Warren & CSR & Anor (SSAT Appeal)
[2010] FMCAfam 975
•2 August 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WARREN & CSR & ANOR (SSAT APPEAL) | [2010] FMCAfam 975 |
| CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal against decision of Social Securities Appeal Tribunal – dismissed. |
| Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, s.71D |
| Applicant: | MR WARREN |
| First Respondent: | Child Support Registrar |
| Second Respondent: | MS WARREN |
| File Number: | PAC 2802 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Henderson FM |
| Hearing date: | 2 August 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 2 August 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 2 August 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr McWhinney |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitors |
| Second Respondent: | No Appearance |
ORDERS
The Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed 15 June 2010 is dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the List of Matters awaiting finalisation.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Warren & CSR & Anor (SSAT Appeal) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT Parramatta |
PAC 2802 of 2010
| MR WARREN |
Applicant
and
| Child Support Registrar |
First Respondent
| MS WARREN |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In the matter of Warren & Child Support Registrar, the application is a Notice of Appeal filed by Mr Warren on 15 June 2010. Mr Warren is appealing from a decision of the Social Securities Appeal Tribunal (“SSAT Tribunal or the Tribunal”) which decision was entered on
17 May 2010. The appeal from that decision to this Court has been brought in time.
The basis upon which the appeal is grounded is set out in the grounds of appeal, and the evidence to support the appeal is set out in the Notice of Appeal and the Affidavit filed by Mr Warren on 15 June 2010. That affidavit included the decision of the Tribunal together with additional matters he has included in part D of his evidence.
The primary application from which Mr Warren is appealing is enforcement of arrears of child support in the sum of $4,079.46 by the Child Support Agency and the consequences of his failure to pay that amount being the sale of his home.
As I have already told Mr Warren, the evidence filed by him and the grounds of his appeal do not specify any error of law that he alleges the Tribunal have made. There are no errors of law made by the Tribunal because of a misapplication of facts, or due to the application of a wrong process by which a fact was determined, or the finding of a fact not available on the evidence or a misapplication of the law.
Mr Warren’s grounds of appeal are in essence:
a)that the tribunal did not give sufficient consideration to the mother’s character in failing to comply with the 1993 orders of the Family Court over the years; in essence failing to ensure the children had contact with their father;
b)that there was very little consideration by the Tribunal of the mother’s obligations placed upon her by the 1993 orders; and
c)that the Tribunal did not give sufficient consideration to the approach of the mother in blaming , as Mr Warren calls them, “his dear children”, for their failure to spend time with him.
The “dear children” as Mr Warren refers to them are 27 and 23 years of age presently. The Warren file at the Parramatta Registry is large box file.
The orders Mr Warren sought were:
a)the Agency desist collection of arrears of support until the mother complies with the Family Court Orders made in 1993;
b)re-enforce to the mother that children benefit from access; and
c)re-enforce to the mother that it is inappropriate to blame children when a mother refuses to comply with orders.
These matters are sincerely and dearly felt by Mr Warren. As I said to him he is perfectly entitled to maintain his view of how this matter stands and how it ought to be dealt with. However, his views are not matters that sway me. I must apply the law.
The law is that I will entertain an appeal from the Tribunal if I find their decision was based upon an error of law, the Tribunal being the final arbiter of fact.
The Tribunal considered Mr Warren’s appeal which was in essence in three parts:
(1)Whether he purchased beds at a cost of $2,400;
(2)Whether each parent intended this purchase to be a non agency payment in lieu of child support; and
(3)Whether in all the circumstances the amounts paid for the beds ought not to be credited as a non agency payment under section 71D of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
The salient facts as found by the Tribunal were the parties agreed beds were purchased at a cost of $2,400 by Mr Warren. That this was done by him pursuant to the carrying out of his obligations under the 1993 orders is also agreed. Mr Warren agreed he had not considered the purchase of the beds at the time as a non agency payment and neither did the wife. Thus a finding that there was no mutual intention at the time that the purchase of the beds would off set the husband’s child support liability was clearly open to the Tribunal.
In those circumstances the Tribunal was entitled to find that there was no mutual intention that the purchase of these beds by Mr Warren was intended to represent payment in lieu of his child support obligations given, in particular, that the purchase of the beds was an obligation of Mr Warren’s under the 1993 Family Court orders.
No error of law resulting in a misapplication of the law, or an error based upon a misapplication of a fact, or finding of a fact not available on the evidence, or embarking upon an improper process to make a finding of fact has been brought to my attention in the evidence filed or in the discussions with and submissions from Mr Warren and the Child Support Agency’s representative from the Bar table.
The fact that Mr Warren’s children did not spend time with him and that Mr Warren believes his wife did not carry out her obligations under the 1993 orders are not a relevant facts in an appeal to the Tribunal from a decision of the Child Support Agency to enforce child support arrears. Had the Tribunal considered such facts as relevant in this matter they would have fallen into error.
Mr Warren does not agree with the Agency or the Tribunal’s decision. That belief does not ground an error of law and thus the appeal must be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Henderson FM
Associate:
Date: 9 September 2010
0
0
1