Stansby and Getson (Child support)

[2022] AATA 2115

Stansby and Getson (Child support) [2022] AATA 2115 (6 May 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/SC023332

APPLICANT:  Mr Stansby

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Getson

TRIBUNAL:Member S Letch

DECISION DATE:  6 May 2022

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – registration details – application for collection of the maintenance liability - whether the application for collection and arrears should be accepted – the application for collection and arrears correctly accepted - 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. Mr Stansby has been assessed by the Child Support Agency (CSA) as liable to pay child support to Ms Getson. This matter concerns a decision by the CSA to accept an application from Ms Getson for the CSA to collect child support on her behalf, and to collect arrears purportedly owing for the period 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021.

2. It is convenient by way of background to set out some extracts from the objections officer decision dated 17 February 2022:

   WE CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IN THE DECISION

   1. We accepted [Ms Getson] had 100% care of [Child 1] from 8 June 2021 to 10 September 2021.

   2. On 6 October 2021, we were advised the care of [Child 1] changed from 11 September 2021.

   3. On 11 October 2021, we received [Ms Getson]’s application for collection, she claimed during the period 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021 she had not received child support from [Mr Stansby].

   …

   5. On 7 December 2021, we made the decision to accept [Ms Getson]’s application for collection of arrears. We accepted that [Mr Stansby] had paid [Ms Getson] $1,973.47 during the arrears period 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021, and $0 unpaid.

   6. On 7 December 2021, we accepted a change in care for [Child 1] to reflect [Mr Stansby] provides 72% and [Ms Getson] 28% from 11 September 2021. This resulted in a role reversal and [Mr Stansby] now being the receiving parent.

   7. On 13 December 2021, we received [Ms Getson]’s objection.

   8. On 4 January 2022, [Ms Getson] stated that she and [Mr Stansby] have never lived together. She lives with her cousin and they have an agreement the cousin pays the electricity bill which is in the cousin’s name while [Ms Getson] pays for the rent, and internet.

   She bank transfers the rent to the Real Estate and the rent has never been paid by [Mr Stansby] and they have always maintained separate households. [Mr Stansby] may have purchased items for the child at Woolworths or Big W however these items are at [Mr Stansby]`s house not hers. She has purchased all [Child 1]’s belongings for her at her house.

   She does not accept any of the payments [Mr Stansby] is claiming he paid in lieu of child support in the period 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021.

   9. On 4 January 2022, [Mr Stansby] stated that he and [Ms Getson] lived together in [City 1] from a week after [Child 1] was born [in] June 2021 until she left without the child [in] September 2021. He stated they were in a domestic relationship. They did not join their finances as he just paid for everything.

   [Ms Getson] did not contribute to the costs of the household or the child.

   [Mr Stansby] stated [Ms Getson] was still maintaining a household at [Address 1].

   He confirmed the rent payments and the electricity payments he claimed were for his house in [City 1] while [Ms Getson] and the children lived there. Most of the items purchased was for clothes for [Child 1] and half is at his house and half at [Ms Getson]’s house.

   …

   [Ms Getson] is objecting to the anears [sic] claimed as she states Collin has not paid for her groceries, rent or electricity bills. [Ms Getson] stated she does not have an electricity bill in her name. Her rent is paid by direct debt from her account.

   [Ms Getson] stated that she and [Mr Stansby] have never lived together. She lives with her cousin and they have an agreement the cousin pays the electricity bill which is in the cousin’s name while [Ms Getson] pays for the rent, and internet.

   She bank transfers the rent to the Real Estate and the rent has never been paid by [Mr Stansby] and they have always maintained separate households. [Mr Stansby] may have purchased items for the child at Woolworths or Big W however these items are at [Mr Stansby]’s house not hers. She has purchased all [Child 1]’s [sic] belongings for her at her house.

   She does not accept any of the payments [Mr Stansby] is claiming he paid in lieu of child support in the period 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021.

   [Mr Stansby] stated that he and [Ms Getson] lived together in [City 1] from a week after [Child 1] was born [in] June 2021 until she left without the child [in] September 2021. He stated they were in a domestic relationship. They did not join their finances as he just paid for everything. [Ms Getson] did not contribute to the costs of the household or the child.

   [Mr Stansby] stated [Ms Getson] was still maintaining a household at [Address 1].

   He confirmed the rent payments and the electricity payments he claimed were for his house in [City 1] while [Ms Getson] and the children lived there. Most of the items purchased was for clothes for [Child 1] and half is at his house and half at [Ms Getson]’s house.

   We recognise that sometimes parents do not agree and as a result, we cannot immediately determine whether to what extent [Ms Getson] and [Mr Stansby] where sharing the costs for [Child 1]. In this case, we will request supporting evidence of the claims made by [Ms Getson] and [Mr Stansby].

   [Mr Stansby] provided a third party statement from [Mr A] his son.

   In considering the weight to be given to third party statements we must consider the relationship of the parties to the writers. For us to attribute significant weight to a third party statement, the statement must be shown to be provided by an independent and impartial source. In reaching this decision we have attributed limited weight to the third party statements of family members and friends given that understandably they may not be completely impartial in their statements.

   [Mr Stansby] confirmed these payments were for his household, [Ms Getson] maintained a separate household and they did not combine their finances.

   Therefore we would not accept his claims for his rent or electricity.

   We cannot determine to what extent [Mr Stansby]’s payments…were paid to these third parties in lieu of child support he owed to [Ms Getson] during the period 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021.

   If the parents do not agree and we cannot be satisfied based on the information and evidence available that payment was made for some or all of the arrears period being claimed, the arrears claim will be accepted.

   Therefore, we cannot be satisfied that the decision was correct.

   We accept [Ms Getson]’s application for collection of child support from 11 October 2021, with unpaid child support of $1,973.47 for the period 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021.

   This objection is allowed.

3. The crux of Mr Getson’s case is that he is being asked to pay child support for a period when he and Ms Getson were still members of the same couple. He does not say that he paid any child support instalments directly to Ms Getson. His submissions at the hearing were consistent with the information recorded in the CSA materials. For her part, simply put, Ms Getson agrees with the objections officer decision.

4. The Tribunal explained to Mr Stansby that the decision about whether he and Ms Getson were members of a couple, and whether the child support case should have been accepted in the first instance (or indeed terminated at any point) are separate decisions with separate review and appeal rights. For the purposes of this application, the Tribunal must assume that there is a valid child support case. Accordingly, the Tribunal must consider whether there are unpaid amounts of child support for the disputed period from 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021. The Tribunal observes that it is not reviewing the subsequent care change decision following notification on 21 September 2021 (see folio 17 of the CSA materials refers) of a change from 11 September 2021 – the only matter for review is the original decision to calculate the quantum of unpaid child support (effectively for the period 12 August 2021 to 10 September 2021 as Ms Getson became the paying parent from 11 September 2021 on the basis of a recorded change in [Child 1]’s care). Mr Stansby had been, from 12 August 2021, assessed to pay a monthly rate of child support of $2,002.25 per month (see folio 27 of the CSA materials).  

5. The Child Support Guide at 5.1.4, which is consistent with the relevant law set out in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, provides the following

Application for collection of arrears

A payee who previously elected not to have their liability registered for collection can later apply for registration. The Registrar must register that liability for collection. The payee can also apply for Services Australia to collect arrears for them (section 28A).

The Registrar must accept the payee’s application for collection of the amounts the payer has not paid in the 3 months immediately before the date the liability first becomes enforceable. The Registrar will need to be satisfied that the amounts have actually not been paid.

…

Calculating amounts unpaid

In some cases parents may provide conflicting information about payments made during the relevant arrears period. If there is a dispute over the amount of unpaid child support, the Registrar will make reasonable investigations before reaching a decision on the amount owing in the arrears period. This would include contacting both parents to seek details of payment dates and amounts, the period to which the payments apply, and any supporting evidence that supports their claims.

Supporting evidence may include:

·bank statements showing amounts transferred from the payer to the payee

·bank statements recording the withdrawal of the amount paid to the payee for child support

·receipts from the payee

·other records, such as letters or emails, about payments made or owing in the arrears period.

The Registrar will take into account any amounts that the payer has previously paid that would qualify as a prescribed non-agency payment (5.3.1) when calculating the amounts unpaid. If the payer has paid 70% of the liability directly to the payee, the Registrar will credit any further amounts that would qualify as prescribed non-agency payments towards the remaining 30% of the liability.

If the parents do not agree and the Registrar cannot be satisfied based on the information and evidence available that payment was made for some or all of the arrears period being claimed, the arrears claim will be accepted.

…

1. Mr Stansby does not suggest he made any direct cash payments to Ms Getson during the disputed period. There is no serious suggestion that any of the payments advanced by Mr Stansby and listed by the objections officer meet the very limited category of payments that can be regarded as “prescribed non-agency payments”. The Tribunal finds no basis to off-set the assessed liability for the period on the basis of any payments made by Mr Stansby to third parties.

2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the unpaid amount for the period 12 August 2021 to 10 October 2021 is $1,973.47. As the Tribunal has reached the same conclusion as the objections officer, the decision under review will be affirmed.

3. The Tribunal observes that Mr Stansby is at liberty to apply for an extension of time to object to the original decision of 12 August 2021 to accept Ms Getson’s application for a child support case in the event he says that at the time of the original application, he and Ms Getson were members of the same couple, and the application ought not, therefore, have been accepted in the first instance. He will retain the right to apply to the Tribunal if his application for an extension is refused, or he disagrees with any future CSA objection decision.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.