Blissett and Thornton (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1590

Blissett and Thornton (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1590 (3 July 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Blissett

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Thornton
Tribunal Number: 2025/MC029300
Tribunal: Member J Moir
Place:Sydney
Date:03 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – child lived with friend and her mother after child’s mother moved interstate, then moved to live with mother – father’s claim that child living itinerantly, not with mother – minimal contact between father and child, none between father and mother, and limited documentary evidence – child’s employment and driving practice consistent with living with mother – “in the care of” – child now turned 18 – decision under review affirmed

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

BACKGROUND

Mr Blissett and Ms Thornton are the parents of [their child] (born September 2006).
On 19 March 2024 Ms Thornton contacted Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) to register a child support assessment for [the child]. She stated that [the child] had been living with her full time since 20 September 2023.
Child Support contacted Mr Blissett regarding this application, and he disagreed with Ms Thornton’s evidence, stating that [the child] was not in the care of Ms Thornton, but lived with a friend and the friend’s mother, and had done for some time.
On 6 May 2024 Child Support accepted Ms Thornton’s application and [the child] was recorded to be 100% in Ms Thornton’s care, and 0% in Mr Blissett’s care from 20 September 2023, with effect from the date of application (19 March 2024).
On 14 May 2024 Mr Blissett lodged an objection to this decision.
An Objections Officer sought evidence from both parents and also from “[Ms A]” the mother of the friend with whom [the child] had been living in Victoria. [Ms A] provided a detailed account of [the child] living with her and her daughter after her mother moved to NSW. [The child] preferred to remain in Victoria to finish school. [Ms A] said that neither parent provided her with any financial support for [the child], after an initial amount of $100 was given to her by Ms Thornton.
[Ms A] confirmed that [the child] had visited and spent some time with her mother in September 2023 but had returned to stay with her and had not moved to live with Ms Thornton on a more permanent basis until 24 December 2023.
The objections officer confirmed with the parents that they agreed with [Ms A]'s evidence and on this basis on 9 February 2025, the objections officer varied the decision under review to reflect that [the child] was in Ms Thornton’s care 100% of the time from 24 December 2023, with effect from 19 March 2024. This variation…

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 Blissett and Thornton (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 1590
Decision Date: 3 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Blissett and Thornton (Child support) was heard by Member J Moir in the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) on 6 June 2025. The Applicant, Mr Blissett, sought a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar, which determined that [the child] was 100% in the care of Ms Thornton from 24 December 2023, and 0% in the care of Mr Blissett from the same date. The dispute centered around the care arrangement for [the child] during a specific period and the associated care percentage for the purposes of child support assessment.

The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether [the child] was "in the care of" Ms Thornton during the relevant period and, if so, what the correct care assessment should be for [the child] during that period. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided by both parents and the third-party witness, Ms A, the mother of a friend with whom [the child] had been living. The evidence included statements, pay slips, and driving logbook records.

The Tribunal concluded that [the child] was indeed "in the care of" Ms Thornton from 24 December 2023 until her 18th birthday in September 2024. This determination was based on [the child]'s employment records, which indicated regular employment with her address listed as her mother's, and the driving logbook records, which showed substantial time spent practicing driving with Ms Thornton. Although Mr Blissett argued that [the child] was living itinerantly and had minimal contact with Ms Thornton, the Tribunal found his evidence lacking in first-hand knowledge and persuasive value. The Tribunal accepted Ms Thornton's evidence that she provided accommodation, transport, and emotional support to [the child], and that [the child] was contributing to household expenses to some extent.

Given that the Tribunal found Ms Thornton to have 100% care of [the child] from 24 December 2023, it affirmed the decision under review, maintaining that the child support assessment should commence from 19 March 2024. The Tribunal also noted that this decision aligns with the objections officer's determination.

The Tribunal's decision was to affirm the decision under review, meaning that Ms Thornton's care of [the child] from 24 December 2023 until her 18th birthday was upheld, and the care percentage for child support assessment remained at 100% for Ms Thornton and 0% for Mr Blissett.

Orders