Family Tax Benefit (FTB) and child support for children born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement or via artificial conception procedure (including children of same-sex couples) 277-51070040

Item

Scenario

1

ACP through a medical clinic or medical professional (parent was a member of a couple at the time the child was conceived and the partner consented to the procedure)

If at the time the child was conceived, the parent had a partner and the partner consented to the ACP, generally, the partner is presumed to be the other parent of the child. If the individuals subsequently separate, action to obtain child support may be required.

Note: before referring the case to Child Support, Centrelink should consider whether any MAT exemptions should apply (other than IVF).

2

ACP through a medical clinic or medical professional (parent was single at the time the child was conceived or the partner did not consent to the procedure)

Individuals who have conceived a child via ACP through a medical clinic or medical professional should have documentation from the clinic or medical professional that the ACP took place. Such documentation can be accepted as verification of the ACP.

If at the time the child was conceived, the parent did not have a partner (or the partner did not consent to the ACP), generally, there is no other parent of the child, regardless of whether the donor is known or unknown. The decision maker should confirm that no other parent is named on the child's birth certificate. If there is no other parent named on the birth certificate, the parent would not be required to take reasonable maintenance action to receive more than the base rate of FTB Part A for the child. The MAT code IVF should be coded in these cases.

However, if there is another parent named on the birth certificate they should be referred to Child Support for a decision on whether the person named as the parent on the birth certificate is a parent for child support purposes. This will then determine whether reasonable maintenance action needs to be taken. If Child Support determines that the person named as the parent on the birth certificate is not a parent for child support purposes, the individual is not required to take reasonable maintenance action to receive more than the base rate for the child. MAT code to be applied is IVF in these cases.

3

Self-administered ACP - anonymous donor (parent was single or partner did not consent)

Where it is substantiated that the donor was anonymous, assess whether an exemption from seeking child support on the basis of 'parent unknown' is appropriate.

Supporting evidence could include: documents from a third party organisation confirming they facilitated the anonymous transfer of donor material.

4

Self-administered ACP - known donor (parent was single or partner did not consent)

Where the donor is known, the customer should be referred to Child Support for a decision on whether the donor is a parent for child support purposes. This will then determine whether reasonable maintenance action needs to be taken. If Child Support determines that the donor is not a parent for child support purposes, the individual is not required to take reasonable maintenance action to receive more than the base rate for the child. MAT code to be applied is IVF in these cases.

Centrelink must confirm that Child Support have rejected the application before coding IVF in these cases. See Centrelink action when an application for child support assessment is rejected by Child Support for further details.

Note: before referring the case to Child Support, Centrelink should consider whether any MAT exemptions apply (other than IVF).

In cases where the donor is known and the recipient has advised that they will not provide the name of the donor, Child Support will be unable to register the case. In this situation the recipient is assessed as not taken reasonable maintenance action resulting in failing the Maintenance Action Test.

5

Self-administered ACP - known or anonymous donor (mother was a member of a couple at the time the child was conceived and the partner consented to the procedure)

If at the time the child was conceived, the parent had a partner and the partner consented to the ACP, generally, the partner is presumed to be the other parent of the child. If the parent and the other parent subsequently separate, the customer may be required to obtain child support.

Note: before referring the case to Child Support, Centrelink should consider whether any MAT exemptions apply (other than IVF).

Item

Scenario

1

Surrogacy arrangement

Julie forms a de facto relationship with Susan. During the relationship Julie and Susan enter into a (non-commercial) surrogacy arrangement with Theresa, whereby Theresa will become pregnant using gametes from Susan and gametes from a donor. The arrangement takes place and Theresa gives birth to John.

A court order is made under a prescribed state or territory law that names the parents of the child as Julie and Susan. The child is then deemed to be a child of both Julie and Susan - a child of the current relationship. Action to obtain child support for John is not appropriate.

If in the future Julie and Susan separate, the custodial parent of John would be required to take reasonable steps to obtain child support from the other parent to receive more than the base rate of FTB Part A.

2

Same-sex couple recognised as parents from 1 July 2009 - child born via ACP

Julia and Kelly are in a same-sex relationship and in January 2009 had a child together through an artificial conception procedure by which Julia gave birth to their child with donor sperm.

Both Julia and Kelly agreed and consented to the procedure at the time the child was conceived. Until 1 July 2009, the recognised parent was Julia with an exemption from obtaining child support under IVF provisions.

From 1 July 2009, same-sex parentage is recognised and Julia and Kelly are both considered to be the parents of the child. The child is recorded as a child of the current relationship and the IVF exemption removed as it is not appropriate to obtain child support.

3

Review - child from a previous same-sex relationship - surrogacy arrangement

Dean and Ian were in a same-sex relationship and in May 2009 had a child together through a surrogacy arrangement where they were both named on the court order as parents of the child.

Dean was in receipt of Family Tax Benefit for the child as a single customer as their relationship was not recognised for family assistance purposes.

In June 2009, Dean and Ian separated and Dean continued to have 100% care of the child. Dean was provided with an exemption from meeting the MAT due to same-sex parentage not being recognised.

From 1 July 2009, Dean's exemption from meeting the MAT is reviewed and subsequently removed and Dean is required to obtain child support from Ian within 91 days (13 weeks) as Ian was recognised as the other parent based on the court order.

If Dean fails to take reasonable action to obtain child support from Ian, or does not apply for another exemption, then Dean may only be eligible to receive the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A for the child.