Legal Research
Cases
Greacey and Greacey (Child support)

Greacey and Greacey (Child support)

Case [2025] ARTA 936 14 May 2025

Percentage of Care

Change of Care

Review of Administrative Decision

Cost Percentage

Statutory Interpretation

Family Law

Type to search within this case.

Greacey and Greacey (Child support) [2025] ARTA 936 (14 May 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Greacey

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Greacey

Tribunal Number: 2024/BC029015
Tribunal: Senior Member A Suthers
Place:Perth
Date:14 May 2025

Decision:The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution, the parties’ existing percentages of care will be revoked and replaced by:
•29% to Mr Greacey on and from 1 January 2024
•71% to Ms Greacey on and from 1 January 2024.

This decision will have effect in the assessment on 24 June 2024.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – father’s contemporaneous care calendars and statutory declaration by his mother – father’s work roster – no impact on child support payable – objection lodged more than 28 days after decision notified – date of effect – 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

SUMMARY

Mr Greacey and Ms Greacey (‘the parties’) are the parents of [Child 1], who is 10 years old, and [Child 2], who is 5. A child support case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (‘Child Support’) on 1 September 2021. Mr Greacey has been recorded as providing 21% care for the children since 1 September 2021, with Ms Greacey providing the balance (79%) of care since 1 September 2021.
On 2 January 2024, Ms Greacey notified Child Support that a change to the care arrangements for the children had occurred from 1 January 2024. She was apparently working from Mr Greacey’s updated work roster and making a forward projection of what time that roster would allow for Mr Greacey to provide care for the children.
On 23 May 2024, an original decision maker accepted that change and recorded updated percentages of care of 12% to Mr Greacey and 88% to Ms Greacey (‘the original decision’).
An objections officer considered an objection lodged by Mr Greacey on 24 June 2024 (which was not within the prescribed time to do so), and on 20 November 2024 allowed in part the objection, thereby amending the original decision (‘the objection decision’). The objection decision recorded care percentages to Mr Greacey and Ms Greacey of 15% and 85%, respectively. Child Support used the number of nights that Ms Greacey was prepared to concede that the children were in Mr Greacey’s care between 14 January 2024 and 24 May 2024, being the information available before the objection decision was made, with Mr Greacey having provided evidence that the children were in his care for more nights than Ms Greacey was prepared to concede.
On 13 December 2024, Mr Greacey lodged an application for review of the objection decision (which was within the prescribed time to do so). That is the application before me.

The hearing and the…

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 Greacey and Greacey (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Greacey and Greacey (Child support) [2025] ARTA 936
Case: [2025] ARTA 936
Decision Date: 14 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application for review was brought by Mr Greacey, who sought to challenge the objection decision of the Child Support Registrar, which had amended the percentage of care attributed to him and his former partner, Ms Greacey. The application was heard by Senior Member A Suthers on 14 April 2025, with only Mr Greacey and documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found in favour of Mr Greacey, setting aside the objection decision and substituting its own decision, which revised the percentages of care attributable to the parties. The Tribunal found that the parties' pattern of care had changed from 1 January 2024, and that the existing care percentages should be revoked and replaced by new percentages of 29% to Mr Greacey and 71% to Ms Greacey, effective from 1 January 2024. The Tribunal found that the application for review was made within the prescribed time and that the decision under review would have effect from 24 June 2024.
The issues before the Tribunal were whether there had been a change in the pattern of care, and if so, when it occurred. The Tribunal found that the change in care occurred on 1 January 2024. The Tribunal also found that the existing care percentages should be revoked as there was clear evidence of a change in care, and that the new care percentages should be 29% to Mr Greacey and 71% to Ms Greacey, effective from 1 January 2024. The Tribunal found that the new care percentages would not affect the rate of child support payable. Finally, the Tribunal found that the decision under review would have effect from 24 June 2024, being the date on which Mr Greacey lodged his objection to the original decision.

Orders