Muager and Muager (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1633
•7 August 2025
Muager and Muager (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1633 (7 August 2025)
Applicant/s: Mr Muager
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Mrs Muager
Tribunal Number: 2024/BC028895
Tribunal: Member S Letch
Place:Brisbane
Date:7 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – application for assessment – child protection – forced removal from mother and stepfather – extreme family breakdown – child lived with grandmother – eligible carer – child died by suicide at father’s home – 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
Mr Muager is the father of [Child A] (born in 2009); [Child A] died by suicide in March of 2025. Mrs Muager is [Child A’s] grandmother. This matter concerns a decision by Child Support to accept an application for a child support assessment in respect of [Child A] made by Mrs Muager on 21 August 2023 (the child support case ended in late January 2025 when there was a change in [Child A’s] recorded care).
It is convenient by way of background to set out some extracts from the objections officer’s decision dated 21 November 2024:
SUMMARY OF OBJECTION DECISION
The outcome of this decision is that it has been disallowed.
We have made a decision to accept [Mrs Muager’s] application for assessment (AF A) from 21 August 2023.
The effect of the objection decision is: There are no changes to the child suppo1t assessment
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
Type of decision being objected to: Registration
Decision being objected to:
[Mr Muager] is objecting to our decision on 24 November 2023 to accept [Mrs Muager’s] AFA from 21 August 2023.[Mr Muager] has objected to this decision because he stated that he was ve1y concerned that [Child A] is with [Mrs Muager] due to the circumstances. He stated that he asked [Child A] to live with him, however [Mrs Muager] would not allow [Child A] to communicate with him.
…
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
An eligible carer is a person who has at least shared care of the child (CSA Act section 7B). A
person has shared care of a child if they have a care percentage of at least 35% for that child.
…
Although we acknowledge that child protection has recognized that [Mrs Muager] was the prirna1y carer of [Child A] and accept that she has 100% care of the child, there was no evidence that [Mrs Muager] has become the legal guardian. [Mr Muager] has also not consented to [Child A] being placed in [Mrs Muager’s] care.
However, evidence from Centrelink show that it was their assessment that it was unreasonable for [Child A] to live at home with [Mr Muager], indicating that there was extreme family breakdown. The letter from child protection further reinforce this view. Hence, from the evidence available we are satisfied that there was extreme family breakdown.
Thus, although [Mrs Muager] is not legally a guardian, and that [Mr Muager] did not consent for [Child A] to reside with [Mrs Muager], we are satisfied that there was extreme family breakdown. Hence, we are satisfied that it was unreasonable for [Mr Muager] to care for [Child A]. We are also satisfied that [Mrs Muager] has at least 35% care of [Child A], in fact, she is recorded as having 100% care.
Therefore, we make a decision to accept [Mrs Muager’s] AF A from 21 August 2023.
The objection is disallowed.
At the beginning of the telephone hearing, I informed the parties they were not permitted to make an audio recording of the discussion. Mr Muager advised he was recording the proceedings and he did not agree to cease recording. I excluded him from the hearing, which proceeded in his absence. Although not legally obliged to do so, I gave Mr Muager seven days to make any written submissions he wanted the Tribunal to consider; the Tribunal received nothing further from Mr Muager.
Mrs Muager told the Tribunal that [Child A] had lived with her mother and stepfather for 10 years; she was removed from their care: see letter from the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice dated [August] 2023 at folio 72. Mrs Muager said there is an ongoing investigation into allegations against [Child A’s] stepfather. Mr Muager had “nothing to do” with [Child A]. Mr Muager split with [Child A’s] mother when [Child A] was six (apart from one very brief holiday). He had some occasional contact with [Child A]; Mrs Muager said [Child A] “did not really like him” – he had “threatened to kidnap her”. She said Mr Muager is a “very difficult person to deal with”. She said [Child A] had gone to live with Mr Muager “on a trial” in late January 2025; Mrs Muager said Mr Muager would “not let her leave”. She died by suicide in Mr Muager’s home. Mrs Muager said Mr Muager is bringing legal proceedings against the school, among others.
I drew Mrs Muager’s attention to a file record made by Centrelink and sent to Child Support in January 2024 recording Centrelink’s determination that it was unreasonable for [Child A] to live with her mother or her father: folio 50 of the Child Support hearing papers. Mrs Muager thought Centrelink had made that determination earlier than that time; she thought “it might have taken Centrelink that long to do that”.
Application of the law
There is no issue that [Child A] was in the physical care of Mrs Muager. Mr Muager did not consent to the arrangement. There is no evidence that [Child A’s] mother consented to Mrs Muager’s application. In order for Mrs Muager’s application to have been accepted, she must be an “eligible carer” for the purposes of section 7B of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act):
Meaning of eligible carer
(1) In this Act, eligible carer , in relation to a child, means a person who has at least shared care of the child.
(2) Despite subsection (1), if:
(a) a person cares for a child; and
(b) the person is neither a parent nor a legal guardian of the child; and
(c) a parent or legal guardian of the child has indicated that he or she does not consent to the person caring for the child;
then the person is not an eligible carer in relation to the child unless it would be unreasonable in the circumstances for a parent or legal guardian of the child to care for the child.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), it is unreasonable for a parent or legal guardian to care for a child if:
(a) the Registrar is satisfied that there has been extreme family breakdown; or
(b) the Registrar is satisfied that there is a serious risk to the child's physical or mental wellbeing from violence or sexual abuse in the home of the parent or legal guardian concerned.
At issue in this application is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances for a parent to care for [Child A]; and more particularly, whether there had been “extreme family breakdown”.
The Child Support Guide, at section 2.1.1, accurately summarises the relevant law:
Applications from non-parent carers
A non-parent carer can apply for an administrative assessment of child support for a child (CSA Act section 25A) if they:
· are an eligible carer of the child, and
· are not living with either parent as the partner of that parent on a genuine domestic basis, and
· do not have care jointly with a parent of the child (CSA Act section 26),
AND
· if they are caring for the child under a child welfare law, they are a relative of the child (CSA Act section 26A, see additional conditions below), and
· apply against both parents, or
· apply against one parent only when:
o the other parent is not a resident of Australia or a reciprocating jurisdiction (see 1.5.1), or
o the Registrar is satisfied that there are special circumstances, or
o the other parent is deceased.
If either parent is not a resident of Australia on the day of the application then there are additional considerations. See 'Application for assessment where one parent is not a resident of Australia' below.
Where both parents are assessed in respect of the costs of the child, there is a single administrative assessment based on the income of both parents and any care that they may have of the child (see 2.4.8). However, each parent may have a separate liability to the non-parent carer as a result of this assessment, or one parent may have a liability to both the non-parent carer and the other parent.
Eligible carer
An eligible carer is a person who has at least shared care of the child (CSA Act section 7B). A person has shared care of a child if they have a care percentage of at least 35% for that child. See 2.2.1 for information on how care percentages are determined and used in child support assessments.
Example: Vikram has 2 children Shashi and Jaya. Shashi lives with Vikram all the time. Jaya stays with Vikram 2 nights a week. Vikram is an eligible carer of Shashi, as Vikram has a care percentage of 100% for Shashi. Vikram is not an eligible carer of Jaya because Vikram has less than shared care, as Vikram has a care percentage of 28% (2 nights × 52 weeks ÷ 365 = 28).
Eligible non-parent carer
A non-parent carer can apply for an assessment of child support payable by the parents of the child if they have at least shared care of the child. However, despite this, a non-parent carer providing that care is not an eligible carer if:
· they are not a legal guardian of a child, and
· the child's parent or legal guardian has said that they do not consent to the person caring for the child and it is not unreasonable for the parent or legal guardian to care for the child (CSA Act section 7B(2)).
It is unreasonable for a parent or guardian to care for the child if the Registrar is satisfied that:
· there has been extreme family breakdown, or
· there is a serious risk to the child's physical or mental wellbeing from violence or sexual abuse in the home of the parent or legal guardian concerned (CSA Act section 7B(3)).
If a parent or legal guardian advises the Registrar that they do not consent to the applicant providing care for the child, DHS will investigate to establish whether the applicant satisfies the requirements for an eligible carer.
The terms of the legislation imply that if the parent does not agree to the care arrangements they must be prepared to provide care for the child. Some reasonable indication of an alternative living arrangement for the child is required.
Extreme family breakdown
The Registrar will be satisfied that there has been an extreme family breakdown if:
· the child has never lived with the parent, or
· there has been a substantial period since the parent has provided care for the child, or
· other circumstances indicate extreme family breakdown.
However, the Registrar is unlikely to be satisfied that there has been an extreme family breakdown if the parent has had frequent and regular contact with the child over a substantial part of the period when another person provided care for the child.
The Registrar may seek evidence of extreme family breakdown.
Serious risk to child's physical or mental wellbeing
When determining whether there is a serious risk to the child's mental or physical wellbeing as a result of violence or sexual abuse in the home of the parent or legal guardian, the individual circumstances of each case, including any evidence provided, will be considered. Examples of evidence that may assist to substantiate a claim of serious risk of violence/abuse to the child include, but is not limited to, police reports/statements; apprehended violence orders; domestic violence orders; medical reports; or applications for a restraining order.
There is no evidence that [Child A] was at risk of suffering violence or sexual abuse in Mr Muager’s home. However, the conclusion by Centrelink that it was unreasonable for [Child A] to live with her mother or father lends material weight to a conclusion of the existence of “extreme family breakdown” for the purposes of section 7B. My experience of the Centrelink decision-making process is that it involves a qualified social worker and a generally thorough investigation, including interviews with relevant parties.
In the interests of consistent decision-making, a decision maker will generally adopt policy guidelines where those guidelines do not contradict the law.
Here, I accept as good policy the suggestion in the guidelines that extreme family breakdown is established where the child has never lived with the parent ([Child A] had not lived with Mr Muager since separation when [Child A] was only six years of age). I accept Mrs Muager’s evidence that [Child A’s] relationship with her father was strained, notwithstanding that [Child A] had some infrequent and sporadic contact with her father over the years.
In my assessment, there was “extreme family breakdown” between [Child A] and Mr Muager (and her mother given [Child A’s] forced removal, supported by the Centrelink conclusion) for the purposes of section 7B of the Act. I find that at the time of her application for a child support assessment, Mrs Muager was an “eligible carer”. Her application was therefore properly accepted.
As I have reached the same conclusion as the objections officer, the decision will be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
| Date(s) of hearing: | Wednesday, 16 July 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self-represented |
| Representative for the Other party: | Self-represented |
0
0
0