Bismarth and Pratt (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 2232

Bismarth and Pratt (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2232 (12 August 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Bismarth

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Pratt
Tribunal Number: 2025/MC029756
Tribunal: Member J Moir
Place:Sydney
Date:12 August 2025

Decision:The Tribunal varies the decision under review to reflect that the existing care determination for [the child] is revoked from 30 November 2023, and a new determination made that Ms Pratt had 100% care and Mr Bismarth had 0% care for [the child] from 1 December 2023.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – court orders and existing determination – father’s claim that mother withholding child and breaching orders by moving some distance and changing child’s school – child added to FVO protecting mother – change in cost percentage – later care determination not disturbed – decision under review varied

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

Mr Bismarth and Ms Pratt are the parents of [the child] (born 2014).
Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) registered a child support assessment for [the child] on 7 December 2019.
Parenting orders were made by the Federal Circuit Court on [date] November 2020. In accordance with those orders, from 19 December 2020, Child Support recorded a care determination for [the child] of 67% to Ms Pratt and 33% to Mr Bismarth. The care arrangement was that [the child] lived with his mother, and spent time with his father for three nights (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) for three out of five weeks, during school term time. He was also to spend half of the school holidays with each parent.
At all times Mr Bismarth was the paying parent and Ms Pratt was the payee parent.
On 19 December 2023, Ms Pratt notified Child Support that there had been a change in the care and that [the child] had not spent any time with Mr Bismarth since 19 November 2023. She asked that the care determination be made reflecting that [the child] was in her care 100% of the time.
Child Support was unable to contact Mr Bismarth regarding his views. On 3 January 2024, Child Support made a new care determination that [the child] was in Ms Pratt’s care for 100% of the time, and in Mr Bismarth’s care 0% of the time from 20 November 2023, as notified on 20 December 2023.
On 4 January 2024 Mr Bismarth lodged an objection to this decision. He agreed that [the child] had not been in his care, but said that Ms Pratt was withholding him. Mr Bismarth provided evidence that he was taking legal action regarding her contravention of the Court orders.
On 23 February 2024 Ms Pratt notified Child Support that there was a new parenting agreement, amending the previous orders, commencing from 23 February 2024 (folio 75).…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bismarth and Pratt (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 2232
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Bismarth brought an appeal against the Child Support Registrar's decision to revoke the care determination in relation to [the child], and to vary it to reflect that Ms Pratt had 100% care and Mr Bismarth had 0% care for [the child]. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Bismarth and reviewed the material provided to the parties. The Tribunal found that there was a change in the care of [the child] from 1 December 2023, and that the existing care determination should be revoked from 30 November 2023. A new care determination should be made from 1 December 2023 that Ms Pratt had 100% care and Mr Bismarth had 0% care for [the child]. This was a change to the dates determined by the objections officer. The Tribunal did not intend to disturb the care determination made by Child Support for the period commencing 23 February 2024. The Tribunal varied the decision under review to reflect that the existing care determination for [the child] is revoked from 30 November 2023, and a new determination made that from 1 December 2023, Ms Pratt had 100% care and Mr Bismarth had 0% care for [the child].

Orders