TZBP and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review of a child support determination regarding the percentage of care of two children between the Applicant and the Other Party, who are the children's separated parents. The dispute centred on the actual care each parent provided to the children from 17 April 2018 onwards, following an initial decision made on 8 May 2018 and subsequent objections and reviews. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine the correct percentage of care for child support purposes.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the existing determination of the percentage of care made by the AAT on 17 January 2019 should be revoked and replaced. This required the Tribunal to assess the actual care provided by each parent during the relevant period, specifically from 17 April 2018 to 21 February 2019. The Tribunal also considered the application of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), including provisions relating to the determination of care patterns and the calculation of actual care based on the number of nights, while acknowledging that the concept of "care" is broader than mere overnight stays.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented by both parties regarding the actual care of the children. While the parties agreed that a change in care occurred on 17 April 2018, they disagreed on the extent of care each provided thereafter. The Applicant provided detailed evidence, including flight bookings and correspondence, to support her claim that the Other Party's actual care was less than the 13% previously determined. The Tribunal noted that the relevant legislation in force prior to the 2018 amendments would apply if a change in care was found to have occurred in April 2018. The Tribunal was required to apply Ministerial policy unless there were cogent reasons not to do so.

The Tribunal set aside the previous decision and substituted its own determination regarding the percentage of care. The specific details of the substituted decision, including the revised percentages and the effective date, were not fully elaborated in the provided text, but it was clear that the Tribunal found the evidence warranted a change from the prior assessment.