Hilfiger and Hilfiger (Child support)

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning child support payments between the parties, referred to as Hilfiger and Hilfiger. The dispute centred on whether the actual pattern of care for the child had changed since a previous court order, which had established specific percentages of care. The decision under review by the Full Court had set aside an earlier decision and substituted its own.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the judge at first instance had erred in finding that the actual pattern of care had not changed, thereby refusing to vary the child support assessment. This involved determining the correct approach to assessing changes in care arrangements and the application of the relevant provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth).

The Full Court reasoned that the judge at first instance had made an error in their assessment of the evidence regarding the pattern of care. The Court found that the judge had failed to properly consider the cumulative effect of various changes in the child's living arrangements and the practical realities of the care provided by each parent. The legal principle applied was that a court must assess the *actual* pattern of care, not merely the *ordered* pattern, and that significant deviations from the ordered care could warrant a variation of the child support assessment. The Full Court concluded that the judge had misapplied this principle and had not given sufficient weight to the evidence demonstrating a material change in the child's living arrangements.

The Full Court set aside the decision of the judge at first instance and substituted its own orders, remitting the matter for redetermination of the child support assessment based on the correct application of the law to the evidence.