Sorley and Sorley (Child support)

Case

[2019] AATA 570

14 February 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Sorley and Sorley (Child support) [2019] AATA 570 [2019] AATA 570 14 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Sorley against decisions made by the Child Support Agency regarding the percentage of care for his child, [Child 1]. The dispute centred on the correct calculation of care nights following a change in the pattern of care after a parenting plan was signed on 3 May 2017, and the date of effect for Mr Sorley's objection to the Agency's initial decision. The case was heard by R Ellis SM.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there had been a change to the likely pattern of care for [Child 1] and, if so, how that care should be calculated. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine whether there were special circumstances that prevented Mr Sorley from lodging his objection to the Child Support Agency's decision within the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the care for [Child 1] had indeed changed following the signing of the parenting plan on 3 May 2017. However, it clarified that when reviewing a change in care determination, the legislation requires consideration of actual care up to the time of the original consideration and the likely care thereafter, rather than assessing care up to the date of the Tribunal's hearing. The Tribunal was not satisfied that additional care during the Christmas 2017-18 holidays or future school holidays was agreed upon at the time the parenting plan was signed. Consequently, the Tribunal recalculated the care percentage based on the parenting plan, attributing 143 nights per year during school terms, two nights for birthdays and Christmas night, and four nights for Easter every alternate year from 2018. Regarding the objection date, despite Mr Sorley's claims of incorrect advice from the Child Support Agency regarding the need for a 127-night care diary before lodging an objection, the Tribunal was not satisfied that this advice prevented him from objecting sooner. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the Child Support Agency's decision not to grant a retrospective date of effect for the objection.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0