Blissett and Thornton (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1590
•3 July 2025
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 did not have any material effect on the Child Support case but may have impacted on other decisions such as family tax benefit.
On 11 February 2025 Mr Blissett requested a review by this Tribunal.
The application was heard on 6 June 2025 and Mr Blissett and Ms Thornton spoke to the Tribunal by conference telephone and both gave evidence under affirmation. Mr Blissett’s wife, [Ms B] also participated in the hearing, with Ms Thornton’s consent. The Child Support Registrar did not attend the hearing.
In addition to the evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal had regard to the documents provided by Child Support (numbered 1–115), and additional documents (numbered 1-15), both of which had been sent to the parties.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal deferred the proceedings and made directions for Ms Thornton to submit further evidence in support of her assertion that [the child] lived with her between the end of December 2023 and September 2024 when the child support case ended because she turned 18.
Ms Thornton submitted additional material. Mr Blissett was provided with a copy and an opportunity to respond. Ms Thornton was given an opportunity to respond to Mr Blissett’s comments, but did not provide any further response. With the consent of the parties, the review was concluded without further hearing, based on the papers.
ISSUES
The statutory provisions most relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act). The Tribunal also had regard to the Child Support Guide, the Australian government’s online technical and policy guide to the administration of the child support scheme, which may be followed by Child Support
Part 4 of the Assessment Act provides that a parent can make an application for an administrative assessment of child support for a child, who, amongst other things, is an “eligible child” (section 24). Section 25 of the Assessment Act provides that as [the child]’s parent, Ms Thornton can make an application for a child support assessment.
Child Support, acting for the Child Support Registrar, generally makes child support assessments using a statutory formula in Part 5 of the Assessment Act. This formula contains a number of elements called the particulars of the assessment. They include a care percentage for each parent or non-parent carer in relation to each child which is converted to a cost percentage used in the formula to assess the relative costs of the children.
Sections 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act require the decision maker to determine the likely pattern of care for a child during a care period. The care period is a period of time that best reflects the arrangement. In most cases, the appropriate care period considered by the decision maker is a period of 12 months. A care period begins on the day the actual care of a child began or changed and the same care arrangements are assumed to apply for the care period unless Child Support or Centrelink are informed otherwise. In this case, the relevant care period is from 24 December 2023 until [the child]’s 18th birthday [in] September 2024.
The Tribunal considered that the issues in this case are:
Was [the child] “in the care of” Ms Thornton during the relevant period; and if so,
What was the correct care assessment for [the child] for the relevant period?
CONSIDERATION
Issue 1
Was [the child] “in the care of” Ms Thornton during the relevant period
Summary of written evidence available prior to the hearing
Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal had regard to the records provided by Child Support, including file noted conversations with the parents and “[Ms A]”, as well as four statements provided by Ms Thornton from her partner, neighbour and her neighbour’s brother stating that [the child] had lived with Ms Thornton full time from 20 September 2023. The Tribunal also had regard to some screenshots of notes provided by Mr Blissett indicating dates that he said that [the child] had stayed with him in late 2023 and in January 2024.
At the start of the hearing The Tribunal confirmed with the parents that they both generally agreed with the evidence the objections officer had documented from [Ms A] that [the child] moved to live with Ms Thornton from 24 December 2023.
Ms Thornton said that [the child] had visited her and spent time with her from September 2023 but agreed that be more permanent move was from 24 December 2023. Mr Blissett agreed that [the child] had been living with [Ms A] until 24 December 2023, but did not agree that she had moved to live with her mother after this.
It is therefore not in dispute that until 24 December 2023, [the child] was not in the care of either parent and the Tribunal was satisfied that this was the case. The issues in dispute relate to the period from 24 December 2023, until [the child]’s 18th birthday in September 2024.
Mr Blissett’s evidence at hearing
Mr Blissett’s evidence is that [the child] spent the nine months between leaving [Ms A]’s house, and her 18th birthday living itinerantly. She spent time between houses including her mother's and various friends and occasionally his. He said that [the child] stayed with him for a couple of weeks in January, when his daughter was born. He provided notes from his phone purporting to be a record these dates. Mr Blissett did not otherwise claim that [the child] was living with him during the relevant, or that he knew where she was living. However, he disputed strongly that she was living with Ms Thornton. Mr Blissett said that he believed that [the child] spent a fair bit of time staying in [Suburb] with a [friend]. [Suburb] is around 15 to 20 minutes drive from his place. After seeing her in January 2024, he saw her briefly on one day in May 2024 when she dropped in for a couple of hours. On that occasion she told him that she was travelling to Melbourne to stay with friends for a couple of weeks. He was not otherwise in contact with her.
Mr Blissett said that [the child] used her mother’s address for her provisional drivers licence because she was able to get her driver’s licence earlier in NSW than Victoria and that this is not evidence that [the child] lived with Ms Thornton, as opposed to staying when it suited her.
Mr Blissett said that Ms Thornton has provided no evidence that she has financially supported [the child] and suggested that this has been an issue in previous applications for child support. He said that he gave [the child] money at times when she asked for it but that otherwise it was his understanding she was on some kind of government benefits. He did not otherwise know how she was spending her time, suggesting she may have done a [course] at TAFE.
Ms Thornton’s evidence
Ms Thornton said that [the child] lived with her full time after she left [Ms A]’s place. She agreed that in December and earlier in January, [the child] stayed with friends at times, and with Mr Blissett when his daughter was born. However, after this, and before the 2024 school year started, [the child] lived with her. Ms Thornton said that [the child] had some struggles with her mental health in late 2023 and early 2024 and they spent some time helping her gain confidence and deal with her fragile mental health. Ms Thornton said that she was actively involved in arranging for [the child] to get the professional help that she needed in early 2024, and provided some detail about this.
Ms Thornton said that she taught [the child] to drive and said that she could provide the logbook records showing the time that she spent with [the child] driving. She said that she was instrumental in helping [the child] get a job at [Employer], where she works.
Ms Thornton said that before [the child] started work, she fully supported her financially but after she started work, [the child] started to contribute $100 a week towards the household, and used her wages to pay for her own personal expenses. Even so, Ms Thornton said that she would help [the child] financially when she asked. Ms Thornton said that she lent [the child] her car to go on trips to Victoria to see her friends and that on one occasion she went to Melbourne with [the child]. She said that she had not realised that it would be necessary to provide written evidence of these things, but offered to do so.
A summary of Ms Thornton written evidence submitted after the hearing:
· Screen shots of several of [the child]’s driving logbook entries for the period from 26 December 2023 to 29 February 2024, showing that Ms Thornton was the supervising driver.
· Payslips for [the child] for the 21 week period between 1 April 2024 and 15 September 2024. These show that apart from a week in June, when she worked only 5 hours, [the child] worked between 25 and 36 hours a week – most commonly around 32 hours. Her payslips record her address as the same as Ms Thornton’s address. The total nett wage for this period is around $9,000, averaging around $420 a week.
· Screenshots of several cash transfers from Ms Thornton to [the child] in the period June to September 2024
30.In summary, Mr Blissett’s response was that this evidence did not show that [the child] was living with Ms Thornton or that Ms Thornton was supporting her. In particular he said:
· some of Ms Thornton’s evidence was duplicated;
· the logbook evidence was not reliable;
· the bank transfers are minimal and do not confirm that Ms Thornton was financially supporting [the child];
· the payslips show that [the child] was working and earning a wage, which was consistent with Ms Thornton’s statement that [the child] was paying board and supporting herself during the period.
Tribunal’s consideration
The legislation does not include a definition of “care” but this issue was considered comprehensively by Hughes FM in Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959, para 56 as follows:
- In my view, in determining whether and to what extent a person has care of a child for the purpose of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, it is necessary to consider the following:
1.To what extent does the person meet the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, child care, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra curricular activities?
- To what extent does the person make arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child?
3.To what extent does the person pay for the costs of meeting the needs of the child?
- To what extent does the person otherwise provide financial support for the child?
- To what extent does the child provide for his or her own needs or have those needs met from another source?
- To what extent is the child financially independent or financially supported from another source?
- An analysis of the evidence in relation to these considerations should assist the Tribunal in determining whether or not there has been a child support terminating event or a change in the percentage of care for the child provided by the first respondent.
When considering these factors, it is, of course relevant to consider the age of the child and other relevant information about their circumstances. It is self evident that the type and extent of the care a parent would typically provide for a young child in preschool or school will be different to the care they provide to a 17 year old who has left school and is in the workforce, particularly if the 17 year old has previously lived more independently.
The first issue is where [the child] was living during the relevant period. Ms Thornton says she was living with her, but Mr Blissett did not agree with this.
The Tribunal noted that although he did not accept that [the child] was living with Ms Thornton, Mr Blissett had no first hand knowledge of where [the child] was living during the period in question. He has minimal contact with her, and no contact with Ms Thornton. By his account, she visited him twice during the relevant period, staying with him for a few days in January 2024, and visiting for a few hours one day in May 2024.
Mr Blissett initially said that he believed that during the relevant period, [the child] was itinerant, and moved between a number of places in NSW and Victoria. This is not consistent with the evidence from [the child]’s payslips, which show that between early April 2024 and September 2024, she had very regular employment [with Employer]. Her address for her employment records was her mother’s address. Having seen this evidence, Mr Blissett appeared to accept that [the child] was living with Ms Thornton, but denied that Ms Thornton was providing her with financial support. [The child]’s employment records are not consistent with the lifestyle he had initially suggested she had during the period. In the absence of any evidence suggesting they are not accurate, the Tribunal considers that [the child]’s employment records are reliable evidence that she was living at her mother’s house at least from early April 2024.
The Tribunal also had regard to the driving logbook evidence, which was consistent with [the child] living with her mother in the period from 26 December 2023 to 29 February 2024, or at least spending sufficient time with her to be able to spend substantial time practicing her driving with her. Again, in the absence of persuasive evidence that [the child] was living elsewhere during this period, the Tribunal accepts these records as reliable evidence that [the child] was living with her mother during this period.
The Tribunal notes the evidence that Ms Thornton has transferred some money to [the child]’s bank account on occasion from June 2024 to September 2024, but did not consider that this evidence was persuasive in demonstrating that [the child] was living with her mother, or that Ms Thornton was financially supporting her. Although it was not persuasive, it was not counter to her claim either and was not, as Mr Blissett asserted, evidence that she was not financially supporting [the child].
The Tribunal did not give weight to the statements from Ms Thornton’s neighbour and others, as they generally lacked detail, and all attested to [the child] living full time with Ms Thornton at her current address since 20 September 2023. Ms Thornton has conceded that this is not accurate. These statements are inconsistent with the evidence from [Ms A], which has been accepted as a reliable account of [the child]’s living situation until 24 December 2023.
The Tribunal is satisfied that [the child] was employed from early April 2024, but also notes that her wage was minimal. By Ms Thornton’s account [the child] made a contribution to the household of $100 a week once she started to work. The Tribunal does not accept that this should be interpreted as [the child] fully supporting herself. $100 a week contribution for accommodation/food and bills is not remotely equivalent to the unsubsidised cost of these items. That being said, the Tribunal accepts that [the child] was able to support herself to some extent with her wages.
On this basis, the Tribunal accepts that Ms Thornton was providing [the child] with financial and material support during the period, both before and after [the child] was employed. Mr Blissett provided no evidence that he was providing financial support for [the child], or that she had any other kind of financial support. Indeed, he assumed she was receiving government benefits, when she was, in fact employed and working around 30 hours a week.
The Tribunal also accepts Ms Thornton’s evidence that she provided [the child] with accommodation, and transport, even if [the child] did, on occasion go away for a few days with friends. The Tribunal also accepts Ms Thornton‘s evidence that during the period, she helped [the child] find employment, learn to drive, and supported her with obtaining psychological and medical care. Given [the child]’s age and life circumstances, these are appropriate kinds of support from a parent.
On balance, based on Ms Thornton’s evidence, and in particular the pay slip and log book records, and, importantly, the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is satisfied that [the child] was “in the care” of Ms Thornton from 24 December 2023 until her 18th birthday in September 2024.
Issue 2
The Tribunal then considered the care percentage determination for [the child]. Section 50 of the Assessment Act provides that this is to correspond with the actual care that Ms Thornton has had, or is likely to have, during a care period.
The Tribunal noted Mr Blissett’s evidence that [the child] stayed with him for a period in January 2024 when his daughter was born. This is undisputed, although there is some discrepancy with the dates. However, this appears to have been a “one off” and the Tribunal does not accept that this established that Mr Blissett had any pattern of care for [the child] during the relevant period. Mr Blissett does not assert that he had any regular care for [the child] in the relevant period.
Given Ms Thornton’s evidence, and the Tribunal’s findings, set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that from 24 December 2024, until the child support assessment ended, when [the child] turned 18, Ms Thornton had 100% care of [the child], and Mr Blissett had 0% care. Ms Thornton made her application for a child support assessment on 19 March 2024, and this is the correct date for the assessment to commence.
This is consistent with the objections officer’s decision. The Tribunal therefore affirms the decision under review.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
| Hearing date: | Friday, 6 June 2025 |
0