XWPX and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review of a child support decision, brought before the Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President. The dispute centred on the percentage of care for a child between the applicant mother and the respondent father for the period from 8 December 2017 to 15 February 2018. The applicant claimed to be the primary carer during this time, with the child spending only occasional time with the father and periods away from both parents. The respondent father contended that the child lived entirely with him for the relevant period.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the correct percentage of care for the child during the specified period. This involved assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence presented by both parties regarding the child's living arrangements. A secondary issue, arising from the Federal Court decision in *Child Support Registrar v MQMV & Ors* [2019] FCA 1171, concerned the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider whether a care percentage decision could have effect from a date earlier than that previously permitted by the Child Support Registrar.

The Tribunal gave greater weight to the evidence of the respondent father, finding his testimony to be less inconsistent and corroborated by witness R and documentary evidence concerning the child's schooling and efforts to address his behaviour. The applicant's evidence was found to be vague regarding the child's absences and her attempts to locate him, and her actions following significant behavioural issues, such as the child trashing her home, were not demonstrative of a consistent pattern of care. The Tribunal noted the child's progression to school and an apprenticeship while living with the father, indicating a positive turnaround. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had no pattern of care during the relevant period and that the respondent father had 100% care.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision regarding the percentage of care. The issue of special circumstances preventing the timely lodging of an objection, as outlined in section 87AA of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), was also considered in light of the *MQMV* decision. However, the Tribunal's finding that the respondent father had 100% care meant that the applicant had not established the necessary basis for an earlier date of effect for any objection.