TQRY and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
[2020] AATA 669
•26 March 2020
TQRY and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2020] AATA 669 (26 March 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/3653
Re:TQRY
APPLICANT
AndChild Support Registrar
RESPONDENT
ZHKNAnd
OTHER PARTY
DECISION
Tribunal:Member P Ranson
Date:26 March 2020
Place:Brisbane
The decision in AAT1 is affirmed.
........................................................................
Member P Ranson
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.
Catchwords
CHILD SUPPORT – care arrangements – percentage of care – date of effect – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
The Child Support Guide
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member P Ranson
26 March 2020
BACKGROUND
The Father and the Mother are the separated parents of three children; a son and two daughters. The Father and the Mother had a strained relationship when they were together and separated for the final time in November 2017. It seems that strained relationship has continued since final separation.
The son turned 18 in May 2018 and he and his sisters share their time living alternately with their Father and their Mother on a seemingly ad hoc basis. Sometimes all three would stay with one or the other of their parents; sometimes two would be with one parent and one with the other.
The Father and the Mother both claim to have 72% care of the children and there have been various decisions by the department and this Tribunal which have ultimately accepted the more likely result is the Mother has 72% care of the children.
The Father is dissatisfied with the decision to award the Mother 72% care of the children and has applied for a review. For the reasons set out below this Tribunal agrees the Mother has 72% care of children.
FACTS
The parties in this case are:
Applicant
TQRY (the Father)
Respondent
Child Support Registrar (the Respondent)
Other Party
ZHKN (the Mother)
The Hearing occurred on 3 December 2019 (the Hearing). The Father and the Mother attended by telephone and Ms Smith for the Respondent attended in person. The Father and the Mother gave evidence under affirmation.
The following documents were admitted into evidence:
Exhibit 1
Section 37 T-Documents.
Exhibit 2
The Secretary’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 18 November 2019 (SFIC).
Exhibit 3
Mother’s Calendar November 2017 to September 2019 filed in three tranches on 12, 25 and 26 November 2019
Exhibit 4
Father’s Calendar November 2017 to September 2019 filed on 1 November 2019
Exhibit 5
Statement by [name redacted] filed by the Mother on 30 August 2019
Exhibit 6
Mother’s submission by email filed 28 August 2019
Exhibit 7
Bundle of statements dated 18 December 2018 of:
- [Name redacted]: re-stated 9 April 2019 and signed 24 July 2019
- [Name redacted]: re-stated 9 April 2019 and signed 18 July 19
filed by the Father on 26 July 2019Exhibit 8
Statement of [name redacted] filed by the Father on 5 July 2019
Exhibit 9
Statement of [name redacted] filed by the Mother on 1 July 2019
Exhibit 10
Statements of:
- [Name redacted] dated 4 July 2019
- [Name redacted] (undated)
- [Name redacted] dated 3 July 2019
- [Name redacted] dated 30 June 2019
- -[Name redacted] (undated)
- [Name redacted] dated 3 July 2019
filed by the Mother on 6 July 2019
Exhibit 11
Statement of [name redacted] filed by the Father on 5 July 2019
Exhibit 12
Statement of the Son filed by the Mother on 25 November 2019
Exhibit 13
Mother's submission as to calendar of care filed 11 March 2020
Exhibit 14
Father's response to Mother’s submission as to calendar of care, filed on 18 March 2020
Exhibit 15
Respondent's response to Mother's submission as to calendar of care, filed on 19 March 2020
The SFIC sets out in detail the law relevant to this case with which the Tribunal concurs. As a copy of the SFIC was provided to the Father and the Mother prior to the Hearing, that law will not be reproduced in this decision other than to confirm the relevant legislation and policy is contained in:
(a)Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (the Assessment Act);
(b)Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (the Collection Act); and
(c)The Child Support Guide (the Guide), Chapter 2.2.
The Father and the Mother are the biological parents of a son born in 2000 (the Son), a daughter born in 2002 (the Elder Daughter) and a daughter born in 2005 (the Younger Daughter) collectively the children (the Children). The Elder Daughter and the Younger Daughter are collectively referred to as ‘the Girls’.
The Father and the Mother separated for the second time in November 2017 with the Mother asserting she had 100% care of the Children albeit the Father had some overnight care.
On 19 April 2018 the Mother applied to the Department of Human Services, Child Support (the Child Support Agency) to reopen the child support case in respect of the Children. The Mother advised the Child Support Agency she had 72% and the Father had 28% care of the Children since separation on 5 November 2017. The Child Support Agency applied the change from 5 November 2017 with effect from 19 April 2018.
On 4 May 2018 the Father objected to the care decision and on 12 July 2018 the Child Support Agency allowed the objection and recorded the Father as having 72% and the Mother 28% care of the Children also from 5 November 2017 and with effect from 19 April 2018 (the Objection Decision).
The Mother was dissatisfied with the outcome of the Objection Decision and on 15 November 2018 applied to the Social Security and Child Support Division of this Tribunal for a review, which occurred on 12 March 2019 (AAT1). AAT1 overturned the Objection Decision and returned the parties to the previous position, that is, the Mother having 72% and the Father having 28% care of the children from 19 April 2018. The Tribunal notes the AAT1 decision declined to make a determination under section 95N of the Collection Act and as a consequence the date of effect of AAT1 is 15 November 2018.
The Father was dissatisfied with the AAT1 decision and applied to the General Division of this Tribunal for a review.
The Respondent identified the issues to be decided in this case as:
(a)What percentage of care should be reflected in the child support register from the date the new child support administrative assessment commenced; and
(b)What date of effect applies for the percentage of care?
The Father advised the Tribunal he and the Mother had agreed to a care arrangement of 50% each rather than 72% and 28% as previously determined (the Agreed Care Determination). In response to directions by this Tribunal[1], the Father also advised he was not withdrawing his application for this review and was seeking to have the decision in AAT1 changed to reflect the Agreed Care Determination from 19 April 2018.
[1] AAT Directions dated 18 September 2019 by Conference Registrar Gamble; paragraph 1.
The Mother confirmed the Agreed Care Determination however she recalls the decision to do so was made with the Father following a telephone directions Hearing (TDH) in this Tribunal on 16 September 2019 and as such this arrangement was to apply from the date.
The Agreed Care Determination to an extent deals with the first issue identified above if in fact it is agreed by the Mother and the Father. If the date of effect of that decision is anything other than 19 April 2018 a separate care decision needs to be made for the period from 19 April 2018 to the date of effect of the Agreed Care Determination.
On 6 March 2020, the Tribunal sought clarification from the Mother as to her calendar of care submission, namely Exhibit 3. The Mother provided her response, on 11 March 2020, being Exhibit 13. A copy of Exhibit 13 was provided to the Father and the Respondent who provided their responses, being Exhibits 14 and 15, on 18 and 19 March 2020 respectively.
THE FATHER’S EVIDENCE
As described above, the Father identified to the Tribunal early in the Hearing the details of the Agreed Care Determination. He recalled he contacted the Mother following the release of AAT1 to say he was not happy with the decision and it was at that time the Agreed Care Determination was made between the parties.
Curiously, the Father claimed not to recall attending any Hearings in respect of this matter notwithstanding Tribunal records show the following event occurred:
Date
Direction
16 September 2019
A timeline for the Father to inform the Tribunal whether or not he wished to withdraw the application and for the parties to lodge further submissions (the Father and the Mother attended this hearing by conference telephone). Directions issued 18 September 2019.
The Father was asked several times during the Hearing if he could specifically recall discussing with the Mother, after the Telephone Conference (TC) on 16 September 2019, either the date the Agreed Care Determination was to commence or that he wanted the AAT1 decision to be amended. Initially, the Father said he could not recall participating in any directions hearings notwithstanding the Tribunal’s records show he participated in the TC on 16 September 2019. The Father did respond at one point saying he had said to the Mother the start date was to be 12 March 2019, being the date of the AAT1 decision. Given the evidence of the Father throughout the Hearing, the Tribunal concludes the reference to 12 March 2019 is a reference to the AAT1 decision rather than when he intended the Agreed Care Determination to commence.
The Father said repeatedly during the Hearing the Agreed Care Determination was fair to both parties and by changing the AAT1 decision in regard to percentages of care to accord with the Agreed Care Determination; ‘I can’t be any fairer than that’.
THE MOTHER’S EVIDENCE
As set out above, the Mother explained to the Tribunal she was supportive of the Agreed Care Determination. She advised she had spoken with ‘Donna’, who the Tribunal understands to be Ms Smith the representative of the Respondent, after the last time they were ‘in court’. The Tribunal understands the reference to ‘in court’ is a reference to the TC in this Tribunal on 16 September 2019. In any event the Mother was clear in her mind the Agreed Care Determination was to commence following the TC of 16 September 2019.
The Mother advised she and the Father had several conversations following the TC of 16 September 2019 and she was happy with the Agreed Care Determination ‘from this date forward’, that is, from 16 September 2019. The Mother recalls no discussion with the Father about changing the decision of AAT1 to reflect the Agreed Care Determination reiterating it was to apply from the date of the last directions.
THE RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
Ms Smith advised the Tribunal there had been discussions with the parties following the TC of 16 September 2019 in which the Agreed Care Determination was discussed. Ms Smith advised there had been a child support case, which had ended, and the matter was now the subject of private collection. Ms Smith reiterated part (b) of the decision in AAT1 records no decision in relation to special circumstances which would allow the application of the decision to apply from 19 April 2018 rather than 15 November 2018 when the Mother applied for the review.
Ms Smith further advised it would be the responsibility of the Mother to apply to have the care percentages changed and the date of the event equates to the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) date which is the date the care changes, that is, 5 November 2017.
CONCLUSION AS TO AGREED CARE DETERMINATION
It is clear to the Tribunal part of the Agreed Care Determination, that is, 50% care to each of the Mother and Father, is in fact mutually agreed by them. The disagreement between the parties rests with the date at which the Agreed Care Determination is to commence. The Father is adamant the Agreed Care Determination should be substituted into the decision made AAT1 and applies from 19 April 2018. The Mother is equally adamant she did not agree to the Agreed Care Determination commencing any earlier than the TC on 16 September 2019.
The Mother’s evidence as to the timing of the Agreed Care Determination was clear and direct. The Father’s evidence as to the timing of the Agreed Care Determination was not clear. He could not initially recall attending the TC on 16 September 2019, in which he was present, and he could not directly answer the question as to when he discussed the Agreed Care Determination replacing the decision in the AAT1.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the Agreed Care Determination is not agreed by both the Father and the Mother because its date of commencement cannot be determined with any accuracy.
WHAT DO THE CALENDARS OF CARE SAY?
The Father and the Mother both provided calendars of care from November 2017 to September 2019. These were admitted into evidence as exhibits 3 and 4.
Ordinarily, the Tribunal would seek to determine a pattern of care, based on court orders or a private care arrangement, by which the children of a relationship spend time with their respective parents. The word pattern is defined as: ‘a regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in the way in which something happens or is done’[2]. A pattern of care for the purpose of child support suggests the children spending a regular and predictable amount of time with each of their parents.
[2] Oxford dictionary.
Section 54A(1) of the Assessment Act provides the actual care of the child a person has had, or is likely to have, during the care period may be worked out based on the number of nights the registrar is satisfied the child was or is likely to be in the care of the person during the care period.
Based on calendars of care provided by the Father and the Mother it is not possible to determine a pattern of care in this matter because it appears the Children randomly spend alternate nights in either the Father’s house or the Mother’s house. This means on any one night one, two or all three of the Children may be in the care of either the Mother or the Father. There is no pattern of care as such. Accordingly the Tribunal has sought to determine an overall percentage of care over a period of time in accordance with section 54A(1).
The Father’s calendar of care records the names of the Children against the dates each month he says they were in his overnight care. The Tribunal notes the Son turned 18 on 24 May 2018 and ceased to be a child for the purposes of child support from the date. The Tribunal has analysed the Father’s calendar of care and determined overall it records 53% overnight care with the Father during the period November 2017 to September 2019.
The Mother’s calendar of care is more difficult to interpret and assistance was rendered by the Mother’s clarification of her calendar of care in Exhibit 13. It appears when all three children are with the Mother she identifies that by a generic mark on that date. When the children are with their Father the word ‘Dad’ is written against that date and there is a footnote to identify which of the children were with their Father on those nights. With the assistance Exhibit 13 provides in interpreting the Mother’s calendar of care, it records 77% overnight care with the Mother during the period November 2017 to September 2019.
WHAT DO THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE FATHER SAY?
The Father obtained letters of support from various parties as follows:
(a)[Name redacted]: re-dated 18 December 2018;[3]
(b)[Name redacted]: redated 18 December 2018;[4]
(c)[Name redacted]: undated;[5]
(d)The Son: dated 12 June 2019;[6] and
(e)[Name redacted]: dated 12 June 2019.[7]
[3] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T1 page 8; Exhibit 7.
[4] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T1 page 9; Exhibit 7.
[5] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T30 page 125; Exhibit 8.
[6] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T1 page 11.
[7] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T23 page 118; Exhibit 11.
The statement at 37(a) above was originally provided in undated form and unsigned. An updated version dated 18 December 2018 has been provided and it is also unsigned. The writer identifies himself as the oldest son of the Father and describes a favourable relationship between the Father and the Children. He comments notwithstanding the Father has a full-time job he always takes the Girls to school while they are under his roof and provides the Children with lunch money. He states: ‘He has the kids here under his care 80% of the time minimum, all three of the kids are very happy living here, they have everything they need here at Dads’. Whilst this statement indicates the children are in the care of their Father 80% of the time and are happy doing so, it does not actually state the time in his care includes overnight care. Further, it is at odds with the Father’s calendar of care which shows an average of 53%.
The statement at 37(b) above dated 18 December 2018 and confirmed on 9 April 2019 is very brief and the writer repeats the assertion the Girls live with their Father at least 80% of the time. He states: ‘Since early July, from the time I’ve started living here I’ve gotten to know [redacted – the Elder Daughter] and [redacted – the Younger Daughter] quite well due to the girls being here at least 80% of the time’. He provides contemporaneous evidence and confirms the Father drives the Girls to and from school and provides them with lunch money every day (similar to the statement at 37(a) above). No specific mention is made of the Son staying overnight with the Father. In any event, the reference to 80% of the time is at odds with the Father’s calendar of care which shows an average of 53%.
The statement at 37(c) above is undated and partially redacted. In it the writer states in paragraph 2: ‘I can confirm under oath that the 3 children [redacted - the Younger Daughter], [redacted - the Elder Daughter] and [redacted - the Son] reside in the home of [redacted] … ull-time [sic - full-time] basis’. In paragraph 4 it states: ‘The children live with [redacted – the Father] 85% of the time and visit their Mother [redacted – the Mother] on fortnight to weekend visits.’ The statement in paragraph 2 appears to say the children live with their Father on a full-time basis. If so, that is at odds with the statement in paragraph 4 which says the children live with their Father 85% of the time, which is at odds with the Father’s calendar of care which shows an average of 53%.
The Son provided a very brief letter of support for the Father dated 12 June 2019, mentioned at 37(d) above. He states: ‘My name is [redacted - the Son]. I am the son of [redacted - the Mother] and [redacted - the Father] I am 19 my date of birth is 24/05/2000 and I have been living back and forwards with mum and dad since February 2018, but mainly stay at dads during the week as so I can get to school and work. My two sisters are [redacted - the Elder Daughter] and [redacted - the Younger Daughter] also live with dad I transport them to and from mums house to dads frequently on weekends and sometimes during the week.’ By way of example, the calendar of care provided by the Father of the month of February 2018 shows the Son in the overnight care of the Father for 12 days out of 28. It further shows the Children were not overnight with their Father for nine days from 11 to 19 February 2018. For the month of May 2018, the calendar of care provided by the Father shows the Children living with their Mother for eight days that month and prior to his birthday the Son is recorded as overnight with his Father for eight nights. This statement also provides strong contemporaneous evidence of where the Children stayed overnight and appears to support the Father’s calendar of care averaging 53%.
The statement at 37(e) above dated 12 June 2019 begins by the writer stating her name and identifies herself as the eldest daughter of the Father and sister to the Girls. In paragraph 2 she states: ‘I can confirm that both [redacted – the Elder daughter] and [redacted – the Younger Daughter] reside at [redacted] with our father [redacted – the Father] from Monday to Friday every week. [Redacted – the Elder Daughter] generally resides with her mother most weekends (but not all), [redacted – the Younger Daughter] tends to reside with her mother on average once to twice per month. This cycle has been consistent since January 2018.’ She further states in paragraph 4: ‘I reside at the property once a week offering my assistance with the girls.’ As the writer only resides at the property once per week, the Tribunal does not accept she can be sure the Girls reside with their Father from Monday to Friday every week and the Tribunal notes no reference is made to the Son and where he receives overnight care.
WHAT DO THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE MOTHER SAY?
The Mother obtained letters of support from various parties as follows:
(a)[Name redacted]: dated 2019;[8]
(b)[Name redacted]: undated;[9]
(c)[Name redacted]: dated 13 November 2018;[10]
(d)[Name redacted]: undated;[11]
(e)[Name redacted]: dated 30 June 2019;[12]
(f)[Name redacted]: undated;[13] and
(g)[Name redacted]: undated;[14]
[8] Exhibit 5.
[9] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T20 page 108.
[10] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T20 page 109.
[11] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T26 page 121; Exhibit 10.
[12] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T24 page 119.
[13] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T31 page 126.
[14] Exhibit 1, T-Documents – T32 pages 127-128.
The statement at 43(a) above is undated but for a reference to the year 2019. The writer identifies himself as the grandfather of the man who he says was dating the Mother. This statement says at paragraph 3: ‘I moved in with [redacted – the Mother] and her family in October 2018. Since then, [redacted – the Son] was in the home every night; [redacted – the Elder Daughter] was home to be fair, five nights a week. [redacted – the Younger Daughter] would be allocated Thursdays to Mondays, but sometimes she [redacted – the Younger Daughter] would sleep at her friend’s place on weekends or family for sleepovers with her cousins.’ He states above he moved into the residence of the Mother in October 2018 so his statement provides contemporaneous evidence of where the children stayed overnight from that time. His evidence is the Son was at the Mother’s residence every night, the Elder Daughter was at the Mother’s residence five nights a week and the Younger Daughter was allocated Thursdays to Mondays, which the Tribunal assumes to be four nights at the Mother’s residence. If this is the case, his contemporaneous evidence supports the view the Children were overnight with their Mother in excess of 70% of the time.
The statement at 43(b) above is undated save for a reference to Tuesday 13 November. In it the writer states she has been a friend of the [redacted] family for around eight years during which she has spent considerable time with the family including dinners and sharing family vacations. The statement is mostly about what the writer calls an unhealthy home environment for the Mother whilst living with the Father which of itself is not relevant to this decision. The most relevant comment it makes is in paragraph 2: ‘Every time that I visited, meet with [redacted – the Mother] or talked on the phone she was either with the children or going to pick them up drop them off.’ This statement adds no weight to the assertion of the Mother the children lived with her for an excess of 70% of the time because it makes no reference to where they received overnight care.
The statement at 43(c) above is dated 13 November 2018 and the writer identifies herself as the Mother of [redacted] who she says had been dating the Mother since January 2017. She states to the best of her knowledge the Children were in the full-time care and control of their Mother from November 2017 to July 2018 other than two periods of three weeks and four weeks respectively when the Mother was firstly ill and then dealing with a temporary suspension of her driver licence. It appears the writer lives on the Gold Coast as she states: ‘Although she lived in Brisbane whenever she came to the Gold Coast, she brought the three children with her.’ This later statement is really the only contemporaneous evidence of the Children being in the overnight care of the Mother. The earlier reference to full-time care and control does not of itself identify where the Children received overnight care.
There are two statements from the writer of the statement at 43(d) above, viz. an undated text message and an e-mail dated 3 July 2019. The undated text message refers to the period 5 November 2017 until 31 July 2018 and confirms the statement by the writer of the statement at 43(c) about the periods of three weeks and four weeks when the children were with the Father because the Mother was firstly sick and later had temporarily lost her driver licence. The text message states in its sixth paragraph: ‘Since getting her license back the children have been back in [redacted – the Mother’s] care for five days out of the week.’ This later statement supports the Mother’s calendar of care showing on average 77%. The email of 3 July 2019 essentially confirms the content of the undated text message.
The statement at 43(e) above is dated 30 June 2019 and the writer states he has known the Mother and her family for three years and asserts the Mother had full custody of the Children during the period November 2017 to April 2018. The statement goes on to give various accounts of unwanted contact between the Mother and the Father and between the Father and the Children as asserted by the writer all of which is not relevant to this matter. It doesn’t provide any useful evidence as to where the Children received overnight care other than to assert the Mother had full custody. As such, no weight is placed on the statement.
The statement of at 43(f) above is brief and undated however it does state the writer and another party, identified as a cousin of the Mother, stayed with the Mother and the Children from January 2018 to early March 2018 on a full-time basis to assist the Mother following a series of deaths in the family. The statement asserts during that period the Children were living full-time with the Mother and attending school from her home again supportive of the view the Children received overnight care with their Mother in excess of 70% of the time.
The statement at 43(g) above provided an undated letter addressed ‘To Whom It May Concern’. A number of the letters of support are addressed in that way. This statement is long and detailed however much of it deals with matters that are not relevant to this percentage of care matter in that she provides a positive character reference for the Mother and goes into great detail about the marital difficulties between Mother and Father. She states she has known the Mother for the past four years and that: ‘[Redacted - The Mother] has [redacted - the Elder Daughter], at least five days a week, joint care of [redacted - the Younger Daughter]. [Redacted - the Son] is over 18 but he stayed at the Mother’s place and she had to support him, all of 2018’. As the Son turned 18 on 24 May 2018, the Tribunal concludes this statement was written after that date. In any event, this statement appears to support the view the Children were overnight with their Mother in excess of 70% of the time.
CONCLUSION ABOUT THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT
As detailed above, none of the letters is particularly conclusive as to where the children received overnight care. The statement at 43(a) above does at least provide some contemporaneous evidence which suggests the children were with their Mother in excess of 70% of the time. The two statements of at 43(d) above also support the Mother’s position she had overnight care of the children at least 70% of the time. The statement at 43(f) above is supportive albeit his statement only covers a three-month period. Finally, the statement at 43(g) above is also supportive of the view children were overnight with the Mother in excess of 70% of the time.
By contrast, the letters of support for the Father have a commonality about them in that they consistently state the Children spend 80% or 85% of their time with the Father, he always provides them with lunch money and drives them to and from school. The difficulty the Tribunal has with these statements is they are all asserting a situation which is materially different from the calendar of care provided by the Father and none of them provides strong contemporaneous evidence.
CONCLUSION
Returning to the issues to be decided in this case, which are what percentage of care should be reflected in the child support register from the date the new child support administrative assessment commenced and what date of effect applies for the percentage of care, it is clear the evidence provides little clarity as to the correct or preferable decision. The calendars of care provided by the Father and the Mother are completely at odds with each other. The letters of support for the Father are largely at odds with his calendar care. The letters of support for the Mother generally support the view her overnight care of the Children is in excess of 70%.
The Respondent confirmed there had been discussions with the Mother and the Father following the TC of 16 September 2019 in which the Agreed Care Determination was discussed. Whilst the Mother and Father confirmed the Agreed Care Determination was made they do not agree on when it was to commence and so there is effectively no agreement. There had been a child support case which ended and the matter is now the subject of private collection. Part (b) of the decision in AAT1 records no decision in relation to special circumstances which would allow the application of the decision to apply from 19 April 2018 rather than 15 November 2018 when the Mother applied for the review.
As there is no child support case it is the responsibility of the Mother to apply to have the care percentages changed and in any case the date of the event equates to the FTB date which is the date the care changes, that is, 5 November 2017.
DECISION
The decision in AAT1 is affirmed.
57. I certify that the preceding 56 (Fifty Six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member P Ranson
.....................................................................
Associate
Dated: 26 March 2020
Date of hearing: 3 December 2019 Date final submissions received: 19 March 2020 Applicant: By telephone Other Party: By telephone Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Donna Smith
Department of Human Services
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
0
0
0