RCLB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) - [2025] ARTA 1538

RCLB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1538 (25 August 2025)
Applicant/s: RCLB
Registrar:Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: BSCR

Tribunal Number: 2025/0221

Tribunal:Senior Member J Longo (second review)
Place:Melbourne
Date:25 August 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 25 August 2025 at 10:00am
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)–16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).
Catchwords
CHILD SUPPORT – Application for assessment of child support - care percentage determination - care period – patterns of care – care other than nights in care - responsibility and meeting needs of the child – date of effect - decision affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989(Cth)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases
G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229
P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1312
P v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCAFC 98
Parent A and Child Support Registrar and Parent B [2013] AATA 562
Polec & Staker & Anor (2011) 253 FLR 339
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials:
Child Support Guide
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

The Applicant father, Mr RCLB, and the mother, Ms BSCR, are the separated parents of two children to which this application relates. On 4 July 2024, Ms BSCR applied for a child support assessment in respect of both children and advised the Registrar that the children were 100% in her care and that Mr RCLB had 0% care.
Mr RCLB was contacted by the delegate of the Registrar. Mr RCLB stated that they were separated under one roof and had 50/50 care of the children. The application for the administrative assessment was accepted on 15 July 2024 by the Registrar and a decision was made to reflect that Mr RCLB had 50% care of the children and Ms BSCR had 50% care of the children from 4 July 2024. The Registrar sent written notification to both Mr RCLB and Ms BSCR.
On 16 July 2024, Ms BSCR objected to the decision of the Registrar on the basis that she had 100% care of the children from 4 July 2024. On 15 August 2024 an objections officer disallowed the objection. On 30 August 2024, Ms BSCR applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) for review of the objection decision. On 14 October 2024, under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, all matters on foot with the AAT transferred to the Administrative Review Tribunal, therefore, the application for review continues to be a reviewable decision…

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 RCLB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second revie...

Details

AGLC: RCLB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1538
Case: [2025] ARTA 1538
Decision Date: 25 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case between RCLB and the Child Support Registrar, the matter at hand was an application for a review of the assessment of child support. Specifically, the dispute centred around the determination of care percentages for the children, the appropriate care period, and the patterns of care provided by the father. The decision was made by a tribunal, which was tasked with evaluating the evidence presented by both parties.

The primary legal issue the tribunal had to decide was the appropriate care period for the children, which would subsequently influence the determination of the care percentages. The tribunal also needed to assess the father's role in the children's care, considering various aspects such as shared responsibilities, activities with the children, and financial contributions. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider whether the father's absence due to a trip to Europe impacted the care percentage determination.

The tribunal examined the evidence provided by the father, including his statements about shared responsibilities, activities with the children, and financial contributions. The tribunal considered the care period from 4 July 2024 to the date prior to the subsequent care percentage determination, acknowledging the changes in care since 5 December 2024. The tribunal concluded that the father's evidence demonstrated a significant level of involvement in the children's care, despite his absence during a portion of the period. The tribunal affirmed the decision under review, maintaining the determination of care percentages as assessed by the Child Support Registrar.

The tribunal's decision was based on the evidence provided and the assessment of the care percentages for the determination of child support. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Child Support Registrar, confirming the care percentages that had been determined.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In reviewing the percentages of care, the relevant care period is such a period as I consider to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances. Whilst section 4.1.3 of the Guide provides that a care period is generally assumed to apply for the subsequent 12-month period from when the actual care of a child began or changed, a different care period may be appropriate depending upon the circumstances of the case. I note that there has been a subsequent care determination from 5 December 2024 in relation to the children. Accordingly, in considering the percentages of care before me, I have considered the care of the children from 4 July 2024 to the date prior to the subsequent care percentage determination. Mr RCLB’s evidence The father stated that that they were living under one roof between July 2024 and December 2024, and that his role as a parent has not changed. He stated that during this period that they were living under one roof, they shared all responsibilities as to the care of the children. At the time, he was working in a bike shop and he would finish work at around 5.30pm. In addition, he did not work on Thursday and so he would pick up the children from school on this day. He stated that he would drop the children to school once or twice per week as he started work at 8.30am. Mr RCLB stated that he would go grocery shopping with the children at least twice per week and would cook with the children at least three times per week. Mr RCLB referred to bank statements provided which showed purchases at the Supermarket which he stated occurred when shopping with the children. The only time that he was not available was when he went to Europe to visit his parents for four weeks between September and October 2024. Mr RCLB stated that he was also contributing to the household expenses and paying between $550 and $650 per week towards these costs. The funds were transferred to a joint account. The bank statements also included the transfers of funds to the joint account for the children’s costs and also other expenditure for the children.[3] [3] Page 286-296 of T-documents provided by the Child Support Registrar. He stated that he did many activities with the children, like taking them to the beach and going mountain bike riding. He stated that he was an ex mountain bike racer and that due to his connection to the sport, he was very involved in the bike racing community and the children’s interest in this sport was due to his involvement. Mr RCLB stated that he worked on Saturday and so was not able to attend one of the children’s BMX races, but he did attend their BMX training on occasion. Mr RCLB did not dispute the letter of the child’s BMX coach which stated that he did not attend the child’s races because of work but he disagreed with the claim that he did not attend training. He stated that he also took the other child to violin and drum lessons, at least once per week, and that he had gone to ‘caddy’ with this child when he played golf on a number of occasions during the period.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I acknowledge that the care of the children has changed since 5 December 2024, but this decision is not before me. The determination of care percentages is not a reflection on parental responsibility or parenting; rather it is an assessment of the care percentages applicable for the determination of the administrative assessment of the child support payable.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.