Van Haltren and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a review of the Registrar's decision to decline the issue of a departure prohibition order (DPO) for Mr Van Haltren. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr Van Haltren had made satisfactory arrangements for the discharge of his child support liability, or if such arrangements were likely to be made, to permit him to travel to Papua New Guinea for work. The review was heard by Senior Member A Poljak.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Van Haltren was likely to return to Australia within a reasonable timeframe, and whether the Registrar was likely to be required to revoke the DPO within an appropriate period, considering Mr Van Haltren's significant child support liability and his ability to discharge it. The Tribunal also considered the objects of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), which include ensuring parents provide financial support for their children and that periodic amounts are paid regularly and on time.

The Tribunal accepted that Mr Van Haltren retained a strong connection with his family in Australia, including his three adult children, and was therefore likely to return within a reasonable timeframe. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Van Haltren had made satisfactory arrangements for the discharge of his substantial child support liability. While Mr Van Haltren proposed to work overseas to earn money to pay off his debt and had made an initial payment, the Tribunal noted his past defaults on agreed payment plans and the lack of credible evidence regarding his proposed overseas employment. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Whittaker v Child Support Registrar* (2010) 264 ALR 473, which clarified that a DPO is a procedure designed to prevent recovery of child support from being frustrated, and can be made to ensure a person does not depart Australia without discharging their liability or making satisfactory arrangements for its discharge.

The Tribunal affirmed the Registrar's decision to decline the issue of a departure prohibition order.