VMDB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
[2024] AATA 924
•2 May 2024
VMDB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2024] AATA 924 (2 May 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/7790
Re:VMDB
APPLICANT
AndChild Support Registrar
RESPONDENT
AndCXCP
OTHER PARTY
DECISION
Tribunal:Member Ranson
Date:2 May 2024
Place:Brisbane
The decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division dated 2 August 2022 is set aside and substituted.
......................................................
Member 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 – percentage care determination – where applicant out of time to appeal to General Division – extension of time granted – where no agreement reached on actual care arrangement – where evidence of actual care insufficient to establish change in care arrangement – where applicant out of time to appeal original decision – application of s87AA – date of effect of decision – decision under review set aside and substituted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1987 (Cth)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases
Child Support Registrar v BKCZ [2023] FCA 1109
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344Johnson and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 3469
Secondary Materials
Department of Social Services, Guides to Social Policy Law, Child Support Guide (Version 4.81, as at 2 April 2024)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Ranson
2 May 2024
VMDB (the mother) and CXCP (the father) are the parents of two children who they care for on a regular 50/50 basis, that is, week-about each usually commencing on Monday each week. That has been the case since court orders for the arrangement were made in 2020. The child support case was first registered in 2017.
The mother fell ill on three occasions during 2021 and the father had extra care of the children during those times. It is the third occasion, the period from 7 June 2021 to 18 July 2021, which is the subject of this decision and referred to as the ‘short care period’. The father says he should be recorded as having 100% care of the children during the short care period even though the mother had some care of them during that period albeit on an ad hoc basis. The mother acknowledges the father had additional care but says it did not amount to a change in the regular care of the children.
The parents agree on some nights the children were in the overnight care of the mother during the short care period and disagree on others, which makes it impossible to determine the actual care. The Tribunal finds this perplexing because the facts relating to the nights the children were in the care of one or the other parent are peculiarly, in the sense of belonging exclusively, within their knowledge. Perhaps it is the case here where in the ordinary affairs of daily life, the parents in retrospect have mistaken the intent for the act. That is, they thought and genuinely believed they had care of the children on a certain date when in fact they did not. Perception became reality.
The mother advised Centrelink of the change which caused the care percentages to change to 100% to the father and 0% to her, which she was unhappy with. She objected to that decision, however she did so well outside the 28-day period to request an appeal. The original decision was overturned on objection and the 50/50 care percentages were reinstated. The objections officer found there were special circumstances, which prevented her from objecting in time.
The father appealed to the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (AAT1), which on 2 August 2022 set aside the objection decision and reinstated the original decision, that is, 100% to him and 0% to the mother.
The mother provided an application for extension of time to appeal the AAT1 Decision by email on 5 September 2022 (being 28 days after receipt of the decision, which was sent to her on 8 August 2022), and a completed application for review of the Decision to the General Division on 24 September 2022. The application for an extension of time was not dealt with by the Tribunal, and the neither the Respondent nor Other Party objected to the filing of the application for review out of time.
EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL TO THE GENERAL DIVISION
As the application for review of the AAT1 decision was technically received out of time but an application for extension of time was received, the Tribunal must decide whether to grant the Applicant a belated extension of time.
The AAT Act allows the Tribunal to grant an extension of time if it is satisfied ‘that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.’[1] The principles which inform the Tribunal as to whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time are set out in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 and Johnson and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 3469. These cases make it clear that the Tribunal must consider:
(a)the extent of the delay;
(b)the explanation for the delay;
(c)any prejudice to the respondent or the general public arising from an extension of time;
(d)the merits of the substantive application for review; and
(e)any alternative avenues of relief for the applicant should the extension of time not be granted.
[1] Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 29(7).
In her extension of time request, the Applicant said:
Due to work load, home life, children's illness, and study I have not been able to submit my application for review of the decision.within [sic] the 28 day timeframe. I ask for a little more time so that all involved with writing of evidence and so that I may format a response to appeal the decision that was granted on the 2nd August 2022 that I believe to be incorrect and would like another opportunity to provide clear, factual evidence regarding this matter.
While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the Applicant’s circumstances, for reasons which will become clear below, it appears she is sometimes tardy when it comes to adhering to time limitations. The Tribunal does not consider the explanation provided by the Applicant is one which ought to weigh in her favour. Nevertheless, the extent of the delay, being just 19 days, is minimal, and the Tribunal notes that neither the Respondent nor the Other Party raised any issues of prejudice in the late application, weighing in favour of granting the extension. For the reasons made clear below, the merits of the substantive application also weigh in favour of granting the application. Further, this review to the second tier of the Tribunal is the mother’s only remaining appeal avenue available.
Considering the factors on balance as required of the Tribunal as discussed in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen, the Tribunal finds it is reasonable in all the circumstances to belatedly grant the extension of time for the Applicant to appeal to the General Division.
The Tribunal now turns to the substantive issues in dispute.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
There are two substantive issues in this case. The first is whether there was a change of care on 7 June 2021 and if so, what was its duration and what were the care percentages during that period. This issue turns on the inability of the parents to agree on the actual care during the short care period.
The second issue is whether special circumstances prevented the mother from appealing the objection decision within 28 days of receiving notification of it. That turns on whether she relied on inaccurate or misleading information from Centrelink.
For the following reasons, the decision under review should be set aside and substituted with a decision that the care percentages remained as 50/50 to the mother and the father. However, because the objection application was lodged after the 28-day period, and special circumstances did not exist, the date of effect of the Tribunal’s decision is the date the mother applied for review of the decision, being 11 March 2022. By then, the 50/50 care arrangements had already been reinstituted.
What happened?
The mother, VMDB, suffered three periods of illness during 2021 some of which necessitated hospitalisation. She called Centrelink on 17 June 2021 to advise of the third period of illness and the details were recorded in part like this:
‘RP [VMDB] has advised does not have a confirmed date yet but temporary one off block of 100% care for all children to PP [CXCP] is to occur possibly from 21/06/21. This is for [VMDB] to receive medical attention but is not confirmed this will go ahead at this stage. [VMDB] advised this is not likely to be an ongoing arrangement/likely to be extended.
[VMDB] advised care is 50/50 currently alternating on a weekly basis. [VMDB] advised one off block will be for a 4 week period. This means change in care will only be for 2 weeks of [VMDB]'s ongoing care which is not a 4 week period.’
The short care period straddles the term two school holidays from 26 June 2021 to 11 July 2021 however the 2020 court orders do not specify any different care arrangements beyond Monday changeover other than for the Christmas school holidays. Therefore, the regular 50/50 care arrangement, which should have occurred during the short care period, would have resulted in week-about care on the following dates:
From To Parent with care 7 June 2021 13 June 2021 Mother[2] 14 June 2021 20 June 2021 Father 21 June 2021 27 June 2021 Mother 28 June 2021 4 July 2021 Father 5 July 2021 13 July 2021 Mother 12 July 2021 18 July 2021 Father [2] In her affidavit dated 14 March 2022, the mother confirms she missed her week of regular care from 7 to 13 June 2021.
The parents agree on some changes of care during the short care period:
(a)From 7 to 13 June 2021 the children were in the care of their father,
(b)On Saturday 19 June 2021 the children were in the care of their mother,
(c)On Thursday 24 June 2021 the children were in the care of their father, and
(d)On Monday 5 July 2021 the children were in the care of their mother.
They disagree about other days when the mother claims she had care of the children during the short care period, which are:
(a)Sunday 20 June 2021,
(b)Friday 25 June to Sunday 27 June 2021, and
(c)Friday 9 July to Sunday 11 July 2021.
The children were in the care of their father from 12 to 18 July 2021 being his regular week of care. The mother says this period should not be counted as part of the short care period. The father disagrees.
What does the law say?
The law applicable to care percentage decisions is set out in paragraph 3 of the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions. The relevant Acts are:
(a)Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (Assessment Act), and
(b)Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (Collection Act).
Extracts of the relevant law are included in the T Documents at T3.
Until an existing care determination is revoked, a new care determination cannot be made. Revocation of a care determination can be made in three situations as set out in sections 54G, 54F and 54H of the Assessment Act.
Sections 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act set out the conditions when a care arrangement is to be revoked. Section 49 sets out how to determine the percentage of care when the responsible person has had no pattern of care for a child, whereas section 50 sets out how to determine the percentage of care when the responsible person has had a pattern of care for a child.
Section 54G applies where a person is assessed to have regular care and they don’t despite the child being available to them. The secretary says this does not apply in this case and the Tribunal agrees.
Section 54F requires consideration of the actual care taking place and whether there would be a change in the cost percentage due to a person if a new care determination was made.
Section 54H provides an existing care determination may (emphasis added) be revoked if a change in the care percentage does not change the cost percentage.
A recent Federal Court decision held that actual care is the correct method of determining a care percentage rather than point-in-time assessment of care.[3]
[3] Child Support Registrar v BKCZ [2023] FCA 1109 at [69], [71]-[72], [86].
What does the policy say?
The Child Support Guide (Guide) sets out the Department’s interpretation of the law applicable to the child support scheme.[4] Relevant extracts are included in the T Documents at T4. This decision relies heavily on policy because the parents cannot agree on the actual care during the short care period.
[4] Department of Social Services, Guides to Social Policy Law, Child Support Guide (Version 4.81, as at 2 April 2024) (the Guide). The version extracted by the Respondent is Version 4.68 of the Guide as at 3 January 2023. There is no material difference in the relevant sections between the two Versions.
The Tribunal is charged with determining the correct or preferable decision based on an independent assessment of the facts before it and is entitled to treat policy as a relevant factor in that determination.[5] The Full Federal Court has found that where a policy exists to guide the decision maker in exercising its powers, the Tribunal may apply that policy in reviewing a decision where it ‘makes it clear that it has considered the propriety of the particular policy and expressly indicates the considerations which have led it to that conclusion’.[6]
[5] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409.
[6] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409, from 420.
To the extent the Tribunal has considered policy in this case, it has not applied it inflexibly and has only considered it to the extent the policy is consistent with the requirements as set out in the legislation.
The Guide makes the following comment about disagreement between carers as to the actual care provided:[7]
In rare circumstances, the information provided by the parents or carers may be inconclusive to the extent that the Registrar is unable to determine what care percentage each parent or carer is likely to have over the relevant care period. In these cases, the Registrar will assume that the state of affairs known to it at the time the existing care determination was made is continuing. As there is no change in the care percentage, the existing care determination cannot be revoked and the child support assessment will not be amended.
[7] T Documents, T4, page 48; The Guide, 2.2.1 Basics of care, Conflicting information, or disputed facts.
As to changes in the pattern of care, the Guide says:[8]
Not all changes in care will result in a change to the care percentage. Minor departures from the normal pattern of care for the child, such as missing a weekend of care due to illness or work, will not usually constitute a change to the pattern of care, and will not result in a new care determination.
[8] T Documents, T4, page 52; The Guide, 2.2.2 Care determinations & changes in care, Change in pattern of care.
Then, about a one-off block of 100% care, the Guide says:[9]
Where a parent or non-parent carer unexpectedly and temporarily provides 100% care of a child, the Registrar may recognise that the person has 100% care although they are not expected to continue to have that level of care. In these situations, the Registrar will determine the care over a short care period related to the unexpected circumstance (sections 49(1)(a) and 50(1)(a)). When care returns to the normal pattern, a party may notify the Registrar of the change in care, and the Registrar will consider whether to make a new care percentage determination.
The period of unexpected care will generally need to be at least 4 weeks in length in order for the Registrar to make such a determination. However, shorter periods can be considered, especially where there is a possibility the period may be extended.
[9] T Documents, T4, page 54; The Guide, 2.2.2 Care determinations & changes in care, One-off block of 100% care.
The nights in dispute
The parents were unable to agree on the actual care arrangements on the following nights during the short care period:
(a)On Sunday 20 June 2021 the mother says the children were with her and they contacted the father by Skype.
(b)From 24 to 27 June 2021, being Thursday to Sunday, the children were due to be with their mother as part of the regular care arrangement. At the hearing the mother referred to her affidavit dated 14 March 2022, her text message exchange with the father, and her acceptance of a 4-week temporary change in care from 21 June to 19 July 2021 as proof of her care during this period.[10]
(c)On Monday 5 July 2021 the mother says the children were with her overnight. This was the start of her regular week, and she refers to a statement by her sister which stated the children were with their mother that night.[11] In her statement, the sister asserted this to be true because she was there for dinner that night and attached photos of the children dressed in pyjamas. The sister was not called to give oral evidence at the hearing however the strip of photos is dated 5 July 2021 and at the hearing the father did not challenge they were photos of the children. The Tribunal is satisfied the children were overnight with their mother on 5 July 2021.
(d)From 9 to 11 July 2021, being Friday to Sunday, was the last three days of the week the children were due to be with their mother for regular care.
[10] T Documents, T18, page 163.
[11] T Documents, T27, page 285.
Evidence of the mother
The T Documents include several text messages between the parents. Set out below are a selection considered relevant to the decision under review and does not include any which pre-date the short care period or where the date of the message is not indicated.
On the morning of 9 June 2021, the mother sent a text message to the father and said:
Just letting you know that I have another chest x-ray today & had more bloods yesterday as I infection is still inflamed and blood pressure is still low. In the case I end up back in hospital what would you like me to do with our girl’s as I have no-one to watch them and you can’t look after them? My doctor appt is at 3pm today so I will know more then.
Later on 9 June 2021, the mother sent another text message to the father and said:
I have to go to hospital for more IV fluids and antibiotics will be released with (HITH) hospital in the home care tomorrow afternoon/night. The doctors recommend rest to allow healing I will take a look at your proposal in more detail over the weekend and let you know.
This is consistent with the calendars of care provided by the parents to the Tribunal as part of the proceedings, and another text message on 8 June 2021 which suggest the father had care of the children from 7 June 2021 being the start of the week where they should have been in the care of the mother.
The proposal referred to in the message is discussed in a text message she sent to the father on 19 June 2021:
I'm willing to agree to a 4-week temporary change in care commencing 21 /06 and ending 19/07 with the girl's coming to me on the Friday/Saturday/Sunday of my current weeks (50/50 arrangement) so that I can recover. Everything going well next week with the specialist this should be sufficient time for me to heal. If it is to be longer, I will inform you with plenty of notice with change to dates.
On 2 July 2021 (Friday), the parents exchanged text messages as follows:
Mother: ‘Hi [CXCP], can I please have the girls Monday night as mum will be in town.’
Father: ‘Yeah sure, would you like them back Sunday arvo have sometimes some one-on-one time?’
Mother: ‘I would of loved to but I have church commitments until late Sunday afternoon and the girl’s room is in a mess due to rearranging, tidying and going through stuff all week, so I would prefer Monday night if that is ok.’
Father: ‘Yeah sure, your call.’
Monday 5 July 2021 is one of the days the mother says the girls were in her overnight care, which is disputed by the father, however the above text message exchange suggests otherwise.
Then on 8 July 2021, the mother sent a text message to the father and said:
Hi [CXCP], sorry for the late response, after speaking with my doctor’s everything should be fine for our arrangement to go back to normal as at 12/07/2021.
According to the calendars of care provided by the parents, the care of the children reverted to the normal 50/50 arrangement on 12 July 2021 being the start of the regular week for the father. The Tribunal finds the care reverted to 50/50 from 12 July 2021 and so the end of the short care period is revised to 11 July 2021.
The T Documents include a redacted copy of a statement dated 9 September 2021 by someone named Ben who describes himself as a family friend of over 26 years. The letter begins by describing the mother’s hospitalisation in April which is not relevant to this case. The letter goes on to say:
Unfortunately, [VMDB] was hospitalised a second time in June [presumably June 2021] with pneumococcal pneumonia and almost ended up in ICU and required a blood transfusion. I cared for [VMDB] during this time as she was extremely ill, and I state that she still cared for her girl’s as per her statement (dates provided to child support) in a lengthy conversation with child support officer….
Ben’s statement does not specifically identify the second period of hospitalisation as being June 2021 although that can be reasonably inferred from it. What the statement does not do however is indicate how it is that Ben knows that the mother cared for the children on the ‘dates provided to child support’. Ben was not called to give oral evidence at the Hearing. Without that information, the statement by Ben carries little weight in this decision.
Medical certificates
On 16 July 2021, Ms Andrea Cox who was a counsellor with Strengthening Family Connections for the Livingstone Shire Council wrote a letter ‘To Whom It May Concern’ advising the mother had been unwell from 21 June 2021 to 12 July 2021 and by then had recovered.
On 16 July 2021, Dr Nicholas Wong of Yeppoon family practice issued a medical certificate stating the mother had been receiving medical treatment for left lower lobe pneumonia for the period 8 June 2021 to 2 July 2021 inclusive and would be fit to continue her usual occupation from 12 July 2021.
These medical certificates carry no weight in this decision because neither provides any evidence of when the children were in the care of their mother during the short care period.
Evidence of the father
The father, CXCP, provided a redacted copy of a letter from his employer dated 19 July 2021. The letter confirms his employment with the employer and states:[12]
During [CXCP]’s employment [his employer] has agreed to approving Long Service Leave at short notice and change his rostering arrangement back to permanent day shift for a 2 month period whilst [CXCP] is the sole carer for his children. [His employer] will accommodate arrangements to support [CXCP] wherever operational possible until such lime that [CXCP] is not the sole carer for his children.
[12] T Documents, T8, page 99.
The T Documents include an undated letter addressed ‘To Whom It May Concern’ which appears to be from CXCP’s mother. She states: ‘There has been periods in March/April and June/July where [CXCP] has had constant care of children and I have had to pick them up and take them to Day care and school.’ The letter is no more specific than that quote and does not identify which nights in June or July (presumably 2021) when the children were with their father. CXCP’s mother was not called to give oral evidence at the Hearing and her letter carries little weight in this decision.
At the hearing, the father said care of the children was offered to the mother on Sunday 4 July 2021 and she refused, and he refers to a text message exchange the previous Friday.[13] That appears to be a one-off event as he made no other references to care offered and refused. The Tribunal finds one night offered and refused does not enliven section 54G.
[13] T Documents, T7, pages 72 and 73.
Conclusion as to the change of care
The Tribunal has been unable to conclusively determine the care percentage each parent had over the short care period because:
(a)The only complete week when the children should have been with their mother was the first week of the short care period, that is, from 7 to 13 June 2021. The children were cared for by their father for those seven days.
(b)The children were cared for by their father during the last week of the short care period, that is, from 12 to 18 July 2021, being his regular care week. The Tribunal has excluded this week from the short care period.
(c)There are at least three nights when the parents agree the children were in the care of their mother, that is, 19 June 2021, 24 June 2021 and 5 July 2021.
(d)The weeks commencing 14 June 2021 and 28 June 2021 were the father’s normal week of care. That means of the five-week period under review, there is no block of four continuous weeks when the care arrangement was 100% to the father.
This not a situation where a minor departure from the normal pattern of care for the children has occurred. It was more than that however the lack of agreement between the parents means the policy discussed below is more applicable.
The Tribunal finds the only conclusion it can draw is that the situation at the time the existing care determination was made continued during the short care period, that is, 50/50 to each parent. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds there was no change of care during the short care period which was from 7 June 2021 to 11 July 2021, and that sections 54F, 54G and 54H have no application in this case.
Date of effect of the care percentage decision
What happened?
As we know, on 15 October 2021, Centrelink decided the care of the children was 0% to the mother from 7 June 2021 to 18 July 2021, and found it was a one-off block of 100% care to the father. On 11 March 2022, the mother objected to this decision.
The mother advised Centrelink she was pursuing another care objection decision through the Tribunal and requested consideration of special circumstances for lodging the 11 March 2022 objection beyond 28 days. It is not in dispute the mother lodged her request for a review more than 28 days after the decision was made by Centrelink. That means section 87AA of the Collection Act must be considered to determine if special circumstances applied to prevent her from lodging her objection within 28 days.
What does the law say?
If a person lodges an objection to a care percentage decision more than 28 days after notice of the care percentage decision was served and the Registrar’s decision varies the determination to the care percentage decision, or substitutes a new determination, the date of effect of the review decision is the day on which the person lodged the objection.[14]
[14] Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), s 87AA.
However, if the Registrar is satisfied there are special circumstances that prevented the person from lodging the objection within 28 days, the Registrar may determine the date of effect to be such longer period as the Registrar considers appropriate. Either way, the Registrar must give written notice of the decision to each person affected by the decision.
The notice must set out the reasons for the decision and include a statement to the effect that, if the person is aggrieved by the decision, application may be made to the AAT for review of the decision. Failure to do so does not affect the validity of the decision.
What does the Guide say?
Section 4.1.8 discusses care percentage decisions and provides examples of special circumstances under which an extension of time to appeal can be made.[15] One such example of special circumstances is where a parent reasonably relies on inaccurate or misleading information.
[15] The Guide, 4.1.8 Care percentage decisions, Special circumstances.
The mother applied for special circumstances on the basis she believed the Tribunal was completing a review of the care decision covering the period from 7 June 2021. She claims she was not aware the review was not considering that decision.
Multiple letters were issued to both parents on 15 October 2021 advising of the objection decisions relating to the two periods of disputed care earlier in 2021. The objections officer accepted this amounted to special circumstances without saying why, so presumably it was because that somehow caused confusion in the mind of the mother. AAT1 found section 87AA had no application. In doing so, AAT1 relied on an earlier decision of the SSCSD concerning the two earlier periods of disputed care in 2021.
The Tribunal has not applied policy to the question of special circumstances because the letters sent to the parents in October 2021 were neither inaccurate nor misleading and the mother does not say they were. Three applications were made and two by then were decided. It was up to the mother to be across these applications and by October 2021 the Tribunal understands she had recovered from her earlier illnesses so that was no longer an issue for her.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds special circumstances did not prevent the mother from appealing to the objection decision relating to the short care period and so the date of effect is the date she applied, that is, 11 March 2022.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has some sympathy for the situation the father found himself in in 2021 when the mother was incapacitated three times by severe illness sometimes requiring hospitalisation. Similarly, the mother suffered greatly from her illnesses in 2021, which prevented her from attending to the care of the children when she would ordinarily have done so.
The parents are separated and now live their own lives. The father has obligations to his employer who have been very accommodating of him by allowing him to take leave at short notice. The mother has similar obligations to her employer. Had they remained together as a couple the same concessions for the care of their children each made in 2021 would still have been required because the care of their children comes first, and they each discharge that obligation.
Even without the lack of agreement as to the days in June and July 2021 when the mother did or did not have care of the children when she was supposed to, the extra days provided by the father did not amount to the complete four week period contemplated by policy and are not grounds for a departure from the simple pattern of 50/50 shared care ordered by the court in 2022 and followed by the parents ever since.
DECISION
For the reasons outlined above, the decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division dated 2 August 2022 is set aside in accordance with 43(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and in substitution the Tribunal finds that for the revised short care period, being from 7 June 2021 to 11 July 2021, there was a 50/50 care percentage arrangement.
The Tribunal also finds in accordance with section 87AA of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), the date of the effect of the review decision is the date the Applicant lodged her application for review of the objection decision, being 11 March 2022, by which time the percentage of care arrangement had already reverted to 50/50 in accordance with the Court Orders.
I certify that the preceding 70 (seventy) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Ranson
......................................
Associate
Dated: 2 May 2024
Date of hearing: 22 February 2024 Applicant: Self-represented
By videoOther Party: Self-represented
By videoSolicitors for the Respondent: Mr Rich Monteleone
Services Australia
0
5
0