Polaski and Allumbaugh (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1111
•24 March 2025
Polaski and Allumbaugh (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1111 (24 March 2025)
Applicant: Mr Polaski
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Ms Allumbaugh
Tribunal Number: 2024/PC028874
Tribunal:Member S Letch
Place:Brisbane
Date:24 March 2025
Decision:The Tribunal varies the decision under review and decides that care for [Child A] should be recorded as 0% to Mr Polaski and 0% to Ms Allumbaugh from 1 May 2024 (not 28 May 2024).
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – particulars of the administrative assessment – terminating event – child no longer residing with either parent – decision under review varied
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 Polaski and Ms Allumbaugh are the parents of [Child A]. This matter concerns a decision by Child Support about [Child A’s] recorded care.
It is convenient by way of background to set out some extracts from the objections officer’s decision dated 9 November 2024:
…
SUMMARY OF OBJECTION DECISION
The outcome of this decision is that it has been part allowed.
We have made the decision to reflect the care of [Child A] as 0 nights (0%) care to [Ms Allumbaugh] and 0 nights (0%) care to [Mr Polaski] from 28 May 2024.
The effect of the objection decision is: The date of event and the date of notification of the care under review has been updated to reflect 28 May 2024.
This has resulted in child support payable by [Mr Polaski] to for [Child A] in the period 25 April 2024 to 30 April 2024 of $339.37 (daily rate of $67.87406) and in the period 1 May 2024 to 28 May 2024 of $1,832.60 (daily rate of $67.87406).
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
The decision on 28 May 2024 to reflect the care of [Child A] as 0 nights (0%) care to [Ms Allumbaugh] and 0 nights (0%) care to [Mr Polaski] from 25 April 2024, as notified on 15 May 2024.
[Ms Allumbaugh] has objected to this decision because [Ms Allumbaugh] has 100% care of [Child A].
…
WE CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IN THE DECISION
[Ms Allumbaugh] and [Mr Polaski] had a child support assessment registered for [Child A] from 22 August 2007. The pre-existing care in place for [Child A] prior to the decision under review is recorded as 365 nights (100%) care to [Ms Allumbaugh] and 0 nights (0%) care to [Mr Polaski] from 20 February 2017.
On 15 May 2024, [Mr Polaski] reported a change to the care arrangements for [Child A]. [Mr Polaski] reported that from 25 April 2024 [Child A] began living independently and has full time employment in a nursing home and is financially supporting herself. Therefore, [Mr Polaski] has 0% care, and [Ms Allumbaugh] has 0% care of [Child A].
On 16 May and 28 May 2024, we made unsuccessful attempts to contact [Ms Allumbaugh] to discuss the reported care change. We issued a letter requesting a call back by 26 May 2024.
On 28 May 2024, we made the decision to reflect the care of [Child A] as 0 nights (0%) care to [Ms Allumbaugh] and 0 nights (0%) care to [Mr Polaski] from 25 April 2024.
…
During the original care process, we made unsuccessful attempts to contact [Ms Allumbaugh] to discuss the reported care change. Based on the information at the time we made the decision to reflect the care of [Child A] as 0 nights (0%) care to [Ms Allumbaugh] and 0 nights (0%) care to [Mr Polaski] from 25 April 2024.
On objection [Ms Allumbaugh] stated [Child A] is in her care 100% of the time nothing has changed.
On objection [Mr Polaski] stated, currently [Ms Allumbaugh] does not have a permanent residence and since 25 April 2025 [sic] [Child A] has been living with her Boyfriends family in [Suburb 1].
In some cases, the information given to us by a parent or carer regarding the care being provided for a child may be inconsistent with the information provided by the other parent or carer. If the facts regarding the care arrangements between the parents are disputed, and the statements provided by the parents cannot be reconciled, evidence will be requested, and we will weigh the evidence and information provided by the parents to determine the pattern of care likely to occur.
[Ms Allumbaugh] has provided a letter from a maternity clinic dated 30 September 2024 which states that [Child A] is living with [Ms Allumbaugh], however the third-party statement from [Ms A] states that [Ms Allumbaugh] does not have a permanent residence and that from 28 May 2024, [Child A] has been residing with her boyfriend s family.
The evidence received from [Mr Polaski] by way of a third-party statement from [Ms A] and [Ms B] states that from 28 May 2024, [Child A] has been residing with her boyfriend s family. Furthermore, the text messages between [Ms Allumbaugh and Mr Polaski] support that [Ms Allumbaugh] is currently living in her car and is herself in need of financial assistance.
Based on the information and evidence received we are satisfied that from the date of event 28 May 2024 (not 25 April 2024) [Child A] has been living with a third party. We are equally satisfied that [Ms Allumbaugh] is not providing any substantial financial support to [Child A] that would warrant [Child A’s] care being reflected as 100% care to [Ms Allumbaugh].
Our decision, therefore, is to reflect the care of [Child A] as 0 nights (0%) care to [Ms Allumbaugh] and 0 nights (0%) care to [Mr Polaski] from 28 May 2024.
The objection is part allowed.
…
Mr Polaski and Ms Allumbaugh participated in the Tribunal’s hearing by conference telephone.
Mr Polaski told the Tribunal that he considers the original decision recording care as 0% to both parents from 25 April 2024 should be restored. He said that [Child A] initially went to live at a friend’s parents’ home in late April 2024 (along with [Mr A], her now boyfriend). He said [Child A] had told him that. The timing of [Child A’s] departure is supported by the text messages in the hearing papers in late April/early May 2024. Ms Allumbaugh agreed that it was likely late April that [Child A] initially moved out to live at a friend’s parents’ house; however, that was a “disaster”, and about six weeks later, [Child A] and [Mr A] moved in with [Mr A’s] parents at [Suburb 1]. Mr Polaski was not sure when the move was made to [Suburb 1]. In September 2024, Ms Allumbaugh said that she, [Child A] and [Mr A] had been living in a property for which she is also “on the lease” (she said this was a requirement for [Child A] and [Mr A] to be able to secure a rental property): see the lease agreement at folio 110 of the child support hearing papers.
Ms Allumbaugh objected to the suggestion in the materials that she was “in and out of jail”. She spent one period of [number] days in late July/early August on remand – she said it was “the worst [number] days of my life”. She objected to other things suggested in the hearing papers, such as the suggestion she was living in her car, which was not true.
Ms Allumbaugh said she continued to be very involved in [Child A’s] life after she moved away. She provided a lot of emotional support. She took [Child A] to numerous medical appointments: see folio 108. Mr Polaski said [Mr A’s] parents had said Ms Allumbaugh hardly took [Child A] to any appointments and that they had done so; Ms Allumbaugh denied that, saying [Mr A’s] family may have taken [Child A] to a couple of appointments – Ms Allumbaugh had taken [Child A] to [a maternity centre] as well as hospital appointments and was present during the birth (in [date]). Ms Allumbaugh said she provided some financial support when [Child A] needed it such as chemist costs; she said her board and lodgings were being covered by [Mr A’s] parents. Mr Polaski said that he had provided sums of up to $[amount range] directly to [Child A] when she asked for assistance.
Mr Polaski said that in around September 2024, he received a call from Centrelink as [Child A] had made a claim for youth allowance on the basis it was unreasonable for her to live at home. Ms Allumbaugh recalled she did receive a call “out of the blue” which she did not appreciate as [Child A] did not tell her she had made a claim. Ms Allumbaugh said she attended Centrelink with [Child A] in November 2024 to make arrangements for [Child A] to receive family assistance for her new baby.
Both parties raised a number of matters, including historical matters, not directly relevant to the decision under review.
Application of the law
Care percentage determinations are governed by Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. In very simple terms, if there is a change in the pattern, or likely pattern, of care, an existing determination is revoked and replaced by a new determination. It is important to observe that each care change is the subject of a separate notification and a separate decision.
If [Child A] is to be recorded as being in the 0% care of both parents, that is a “terminating event” for child support purposes. This means the child support case comes to an end when the change occurs, regardless of when a change was notified. I note that [Child A] turned 18 in February this year; if the case had not previously ended, it would have come to an end by February 2025 at the latest.
There was some common ground. It seems the parties agree that by late April 2024, [Child A] was living away from Ms Allumbaugh. However, Ms Allumbaugh says that she still provided care and support to [Child A].
The Child Support Guide, at 2.2.1, provides the following guidance in relation to older children living away from home:
Older children living away from home
Generally, older children who live independently and separately from their parents or carers provide for many of their own needs. This may include meeting their own ongoing daily needs (such as meal preparation, transport, socialising, etc.) as well as making their own decisions about their daily activities, schooling and health issues. Therefore, it may be difficult to establish whether a person provides care for an older child support child who lives separately from that person.
Where a person provides substantial financial support to an older child support child living away from home, the Registrar will generally consider that financial support as an indicator that the person is continuing to provide care for the child. The support can be in relation to daily costs such as food, accommodation and transport, and/or longer term costs such as school fees, paying for airfares home for holidays, clothing, health and dental care, etc.
While financial support is often a key factor in determining whether a person cares for a child who lives away from home, it will not always be the sole determinant. In cases where the financial support provided is limited, and other factors exist that suggest that the person continues to care for the child, the Registrar will consider whether the person is actively involved in major decisions relating to the child. For example, decisions relating to the child's health, schooling, relationships, career, etc. may be indicators that the person continues to provide care for the child.
Here, I accept Ms Allumbaugh was still actively involved in [Child A’s] life, and gave her emotional and other support (such as taking her to medical appointments). I accept she provided some financial assistance (such as chemist-related costs); however, I consider this was relatively limited as [Child A’s] primary needs were being taken care of by her boyfriend and, later, his parents. I do not consider the evidence suggests Ms Allumbaugh was providing “substantial financial support” envisaged in the guideline above such that [Child A] should continue to be recorded as being in her care when [Child A] was no longer physically living with Ms Allumbaugh.
Accordingly, I consider that by 1 May 2024, [Child A] had established a new residence and was living largely financially independently from Ms Allumbaugh. I consider that care for [Child A] should be recorded as 0% to both parents from 1 May 2024.
As this is a different conclusion to the objections officer, the decision under review will be varied.
DECISION
The Tribunal varies the decision under review and decides that care for [Child A] should be recorded as 0% to Mr Polaski and 0% to Ms Allumbaugh from 1 May 2024 (not 28 May 2024).
| Date of hearing: | Tuesday 18 March 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self-represented |
| Representative for the Other Party: | Self-represented |
0
0
0