Clabburn and Kopacz (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 2210
•8 August 2025
Clabburn and Kopacz (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2210 (8 August 2025)
Applicant/s: Ms Clabburn
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Mr Kopacz
Tribunal Number: 2025/MC029744
Tribunal: General Member I Sheck
Place:Melbourne
Date:8 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal varies the decision under review such that Mr Kopacz has a relevant dependent child for the period 18 June 2023 to 7 September 2024.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – calculation of child support assessment – father’s child from current relationship – relevant dependent child – child in sole care of his mother at most times, and period of living together as family unit – father’s statements in court proceedings – 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
BACKGROUND
This decision relates to whether the calculation of the child support assessment should include that Mr Kopacz has a relevant dependent child from [date] March 2023 onwards. Ms Clabburn and Mr Kopacz are the parents of [Child 1], born [May] 2020. On 15 October 2021 Ms Clabburn registered a case with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) for the assessment and collection of child support. Mr Kopacz is liable to pay child support to Ms Clabburn in respect of [Child 1].
On 20 March 2023 Mr Kopacz notified Child Support of the birth of his son [Child 2], from his current relationship. Mr Kopacz and Ms Clabburn were notified by letters dated 20 March 2023 that the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Kopacz to Ms Clabburn had reduced from $5,219 to $4,354 with effect from [date] March 2023 as the calculation of the rate included Mr Kopacz’s “relevant dependent child” amount from [date] March 2023. This amendment to the calculation had the effect of reducing Mr Kopacz’s child support income by $5,519.
On 16 August 2023 the rate of child support was amended to remove Mr Kopacz’s relevant dependent child amount from the assessment with effect from 22 March 2023. On 5 September 2024 Mr Kopacz advised a Child Support officer (during an unrelated query) that [Child 2] was still his relevant dependent child. On 17 December 2024 a Child Support officer decided that the relevant dependent child amount should be returned to the assessment with effect from 22 March 2023.
On 24 January 2025, Ms Clabburn objected to the decision and applied for an extension of time to object to the decision of 17 December 2024. The extension of time was granted on 21 February 2025. On 23 April 2025, an objections officer of Child Support disallowed Ms Clabburn’s objection, which had the effect of affirming the original decision to reinstate the relevant dependent child amount with effect from 22 March 2023.
By application received on 3 May 2025, Ms Clabburn asked this Tribunal to review the decision of the objections officer. On 7 August 2025, the Tribunal conducted a hearing at which Ms Clabburn and Mr Kopacz gave evidence by MS Teams audio. The Tribunal had before it the relevant documents from Child Support (pages 1 to 158) and from Ms Clabburn (pages A1 to A7), which had also been provided to the parties.
CONSIDERATION
The legislative provisions relevant to this decision are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”). The issue to be determined in this case is whether for all or part of the period commencing [date] March 2023 Mr Kopacz has had a relevant dependent child. This term is defined in section 5 of the Act as:
SEC 5 Interpretation--definitions
(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: ....
"relevant dependent child" , in relation to a parent, means a child or step - child of the parent, but only if:
(a) the parent has at least shared care of the child or step - child during the relevant care period; and
(b) either:
(i) the child or step - child is under 18; or ....
(3) A person has shared care of a child if the person's percentage of care for the child during a care period is at least 35% but not more than 65%.
It is common ground and the Tribunal finds that Mr Kopacz’s biological son [Child 2] was born [in] March 2023. [Child 2]’s mother is [Ms A]. In relation to whether [Child 2] has been in Mr Kopacz’s care for at least 35% of the time since his birth, Ms Clabburn maintains that he has not. Ms Clabburn told the Tribunal that there have been proceedings between herself and Mr Kopacz on foot in the Family Court for around the last four years. Mr Kopacz stated in an affidavit to the Court dated 19 June 2023 that he did not live with [Ms A] and [Child 2]. Although there have been variations in Mr Kopacz’s statements over time it is clear that he has never lived with [Child 2]. [Child 2] has therefore always been in [Ms A]’s sole care and has not at any point been Mr Kopacz’s relevant dependent child. Ms Clabburn told the Tribunal that she was unable to provide the affidavit in question as it was subject to a non-disclosure order made by the court.
Mr Kopacz told the Tribunal that at the time of [Child 2]’s birth [Ms A] lived around 2 kilometres from his home in [Suburb 1]. They spent every evening in each other’s company and he was involved in caring for [Child 2] and providing for him financially. Around 3 months after [Child 2]’s birth, [Ms A] and [Child 2] moved in to his [Suburb 1] home. They were planning a future together; every weekend they would go out to “open for inspections”, looking for a house to buy together.
Mr Kopacz said that the effect of the ongoing Court matter between himself and Ms Clabburn was however emotionally as well as financially taxing. Eventually [Ms A] gave him an ultimatum: he had to choose between seeking care of [Child 1] or focussing his energies on [Child 2] and his new family. Mr Kopacz considered that the demand was unreasonable. [Ms A] purchased her own home in [Suburb 2] and moved in there with [Child 2]. This was on or about 7 September 2024. Since then they have lived separately.
The Tribunal asked Mr Kopacz whether [Child 2] always stayed with his mother overnight or were there instances when he would stay with only Mr Kopacz. Mr Kopacz responded that he was always with [Ms A]. Mr Kopacz spends a lot of time with them at the [Suburb 2] house and stays over himself on occasion. His and [Ms A]’s relationship is still evolving and their second child was born this year. in answer to the Tribunal’s question, Mr Kopacz confirmed that more recently [Ms A] has applied for an assessment of child support and a multi-case allowance is now being applied to the assessment of the liability for [Child 1].
As noted above, it is necessary to determine whether [Child 2] has been in the care (at least shared care) of his father Mr Kopacz at any point from his birth to date. Mr Kopacz submits that he, [Ms A] and [Child 2] lived together as a family unit from around June 2023 to September 2024 and he and [Ms A] shared the care of [Child 2] as partners generally do. Ms Clabburn contends that this statement is false. Ms Clabburn relies on a statement submitted to the Family Court by Mr Kopacz on 19 June 2023 that he and [Ms A] were not living together, however the Tribunal considered that this statement may have predated [Ms A]’s move into the [Suburb 1] property. Mr Kopacz also denied having made the statement to which Ms Clabburn refers. Ms Clabburn also has provided some text messages between herself and [Ms A], however there was no communication between her and [Ms A] prior to November 2024 and the Tribunal was not of the view that [Ms A]’s statements were incompatible with Mr Kopacz’s evidence regarding their living arrangements. Although [Ms A] states that throughout her relationship with Mr Kopacz she cared for [Child 2] 100% of the time and did everything for him, this statement may only recognise that Mr Kopacz was absent from the family home for a good part of each day while he was at work and as the mother of a baby, [Ms A] met the majority of [Child 2]’s daily needs.
On balance, the Tribunal accepts Mr Kopacz’s evidence that he and [Ms A] were partnered and jointly caring for their son [Child 2] from 18 June 2023 to 7 September 2024. Following this period [Child 2] has been in the sole care of his mother and does not spend overnight care with Mr Kopacz in the absence of [Ms A]. This means that [Child 2] is considered to be Mr Kopacz’s relevant dependent child for the period 18 June 2023 to 7 September 2024 and the rate of child support is to be assessed on this basis.
DECISION
The Tribunal varies the decision under review such that Mr Kopacz has a relevant dependent child for the period 18 June 2023 to 7 September 2024.
Date(s) of hearing: Thursday, 7 August 2025
0
0
0