Habeck and Habeck (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1995
•17 September 2025
Habeck and Habeck (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1995 (17 September 2025)
Applicant/s: Ms Habeck
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Mr Habeck
Tribunal Number: 2025/AC029546
Tribunal:Member D Lambden
Place:Adelaide
Date: 17 September 2025
Decision:
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that:
There has not been a change in [Child A’s] care from 20 February 2024 and Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck continue to share care on a 51/49 basis.
There was a change in [Child B’s] care from 1 July 2024, notified on 5 September 2024 to 100% in Mr Habeck’s care and 0% in Ms Habeck’s care.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – Federal Circuit and Family Court order – particulars of the administrative assessment – application to extend the child support assessment beyond the child’s eighteenth birthday – full-time secondary education at eighteenth birthday – change to the pattern of care – parent evicted from home – lived with family until purchased new home – child chose to stay with other parent – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – new determinations made – 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
BACKGROUND
This review relates to a decision of Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) on 26 February 2025 regarding the care of Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck’s children, [Child B] (date of birth [January] 2006) and [Child A] (date of birth [March] 2009), from 20 February 2024. [Child B], continued to be a child of the assessment until 15 November 2024 while he completed his secondary schooling and at C206 to C208 of the Tribunal papers is a copy of the decision made by Child Support on 24 September 2024. At C282 to C283 of the Tribunal papers is a copy of a document titled ‘Child Support Late Application to Continue past a child’s 18th birthday’ from Ms Habeck which states that it is a late application to continue child support payments regarding [Child B].
There is a Federal Circuit Court of Australia order dated [May] 2024 (pages 256 to 281 of the Tribunal hearing papers) which relates to the care of [Child A]. The order specifies that the parties have agreed to have equal shared parental responsibility for [Child A] and [Child A] shall live with each party approximately equally.
There has been a child support assessment in place between Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck for the care of [Child B] and [Child A] since 15 February 2023. The pre-existing care percentages for [Child B] and [Child A] are 51% with Ms Habeck and 49% with Mr Habeck from 14 January 2023.
On 20 May 2024 Mr Habeck contacted Child Support and notified that there had been a change in care for [Child A]. He advised Child Support that since 20 February 2024 [Child A] had been living full-time under his roof for the last three months and he had 100% care of [Child A]. On 6 June 2024 Ms Habeck contacted Child Support about the change in care notified by Mr Habeck. She advised that there were court orders in place, she was currently residing with her sister and that Mr Habeck goes away for work every two weeks for the duration of two weeks at a time. She stated that she does not reside at Mr Habeck’s property however she purchases groceries and prepares dinner for [Child A] and stays at Mr Habeck’s property until [Child A] goes to bed. Child Support stated that Ms Habeck advised that she had purchased a house and care will go back to the arrangement of the children spending 50% of their time between the houses. On 5 September 2024 Child Support spoke with both parents and stated that Ms Habeck had advised that she was homeless between March, April, May and June, and at the end of June, early July she purchased a home and care for [Child A] remained at 50/50. Child Support stated that Mr Habeck disagreed with the information regarding [Child A’s] care provided by Ms Habeck and he stated that Ms Habeck had been evicted from her home in February 2024 and had to live with her sister until she purchased a property and care for [Child A] resumed on 11 June 2024.
The Tribunal noted that the letter provided by Dr [A] dated 8 September 2024 (C83) in relation to Ms Habeck’s care of the children did not provide any details of whether a change of care occurred for the children and the details of dates of when this occurred.
A typed statement dated 8 September 2024 from Ms Habeck’s sister [Sister A] is included at C81 to C82 states “In January 2024 Ms Habeck lived in a 3-bedroom rented property in [Suburb 1], with both children at 50% custody and care. In early March 2024 after the rental lease period ceased (after already being extended a few weeks by her landlord), she then intended to rent again elsewhere, but that fell through. The following week she stayed for 1 week at her ex-husbands rental property in [Suburb 2] to continue to support her children and look for somewhere else to live. This was while he was interstate working. After this period, she came to live at my house in [Suburb 3] with myself and may partner [Partner A], until she purchased a home at the end of June 2024……When she stayed at my house form (sic) March to July 2024 There (sic) was no room for her children to stay as well, however they were able to stay at their father’s rental in [Suburb 2]. Ms Habeck was working in the next suburb, [Suburb 4], where it was also very close to the children’s school. She drove to and from [Suburb 3] (north western suburb) to support her children almost every day that she had her 50% care time for the children. This was when her ex-husband was away [interstate for work]. She would drive to [Suburb 3] late at night after being with the children, as her ex did not allow her to sleep there overnight which would have been far easier, more convenient and less stressful for her going to work and carrying out school runs in the next suburb. She also spent time there on weekends as much as possible, other than sleeping there, and often taking [Child A] to his weekend [Sport 1] matches at his school and elsewhere. She drove them both to the supermarket to buy groceries, for haircuts, [and medical] appointments. She drove [Child B] to [another] appointment locally. She also took [Child B] to hospital one day when he was ill. She often drove [Child B] to his casual job at [Workplace 1] close to [Suburb 2], dropping him off and picking him up late at night. She collected [Child A] from school camp [in] March 2024 by driving to [Town 1] which is a 2 hour drive one way. She spent the morning at his camp with him and his Nanny/Grandma (the ex-husbands (sic) mother) then drove [Child A] all the way back to Adelaide. When he was at camp regular shared care was assumed by both parents. Ms Habeck also attended the follow up interview at his school with him and to show support. Ms Habeck collected [Child A] from camp as her ex-husband was in Melbourne with [Child B] that weekend at the Melbourne Grand Prix. So Ms Habeck cared for [Child A] then as well, even though it was her ex husbands rostered 50% care time of [Child A] (as per their shared iphone calendar) on the 23rd March 2024. Ms Habeck’s property purchase settled at the end of June 2024 and she moved into her home from 1st July 2024 into a 3 bedroom townhouse in [Suburb 5], close to work and school, for herself and her children. [Child A] has lived there since at 50% care”.
An undated letter from Ms Habeck’s sister [Sister B] received by Child Support on 23 September 2024 (C181) states “In January, Ms Habeck lived in a rental property in [Suburb 1] with both her children at 50% custody and care. In March at the end of the lease she had to move out as the house was going to be demolished. The first week she was homeless she stayed at her ex-husbands’ house to take care of the boys while her ex-husband was interstate [for work]. After that she stayed at [Sister A’s] (My other sister) house at [Suburb 3]. She commuted every day to and from [Suburb 2] to take care of the boys as [Mr Habeck] (Ex) wouldn’t let her stay with the boys overnight. This continued until June when she purchased her own home. [Child A] has spent 50% of his time at the new address, [Child B] has not. I live in [City 2] but I travel to Adelaide a minimum of twice a month and usually for three to seven days. I would see and spend time with both boys when Ms Habecks (sic) turn to look after them came around”.
On 23 September 2024 Child Support spoke with Mr Habeck and informed him that Ms Habeck had advised Child Support that she was contributing financially towards groceries, changeovers at sporting commitments, part-time jobs and medical appointments and Mr Habeck had been paying accommodation, utilities and food. Child Support stated that Mr Habeck did not deny the information but stated he had been told that as the children were at his home for this period, he would be considered the carer as care was taking place under his roof.
On 24 September 2024 Child Support made a decision to reflect the care of the children as 100% to Mr Habeck and 0% to Ms Habeck from 20 February 2024, notified on 20 May 2024.
Ms Habeck objected to that decision on 25 September 2024. Ms Habeck provided the following evidence during the objection process:
Calendar entries labelled ‘Kids with Ms Habeck’ on 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 March & 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 June
Email dated 6 March 2024 from [School 1] about the conclusion of [programme 1]
Third-party statement(s) from [Sister A], Dr [A] and [Sister B]
Copy of email to [Divorce Lawyers 1] on 19 January 2025
Email from [School 1] discussing Term 1 2024
Text messages undated and unable to determine the recipient
Text messages between parties, date unknown
Court order dated [May] 2024
Care documentation
Self-statements
Photos.
Mr Habeck provided a letter to Child Support dated 10 October 2024 (C290) which stated “[Child B] turned 18 [in January] 2024 and is not subject to the Parental Orders issued by the court [in May] 2024. Prior to turning 18 [Child B] spent 50% of the time at his mother’s residence in [Suburb 1] and 50% of the time at my residence in [Suburb 2]. Since February 2024 [Child B] has chosen to live continuously at my residence in [Suburb 2], except for a two-week period between 10/07/24 to the 23/07/24 when he chose to stay at his mother’s new residence in [Suburb 5]. [Child B] continues to live at my residence in [Suburb 2] and has expressed no intentions to change that arrangement. I have not requested nor received any form of financial compensation via Child Support for the period of time that [Child B] has chosen to live at my residence since turning 18”. Mr Habeck also provided a letter to Child Support dated 10 October 2024 (C291) which stated “Prior to [Child A] leaving for his [school camp in February] 24 he spent 50% of the time at his mother’s residence in [Suburb 1] and 50% of the time at my residence in [Suburb 2]. When [Child A] returned from his school camp [in March] 24 he lived continuously at my residence in [Suburb 2] with his brother [Child B] until 10/7/24. During that period when I was away for work his mother would regularly visit him to provide any care he required. At no stage during this period did his mother reside at the [Suburb 2] address. The dates of my absence for work during that period were as follows:
15/04/24 - 30/04/24
22/05/24 – 28/05/24
12/06/24 – 25/06/24
Since 10/07/24 [Child A] has resumed spending 50% of the time at his mother’s residence in [Suburb 5] and 50% of the time at my residence in [Suburb 2]. I have not requested nor received any form of financial compensation for the addition (sic) period of time that [Child A] was living at my residence during this period”.
Mr Habeck contacted Child Support on 12 December 2024 in relation to Ms Habeck’s objection and Mr Habeck provided the following evidence during the objections process:
Self-statements
Objection response form.
On 25 February 2025 the objection was part allowed by the Child Support objections officer who made the decision to reflect the care of [Child A] and [Child B] as 20% to Ms Habeck and 80% to Mr Habeck from 20 February 2024, notified on 20 May 2024.
Ms Habeck sought a review of this decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) on 24 March 2025.
The matter was heard on 7 August 2025. Ms Habeck attended in person and provided evidence under affirmation and Mr Habeck attended via MS Teams audio and provided evidence under affirmation.
Following the hearing Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck were advised that they had until 5 pm on Monday 11 August 2025 to provide any further submissions.
Ms Habeck had provided documents to the Tribunal (A1 to A10) and Mr Habeck provided documents to the Tribunal (B1 to B4) which were provided to the parties. Child Support had also provided hearing papers (C1 to C367) which had been provided to Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck.
The Tribunal notes that a further decision was made by Child Support on 24 September 2024 in relation to [Child A’s] care being shared care 50/50 care by Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck from 11 June 2024, notified on 5 September 2024 (C189 to C194).
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act) and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Family Assistance Act). The Tribunal also had regard to the Child Support Guide (the Guide) where relevant. The Guide contains governmental guidelines and policy as to how the legislation is to be applied. This policy is not binding on the Tribunal however the Tribunal may be guided by it – Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs(No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 and G v MIBP [2018] FCA 1229.
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are:
Has there been a change in care? And, if so,
Should pre-existing care determinations be revoked? And, if so,
Should a new determination of a percentage of care be attributed to Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck in respect of their children and, if so,
What is the date of application of the new care percentages?
CONSIDERATION
Percentage of care determinations are made under section 49 and/or section 50 of the Assessment Act. Section 49 of the Assessment Act provides authority to decide in circumstances where a parent has no care of the child. Section 50 of the Assessment Act provides authority to make a determination of a percentage of care in situations where a person has a pattern of care. Where the Child Support Registrar is satisfied that a responsible person has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care for the child during the relevant care period, the Registrar must determine that person’s percentage of care for the child during the care period. The percentage determined must be the percentage that corresponds with the care of the child that the Registrar is satisfied the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, during the relevant care period.
The pattern can be established either according to a ‘care arrangement’ (such as court orders) or the actual care that is taking place. Depending on whether a pattern has been established or not, the Tribunal can then proceed to determine the percentage of care applying the appropriate law (sections 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act). In this case, the relevant care period is fully in the past and so it is the actual care that occurred that establishes the pattern of care – refer section 50 of the Assessment Act: ‘... the Registrar is satisfied that a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances ...’.
The Guide at 4.1.1 Basics of care provides guidance in relation to determining whether care exists and states:
Determining whether care exists
An object of the Child Support Scheme is 'that persons who provide ongoing daily care for children should be able to have the level of financial support to be provided for the children readily determined without the need to resort to court proceedings'. The CSA Act does not define the term 'ongoing daily care', however the Registrar will take into account a number of factors in determining whether a person cares for a child.
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
omajor decisions relating to who the child spends time with, and the child's health, education, discipline, recreational and/or social activities, and
oarrangements 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.
Where parents are separated (1.1.S.30) but living in the same house, the Registrar will determine each parent's percentage of care (1.1.P.70) for a child based on the individual circumstances of the case and evidence available. Generally, where the parents contribute in a similar manner to the care of the child, they will be regarded as sharing equally in the care of the child. In this case, the Registrar will determine that each parent has a care percentage of 50%. This care percentage will remain in place until either parent is able to demonstrate that the actual care of the child is something other than equally shared.
Additionally, in limited circumstances, a person may have care of a child who is not living with them for a period of time. For example, a person can provide care for a child who is at boarding school, in hospital, or in separate accommodation. However, a person who simply supervises the child (for example, a baby sitter, a child minder such as a grandparent or a schoolteacher) does not provide care. Consideration is given to who has responsibility for making arrangements for, and decisions about, the child's welfare, as well as who is meeting the child's costs, rather than just the accommodation arrangements themselves. The Registrar will give weight to statements from both parents and any non-parent carers.
Act reference: CSA Act section 4 Objects of Act, section 54A Working out actual care, and extent of care, of a child
The Assessment Act provides that the care percentage must be determined for a ‘care period’. The care period is such a period as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances (subparagraph 50(1)(b)(ii) of the Assessment Act). Section 54A of the Assessment Act provides that the Registrar may assess the level of care based on the number of nights that a parent has care during a care period which is normally a period of 12 months’ duration. The Child Support Agency’s policy in this regard, as set out in 4.1.3 Care periods & pattern of care of the Child Support Guide (the Guide), is that a care period is generally a 12‑month period starting from the day on which the actual care for a child changed. This policy is not binding on the Tribunal and the Tribunal can determine a different care period.
Issue one – Has there been a change in care and if yes should the existing determination of percentage of care be revoked?
The provisions in Division 4 of Part 5 of the Assessment Act require the Child Support Agency (and the Tribunal on review) to determine whether the existing care determination is correct, whether it can be revoked and, if so, what new care percentage can be made.
Sections 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act require a new determination of percentage of care for a child to be made where an existing determination has been revoked.
Ms Habeck provided the following evidence to the Tribunal:
Ms Habeck stated that Child Support were incorrect because there was no change in care and it has never changed from 50/50 care.
She stated that she lived at a rental property until 4 March 2024 when she had to vacate the property. Ms Habeck explained that she had plans to stay in temporary accommodation however in the process of moving to this accommodation [Child B] was not comfortable with this accommodation. She explained that Mr Habeck was going away for work and he agreed to her staying at his property. She explained that she also stayed at her sister’s place in [Suburb 3] until she moved into her own home. She explained that her understanding was that she would commute from [Suburb 3] and continue to care for [Child A] at Mr Habeck’s home. She explained that during this period of time [Child A] also went on camp.
She stated that Mr Habeck never discussed with her that the children would live with him. She stated that every day when it was her turn to care for the boys she would pick them up from school and do everything required.
She explained that Mr Habeck worked two weeks on at a time.
The Tribunal noted that Ms Habeck notified Child Support on 5 September 2024 that from 1 July 2024 [Child B] was in her care 0% and Mr Habeck’s care 100% (C71 to C72).
In Ms Habeck’s typed submission to the Tribunal included at page C19 of the Tribunal papers she states “I moved into my new home in July and [Child B] stayed briefly, then from that point onwards only, expressed his desire to live with his dad (sic) 100%, in July and at no time prior to this. [Child B] was not subject to the parenting orders, however, as I had put in application to continue to receive maintenance payments while [Child B] was 18 and in year 12 at school, this is relevant….[Child B] was in my care 50% until 1 July 2024 and I am entitled to receive payments from 16.1.24 – 1.7.24 inclusive”.
Mr Habeck provided the following evidence to the Tribunal:
He stated that he does not recall the exact dates however he went away for work.
He stated that Ms Habeck contacted him and asked if she could stay at his place in mid to late February . He stated that he did not particularly want her to stay at his place however he agreed while she sorted out her affairs and she moved to her new premises in [Suburb 5]. He stated that when he returned home from being away for work Ms Habeck moved out of his place.
Mr Habeck explained that their eldest son [Child B] was 18 and stayed with Mr Habeck.
He stated that Ms Habeck was never caring for their children when he was at home however she did cook some meals. He stated that he is not disputing that Ms Habeck had contact with [Child A] and took him to appointments.
He stated that he had no contact from [Child A’s] school when he was away for work. He stated that [Child A] walked to school with [Child B] when Mr Habeck was away from home for work.
He stated from late February/early March 2024 to July 2024 [Child A] resided at his place full-time. He stated that during this period Ms Habeck had no residence, which was only temporary.
Mr Habeck stated that he had no desire to change the court order relating to the children’s care.
He stated that once Ms Habeck found accommodation the care of [Child A] resumed to being 50/50 shared care.
He stated that in 2024 he worked part-time and he worked away for two weeks and then he would be at home for six weeks so he would be home for 11 weeks out of 15 weeks. He stated that during the period February to July 2024 [Child A] stayed at his home permanently and after July 2024 it went back to 50/50 shared care. He stated that when he was home he took care of [Child A’s] needs.
Has there been a change in care in relation to [Child A]?
Based on the evidence provided by Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck, including a copy of the court order dated [May] 2024, the Tribunal finds that the care of [Child A] has continued in accordance with the court order after [May] 2024. As the Tribunal has found that there is no change in care for [Child A], the existing care determinations of 51% to Ms Habeck and 49% to Mr Habeck continue to apply.
Has there been a change in care in relation to [Child B]?
Based on the evidence provided by Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck the Tribunal finds that the care of [Child B] changed from 1 July 2024 when Ms Habeck moved into her new home and from this date [Child B] was in Mr Habeck’s 100% care and Ms Habeck’s 0% care. The Tribunal finds that the care period for [Child B] commences from 1 July 2024 and continues to 15 November 2024 when [Child B] was no longer a child of the assessment.
The Tribunal considered that section 54G of the Assessment Act did not apply in this case rather than section 54F. Paragraph 54G(1)(d) requires that Mr Habeck notify the Child Support Agency that Ms Habeck had less than regular care of the child ‘within a period that the Registrar considers is reasonable in the circumstances’. The Tribunal finds that Ms Habeck notified the Child Support Agency on 5 September 2024. However, the Tribunal finds that Ms Habeck did not notify the Child Support Agency of the change in care within a period which was reasonable in the circumstances. Normally, a reasonable period is within 28 days. Consequently, section 54G is not applicable.
34.In relation to paragraph 54F(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal must consider whether a person’s cost percentage would change if a new percentage of care determination were made under section 49 or 50 of the Assessment Act. Section 50 is applicable where a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care during the care period. Therefore, the issue for the Tribunal to consider is if new care percentages are determined under section 50, whether the parents’ cost percentages change.
Section 55C of the Assessment Act details how the percentage of care affects the cost percentage:
Cost percentages Item Column 1
Percentage of care
Column 2
Cost percentage
1 0 to less than 14% Nil 2 14% to less than 35% 24% 3 35% to less than 48% 25% plus 2% for each percentage point over 35% 4 48% to 52% 50% 5 more than 52% to 65% 51% plus 2% for each percentage point over 53% 6 more than 65% to 86% 76% 7 more than 86% to 100% 100%
Prior to 1 July 2024 the pre-existing care for [Child B] that was recorded was that Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck had care percentages of 51/49% respectively. The Tribunal’s determination will mean that from 1 July 2024 Mr Habeck will have a care percentage of 100% and a cost percentage of 100% and Ms Habeck will have a care percentage of 0% and a cost percentage of nil. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that if new determinations were to be made, both parents’ cost percentages would change, and revocation of the existing care determinations would be required.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the care percentages which existed prior to 1 July 2024 must be revoked in accordance with section 54F of the Assessment Act.
Subsection 54F(3) of the Assessment Act specifies when the revocation of the determination takes effect. The date of effect depends on whether the Child Support Agency was notified of the care change within 28 days after it occurred. The Tribunal has found that the care change for [Child B] occurred on 1 July 2024 as notified by Ms Habeck on 5 September 2024. As the Child Support Agency was not notified within 28 days after the change occurred, the revocation of the existing determination of Mr Habeck’s care percentage takes effect in accordance with paragraph 54F(3)(b)(i) on 4 September 2024, being the day before the Child Support Agency was notified of the change of care, and the revocation of the existing determination of Ms Habeck’s care percentage takes effect in accordance with paragraph 54F(3)(b)(ii) on 30 June 2024, the day before the change of care day.
Issue two – Should a new determination of a percentage of care be attributed to Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck in respect of [Child B]?
Having revoked the existing determinations, the Tribunal must make new determinations of the percentages of care attributed to Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck in respect of [Child B]. The Tribunal considered section 50 to be the relevant section of the Assessment Act. Under section 50, to make a new determination the Tribunal must be satisfied that an existing care determination made under section 49 or 50 has been revoked and that a parent had had or is likely to have a pattern of care for the child. These matters have been discussed above, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the existing care determination made under section 50 of the Assessment Act to attribute 51% to Ms Habeck and 49% to Mr Habeck should be revoked under section 54F of the Assessment Act, and that during the care period Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck were each likely to have a pattern of care in respect of the [Child B] of 0% to Ms Habeck and 100% to Mr Habeck. Accordingly, a new care determination is to be made under section 50 of the Assessment Act.
Issue three – From what date should the new care percentages be applied?
As the Child Support Agency was notified more than 28 days after the change occurred, the revocation of the existing determination takes effect in accordance with paragraph 54F(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.
Mr Habeck’s care of [Child B] increased, and according to subparagraph 54F(3)(b)(i) of the Assessment Act his existing care percentage of 49% was revoked from 4 September 2024 being the day before the Child Support Agency was notified of the care change and the new care percentage of 100% commenced on 5 September 2024.
Ms Habeck’s care of [Child B] decreased, and according to subparagraph 54F(3)(b)(ii) of the Assessment Act her existing care percentage of 51% was revoked from 30 June 2024 being the day before the change of care day and the new care percentage of 0% commenced on 1 July 2024.
The new care determinations will take effect for child support purposes for [Child B] from 5 September 2024 for Mr Habeck and 1 July 2024 for Ms Habeck. They are made pursuant to sections 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act. The determinations state that Mr Habeck has 100% care of [Child B] and Ms Habeck has 0% care.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that:
There has not been a change in [Child A’s] care from 20 February 2024 and Ms Habeck and Mr Habeck continue to shared care on a 51/49 basis.
There was a change in [Child B’s] care from 1 July 2024, notified on 5 September 2024 to 100% in Mr Habeck’s care and 0% in Ms Habeck’s care.
| Date(s) of hearing: | Thursday 7 August 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self-represented |
| Representative for the Other party: | Self-represented |
0
1
0