XQTJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
Case
•
[2023] AATA 50
•24 January 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
XQTJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2023] AATA 50
[2023] AATA 50
24 January 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a second review of a child support assessment before C. J. Furnell SM. The dispute arose from the father's request for a reassessment of his care percentage for his children, arguing that his care should be calculated based on hours rather than nights. This change, he contended, would increase his care percentage from 24% to 35% from 29 January 2021, thereby altering his child support liability. The initial request was refused, and subsequent objections were disallowed, leading to the present review.
The court was required to determine whether there had been a change in the pattern of care for the children from 29 January 2021, and if so, what the correct percentage of care was for each parent. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the father's care percentage should be calculated on an hours-of-care basis, as he submitted, and to assess the actual hours of care provided by each parent during the relevant period, including during the school day.
The Senior Member found that while the court orders of 4 October 2021 formalised the parties' arrangements "in general terms," they did not definitively establish the father's care percentage from 29 January 2021 as he submitted. The Senior Member noted inconsistencies between the father's submissions and the court orders, and importantly, emphasised that the extent of a parent's care is determined by what is in fact the case, not by consent arrangements or what a parent might accept. The Senior Member also considered the mother's evidence that the orders were not intended to formalise existing arrangements. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside.
In substitution for the decision under review, the Tribunal affirmed the objection disallowance decision. This means that the care percentage determinations in place prior to 29 January 2021 for both the father and mother remain in effect until revoked by new determinations resulting from the court orders of 4 October 2021.
The court was required to determine whether there had been a change in the pattern of care for the children from 29 January 2021, and if so, what the correct percentage of care was for each parent. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the father's care percentage should be calculated on an hours-of-care basis, as he submitted, and to assess the actual hours of care provided by each parent during the relevant period, including during the school day.
The Senior Member found that while the court orders of 4 October 2021 formalised the parties' arrangements "in general terms," they did not definitively establish the father's care percentage from 29 January 2021 as he submitted. The Senior Member noted inconsistencies between the father's submissions and the court orders, and importantly, emphasised that the extent of a parent's care is determined by what is in fact the case, not by consent arrangements or what a parent might accept. The Senior Member also considered the mother's evidence that the orders were not intended to formalise existing arrangements. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside.
In substitution for the decision under review, the Tribunal affirmed the objection disallowance decision. This means that the care percentage determinations in place prior to 29 January 2021 for both the father and mother remain in effect until revoked by new determinations resulting from the court orders of 4 October 2021.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
JWTJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2024] AATA 630
Cases Citing This Decision
1
JWTJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
[2024] AATA 630
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
Ebz20 v Eca20
[2022] FCA 1098
Child Support Registrar v MQMV
[2019] FCA 1171
Parent A and Child Support Registrar Parent B OTHER PARTY
[2013] AATA 562