Dasper and Sekanic (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 2213

Dasper and Sekanic (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2213 (24 July 2025)

Applicant: Mr Dasper

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Sekanic
Tribunal Number: 2025/SC029436
Tribunal: General Member R Prasad
Place:Sydney
Date:24 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – short period of full-time care outside current arrangement – mother’s disagreement with children – ‘pattern of care’ – minor departure and uncertainly about arrangements, not specific and measurable change over definable period – 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 Dasper (the father) and Ms Sekanic (the mother) have had a registered child support assessment for their children born [October] 2008 and [October] 2010. Since 1 February 2024, Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) has collected child support on the basis that the father had 57% care and the mother had 43% care of the children. These percentages denote the existing percentages of care.
On 21 October 2024, the father notified Child Support that the children had been in his care since 19 October 2024.
On 31 December 2024, Child Support decided to accept the care change and amended the particulars of the assessment to reflect that the father had 100% care and the mother had 0% care from 19 October 2024 (the original decision).
On 2 January 2025, the mother objected to the original decision on the basis that she had missed some care events but the regular pattern of care remained in place.
On 25 February 2025, Child Support allowed the mother’s objection (the objection decision).
On 4 March 2025, the mother sought review of the objection decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
The matter was heard on 30 June 2025. The Child Support Registrar elected not to be represented at the hearing, but provided documentation (T1 to T145). The father appeared by MS Teams video and provided documentation (A1 to A18), and the mother attended the Tribunal.

ISSUES

The relevant issues before me are whether there was a change to the children’s care arrangements, and, if so, the date of effect of the new care determination.

CONSIDERATION

What is required?

Sections 49 and 50 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) require that I consider the relevant pattern of care for the children and if there has been any changes.
The Act, under section 54A, provides that actual care may be worked out based on the number of nights the children were, or is likely to have been, in the care of the relevant person.
Sections 54F and 54G of the Act provide the circumstances when a determination of an existing care percentage must be revoked and this is dependent on if there is a change to…

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.

Continue reading Dasper and Sekanic (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Dasper and Sekanic (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2213
Case: [2025] ARTA 2213
Decision Date: 24 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dasper and Sekanic (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2213, the matter before the Administrative Review Tribunal involved a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar concerning the care arrangements for the children of Mr Dasper and Ms Sekanic. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether there had been a change to the children’s care arrangements and, if so, the date of effect of the new care determination.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were centered on the interpretation and application of sections 49, 50, 54A, 54F, and 54G of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. The Tribunal was required to assess whether the short period during which the children were in the father’s care constituted a change to the established pattern of care. The Tribunal also needed to consider the definition and implications of a “minor departure” from the usual pattern of care, as well as the relevance of the Child Support Guide.

The Tribunal found that while there was indeed a temporary shift in the children’s care arrangements, it did not constitute a significant change to the overall pattern of care. The Tribunal emphasised that the Act requires consideration of the actual pattern of care, which should not be overly rigid but should allow for flexibility in the context of children’s care. The Tribunal noted that the minor departure in this case, where the children stayed with their father for 27 nights instead of the usual pattern, did not indicate a specific and measurable change over a definable period. Given that the children returned to their mother’s care shortly after, the Tribunal concluded that this was a discrete event rather than a change in the overall care arrangement.

As a result, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, maintaining the previous care percentages for the children as determined by Child Support. The Tribunal found that the temporary shift did not amount to a change in the established pattern of care.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that the decision under review be affirmed, meaning that the previous determination regarding the care percentages for the children remained in effect.

Orders