Maalouf and Makris (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1977
•5 September 2025
Maalouf and Makris (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1977 (5 September 2025)
Applicant/s: Mr Maalouf
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Ms Makris
Tribunal Number: 2025/AC029621
Tribunal: Member D Lambden
Place:Adelaide
Date:5 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 and Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris continue to share care on a 50/50 basis.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentages of care – Federal Circuit Court of Australia order – equal shared parental responsibility – change to the care arrangement – nights of care – no relevant evidence of change – existing care determinations continue to apply – 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 14 March 2025 regarding the care of Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris’ child, [Child A] (the child), from 1 June 2024.
There is a Federal Circuit Court of Australia order dated [November] 2017 (page 16 to 22 of the Tribunal hearing papers) which relates to the care of the child. The order specifies that the parties have agreed to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child and the child shall live with each party approximately equally.
There has been a child support assessment in place between Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris for the child since 14 February 2017. The pre-existing care percentages for the child are 50% with Mr Maalouf and 50% with Ms Makris from 14 February 2017, notified on 19 July 2017.
On 9 July 2024 Mr Maalouf contacted Child Support online and advised that there had been a change in care for the child and he reported that care was 360 nights per year/99% to himself and 5 nights per year/1% to Ms Makris from 9 July 2024. He advised that the level of care had changed because Ms Makris advised she did not want to take care of the child financially. On 17 July 2024 Ms Makris contacted Child Support to advise of a change in the child’s care to 67% in her care and 33% in Mr Maalouf’s care from 1 February 2023. She advised that the child stays with Mr Maalouf 10 nights per month. Child Support advised that Mr Maalouf had reported a change in care on 9 July 2024 and Ms Makris stated that she disagreed with the care that Mr Maalouf had reported.
On 15 October 2024 Ms Makris provided the following evidence to Child Support:
A care calendar from June to September 2024 that supports that Mr Maalouf has an average of 11.5 nights care of the child per month
Page 2 of the court order dated [November] 2017 which states ‘The parties have agreed to have equal shared parental responsibility for [Child A] and that [Child A] shall live with each party approximately equally’
Third party statements from [Ms A], [Ms B] and [Mr A].
On 5 November 2024 Child Support made a decision to reflect the care of the child as 36% to Mr Maalouf and 64% to Ms Makris from 1 June 2024, notified on 9 July 2024.
Mr Maalouf objected to that decision on 6 November 2024. On 18 December 2024 he provided the following evidence to Child Support:
A copy of the court order dated [November] 2017
A copy of the final intervention order dated [December] 2016
Evidence of text messages exchanged between Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris.
On 9 January 2025 Child Support contacted Ms Makris and advised her that Mr Maalouf had lodged an objection to the care decision made in relation to the child. Ms Makris provided the following evidence during the objections process:
A self-statement
A care calendar for 2024 and 2025
Page 2 of the court order dated [November] 2017
Three third party statements that she had provided in relation to the change of care
Copies of text messages between Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris dated 9 July 2024.
On 20 January 2025 Child Support contacted Mr Maalouf to exchange with him the information provided by Ms Makris. Mr Maalouf provided the following evidence to Child Support:
A copy of the court order dated [November] 2017
A copy of the final intervention order dated [December] 2016
A copy of a text message exchange between Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris
A self-statement
Third party statements from his partner, [Partner A], and from [Ms C]
A care calendar for the 2025 year.
On 14 March 2025 the objection was part allowed by the Child Support objections officer who made the decision to reflect the care of [Child A] as 40% to Mr Maalouf and 60% to Ms Makris from 1 June 2024, notified on 9 July 2024.
Mr Maalouf sought a review of this decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) on 8 April 2025.
The matter was heard on 6 August 2025. Mr Maalouf attended via MS Teams video and provided evidence under affirmation and Ms Makris attended in person and provided evidence under affirmation.
Ms Makris had provided documents to the Tribunal (B1 to B2) which were provided to Mr Maalouf and Centrelink. Child Support had also provided hearing papers (C1 to C198) which had been provided to Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris.
Following the hearing Mr Maalouf provided documents to the Tribunal (A1 to A2), these documents were provided to Ms Makris via email on 13 August 2024 and she was advised that if she wished to provide further material it must be received by the Tribunal by 9 am ACST on Friday 15 August 2025. However, Ms Makris did not provide any further evidence to the Tribunal. The documents were also provided to Centrelink.
ISSUES
The legislation relevant to this review is contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988.
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are:
Has there been a change in care? And, if so,
Should a new determination of a percentage of care be attributed to Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris in respect of their child and, if yes, from what date? And, if so,
What is the date of application of the review decision?
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 Assessment Act at section 5 provides that a ‘care arrangement’ has the same meaning as in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Family Assistance Act). The Family Assistance Act defines a ‘care arrangement’ to include ‘a parenting order within the meaning of section 64B of the Family Law Act 1975’. The Family Law Act 1975 provides at section 64B that a parenting order is an order that deals with any of the matters listed in subsection 64B(2) of that Act which in summary can be captured in subparagraph 64B(2)(i) as being ‘any aspect of the care, welfare or development of the child or any other aspect of parental responsibility for a child’. The Tribunal finds that the Federal Circuit Court order of [November] 2017 is a ‘care arrangement’ for the purposes of the Assessment Act.
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). 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 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 and the Tribunal can determine a different care period.
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.
In this case, neither parent contended that nights of care was an unsuitable measure of the care of the children, and the Tribunal finds that nights of care is an appropriate method of ascertaining the actual care of the child.
Issue – Has there been a change in care?
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 decision 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.
Mr Maalouf provided the following evidence to the Tribunal:
Mr Maalouf stated that the child’s care has continued as outlined in the court order on a 50/50 basis.
He stated that he had previously maintained an overnight care calendar in relation to the child’s care however he ceased completing a calendar due to the time and energy required to complete it. He explained that from 20 January 2025 to now he has been completing a calendar and it shows more or less equal care of the child by himself and Ms Makris.
Mr Maalouf stated that the child is old enough now to drive however she still needs help with other matters, including attending appointments. He explained that the child recently had three appointments with a mental health support worker and he took her to two of these appointments.
He explained that the child has required [Medical procedure 1] each year and he has taken her to these appointments and met the costs involved.
Mr Maalouf stated that on 9 July 2024 Ms Makris said she would not be covering the cost of the child’s school fees.
He stated that the care of the child has always been on a 50/50 basis.
Mr Maalouf explained that the child can walk between her parents’ homes and she spends a few days at a time at each home.
He stated that he has documented a care calendar from 20 January 2025 until today which totals 198 days and of these days the child has spent 14 nights with neither parent and with friends and for the remaining 184 nights during this period the care had been shared 50/50 between himself and Ms Makris.
Ms Makris provided the following evidence to the Tribunal:
She explained that she works shift work and she did her tax assessment which resulted in her paying more child support.
Ms Makris explained that she received the letter from Child Support and she kept a diary of when the child was in her care.
She stated that she pays for the child’s school fees one year and then the following year Mr Maalouf pays for the fees.
She explained that she organised the psychiatry appointments for the child however she was not able to take her to the first or second appointment and Mr Maalouf was asked to attend the third appointment with the child. Ms Makris explained that the child did not want to attend the fourth appointment.
In relation to the child requiring [Medical procedure 1] she stated that she will take her for a further [procedure] and she is liable to pay for the next [procedure].
She stated that the child’s medical appointments are often when Ms Makris is unable to attend due to her work.
Ms Makris stated that the care of the child has been shared on a 50/50 basis since January 2025. However, she explained that prior to this from June/July 2024, there has been some inconsistency in the care arrangement.
She explained that she has the care of the child when she has days off of work or when she takes annual leave. She explained that she works on a rotating roster and she is aware of her roster a month ahead.
Ms Makris explained that since July 2024 she has communicated with the child directly in relation to her care arrangements.
She stated that [Ms A] who has provided a statement is her friend, work colleague and the child’s godmother. She explained that she takes the child to Ms [A’s] home, including at Easter. Ms Makris explained that the child would also come to her workplace.
The Tribunal noted that the statements provided by the third parties do not provide any details of whether a change of care occurred for the child and the details of dates of when this occurred.
The Tribunal finds that the care period commences from 9 July 2024 when Mr Maalouf contacted Child Support and it continues for a 12 month period.
The screenshots of the text messages between Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris on 9 July 2024 relate to an increase in child support being paid by Ms Makris to Mr Maalouf and school fees (pages 144 to 153 of the Tribunal papers).
The Tribunal finds that the care calendars provided by Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris from January 2025 (A2 and B2) indicate the care of the child is shared on approximately a 50/50 basis.
Based on the evidence provided by Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris, including a copy of the court order dated [November] 2017, the Tribunal finds that the care of the child was in accordance with the court order after [November] 2017.
As the Tribunal has found that there is no change in care, the existing care determinations of 50% to Mr Maalouf and 50% to Ms Makris continue to apply.
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 and Mr Maalouf and Ms Makris continue to share care on a 50/50 basis.
| Date(s) of hearing: | Wednesday 6 August 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self-represented |
| Representative for the Other party: | Self-represented |
0
1
0