VGPX and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by VGPX against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1), which affirmed a determination by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) of the Department of Social Services. The dispute centred on the percentage of care provided by VGPX and BYGM, the parents of two minor children, for the purposes of calculating Family Tax Benefit (FTB). VGPX had provided 100% care for the children from August 2017 until July 2019. BYGM subsequently claimed to be providing 50% of the care from July 2019 onwards, a claim contested by VGPX who asserted his care remained at almost 100%. The Department initially determined a 50%/50% care split, which was affirmed by the ARO and then by AAT1. VGPX sought a review of the AAT1 decision before this Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the actual pattern and percentage of care provided by each parent for the FTB children from 1 July 2019 onwards, and whether the previous determinations of a 50%/50% care split were correct. This required the Tribunal to assess the evidence presented by both VGPX and BYGM regarding their respective contributions to the children's care and to consider whether any new or sufficiently probative evidence had emerged that would warrant a significant amendment to the existing decision.

The Tribunal found that neither VGPX nor BYGM had presented sufficiently solid or probative evidence to establish a different pattern or percentage of care than that already determined. The Tribunal noted that both the ARO and AAT1 had reviewed the evidence and heard from the parties, independently reaching the conclusion of a 50%/50% care split. Having also received evidence and heard from the parties, the Tribunal was not persuaded that any evidence before it suggested the previous determinations were incorrect. The Tribunal applied the principle that it must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a different care arrangement existed, and in the absence of such convincing proof, it would affirm the existing decision.

The decision under review was affirmed.