Cezil and Roseaman (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 958

Cezil and Roseaman (Child support) [2025] ARTA 958 (22 May 2025)

Applicant: Mr Cezil

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Roseaman

Tribunal Numbers: 2024/SC028672, 2024/SC029077

Tribunal: General Member A Shelley

Place: Canberra

Date: 22 May 2025

Decision:

2024/SC028672

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

The existing percentages of care are revoked under subsection 54H(1) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989,
In accordance with subsection 54H(2), the revocation takes effect on 27 March 2024,
Under subsection 50(2), the percentages of care for [Child 1] are 12% for Mr Cezil and 88% for Ms Roseaman, and the percentages of care for [Child 2] are 10% for Mr Cezil and 90% for Ms Roseaman, from 28 March 2024.

2024/SC029077

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the cost of glasses purchased for [Child 1] in May 2024 should not be credited as a non-agency payment.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change to the likely pattern of care – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – new determinations made – period of one parent’s overseas holiday – non-agency payment – decision under review set aside and substituted

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 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Mr Cezil and Ms Roseaman are the parents of 2 children, [Child 1] (born in 2010) and [Child 2] (born in 2012), in respect of whom a child support assessment has been in place since 30 January 2022.
This review is about two things:
· in application 2024/SC028672, the percentage of care for each parent that applies in relation to the administrative assessment of child support for the children (the care percentage matter), and
· in application 2024/SC029077, whether the amount paid by Mr Cezil for new glasses, for one of the children, can be credited to his child support liability (the non-agency payment matter).
As to the care percentage matter, on 28 March 2024, Mr Cezil notified Services Australia (Child Support) of a change of care for the children. On 20 May 2024 Child Support determined that for both children the care was 92% to Ms Roseaman and 8% to Mr Cezil, from 13 November 2023, implicitly revoking an earlier assessment of 100% and 0% respectively.
The following day, Mr Cezil contacted Child Support, objecting to the decision.
The objection was partly allowed. The objection decision dated 3 September 2024 maintained the decision to reflect care of [Child 2] of 92% and 8% (respectively) but found that the care of [Child 1] was 93% and 7% (respectively). That decision was notified to the parties under cover of letter dated 4 October 2024.
As to the non-agency payment matter, Mr Cezil purchased glasses for [Child 1] in May 2024. On…

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 Cezil and Roseaman (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 958
Decision Date: 22 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Administrative Review Tribunal, Mr Cezil brought two applications in relation to the child support arrangements for his two children with Ms Roseaman. The first application concerned the percentages of care for each parent that applied to the administrative assessment of child support. The second application concerned whether the amount Mr Cezil paid for new glasses for one of the children could be credited to his child support liability as a non-agency payment. The Tribunal considered the relevant legislation and evidence provided by both parties. The Tribunal concluded that the care arrangements changed in November 2023, and the appropriate care period was 12 months from that date. The Tribunal found that the calculation of care based on nights was appropriate, and determined that Mr Cezil had 12% care for one child and 10% care for the other child. The Tribunal also found that the expenditure on glasses was not a non-agency payment as it was not for essential medical treatment.

The Tribunal set aside the previous decisions and made new determinations. The existing percentages of care were revoked, and the new percentages of care for each parent were determined. The Tribunal also decided that the cost of glasses for one child should not be credited as a non-agency payment.

Orders