XQHZ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

XQHZ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2023] AATA 770 (14 April 2023)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/8536
Re:XQHZ
APPLICANT

AndChild Support Registrar
RESPONDENT

AndDJZN
OTHER PARTY

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member K Millar
Date:14 April 2023
Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that:
· The determination of the percentage of care made under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) is revoked from 31 March 2020; and
· From 1 April 2020 until a further care determination was made, the father had 100% care of the child and the mother had 0% care.
...............[sgnd]................................
Senior Member Kate Millar
Catchwords
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change in percentage of care – whether percentage of care changed – criteria to determine to what extent a parent has care of a child – decision under review is set aside
Legislation
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)
A New tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member K Millar
14 April 2023
INTRODUCTION

This application is about the percentage of care the applicant and the other party each had of their child.
The percentage of care that each parent has of a child is a component in the administrative assessment of the amount of child support a parent is required to pay. A percentage of care determination that is made for the purposes of child support also applies for the purposes of assessing a parent’s entitlement to and rate of family tax benefit under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) (“Family Assistance Act”). A decision on the care of a child will also affect any other Centrelink payments the parents have received as a result of their claimed care.
This matter is before the Tribunal less because of the consequences for the assessment of child support and more because of the effect of the decision on each parent’s entitlement to other Centrelink payments. If the date of effect of the decision under the child support legislation extends into a past period, this affects the past entitlement of each parent to Centrelink payments.
Due to different decisions that have been made in this matter, in this decision, the care of the child will result in one of the parents having a debt. The father says that because of the current decision, Centrelink have told him he has a $10,000 debt. The mother provided information to show that an adverse decision results in a debt of over $11,000.[1]
[1] Exhibit A12.
As a non-publication order has been made for this matter, the applicant is referred to in this decision as “the mother” and the other party as “the father” to preserve their anonymity. The child of the applicant and the other party is referred to as “Z”.
At its core, this matter is about who had the care of Z in the period 1 January 2018 to 7 May 2021. The mother claims Z was in her care 70% of the time and in his father’s care 30% from September 2017 until 7 May 2021. The father claims Z was in his care 100% of the time from 1 January 2018 until 7 May 2021.
BACKGROUND
For the purposes of family tax benefit, Centrelink had recorded Z as being in the care of his mother 70% of the time from 1 September 2017.[2]
[2] Exhibit A6.
Z’s father applied for an assessment of child support on 4 May 2020.[3] In his application he claimed to have 100% care of Z from 1 January 2018.[4]
[3] T10, p 60.
[4] Ibid, p 63.
In an original decision, a delegate of the Registrar found the father had 100% care of the child from 1 January 2018 in accordance with the father’s application as Z’s mother could not be contacted.
The mother objected to this decision, and an objections officer found that the father had 100% care of the child from 1 April 2020 and not earlier.[5] The father applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (“AAT1”) for a review of this decision.
[5] T7, p 55.
AAT1 set aside the decision and found that in the period 1 January 2018 to 21 March 2020, a period that began and ended before the application for child support was made, the father had 65% care and the mother had 35% care. It was stated on the decision that this decision would not affect the assessment of child support, as the child support assessment commenced on 4 May 2020.
The mother has applied for a further review of this decision.
While it is not relevant to this decision, for completeness it is noted that 7 May 2021, the child is recorded as being in the care of his mother 100% of the time.[6] This assessment is not in dispute between the parents.
[6] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 20 May 2022, p 2 at [2.8].
Jurisdiction submission
The Child Support Registrar submitted that AAT1 had no jurisdiction to consider the care of the child for a period that started and ended before the Registrar was required to assess the percentage of care each parent had of Z.[7] The Registrar contends that the jurisdiction of AAT1 was limited to an assessment of the percentage of care that was occurring at the time the father applied for an assessment of child support.
[7] Respondent’s Further Submissions dated 30 January 2023 at [2.12].
The difficulty with this submission is that to determine if this is correct, a decision needs to be made about the care of Z at the time Z’s father applied for an assessment of child support. If the mother’s claimed care is correct, then she had 70% care for the period until 1 April 2020, and the care changed shortly before the application was made for an assessment of child support, with the father’s care being 100% at the time of the assessment. If the father’s claim is that he had 100% care of Z from 1 January 2018 until 7 May 2021 is correct, this includes the time at which he applied for an assessment of child support, and the period will not begin and end before he applied for child support.
ISSUES
In determining the percentage of care at the time the application was made for an assessment of child support, the issues are:
·Was there an existing percentage of care determination.
·If so, was the care that was actually taking place the same as this care determination.
·If not, should the care determination be revoked.
·If so, from what date; and
·What is the date of effect of the decision.
LEGISLATION
The legislation concerning the assessment of child support is contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (“the Assessment Act’) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Registration and Collection Act”).
The provisions that relate to a person’s eligibility for and payment of family tax benefit are contained in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (“the Family Assistance Act”) and the A New tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (“the Family Assistance Administration Act).
Application for Child Support
This matter commenced with the father lodging an application for the administrative assessment of child support on 4 May 2020.
On a person lodging an application for the assessment of child support under s 27 of the Assessment Act and meeting the requirements for an administrative assessment in ss 24, 25 and 27 of the Assessment Act, the Registrar must accept the application.[8]
[8] s 30 of the Assessment Act.
It is not suggested that the father’s application for the administrative assessment of child support did not meet any of the application requirements, and the Registrar must accept his application for an administrative assessment of child support.
On accepting the application for the administrative assessment of Child Support, the Registrar must assess both parents in respects of the costs of the child and the annual rate of child support that is payable under Part 5 of the Assessment Act.[9] The annual rate that is payable must be made for the child support period that starts on the day the applicant is made.[10] In this case the child support period starts 4 May 2020.
[9] s 31(1) of the Assessment Act.
[10] s 31(1)(b) of the Assessment Act.
One aspect of the assessment of child support is the percentage of care each parent has of a child. This requires each parent’s percentage of care for the child to be determined using Part 5, Division 4, Subdivision B of the Assessment Act.
In summary, this means that on accepting the father’s application, an assessment must be made of the percentage of care each parent has of Z.
Effect of the Family Assistance care determination
Under s 54K of the Assessment Act, if the Secretary has made a family assistance percentage of care decision under the Family Assistance Act, it has effect as if it were a determination that was made under the Assessment Act.[11]
[11] s 54K(1)(e) of the Assessment Act.
In this case, an existing determination of the percentage of care had been made under the Family Assistance Act. The existing percentage of care decision was that the mother had 70% care and the father had 30% care.[12]
[12] Exhibit A4.
This assessment of the percentage of care applies when assessing the annual rate of child support payable unless it is revoked. A percentage of care must be revoked in some circumstances and may be revoked in others. This will turn on whether the actual care each parent has of Z has changed, and what percentage of care each parent had of Z.
What percentage of care did each parent have of Z?
If the Registrar or the Secretary is notified or otherwise becomes aware that the actual care of a child does not correspond to the person’s existing percentage of care, then the percentage of care must be revoked in some circumstances and may be revoked in others.[13] The existing percentage of care was that the mother had 70% care and the father had 30% care.
[13] ss 54F, 54G and 54H of the Assessment Act.
Section 54A of the Assessment Act provides a method for working out the actual care, and the extent of care of a child. The care may be worked out based on the number of nights the child was, or is likely to be, in the care of the person during the care period.
“Care period” is defined in s 5 of the Assessment Act as the period defined in ss 49(1)(a), 49(1)(b)(ii), 50(1)(a) or 50(1)(b)(ii) of the Assessment Act. This is the period that the Registrar, and the Tribunal in the place of the Registrar, considers to be appropriate in all the circumstances.
The findings of AAT1 have been the subject of further submissions from both parties. In concluding that for the period 1 January 2018 to 31 March 2020, the father had 65% care and the mother had 35% care, AAT1 found it significant that the mother did not apply for child support from the father, and that her residence was a considerable distance from Z’s school. AAT1 also relied on a patient statement showing Z’s address as the father’s address. AAT1 relied on the father’s position that while he had sole care of Z since 1 January 2018, he would accept a determination that he had sole care from July 2019 as the mother spent time living at the matrimonial home.[14]
[14] T2, p 10 at [33].
The mother’s evidence
Z’s mother states she and Z lived with her parents from 1 September 2017 until 9 September 2019, when they moved to a rental property.[15] She says he was in his father’s care from 1 April 2020 as her father had a heart attack and she had to care for Z returned to her 100% care in May 2021.[16]
[15] Exhibit A1.
[16] Ibid.
The mother states that in 2018, the father worked afternoon shifts 2pm until 10pm and was often working overtime until approximately 2am. In that time, Z was in her care as she was not working, but Z spent time with his father who called Z to talk or took him out for dinner. Care in the school holidays depended on the father, and the father would see Z when he could.
The mother said she did not apply for child support and that she had obtained exemptions from Centrelink because she did not want further issues with the father. She provided a letter from the family assistance office, dated 12 July 2021, considerably after the time at which the parents agree Z returned to her care, stating she needed to take reasonable action to obtain child support.[17]
[17] Exhibit A4.
The mother says that in January 2018, Z’s father’s workplace was closing down, which took a toll on his mental health. As a result, Z’s father took long service leave.
Z’s mother provided a patient history statement from Z’s general practitioner showing he attended his general practitioner on 22 January 2018, 17 April 2018 and 28 May 2018.[18] The address on the statement is the mother’s address.[19] A further note from the general practitioner, dated 29 October 2021, states he did not see Z in 2019.[20]
[18] Exhibit A2.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
A letter from Z’s primary school dated 8 December 2017 states Z is living with his mother at the mother’s address.[21] Z’s mother told the Tribunal she obtained this letter as it was required to show Z was in her care when she applied for family tax benefit.
[21] Exhibit A3.
In a further undated statement provided before the hearing, the mother adds that she did not want to move Z from the school he has attended since kindergarten. Consequently, the mother travelled 30 – 40 minutes to take Z to school. [22]
[22] Exhibit A1.
In addition to documents previously provided, Z’s mother provided the family assistance assessment, dated 29 October 2019, stating she has 70% care of Z, [23] and a residential property tenancy agreement commencing 9 September 2019 that lists Z under “other persons permitted to reside in the premises”.[24] Z’s mother provided letters and records from Centrelink regarding the percentage of care.
[23] Exhibit A4.
[24] Exhibit A5.
Z’s mother provided an email from her mother stating the mother and Z lived with her in the family home from 1 September 2017 until 9 September 2019.[25] The mother further provided an email from a friend, dated 5 October 2021, which stated the mother is a “kind hearted and honest person” and that she can confirm that the mother and Z have resided with the mother’s parents.[26]
[25] Exhibit A7.
[26] Exhibit A8.
The father’s evidence
As it relates to the care of Z, the father’s statement is that on 31 December 2017 he returned to the family home and arranged for the locks to be changed, and from 1 January 2018 he and Z lived in the family home until it was sold.[27] He states he took a leave of absence from work, using his long service leave for approximately 3 months to care for Z. On his return to work, he states he and Z’s mother agreed that he would take care of Z in the morning and drive him to school, and then Z’s mother would pick him up from school and take care of Z until he got home at 9.30pm. He states Z’s mother would visit on weekends for brief periods in 2018. In December 2018 the house was put on the market, and it was agreed Z’s mother would come to the house to assist with keeping the house clean and tidy for home inspections. He states in this time Z’s mother would visit and sleep over for 2 – 3 days at a time.
[27] Exhibit B1.
Z’s father states that after the property was sold in June 2019, he rented a property close to Z’s school. From 26 July 2019, Z lived with him until he graduated from primary school. After Z finished primary school, Z’s father moved to another property close to his high school. He states Z lived with him until 7 May 2021, and that statements from Z’s grandmother and the mother’s friend are untrue, and the only time Z lived with his mother was a period of approximately 2 weeks in January 2020. He states he would not permit Z to stay with his mother due to her previous partner. He states Z’s mother lost her rental property and moved back with her parents, staying with him and with Z for 2 – 3 days at a time.
In oral evidence, the father said he did not apply for any Centrelink payments when he originally had care of Z because he was still working. He lost his job in December 2019 due to the closure of his workplace. He received a package then sold the house and moved into a rental property.
Between April 2018 and December 2019, the father was working full-time afternoon shifts from 2pm – 10pm, but later negotiated leaving at 9pm. At this time, Z was 10 years old and there was an agreement that he would take Z to school and his mother would pick him up after school and take him home. After the company shut down, he found many casual jobs, but it was hard to find an ongoing job. He found one position that went for 9 months. This job finished in February 2020 and consequently he was out of work for 6 weeks. The father applied for Centrelink payments.
He said the only time Z’s mother had the care of Z was a three-week period from 2 – 24 January 2020.
In 2020, the father said he was out of work for 6 weeks so applied for Centrelink payments as a single parent. He did not apply for family tax benefit because he was not aware he could claim it until he applied for a sole parent pension.
The father’s statement makes a number of claims about the mother and her relationship with third parties and the character of those with whom she associated.[28] He states enquiries should be made to the South Australian Police but has not provided any documentary evidence in support of his claims. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that these allegations establish who had the care of Z.
[28] Ibid.
A handwritten note from the father states that two sources are available to confirm the care of Z, one is the father’s landlord for the period June 2019 to March 2021, and one is Z’s teacher. It does not appear the Registrar or AAT1 sought further information from these sources. Neither were called to give evidence before the Tribunal.
Z’s father provided a patient history statement for Z with the father’s address which lists appointments on 31 May 2018, 4 June 2018 and 17 August 2018.[29]
[29] T80, p 243.
Z’s father provided a statement from his daughter that he has re-established a relationship with him when he moved in with her mother on 1 November 2017.[30] His daughter states he moved back into his house on 31 December 2017. She further states she visited her father regularly and stayed overnight in the period January to May 2018, and in this time noticed Z’s mother visiting Z briefly on one occasion.
[30] Exhibit B2.
A statement from the father’s employer dated, 18 July 2022,[31] is handwritten and is not on letterhead. This states the author was previously the father’s manager at the factory which closed. It is stated that in late January 2018 the father requested 12 weeks’ leave to care for Z. He states he tried to discourage the father from taking the leave and not to use leave that would otherwise form part of his redundancy. It is reported the father was on leave from the end of January 2018 until the end of April 2018.
[31] Exhibit B3.
The father called a witness who he described as a friend. The witness had previously provided a statement, dated 16 July 2021,[32] in which she states she had known the father for over 3 years and in that time, Z was always in his father’s care, while his mother would spend time with Z mostly at the father’s residence. The statement includes that Z stayed at his mother’s house for a few weeks in the 2019/2020 school holidays. In oral evidence the witness said Z has lived with his mother for the last 18 months. She said she went to the father’s house 2 – 4 times per week and Z was always there, and that the father and Z would visit her house.
[32] T76, p 234.
Records of the Registrar
The records of the Registrar include a file note, dated 2 September 2020,[33] that records a call from the father stating the mother had care from 18 October 2017 until 1 January 2018. He then moved back into the house and had 100% care. He is recorded as stating the mother moved back into the family home for a couple of brief periods, but he retained primary care of Z. They sold the family home and moved to a new house on 26 July 2019, however as the mother had moved in and out, he would accept he only had 100% care from 26 July 2019.
[33] T37, p 125.
Who had the care of Z?

This is a difficult matter as the positions of the parents are diametrically opposed. Both parents claim to have had the overnight care of Z in the period 1 January 2018 until 1 April 2020. From 1 April 2020, the mother agrees Z was in the father’s care, and they both agree Z returned to his mother’s care on 21 May 2021. Both parents have provided an account of their care of Z and evidence from third parties in support of the asserted care. The consequences for each parent for any debt incurred as a result of a care determination are high in the context of their income.
On either account, at least two of the third parties who have provide statements or given evidence are not telling the truth, and either the mother or the father is not telling the truth.
The father attempts to paint the mother as not telling the truth, stating she has changed her version of events and misstated the date they separated. The Tribunal was not convinced this resulted in her evidence being unreliable, or that it has been established to any substantial degree of satisfaction that the father’s version of events was correct.
Neither party was a compelling witness. Both have provided medical invoices showing their address at the time on the invoice, often for consultations within days of each other. Neither show consultations in 2019. Both have provided letters from Z’s school, the mother’s letters confirming Z was in her care immediately prior to the time the father claimed he resumed care of Z, and the father’s letter confirming the address at enrolment, which is before they separated.
The father worked shift work until December 2019, and on his version of events finished work at 9pm, and the mother’s position is that the father finished work between 10pm and 2pm. In this time Z was 10 – 11 years of age. The father says there was an agreement that the mother would pick Z up from school and take him home and wait until the father returned from work. Even on the father’s evidence, this is consistent with the mother having considerable care of Z rather than no care as claimed by the father.
The mother provided an account of her transporting Z to school. She acknowledged the father had some care by recording Z as 30% in his father’s care. She acknowledged Z was in the father’s care from 1 April 2020, as her father had a heart attack and she need to provide care for him.
The Tribunal must do the best it can with the limited information it has. On the information before the Tribunal and having considered the documentary and oral evidence provided by the parties, the Tribunal prefers the account of the mother and finds that she continued to provide 70% care to Z until 1 April 2020 when Z went into the care of his father.
On Z entering his father’s care on 1 April 2020, the Tribunal is not satisfied the mother had care other than sporadic contact with Z. As a result, it finds that the father had 100% care form 1 April 2020 and the mother had 0% care from this date until Z returned to her care on 21 May 2021.
Should the existing percentage of care determination be revoked?
The Tribunal has found that Z remained in his mother’s care until 1 April 2020, when he was in his father’s care 100% of the time. The appropriate care period is 12 months form the date the care changed on 1 April 2020.
As a result, the actual care does not correspond to the exiting care determination at the time he applied for an assessment of child support, which was that Z was with his mother 70% of the time and with his father 30% of the time, and consideration must be given to whether the existing percentage of care should be revoked.
An assessment of the percentage of care that was made under the Family Assistance Act may cease to apply or be revoked in the same circumstances in which a determination under the Assessment Act may cease to apply or be revoked.[34]
[34] s 54K(1)(g) of the Assessment Act.
The existing percentage of care must be revoked if there is a change to the person’s cost percentage,[35] or if the person has less than regular care[36]. The Registrar may revoke a determination of the person’s percentage of care if there is a change to the person’s percentage of care, but this change does not result in a person having less than regular care or result in a change in the cost percentage[37].
[35] s 54F of the Assessment Act.
[36] s 54G of the Assessment Act.
[37] s 54H of the Assessment Act
On 1 April 2020, both parties state that the father had 100% care of Z. As Z’s actual care is 100% with the father, this does not correspond to the existing percentage of care, which was 30% to the father. Therefore, the Tribunal is required to examine if the care determination must or may be revoked.
The Assessment Act provides an order in which the revocation provisions apply, and the Tribunal must first consider s 54G of the Assessment Act. This states:
(1)   If:
(a)a responsible person (the first responsible person ) for a child was to have at least regular care of the child during a care period under a determination (the first care determination ) made under section 50; and
(b)the first responsible person has had no care of the child, or has had a pattern of care that is less than regular care of the child, despite another responsible person for the child making the child available to the first responsible person; and
(c)a determination of the other responsible person's percentage of care for the child has been made under section 50; and
(d)the other responsible person notifies the Registrar or the Secretary of the matter referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection within a period that the Registrar considers is reasonable in the circumstances;
the Registrar must revoke both determinations.
Note:          The Registrar must make new determinations under section 49 or 50 to replace the revoked determinations: see paragraph 49(1)(b) or 50(1)(b).
(2)   The revocation of each determination takes effect:
(a)if the first responsible person never established a pattern of care in accordance with the first care determination--at the beginning of the application day for that determination; or
(b)if the first responsible person established a pattern of care in accordance with the first care determination but later ceased the established pattern of care--at the end of the day before the day on which the person ceased the previously established pattern of care.
(3)   To avoid doubt, a responsible person never establishes a pattern of care if:
(a)the responsible person could not have established the pattern of care until a particular period that occurs later in a child support period; and
(b)the responsible person does not establish that pattern during that particular period.
The family assistance determination applies as if it were a determination under s 50 of the Assessment Act. therefore under the family assistance care determination the mother had 70% care and the father had 30% care because:
·The mother was to have at least regular care under s 54G(1)(a) of the Assessment Act;
·She had no care of a child, or less than regular care despite the father making Z available to her under s 54G(1)(b) of the Assessment Act; and
·A determination has been made that the father had 30% care which applied under s 50 of the Assessment Act for the purposes of s 54G(1)(c) of the Assessment Act; and
·The father has notified that the mother has not had care despite him making the child available.
The final requirement is that the father has notified the Secretary or the Registrar in a period that the Registrar, and the Tribunal in the place of the Registrar, considers is reasonable in the circumstances.
As the Tribunal has found the care changed on 1 April 2020, and the father notified of the change to the care in his application on 4 May 2020 and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal considers he has notified in a reasonable period. It follows that s 54G(1) of the Assessment Act is met and the determination must be revoked.
From which date is the existing percentage of care determination revoked?
Under s 54G(2)(b) of the Assessment Act, the revocation takes effect from the day before the care changed, and the existing determination of the percentage of care is revoked from 31 March 2020.
What is the new care determination?
If a determination of the percentage of care is revoked, a new determination must be made under ss 49 or 50 of the Assessment Act.
As the mother had no care from 1 April 2020, s 49 of the Assessment Act applies and under s 49(3) of the Assessment Act, the mother’s percentage of care is 0% from this date.
What is the date of effect of this decision?
Section 95N of the Registration and Collection Act sets out a date of effect for AAT first review. It states:
(1)If:
(a)   on AAT first review, the AAT varies or substitutes a decision on an objection to a care percentage decision; and
(b)   the application for AAT first review was made more than 28 days, or, if the applicant is a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction, 90 days, after notice of the decision was given;
then, despite subsection 43(6) of the AAT Act, the decision as varied or substituted by the AAT has or is taken to have had effect on and from the day the application for AAT first review was made.
(2)If the AAT is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the application for AAT first review being made within the period referred to in paragraph (1)(b), the AAT may determine that subsection (1) applies as if:
(a)   for an applicant who is a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction--the reference to 90 days in that paragraph were a reference to such longer period as the AAT determines to be appropriate; or
(b)   otherwise--the reference to 28 days in that paragraph were a reference to such longer period as the AAT determines to be appropriate.
(3)The AAT must give written notice of a decision to make, or not to make, a determination under subsection (2) in relation to a person, to each person affected by the decision.
In this case, the decision of the objection officer was made on 14 October 2020.[38] The father did not lodge his application for review until 5 August 2021.[39] The father explained that he applied for review because a debt had been raised against him by Centrelink in June 2021, and his objection was to a ruling of Centrelink.
[38] T5, p 53.
[39] T4, p 52.
In this case, the Tribunal is setting aside the decision made at AAT1 and is substituting it with a decision that is the same as that of the objections officer, although for different reasons.
In this case, the decision of the objections officer is not varied or substituted and the fate of effect provisions in s 95N of the Registration and Collection Act do not apply.
As the date of effect provisions in s 95N of the Registration and Collection Act do not apply, the general rule in s 43(6) of the AAT Act results in this decision having effect on and from the date the objections officer decision had effect.
As the Tribunal has found that the care changed on 1 April 2020, and the actual care remained the same as the family assistance care determination up to this date, the question of whether AAT1 had jurisdiction to decide the percentage of care for a period that started and ended before the application for the assessment of child support does not fall to be determined.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that:
· The determination of the percentage of care made under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) is revoked from 31 March 2020; and
· From 1 April 2020 until a further care determination was made, the father had 100% care of the child and the mother had 0% care.

1.

2.

I certify that the preceding eighty (80) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of Senior Member K Millar

................[sgnd]........................
Legal Associate

Dated: 14 April 2023
Date of Hearing: 6 February 2023

Advocate for the Applicant: Self-represented

Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr Aaron Taverniti

Services Australia

Advocate for the Other Party: Self-represented

[2023] AATA 770

14 April 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Appeal

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness