Review objection 277-09170020

Item

Example

1

Loading an objection lodged by a third-party carer

Third-party carer Marie has a third-party Child Support assessment with parent’s Julie and Greg for child Emily.

Marie lodges an objection to a care change made for child Emily.

As Marie, Greg and Julie all have objection rights to the decision to change the care reflected for child Emily, they are all involved in the objection.

An objection is loaded on the case ID between Marie and Greg and on the case ID between Marie and Julie.

The following notes are entered into the Objection Maintenance window on each case before documenting scrutiny:

Subject: Third-party case objection

Body:

Parties involved in objection are:

Applicant: Third party carer Marie

Respondent: Parent Greg

Respondent: Parent Julie

2

Loading an objection lodged by a parent in a third-party assessment

Parent Sue has lodged an objection to the acceptance of a third-party assessment with other parent George and third-party carer Frank.

As Sue, George and Frank all have objection rights to the decision to accept the third-party assessment, they are all involved in the objection.

An objection is loaded on the case ID between Sue and Frank and on the case ID between George and Frank.

Note: neither George nor Frank are the actual objection applicant but due to Cuba limitations, an objection still must be loaded onto the other associated third-party case ID. Choose either George or Frank as the applicant to allow staff to load the objection but ensure clear notes are placed as to the party’s roles in the objection.

The following notes are entered into the Objection Maintenance window on each case before documenting scrutiny:

Subject: Third-party case objection

Body:

Parties involved in objection are:

Applicant: Parent Sue

Respondent: Third party carer Frank

Respondent: Parent George

Item

Example

1

Loading a 2nd objection to a decision previously made invalid due to no extension of time application

Parent Sarah lodges an objection on 2 March 2025 to a decision the credit a NAP of $300 made on 2 January 2025.

Sarah was notified of the decision in writing via online services on 2 January 2025.

Sarah did not provide an EOT application with their objection.

Contact attempts were made with Sarah, and a letter was sent to request an EOT application, but they were unsuccessful.

On 16 July 2025, the objection was made invalid due to no EOT application received.

Sarah objects again on the 8 August 2025 to the decision the credit a NAP of $300 made on 2 January 2025 and includes an EOT application in their objection.

The objection lodged 2 March 2025 is re-loaded.

Clear notes are placed in scrutiny that the actual lodgement date of the original objection was 2 March 2025, and the previous objection was finalised as at the time no EOT was received.

The EOT is assessed using the 2 March 2025 as the lodgement date and any additional relevant grounds provided in the objection lodged on 8 August 2025 were considered.

2

Loading an objection to a decision previously made invalid due to no EOT

Parent Peter lodges an objection on 7 July 2025 to an estimate reconciliation decision made on 9 August 2024.

Peter as notified of the decision in writing via paper post on 9 August 2024.

Peter did not provide an EOT application with their objection.

Contact attempts were made with Peter, and a letter was sent to request an EOT application, but they were unsuccessful.

On 12 December 2025, the objection was made invalid due to EOT application received.

Peter contacts us after receiving the invalid letter for an explanation. On the call, Peter states the reason for delay in objecting and provides a verbal EOT application.

The objection lodged on 7 July 2025 is re-loaded.

Clear notes are placed in scrutiny that the actual lodgement date of the original objection was 7 July 2025, and the previous objection was finalised as at the time no EOT was received.

An EOT is assessed using the 7 July 2025 as the lodgement date for consideration.