Harwood and Orton (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1595

Harwood and Orton (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1595 (10 July 2025)

Applicant: Mr Harwood

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Miss Orton
Tribunal Number: 2025/SC029468
Tribunal: General Member M Martellotta
Place: Perth
Date:10 July 2025

Decision:
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that Mr Harwood has 82% care and Ms Orton has 18% care from 15 April 2024.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentages of care – supervised care – school holiday care – determinations revoked and 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

Mr Harwood and Ms Orton are the parents of a child ([Child A]). Mr Harwood’s application for an assessment of child support was accepted on 2 April 2024 and it commenced from 11 March 2024.
According to Services Australia (Child Support) records, the assessment reflected that from 11 March 2024 [Child A] was in her father’s care 93% and her mother’s care 7%.
Ms Orton advised Child Support on 23 April 2024 that care had changed and that from 15 April 2024 she had 23% care, and the father had 77% care.
Her application was refused on 21 August 2024. Ms Orton objected on 26 August 2024. Child Support decided on 10 February 2025 that Ms Orton had 16% care and Mr Harwood had 84% care from 15 April 2024.
Mr Harwood lodged an application seeking review on 10 March 2025. The Tribunal held a hearing on 25 June 2025. The parties participated by telephone. At hearing the parties presented submissions and their evidence provided under affirmation.
In addition to submissions and evidence received by the Tribunal, other materials taken into consideration included hearing papers prepared and exchanged by Child Support (130 pages). Mr Harwood also provided materials (A1–A 8). At the hearing Ms Orton advised she had provided a written submission that morning (B1–B7). The Tribunal issued a post hearing Direction providing for the exchange of those materials and to provide the parties a further opportunity to make written submissions. The parties provided further submissions which the Tribunal has also considered (A9-A15) and (B8- B22)

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 RC Act)
Child support legislation is interpreted by Child Support with the aid of the Child Support Guide (the Guide). The Guide contains governmental guidelines and policy as to how the legislation is to be applied. Whilst the Tribunal may be guided by policy, it is not bound to follow it.[1] The Federal Court[2] has observed that in the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide 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 Harwood and Orton (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Harwood and Orton (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1595
Case: [2025] ARTA 1595
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Harwood brought a review of a decision by the Child Support Registrar regarding the care percentages for his child, [Child A], with Ms Orton, the child's mother. The Tribunal was required to decide whether the existing care determinations should be revoked, and if so, whether new determinations of care percentage should be made, and if so, from what date. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, interpreted by Child Support with the aid of the Child Support Guide.

The Tribunal found that the existing care determinations should be revoked as there was a change in care from 15 April 2024, which was not reflected in the previous determinations. The Tribunal concluded that the new care determinations should be 82% for Mr Harwood and 18% for Ms Orton, effective from 15 April 2024. This decision was based on the actual care taking place, as evidenced by the parties' submissions and the materials provided. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a new determination that Mr Harwood has 82% care and Ms Orton has 18% care from 15 April 2024.

Orders