Farreday and Beacey (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1634

Farreday and Beacey (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1634 (7 August 2025)

Applicant:Mr Farreday
Respondent:  Child Support Registrar
Other Party:  Ms Beacey
Tribunal Number:  2025/MC029807
Tribunal:General Member S Irvine
Place:Hobart
Date:7 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentages of care – change to the pattern of care – care determination revoked – child decided to change arrangement – 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 Farreday and Ms Beacey are the parents of [Child A], born in July 2007. A child support assessment has been in place for [Child A] for some years. From 27 July 2015 the assessment reflected care percentages in respect of [Child A] of 73% to Ms Beacey and 27% to Mr Farreday.
On 6 December 2023 Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) made a decision to revoke the existing care percentages in respect of [Child A] and replace them with new care percentages of 95% to Ms Beacey (applying in the child support assessment from 7 June 2023) and 5% to Mr Farreday (applying in the child support assessment from 3 February 2023).
On 21 December 2023 Mr Farreday objected to Child Support’s decision. For reasons that are not clear, no action appears to have been taken by Child Support in respect of Mr Farreday’s objection until February 2025. Ultimately on 19 April 2025 a Child Support objections officer decided to set aside the decision made on 6 December 2023 and replace it with a new decision that the new care percentages are 92% to Ms Beacey and 8% to Mr Farreday, applying in the child support assessment from the same dates as originally determined.
On 15 May 2025 Mr Farreday applied to this Tribunal for an independent review of Child Support’s decision. A hearing took place on 5 August 2025. Mr Farreday attended the hearing by video and Ms Beacey attended by telephone, and both parties gave sworn evidence. The documents before the Tribunal comprised documents submitted by the Child Support Registrar numbered 1 to 219.

ISSUES

The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act), and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
The issues which arise in this case are:
· whether the previously existing care percentage determinations for [Child A] should be revoked, and, if so,
· from what date the existing determinations should be revoked, and what new care determinations should be made for [Child A].

CONSIDERATION

Mr Farreday told the Tribunal that he had 27% care of [Child A] since 2013. He explained that his usual pattern was that he had care of [Child A] for two nights every second weekend, plus two or three weeks in each school holidays. The remainder of the 27% care was made up of additional ad-hoc days through the year.
Mr Farreday said he considered there was no change in his normal pattern of care until 8 December 2023. On that date, Mr Farreday received a text message from [Child A] in which [Child A] stated that she didn’t want to be at Mr Farreday’s house every second weekend.
Ms Beacey told the Tribunal that she noticed a reduction in the time [Child A] was spending in Mr Farreday’s care around the end of 2022, and she began keeping a care calendar from the beginning of 2023. She kept that calendar for around six months before advising Child Support that there had been a change in care, as she felt that should be enough evidence to show that there had been a change.
Both parents have provided calendar evidence in relation to the care they had of [Child A], and also gave oral evidence. According to that evidence:

Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights of 9 and 10 December 2022.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights from 25 December 2022 until 5 January 2023.
From the night of 12 January 2023 until the night of 18 January 2023 [Child A] stayed with friends at [Town 1]. From 15 January 2023 Mr Farreday was also in [Town 1], and spent every day with [Child A], although she continued to sleep at the friend’s home.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the night of Friday 3 February 2023. On the night of Saturday 4 February 2023 [Child A] attended a party and then returned to Ms Beacey’s home after the party.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the night of Friday 17 February 2023. On the night of Saturday 18 February 2023 [Child A] attended a party and then returned to Ms Beacey’s home after the party.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights of 3 and 4 March 2023 and the nights of 17 and 18 March 2023.
Mr Farreday contends that [Child A] was in his care on the night of Friday 31 March 2023, and has provided evidence in the form of text messages between himself and [Child A] indicating that he picked [Child A] up at approximately 8.42pm on that day. Ms Beacey’s calendar evidence indicates that [Child A] was in her care on the night of Friday 31 March 2023.
On the nights of Friday 14 and Saturday 15 April 2023 [Child A] was at a [sport] team event, and on the nights of Sunday 16 and Monday 17 April [Child A] stayed with Mr Farreday’s brother, who lived nearby to the location of the [sport] event.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the night of Friday 28 April 2023.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights of Friday 12 and Saturday 13 May 2023.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights of Friday 21 and Saturday 22 July 2023.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights from Friday 4 August 2023 to Tuesday 8 August 2023 inlcusive.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the night of Friday 18 August 2023.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights from Saturday 23 September to Monday 2 October 2023 inclusive.
Mr Farreday contends that he had care of [Child A] on the night of Tuesday 3 October 2023. Ms Beacey’s recollection is that she had [Child A] in her care on that night.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights of Friday 3 and Saturday 4 November 2023.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the night of Saturday 16 December 2023.
Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] on the nights of 9 to 13 January 2024 inclusive.

In relation to the period from 12 to 18 January 2023, Mr Farreday told the Tribunal that he had had [Child A] in his care up to 6 January 2023, but he then had to return to work for a short period so [Child A] went back to Ms Beacey on 6 January. The arrangement he had made was that he would go with [Child A] and other family members on a short trip to [Town 1] to go water-skiing from 15 January, and [Child A] would join them. However, [Child A] had friends in [Town 1], and so ultimately travelled to [Town 1] on 12 January to stay with those friends.
Mr Farreday and Ms Beacey agreed that the arrangement for [Child A] to stay with friends from 12 January was made by Ms Beacey, with Mr Farreday’s consent. Ms Beacey travelled with [Child A] to [Town 1] on 12 January but did not stay overnight. Mr Farreday arrived at [Town 1] on 15 January and spent each day from then until they returned home on 19 January with [Child A], although [Child A] continued to stay with her friends during that period.
Mr Farreday told the Tribunal that he had been told by Child Support that because that was time that he would normally have [Child A] in his care it should “count” as his time, and he therefore submitted that [Child A] should be considered to be in his care for the nights from 12 to 18 January inclusive.
The relevant legislation does not provide a specific definition of what constitutes providing care for a child. The Child Support Guide states at 4.1.1 that:
In most cases, it will be relatively clear whether and to what extent a person is caring for a child and care will generally be worked out based on the number of nights that the child is likely to be, or has been, in the care of the person during the care period. Where there is doubt, the Registrar will consider whichever of the following are relevant to the particular case, based on the extent to which the:
·     person has control of the child, including having overall responsibility for the child and making
o    major decisions relating to who the child spends time with, and the child's health, education, discipline, recreational and/or social activities, and
o    arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child (delegated care)
·     person meets the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, childcare, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra-curricular activities
·     person pays for the costs of meeting the needs of, or otherwise provides financial support for, the child
·     child provides for his or her own needs or has those needs met from another source
·     child is financially independent or financially supported from another source.
I do not accept Mr Farreday’s contention that [Child A] should be considered to be in his care on nights that she has another activity on solely on the basis that he had expected her to be in his care on that night or that she would have been in his care if the other activity had not taken place. There is no basis for that contention in either the legislation or the Child Support Guide.
I am satisfied that for the nights from 12 January 2023 to 14 January 2023 [Child A] was not in Mr Farreday’s care. The evidence is that it was Ms Beacey who made arrangements for [Child A] to stay with friends, and neither parent was physically present with [Child A] or in the area. On that basis, I find that [Child A] should be considered to be in Ms Beacey’s care on those nights, albeit [Child A’s] physical care had been delegated to friends.
For the nights from 15 January 2023 to 18 January 2023 I am satisfied that [Child A] can be considered to have been in Mr Farreday’s care. Although [Child A] was still sleeping at her friends’ house, Mr Farreday was with her during the day and close by overnight, and so was the parent most likely to be making decisions and arrangements for her and meeting any day-to-day costs for her during that period.
In relation to the nights of Saturday 4 February and Saturday 18 February, Mr Farreday again contended that [Child A] should be considered to have been in his care on those nights as it would ordinarily have been his time. However, the evidence before me is that, following the parties she attended, [Child A] was in Ms Beacey’s care on those nights. I do not accept that [Child A] was in Mr Farreday’s care on those nights.
I am satisfied based on the text message evidence provided by Mr Farreday that [Child A] was in Mr Farreday’s care on the night of Friday 31 March 2023.
In respect of the nights from Friday 14 April to Monday 17 April 2023, Mr Farreday contended that [Child A] should be considered to be in his care because that would ordinarily be his weekend, and also on the nights of 16 and 17 April [Child A] was staying with his family member.
In relation to that weekend, Ms Beacey provided to Child Support a copy of text messages between [Child A] and Mr Farreday from 13 April 2023. On that day, Mr Farreday sent a text message to [Child A] which reads “Hi [Child A], just checking are you coming to our place this weekend?” and [Child A] has responded “I’m actually away this weekend with my [sport] team we are in [Town 2]”. There is no evidence that Mr Farreday was instrumental in making any arrangements for [Child A] in respect of the period commencing 14 April 2023, or that he was even aware of any arrangements until 13 April 2023. While it is not disputed that [Child A] stayed with Mr Farreday’s brother for two nights, the evidence is that [Child A] made those arrangements herself without Mr Farreday’s input. On that basis, I do not accept that [Child A] can be considered to have been in Mr Farreday’s care on the nights from 14 to 17 April 2023.
In respect of the night of 3 October 2023, it is not disputed that [Child A] was with Mr Farreday on holiday from 23 September 2023, and that they returned home on 3 October 2023. Mr Farreday said that his recollection is that because they returned home late [Child A] stayed with him that night, and returned to Ms Beacey’s care on the following day, 4 October. Ms Beacey said that her recollection was that [Child A] returned to her care on 3 October.
Mr Farreday provided to Child Support a copy of a flight confirmation for a flight from [City 1] to Melbourne on 3 October 2023. According to that confirmation the flight was due to land in Melbourne at 12:40pm. At the hearing Mr Farreday confirmed that the flight arrived around lunch time.
On the basis that the flight does not appear to have arrived late in the day I find that it is more likely than not that [Child A] returned to Ms Beacey’s care on 3 October 2023, although I note that one night is unlikely to make any significant difference in the decision.

Should the existing care determinations be revoked?

Care percentage determinations for the purpose of a child support assessment are made in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Act. Those sections provide that in certain circumstances, including relevantly where an existing care percentage determination is revoked, a new care percentage determination must be made.
Sections 54F, 54G and 54H of the Act set out the circumstances when a care percentage determination is to be revoked. Relevantly in this matter, section 54F provides that a care percentage determination must be revoked in circumstances where the actual care that is occurring is no longer reflected in the care percentage determinations.
The evidence before me is that the existing care determinations of 27% to Mr Farreday and 73% to Ms Beacey were based on a pattern of care where Mr Farreday cared for [Child A] for two nights every second weekend, a period of two to three weeks during summer school holidays, and additional ad-hoc care through the year.
I am satisfied that Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] for a period of 18 nights during the 2022/23 summer school holidays. There is no evidence before me as to what actual care Mr Farreday had prior to that, so I will assume that it was in accordance with the pattern described by Mr Farreday. As that pattern included care for 2 to 3 weeks over school holidays, I accept that that pattern continued until at least January 2023.
Mr Farreday put to me that he then continued to have care of [Child A] regularly every second weekend. He said that even if [Child A] did not stay with him, he continued to expect her every second weekend until 8 December 2023, when [Child A] told him she wanted to change the arrangement. He therefore considers that there was no change in his pattern of care until 8 December 2023.
I am not satisfied that Mr Farreday continued to have 27% care of [Child A] after January 2023. I have found that Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] for 2 nights in February 2023, 5 nights in March 2023, 1 night in April 2023, 2 nights in May 2023, and then no care from 14 May 2023 until 21 July 2023. That is not consistent with a pattern of care of two nights every second weekend and additional ad-hoc days adding up to 27% care. I am satisfied that as of 3 February 2023 (the first Saturday night following the school holidays when [Child A] was not in Mr Farreday’s care for her usual weekend), the care that was actually occurring for [Child A] was no longer reflected in the care percentage determinations of 27% to Mr Farreday and 73% to Ms Beacey.
I accept Mr Farreday’s contention that it may not have been clear to him, on 3 February 2023, that there had been any permanent and ongoing change in the pattern of care he was providing for [Child A], at least to the extent that he considered the arrangement to be that he would have care of [Child A] every second weekend. However, given the evidence as to the care that has actually occurred, I am satisfied that his care was in fact significantly less than 27% from at least that date.
I therefore find that the existing care determinations must be revoked pursuant to section 54F of the Act. The revocation of each care percentage takes effect as set out in subsection 54F(3). That subsection provides that, if Child Support is notified of the change in care more than 28 days after it happens, then:
·the existing care percentage for a parent whose care has reduced takes effect at the end of the day before the day the care changed; and
·the existing care percentage for a parent whose care has increased takes effect at the end of the day before the day Child Support was notified of the change.
It is not disputed that Ms Beacey first advised Child Support that there had been a change in [Child A’s] care on 7 June 2023.

What new care determinations should be made?

If existing care percentage determinations are revoked, sections 49 and 50 of the Act require new care determinations to be made. Relevantly subsection 50(2) of the Act provides that there must be a determination of the of the responsible person’s percentage of care for during the care period. The care period is described in subparagraph 50(1)(b)(ii) of the Act as “such period … as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances”. The Child Support Guide states at 4.1.3 that
A care period is generally a 12-month period from the day on which the actual care of a child began or changed (the date of event).
Subsection 50(3) of the Act provides that the percentage determined under subsection (2) must be a percentage that corresponds with the actual care of the child that the parent has had, or likely to have, during the care period.
Mr Farreday submitted in the hearing that a suitable care period to be considered would be the period from 8 December 2022 to 8 December 2023, on the basis that he considers the care arrangements were not formally changed until 8 December 2023. I note that if I were to consider that care period my finding would be that Mr Farreday had care of [Child A] over that care period for a total of 48 nights, or 13% care.
However, as I have found that the care for [Child A] changed from 3 February 2023, I consider that an appropriate care period is the period of 12 months commencing on 3 February 2023, in accordance with the policy set out in the Child Support Guide. Over that period I am satisfied that the care Mr Farreday actually had of [Child A] is a total of 39 nights, or 10%. This is slightly higher than the percentage found by Child Support, mainly because Child Support appear not to have taken into account the 8 nights in January 2024. However, my finding is still that Mr Farreday’s care was less than 14%, which is the minimum amount of care a parent needs to have in order for their care to have an effect on the child support assessment.
As the difference between my findings and the findings made by Child Support are immaterial, I will affirm Child Support’s decision.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Date of hearing:	Tuesday, 5 August 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Representative for the Other party:	Self-represented