Bartoletti and Schroff (Child support)

This matter concerned an application for review by Mrs Bartoletti of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar regarding the percentage of care provided to her child, [Child 1], by herself and Mr Schroff. The dispute arose from conflicting accounts of the care arrangements for [Child 1] following a period where Mrs Bartoletti claimed to have provided full-time care since 13 January 2020. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), with Member P Jensen presiding.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the likely pattern of care for [Child 1] between Mrs Bartoletti and Mr Schroff, specifically from 13 January 2020 onwards, and whether this constituted a change to the existing percentage of care determinations. This involved assessing the credibility of the evidence provided by both parents and any supporting third parties, given the inconsistencies and lack of precise record-keeping. The Tribunal was required to make new determinations for the percentage of care based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal found Mrs Bartoletti to be an unreliable witness due to numerous conflicting statements regarding her care of [Child 1]. While Mrs Bartoletti initially claimed 100% care from 13 January 2020, her evidence later shifted, and she acknowledged Mr Schroff provided care for some weekends in January and February 2020, and then suggested a 50/50 arrangement until May 2020. The Tribunal considered the evidence of Ms D, a family support worker, to be the most reliable. Ms D's evidence indicated a "back and forth" period of care between the parents from January 2020, with the child sometimes staying with each parent depending on family conflict. In the absence of precise, reliable evidence to establish a definitive pattern, the Tribunal applied sections 50, 54B, and 54F of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and determined that a 50% care arrangement for each parent was a fair reflection of the care provided from 13 January 2020. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.