Hirst and Langford (Child support)

The case of *Hirst and Langford* concerned a dispute over the percentage of care arrangements for a child. The applicant sought to have existing percentage of care determinations revoked and new determinations made, alleging a change to the likely pattern of care. The matter came before the court for review.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there had been a change to the likely pattern of care for the child, which would justify revoking existing percentage of care determinations and making new ones. The court also considered whether reasonable action had been taken in relation to the alleged change in care arrangements, particularly in light of non-compliance with court orders and the absence of an interim period.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established a sufficient change to the likely pattern of care to warrant the revocation of existing determinations. The reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the actual care arrangements and the steps taken by the parties. The court applied the principles governing changes to percentage of care under the relevant legislation, considering the practical realities of the care arrangements and the statutory requirements for making new determinations.