BSKT and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review of a child support decision involving the Mother and the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on whether certain court orders made in July 2018 constituted new parenting orders, which would potentially entitle the Mother to an Interim Care Determination (ICD). The Mother contended that these orders established new arrangements, while the Registrar argued they merely reinstated existing care arrangements from 2014. The review was heard by Member P Ranson.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the July 2018 Family Court of Australia (Family Court) orders created new parenting arrangements for the parties' daughter, and if so, what percentage of care should be reflected in the Child Support Register from the date of any change. Crucially, the court had to determine whether an ICD should be made from 31 July 2018, which depended on whether new parenting orders had been made or if there had been a change in actual care arrangements. The court considered the provisions of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth), specifically subsections 49(3) and 50(3) regarding care percentages, and sections 51 and 52 which outline exceptions for making an ICD when care arrangements are not being complied with.

The court reasoned that for the Mother to succeed, she needed to demonstrate that the July 2018 Family Court orders created new care orders. However, the court found that these orders were silent on parenting arrangements and, at best, reinstated the care arrangements established by the 2014 Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA) Parenting Orders, which provided for equal shared care. The Mother's own evidence at the hearing was found to be conflicted but ultimately supported the view that the July 2018 orders did not create new arrangements but rather reverted to the 2014 FCCA orders. The court noted that the Mother had already received a 14-week ICD due to an actual change in care that occurred in 2016. As there had been no new care orders since 2014 and no change in actual care since 2016, the court concluded that no new ICD could be granted.

The decision under review was affirmed.