Rosier and Bell and Anor (SSAT Appeal)

[2009] FMCAfam 801

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROSIER & BELL and ANOR (SSAT APPEAL) [2009] FMCAfam 801

CHILD SUPPORT – SSAT Appeal – objection by payee to particulars of child support assessment which allow a multi-case deduction for other children of payer – payee alleges payer not a parent of two of the other children – legislative requirements met for Child Support Registrar to be satisfied payer is a parent of the other children – no error of law – appeal dismissed.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, s.29(2)
Child Support (Regulation and Collection) Act 1989, s.110B

Applicant: MS ROSIER

First Respondent: MR BELL

Second Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

File Number: MLC 7326 of 2008

Judgment of: Hughes FM

Hearing date: 30 July 2009

Date of Last Submission: 30 July 2009

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 30 July 2009

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared In Person

The First Respondent did not appear

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Child Support Agency – Ms Weymouth

ORDERS

1. That, noting all parties are aware that the proceedings before the Court involve an appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, pursuant to Rule 1.06 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, the requirement for a formal Notice of Appeal is dispensed with.

2. That the appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision of 14 January 2009 is dismissed.

3. That the reasons for decision delivered orally today be transcribed and provided to each party.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rosier & Bell and Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 7326 of 2008

MS ROSIER

Applicant

And

MR BELL

First Respondent

CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex-tempore)

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 14 January 2009 affirming an earlier decision by an Objections Officer of the Child Support Agency.

2. The objections officer had, on 9 October 2008, disallowed an objection by the appellant to certain particulars of the administrative assessment of child support.

3. Those particulars included that the father was entitled to a multi-case allowance for other children for whom he is liable to pay child support.

4. The appellant did not file a formal Notice of Appeal, but I am satisfied that all parties have been served with all the relevant documents and are well aware of the proceedings before the Court today.

5. In particular, I note the fact that the proceedings involved an appeal from the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal was specifically stated in orders made on 4 February 2009 and 24 April 2009 which were sent to the respondent and to Ms Chubb by the Child Support Agency.

Background

1. The appellant is the mother of the child [X] born in 1999.

2. The father of the child is Mr Bell.

3. Mr Bell has three separate cases with the Child Support Agency relating to four different children. He is therefore entitled to a multi-case allowance which takes into account his liability for child support for each of those children when calculating his child support percentage in relation to any particular child.

4. The appellant alleges that Mr Bell is not a parent of two of those children, namely, [Y], born in 2004 and, [Z], born in 2006.

5. In affidavit material filed in this Court and in material considered by the Child Support Agency and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal the appellant set out in great detail why she believes Mr Bell is not a parent of those children. She reiterated those reasons in oral evidence today.

6. An appeal to this Court from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal lies only on a question of law.[1] It is not the role of this Court to conduct a fact-finding exercise, but rather to determine whether or not the Tribunal made an error of law. This no doubt was frustrating for the appellant who was unrepresented and did the best job she could in difficult circumstances.

   [1] Section 110B of the Child Support (Regulation and Collection) Act 1989

7. In addressing the issue of whether or not the Child Support Registrar should have accepted that Mr Bell was a parent of the Chubb children, the Tribunal correctly focused on s.29(2) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 which provides as follows:-

   29 (2)[Circumstances where Registrar satisfied person is a parent of a child] The Registrar is to be satisfied that a person is a parent of a child only if the Registrar is satisfied:

   …(b) that the person’s name is entered in a register of births or parentage information, kept under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State, Territory or prescribed overseas jurisdiction, as a parent of the child; or…

   …(d) that, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the person has, under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State, Territory or prescribed overseas jurisdiction, executed an instrument acknowledging that the person is the father or mother of the child, and the instrument has not been annulled or otherwise set aside…

8. It is apparent from the documents before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal that a birth certificate for the child [Y] was provided to the Child Support Agency. It is also apparent that a statutory declaration signed by the father in relation to the child [Z] was provided. Both of those documents indicate that Mr Bell is a parent of the relevant child. The legislation provides for the Child Support Registrar to be satisfied that Mr Bell is a parent of each child on the basis of those documents.

9. The appellant believes that Mr Bell and Ms Chubb, the mother of [Y] and [Z], are living together and have entered into some sort of arrangement to fraudulently claim Mr Bell is a parent of the Chubb children in order to minimise Mr Bell’s child support liability in relation to the other two children.

10. If the appellant is correct, a serious fraud had been perpetrated and she could reasonably expect the particulars of the child support assessment in relation to her own child to be amended.

11. This Court however, is not in a position to make a determination about those matters, nor was the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

12. The appellant advised the Court that she has reported the matter to various authorities including the police. This is the correct course of action in the circumstances. Until such time as the evidence relied upon by the Child Support Registrar is shown to be false, the Child Support Registrar is entitled to be satisfied on the basis of those documents that Mr Bell is a parent of the Chubb children.

13. No error of law on the part of the Tribunal has been identified. It is clear from the reasons for decision of the Tribunal that all of the matters raised by the appellant were considered by the Tribunal. Having done so, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Objections Officer to dismiss the appellant’s objection on the basis that the particulars of the assessment relied upon by the Child Support Registrar were correct.

14. There being no error of law, the appeal is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Hughes FM

Date:  30 July 2009