Legal Research
Cases
Patafield and Astilean (Child support)

Patafield and Astilean (Child support)

Case [2025] ARTA 932 7 April 2025

Care & Protection of Children

Type to search within this case.

Patafield and Astilean (Child support) [2025] ARTA 932 (7 April 2025)

Applicant/s: Ms Patafield

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Mr Astilean

Tribunal Number: 2024/BC029072
Tribunal:Senior Member A Suthers
Place:Perth
Date:7 April 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides the parties’ respective percentages of care for the children will be 100% to Ms Patafield and 0% to Mr Astilean, applying in the assessment on and from 15 October 2023.

Statement made on 07 April 2025 at 9:48am

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change to the pattern of care – separation partially under the same roof – existing percentages of care revoked – new determination made – date of effect – 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

SUMMARY

Ms Patafield and Mr Astilean (‘the parties’) are the parents of [Child 1], who is now 19 years old, and [Child 2], who is 16. A child support case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (‘Child Support’) on 7 May 2023. Ms Patafield was allocated a care percentage for the children to be used in the assessment of 50%, and Mr Astilean was allocated a care percentage to be used in the assessment of 50% (‘original decision’).
An objections officer considered an objection lodged by Ms Patafield on 15 October 2023 (which was not within the prescribed time to do so) and on 17 December 2023 refused the objection, thereby affirming the original decision (‘the objection decision’). Specifically, the objection decision noted that, relevantly:
[Ms Patafield] has objected to this decision because I have 100% care of both children. My ex-partner and I are 'Separated under one roof however he works away for one week and on his week off visits his new partner who lives [in Region 1]. On average he is home for about 1-2 days per fortnight.
…
On 11 May 2023, we contacted [Ms Patafield] to register the child support case. At the time, [Ms Patafield] confirmed the children were in her 100% care but living under the same roof as [Mr Astilean].
…
Phone attempts and letters have been issued to [Mr Astilean] with no response.
…
Where parents are separated but living in the same house, we will determine each parent's percentage of care for a child based on the individual circumstances of the case and evidence available. Generally, where the parents contribute in a similar manner to the care of the child, they will be regarded as sharing equally and we will determine that each parent has a care percentage of 50%. This care percentage will remain in place until either parent is able to demonstrate that the actual care of the child is something other…

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 Patafield and Astilean (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Patafield and Astilean (Child support) [2025] ARTA 932
Case: [2025] ARTA 932
Decision Date: 7 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, Ms Patafield applied for a review of the objection decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar had refused Ms Patafield's objection to the original decision that the parties should have equal care of the children. Ms Patafield had argued that she had 100% care of the children since the parties separated. Mr Astilean did not participate in the hearing or provide evidence. The issues for determination were the correct percentages of care for the children and the date from which those percentages should apply.

The Tribunal found that Ms Patafield's evidence was credible and established that she provided 100% of the children's care since the parties separated. Mr Astilean made minimal contributions to the children's care, other than paying half the rent. The Tribunal concluded that the appropriate care period was 12 months from the date of separation, 21 January 2022. The newly determined care percentages of 100% to Ms Patafield and 0% to Mr Astilean would apply from 15 October 2023, being the date Ms Patafield lodged her objection.

The Tribunal set aside the objection decision and determined that Ms Patafield had 100% care of the children and Mr Astilean had 0% care, applying in the assessment from 15 October 2023. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to conduct the review under the relevant legislation. It exercised its independent decision-making power and considered all the evidence before it in reaching its determination.

Orders