Drebchev and Drebchev (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 929

Drebchev and Drebchev (Child support) [2025] ARTA 929 (7 April 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Drebchev

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Drebchev

Tribunal Number: 2024/MC028962
Tribunal: Member S Letch
Place:Brisbane
Date:7 April 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that care for both [Child 1] and [Child 2] should be recorded as 100% to Ms Drebchev and 0% to Mr Drebchev from 9 April 2024 (and not from 1 January 2024 so far as the decision relates to [Child 1]).

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change to the likely pattern of care – independent third party statement – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – 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 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

Mr Drebchev and Ms Drebchev are the parents of [Child 1] and [Child 2]. This matter concerns a decision by Child Support about their recorded care.
It is convenient by way of background to set out some extracts from the objections officer’s decision dated 4 November 2024:
SUMMARY OF OBJECTION DECISION
The outcome of this decision is that it has been disallowed.
We have made the decision to reflect the care of [Child 1] as 100% to [Ms Drebchev] and 0% to [Mr Drebchev] from 1 January 2024, as notified on 30 April 2024; and
To reflect the care of [Child 2] as 100% to [Ms Drebchev] and 0% to [Mr Drebchev] from 9 April 2024, as notified on 30 April 2024
The effect of the objection decision is: there will be no changes to the assessment
…
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
The decision we made on 12 September 2024 to reflect the care of [Child 1] as 100% to [Ms Drebchev] and 0% to [Mr Drebchev] from 1 January 2024, notified on 30 April 2024; and
To reflect the care of [Child 2] as 100% to [Ms Drebchev] and 0% to [Mr Drebchev] from 9 April 2024, notified on 30 April 2024
[Mr Drebchev] has objected to this decision because he stated that he still had care of [Child 1] and [Child 2] up to 12 August 2024. [Mr Drebchev] confirmed that from 13 August 2024, both [Child 1] and [Child 2] have been in [Ms Drebchev’s] care 100%.
…
WE CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IN THE DECISION
The pre-existing care for [Child 1] and [Child 2] was reflected as 244 nights (67%) with [Ms Drebchev] and 121
nights (33%) with [Mr Drebchev] from 30 January 2023.
On 30 April 2024, [Ms Drebchev] notified us of a care change for [Child 1] as 100% to [Ms Drebchev] and 0% to [Mr Drebchev] from 1 January 2024; and a care change for [Child 2] as 100% to [Ms Drebchev] and 0% to [Mr…

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 Drebchev and Drebchev (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 929
Decision Date: 7 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Drebchev and Drebchev (Child support) [2025] ARTA 929 was heard by the Administrative Review Tribunal in Brisbane on 7 April 2025. The dispute involved Mr Drebchev and the Child Support Registrar, with Ms Drebchev as the other party. The issue was the calculation of care percentages for [Child 1] and [Child 2]. Mr Drebchev objected to the Registrar’s decision to record the care of both children as 100% to Ms Drebchev and 0% to him from specific dates in 2024. He argued that he continued to have care of the children until 12 August 2024.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the existing care percentages should be revoked and replaced, and if so, from what date. The Tribunal had to consider the evidence provided by both parties, including statements from family members and friends, as well as an independent third party, [Doctor A], the children’s GP. The Tribunal noted the limitations of evidence from parties not at arm's length and gave more weight to [Doctor A’s] statement, which included first-hand accounts from Ms Drebchev and [Child 1]. The Tribunal found that the care arrangements had become more sporadic based on the children’s preferences from January 2024, and by 8 April 2024, it was reasonable to conclude that care had changed to 100% for Ms Drebchev.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and decided that care for both [Child 1] and [Child 2] should be recorded as 100% to Ms Drebchev and 0% to Mr Drebchev from 9 April 2024, with a specific note that for [Child 1], the change should not apply from 1 January 2024. The Tribunal concluded that the existing care percentages should be revoked and replaced from 9 April 2024, based on the evidence presented.

Orders