Complex system processing for reverse child support cases 277-03020020

Question

Answer

Why do we need to consider reverse cases differently where the care of the children is divided between two parents, one of whom lives in New Zealand?

The international maintenance arrangements between Australia and New Zealand (Australia & New Zealand Agreement) state that a child support liability should be issued and administered in the jurisdiction where the payee resides.

When the care is divided, or there are care changes, Cuba generating two linked cases to show each parent’s liability reflected in a single assessment cannot be applied due to two reasons:

• Jurisdiction - jurisdiction to administer child support arrangements is usually given to the authority in the country in which the children and carer live. Because the reverse case process reflects all children of the relationship in calculating an Australian assessment, the Australian assessment accounts for the New Zealand child/ren as well. This is contrary to the intention of the Australia & New Zealand Agreement
• Simultaneous recognition - where the parent with care of a child or children in New Zealand applies to NZIR Child Support for a child support assessment, the parent and children in Australia can be disadvantaged. This is because the Australian formula takes into account the costs of the child in New Zealand through a reduction in the parent in Australia’s entitlement to recognise that cost. If the parent in Australia also has to pay for that child under a New Zealand assessment, that child is being recognised twice, leaving the parent and children in Australia disadvantaged

To resolve these issues, the following 3 principles apply to New Zealand cases:

• Services Australia Child Support only has jurisdiction to administer child support arrangements for children who live in Australia for the majority of the time
• NZIR Child Support only has jurisdiction to administer child support arrangements for children who live in New Zealand for the majority of the time
• The costs of children should only be determined once, by either Australia or New Zealand. The relevant country is determined by where the child lives for the majority of the time

Can there be a reverse case where the Payee is in New Zealand?

A reverse case with a payee in New Zealand is acceptable and necessary in New Zealand cases as long as:

• it only runs for the period it takes to confirm habitual residency under the Australia-New Zealand agreement, and
• the parent in New Zealand has not applied for a New Zealand child support assessment

For more information on habitual residency, see:

• References > Child Support Guide 1.6.4 Habitual residency under the Australia-New Zealand agreement
• Table 1 > Step 2 in Residency decisions for Child Support customers - Specialist Service Officer

If in doubt, escalate the matter to SSO.

Why is confirmation of a parent being habitually resident in New Zealand under the Australia-New Zealand agreement required when we have previously made a decision that the parent is a resident in New Zealand?

An Australian child support assessment will end, pursuant to the Australia-New Zealand Child Support Agreement, if the payee or carer entitled to receive child support has his or her habitual residence in New Zealand.

The request is made for a notice in writing that the parent has habitual residence in New Zealand to establish jurisdiction in relation to the child that has moved.

When do I need to duplicate a child’s profile for Cuba processing purposes?

Where all of the following apply:

• care is divided between parents (see examples)
• a child needs to be added as a relevant dependent
• the child has an ended role of ‘claimed for’ in the Australian assessment
• Cuba prevents you from adding a previous ‘claimed for’ child record as ‘not claimed for’

Where a duplicate the child profile is created, document this clearly in the customer detail notepad on both records, and that it is necessary to maintain parallel records. See Correcting a duplicate Child Support customer record

If in doubt, escalate the matter to SSO.

Item

Description

One parent resides in a non-reciprocating jurisdiction

Paul and Mona have an assessment for 3 children: Bowie, Jessy and Blake.

Bowie, Jessy and Blake are Australian Citizens, and they live with Mona in Qatar, a non-reciprocating jurisdiction.

A care change is reported as Bowie and Jessy moved to Australia and are now 100% in Paul’s care. As Mona resides in a non-reciprocating jurisdiction and cannot be a liable parent, this is a terminating event for Bowie and Jessy as claimed for children in the assessment.

The assessment remains active for Blake.

Bowie and Jessy are to be added as Paul’s relevant dependents.

Care is divided between a parent in Australia and a parent in New Zealand

Moana and Koa have 3 children, Amelia, Kiara and Isaiah.

Moana lives in Australia and has 100% care of the children, Amelia and Kiara.

Koa lives in New Zealand and has 100% care of Isaiah.

Moana applied through Services Australia for a child support assessment for the children Amelia and Kiara. Moana’s application is accepted and transmitted to New Zealand for collection.

Isaiah is added as Koa’s relevant dependent to the Australian child support assessment.

Koa applied through New Zealand Inland Revenue (NZIR) for a child support assessment for the child Isaiah. Koa’s application is accepted and is sent to Services Australia as a New Zealand ‘In’ case for registration and collection.

Amelia and Kiara would be added as Moana’s relevant dependents on the New Zealand child support assessment by NZIR

Note: do not use the NZ child record for Isaiah, used in the NZ ‘In’ case, when adding them as a relevant dependent to the Australian assessment. The NZ child record is only for use in NZ In cases.

If Isaiah has been a ‘claimed for’ child in the Australian assessment, a duplicate profile may be required to add them as a relevant dependent (‘not claimed for’) due to Cuba limitations. Seek SSO support if Cuba prevents a prior ‘claimed for’ child record to be added as a relevant dependent.

Care changes where the parent gaining care is in New Zealand – determining child’s entitlement end date

Scenario 1:

Amelia left Moana’s care and is now living in New Zealand with Koa. Amelia left Australia to live in New Zealand on 6 March 2024. Koa has not applied for child support in New Zealand and contacts Services Australia to advise they are now caring for Amelia.

As no written confirmation is provided that Koa is a resident of New Zealand, the SO sends a request to NZIR to confirm that Koa is habitually resident of NZ. NZIR provide confirmation on 23 April 2024 that Koa is habitually resident in New Zealand.

The Australian assessment for Amelia will end on 22 April 2024, the day prior to habitual residency being confirmed by NZIR Child Support in relation to the parent in New Zealand, but will continue for the child Kiara, who remains in Moana’s care.

The end date for Amelia is determined to be after the date the care change would have otherwise taken effect on the Australian assessment.

This will result in a reverse case where the payee is in New Zealand between the care change date (6 March 2024) and the day prior to habitual residency being confirmed (22 April 2024).

Note: reverse cases where the payee is the person in New Zealand are acceptable and necessary in some circumstances as long as:

• it only runs for the period it takes to confirm habitual residency under the Australia-New Zealand agreement, and
• the parent in New Zealand has not applied for a New Zealand child support assessment

If in doubt, escalate the matter to SSO.

Amelia is added as Koa’s relevant dependent on the Australian Assessment.

Note: do not use the NZ child record for Amelia, used in the NZ ‘In’ case, when adding them as a relevant dependent in the Australian assessment. The NZ Child record is only for use in NZ In cases.

As Amelia was a ‘claimed for’ child in the Australian assessment, a duplicate profile may be required to add them as a relevant dependent (‘not claimed for’) due to Cuba limitations. Seek SSO support if Cuba prevents a prior ‘claimed for’ child record to be added as a relevant dependent.

Scenario 2:

Amelia left Moana’s care and is now living in New Zealand with Koa. Amelia left Australia to live in New Zealand on 6 March 2024. Koa applied for child support from NZIR on 6 March 2024 and this has been sent to Australia for registration and collection. A NZ record is created for the child Amelia as a claimed for child in the NZ ‘In’ case.

The Australian assessment for Amelia will end on 5 March 2024, the day prior to the start date of the NZ Child Support assessment for Amelia, but will continue for the child Kiara, who remains in Moana’s care.

Amelia is added as a relevant dependent on the Australian assessment.

The end date for Amelia is determined to be before the date the care change would have otherwise taken effect on the Australian assessment.

Note: do not use the NZ child record for Amelia, used in the NZ ‘In’ case, when adding them as a relevant dependent in the Australian assessment. The NZ child record is only for use in NZ In cases.

As Amelia was a ‘claimed for’ child in the Australian assessment, a duplicate profile may be required to add them as a relevant dependent (‘not claimed for’) due to Cuba limitations. Seek SSO support if Cuba prevents a prior ‘claimed for’ child record to be added as a relevant dependent.

Confirmation of a parent being habitually resident in New Zealand under the Australia-New Zealand agreement

In the example above, residency was confirmed for Koa when the case was established, his role at the time was the payer for the child Amelia. Koa’s role in relation to Amelia has changed, he is now the carer of Amelia. The request is made for a notice in writing that Koa has their habitual residence in New Zealand to establish the jurisdiction of New Zealand in relation to Koa as the carer/payee of Amelia.

This means that Australia ceases to have jurisdiction from the date of the notice and subsequently ends the Australian assessment for Amelia.

Note: the notice in writing regarding a payee/carer’s habitual residence can be provided by a payer, payee or Central Authority. See Table 1 > Step 2 in Residency decisions for Child Support customers - Specialist Service Officer.

Shared care between Australia and New Zealand

Hazel and Jarrod have 2 children, Noah and Isla. Hazel and Jarrod have shared care of Noah and Isla, who regularly travel between New Zealand and Australia, including rotating the school holidays. The pattern of care equates to Hazel having 59% care and Jarrod 41%.

The SO raises a technical support online query to their SSO for escalation to PSM. The PSM escalates the enquiry to the Child Support Program Advice Team who will consider the matter on a case-by-case basis and provide advice on how to proceed. See Policy advice escalation process (CS).