Kormann and Mason (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1991

Kormann and Mason (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1991 (12 September 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Kormann

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Mason
Tribunal Number: 2025/SC029951
Tribunal: General Member P Noonan
Place:Melbourne
Date:12 September 2025

Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – new determinations made – verbal withdrawal of application – not confirmed in writing – absence of party – child in grandmother’s care – interstate work on weekdays – no evidence of weekend care – decision under review affirmed

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 is an application by Mr Kormann (‘the father”), in respect to a care percentage decision made by Services Australia (“Child Support”) to register a change in the percentage of care provided by Ms Mason (“the mother”) with respect to their child [Child A] (“the child”).
On 5 April 2025 the mother contacted Child Support and advised that she had been made aware by children’s services that the child was not in the 100% care of the father from 26 January 2025 and instead was in the 100% care of the father’s mother.
On 5 May 2025, the existing registered percentage of care of 100% to the father was revoked by Child Support, effective from 26 January 2025. A new care determination of 0% care to the father and 0% care to the mother, effective from 26 January 2025 was recorded (“the original decision”).
On 6 May 2025, the father lodged an objection to the original decision. On 7 June 2025, an objections officer decided to disallow the objection.
10 June 2025, the father applied to this Tribunal for an independent review of the decision.
A conference telephone hearing was held by the Tribunal on 8 September 2025. The Tribunal made several attempts to call the father at the appointed time for the hearing however the calls were redirected to the father’s voicemail on each occasion and ultimately the Tribunal was unsuccessful in contacting the father. I note that the father verbally requested a withdrawal of his application on 5 September 2025 but that he had not confirmed this in writing, as instructed, by the time of the hearing and as required under section 95 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act2024 for the matter to be registered as withdrawn. The Tribunal successfully contacted the mother and she indicated that she wished to proceed with the hearing and to give evidence.
The Tribunal may proceed in the absence of a party if satisfied that the absent party received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event pursuant to section 81 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act2024. I find that the father…

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 Kormann and Mason (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Kormann and Mason (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1991
Case: [2025] ARTA 1991
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Tribunal reviewed a decision by Services Australia, concerning a change in the percentage of care for a child, with Mr Kormann ("the father") seeking a review of the decision made by the Child Support Registrar ("the Registrar"). The Registrar had determined that the care percentages for the child, [Child A] ("the child"), should be adjusted to reflect that the child was now in the full-time care of the father's mother, effective from 26 January 2025. This decision followed an application by the child's mother, Ms Mason ("the mother"), who informed the Registrar that the child was no longer in the sole care of the father but was being cared for by the father's mother while the father worked interstate during the week. The father had objected to the decision, but the objections officer upheld the Registrar's determination. The father subsequently sought a review of this decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

The key legal issue was whether the existing care percentages should be revoked and, if so, what the new care percentages should be. The Tribunal considered the statutory provisions in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. It needed to determine if a change in the care arrangement had occurred and, if so, what the appropriate care percentages should be. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided, including the father's financial support to his mother for the child's care and the mother's testimony regarding the child's care arrangements. The Tribunal also noted the father's absence from the hearing and his verbal request to withdraw the application, though he had not confirmed this in writing as required.

The Tribunal found that there had been a change in the care arrangement, with the father's mother having full-time care of the child from 26 January 2025. The evidence indicated that the father's mother met the child's needs, including accommodation, care, and financial support, while the father worked interstate. The Tribunal concluded that the father's role in the child's care was minimal compared to his mother's. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the Registrar's decision to revoke the existing care percentages and set new care percentages, with the father's mother having 100% care and both parents having 0% care of the child. This decision was based on the criteria outlined in Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959, which emphasizes the extent to which a person meets a child's needs.

Orders