acceptance of application for assessment – application has no reasonable prospect of success – application for review dismissed

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.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

1. Mr Robben and Ms Robben are the parents of [Child 1] (born August 2005).  There has been a child support assessment in place since 15 March 2019 and Mr Robben is the liable parent under the assessment.

2. On 13 December 2019 the Child Support Agency made the decision to reflect that Ms Robben was a resident of Australia or reciprocating jurisdiction for child support purposes.

3. On 4 January 2020 Mr Robben objected to this decision and on 29 May 2020 the Child Support Agency disallowed the objection (the objection decision).

4. On 12 June 2020 Mr Robben applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of the objection decision.

5. A hearing was held on 30 July 2020.  Mr Robben attended by conference telephone. The Tribunal wrote to Ms Robben on 25 June 2020 advising her of the date and time of the hearing.  The Tribunal was unable to contact Ms Robben on the telephone number provided and she did not participate in the hearing.  The Child Support Agency provided the Tribunal and the parties with papers relevant to the matter (165 pages).

6. The Tribunal discussed the application with Mr Robben and advised him it was considering dismissing his application for review on the basis it had no reasonable prospect of success.  Mr Robben indicated to the Tribunal he instead wished to withdraw his application.

7. On 5 August 2020 Mr Robben advised a Tribunal officer that he no longer wished to withdraw his application.

8. In his application to the Tribunal Mr Robben stated that Ms Robben and [Child 1] were currently staying in [Country 1] which was not a reciprocating jurisdiction.  The Tribunal notes in evidence from the Child Support Agency that Mr Robben believes [Child 1] is enrolled at a school in [Country 1] and both Ms Robben and his daughter are no longer living in Australia.  Mr Robben is seeking a terminating event.

9. As defined in subsection 5(1) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) the term “child support terminating event” has the meaning given by section 12 of the Act. There are a number of circumstances that result in a terminating event.

10. In relation to the carer entitled to child support a terminating event can happen in some circumstances which can be summarised as follows:

    ·      the carer entitled to child support dies;

    ·      an international maintenance agreement applies in relation to the carer entitled to child support and the child; and the carer entitled to child support is a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction; and the carer entitled to child support ceases to be a resident; and the carer does not immediately become a resident of another reciprocating jurisdiction or of Australia.

11. The Tribunal is satisfied this is not the case in relation to Ms Robben who is the carer entitled to child support.

12. A terminating event can also happen in relation to a child in some circumstances including:

    ·      the child dies;

    ·      the child turns 18;

    ·      both parents of the child are not eligible carers and there are no non-parent carers eligible to receive child support for that child;

    ·      the child becomes a member of a couple;

    ·      the child is not present in Australia and the child is not an Australian citizen and the child is not ordinarily resident in Australia.

13. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that any of these circumstances apply to [Child 1].

14. The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the evidence provided, that none of the grounds for a terminating event as set out in section 12 of the Act are met in this case.

15. Amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 made by the Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015 broadened the scope of the Tribunal’s dismissal powers. Subsection 42B(1) relevantly provides:

    (1)The Tribunal may dismiss an application for the review of a decision, at any stage of the proceeding, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the application:

    (a)   is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or

    (b)   has no reasonable prospect of success; or

    (c) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Tribunal.

    The Revised Explanatory Memorandum to the Tribunals Amalgamation Bill 2014 explained that these powers “would provide the Tribunal with greater power to dismiss unmeritorious matters early where appropriate.”

16. The Tribunal’s statutory objective is, inter alia, to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick (see section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975).

17. In this case, after careful consideration, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application for review has no reasonable prospect of success. Permitting proceedings that cannot succeed would be inconsistent with the statutory objective of the Tribunal under section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

18. Accordingly the Tribunal dismisses the application for review pursuant to subsection 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.