In this case, the AAT had to consider issues of percentage of care and whether the child was a relevant dependent in accordance with the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.
The AAT had to consider whether there has been a change in the pattern of care, which requires that the existing percentages of care be revoked and replaced, and if so, from what date should new percentages of care apply.
In this case the Tribunal had to decide if education and dental payments should be credited against a child support liability.
The AAT had to decide whether Services Australia correctly accepted the applicant’s income estimate of $0.
The AAT had to decide whether there was child support payments owing when both parties had inconsistent but equally plausible evidence.
The AAT had to decide whether a parent was still liable for child support payments during a period of incarceration.
The AAT had to decide if the original child support assessment by Services Australia resulted in an unfair amount of child support payable by either parent and if a change to the assessment was just, equitable and otherwise proper.
After a change in the pattern of care for two children, the AAT had to decide if new care percentages for each parent should be allowed.
In this review, the AAT heard from the applicant about his income changes and the effects this has had on his ability to continue paying child support at the fixed rate. Read on to find out what was decided.
After reviewing a change in one parent’s circumstances, the Tribunal has to decide if payments made for school fees should be considered as non-agency payments.
Does an increase in income and financial resources of one parent necessarily increase the amount of assessed child support to be paid?
The AAT had to decide what to do when a father’s taxable income does not properly reflect his capacity to financially support his children.
The AAT had to decide whether a father’s taxable income truly reflected his financial resources
The AAT had to decide whether a father had a child support debt after he stopped paying child support.
When a child started living away from home for work, the AAT had to decide whether this changed the amount of time his mother cared for him.
In this review of the pattern of care of a 16 year old child, the AAT had to consider the impact of the mother’s decision to relocate to another country for five months.
The AAT had to decide whether there was evidence a father had regular care of his older child after she relocated interstate.
In making this decision, the AAT had to consider the percentage of care for only the youngest of the former couple’s three children.
In this decision, the applicant request a review of their disability support pension rejection based on their permanent impairment.
An applicant who had previously received a disability support pension, but was disqualified because of her financial position, reapplied after her finances and health deteriorated.
The applicant sought a review of a decision refusing to cancel his Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) on humanitarian grounds. The AAT affirmed the decision under review.
The applicant sought an extension of time for an AAT first review of a decision regarding child support payments for school fees. The AAT considered the extension of time unfair to other applicants and refused the application.
The applicant claimed he provided a higher percentage of care from 28 November 2017.
He reported the change on 11 January 2018. The change was applied by the Child Support Agency (the Agency) from 11 January 2018.
The applicant sought an appeal of this decision at the AAT. The AAT concluded that the decision made by the Agency to apply the change from 11 January 2018 was correct and affirmed the decision under review.
In this case, the applicant made direct payments to the mother for one of their children’s orthodontic treatment, a cello and school books. He made payments after she sent him invoices for the items. The issue which arises is whether or not any of the four payments made by the father can be credited against his child support liability because they relate to specific types of payments made on behalf of the children.
The applicant objected to a decision made by the Child Support Agency (CSA) however lodged his objection after the deadline. The CSA decided not to provide the applicant with an extension of time to lodge his application. The key question for the AAT was whether or not an extension of time should be granted to the applicant for a review of this child support decision. In doing this the AAT had to determine whether the applicant’s reasons for lodging his objection out of time were reasonable, and if so, whether an extension of time would likely support a successful outcome to the original objection.
The parents in this matter applied to the Child Support Registrar to depart from the assessment of how much child support the father was liable to pay. The AAT found that the difference between the father’s adjusted taxable income and his most recent tax return was a “special circumstance” and that the impact was sufficient to establish a ground for departure. The AAT did not find that the mother had an earning capacity but found that her income, property and financial resources were not properly reflected in the assessment.
The AAT had to consider whether or not child support arrangements had to be amended. The central issue for the AAT in this case was whether the mother was providing care to the child if the child was not living in the mother’s home for an extended period of time.
This review considered the amount of child support paid based by parents in relation to the children’s education. The AAT found that the children were being educated privately in the manner expected by the parents and that this was a special circumstance that constituted a ground to depart from the assessment.
In this case, a parent who was liable to pay child support had elected to estimate their annual income for the purposes of the child support assessment. The AAT was asked to review the Child Support Agency’s decision to refuse to accept the estimate.
This review was about the calculation of the amount of child support payable by one parent to another. The calculation takes into account the adjusted taxable income of the party making payments, in this matter the applicant, and this review concerned the amount that should be included in the calculation where there is no adjusted taxable income available.
This review concerned the collection of unpaid child support payments from the respondent for a three month period. The respondent claimed the payments he made during the period were in advance, while the applicant claimed they were made in arrears.
The AAT had to determine whether the child support payable from one parent to another should be changed because of the educational needs of one of their children and the income of one of the parents.
The AAT had to determine the parents’ percentage of care of two of their children for the purpose of child support payments.
The Department of Human Services determined that neither parent was providing eligible care for their child and subsequently that Mr Carter was not required to pay child support. Mrs Mirvac claimed that she was still providing substantial care for the child without living with him. The AAT affirmed the decision.
The applicant claimed that the cost of flights which he paid for his child to travel to see him should be credited against his child support liability. The AAT set aside the decision and substituted a reduced amount to be credited.
The applicant claimed the amount of child support she was paying was unjust and inequitable because of the income, property and financial resources and earning capacity of her former partner. The AAT affirmed the decision not to change the child support payable.
The AAT reviewed a decision about the extension of time to object to a child support decision made by the Department of Human Services.
The Tribunal heard a matter about the date that a child support application is considered to have been submitted when a technical error occurred during the application process.
The Tribunal reviewed the assessment of the percentages of care for two separated parents where the care percentages of the children where changed on multiple occasions.
The Tribunal reviewed the amount of child support payable by a liable party when they had not lodged income tax returns.
The Tribunal reviewed the assessment of the percentages of care for two separated parents where the child support assessment did not reflect the actual care of the child.
The Tribunal varied a decision made by an objections officer of the Department of Human Services to adjust the applicant’s adjusted taxable income for the purposes of a child support assessment. The decision concerned the application of the assessment formula where a parent's income, financial resources, property and earning capacity may not accurately reflect the income used for a child support assessment.
A decision was made by an objections officer of the Department of Human Services – Child Support terminating the child support of the liable parent. The matter concerned the care percentages of the parents and whether a terminating event occurred. The Tribunal found that a terminating event did not occur and set aside the decision, substituting amended care percentages for a certain period.
A decision was made by the Department of Human Services not to change the care percentages in a child support assessment after it was alleged the pattern of care of a child had changed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.
A decision was made by the Department of Human Services not to change the care percentages in a child support assessment after it was alleged the pattern of care of a child had changed. The Tribunal considered whether the rate of child support should change.
The Tribunal made a decision to depart from the assessment formula and vary the rate of child support payable based on the special circumstances of the children in relation to the cost of education.