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 under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act).
On 20 December 2024 the ART set aside the decision under review and determined that Ms BSCR had 90% care of the children and Mr RCLB had 10% care of the children from 4 July 2024. On 10 January 2025 Mr RCLB sought review of the decision with the ART on second review.
I conducted a hearing on 15 July 2025 and heard evidence from both Mr RCLB and Ms BSCR. The Registrar provided written submissions and participated in the hearing. The Registrar did not advance a position as to the findings of fact in this matter, but rather has restricted their participation to assisting in the identification and the application of the relevant legislative provisions. I had regard to the documents lodged by Mr RCLB and Ms BSCR in this application and the documents lodged by the Registrar.
For the following reasons, I affirm the decision under review.
ISSUES
The issues that arise in this application are as follows:
· What were the care percentages for the children when the application was made on 4 July 2024?
· From what date should the determination of the care be given effect from?
CONSIDERATION
Summary of the law and relevant policy
The jurisdiction and power to conduct this review is due to the combined effect of sections 80A, 87 and item 2 of the table in section 89 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (the Collection Act) as read with sections 131C, 131D and 131E of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act). In conducting this review, I have also considered the Child Support Guide (the Guide) where relevant. However, I am not bound to follow it.[1]
[1] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634; G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229.
Part 4 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act) sets out the requirements for an application for an administrative assessment of child support. Section 25 stipulates when a parent can make an application for an administrative assessment. In determining the application for an administrative assessment, the Registrar is required to determine the care percentages that should apply for the child of the eligible carers. The Registrar was required, under section 49 or section 50 of the Assessment Act, to make a decision as to the percentage of care of Mr RCLB and Ms BSCR.
Section 49 of the Assessment Act provides as follows:
(1) This section applies if:
(a) either of the following applies:
(i) an application is made under section 25 or 25A for a parent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child;
…
and the Registrar is satisfied that a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, no 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; or
…
(2)The Registrar must determine the responsible person’s percentage of care for the child during the care period.
(3)The percentage of care determined under subsection (2) must be 0%, unless section 51 or 52 applies in relation to the responsible person.….
Section 50 of the Assessment Act provides as follows:
(1) This section applies if:
(a) either of the following applies: (i) an application is made under section 25 or 25A for a parent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child;
…
and 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; or
…
(2)The Registrar must determine the responsible person’s percentage of care for the child during the care period.
(3)The percentage determined under subsection (2) must be a percentage that corresponds with the actual care of the child that the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, during the care period.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if section 51 or 52 applies in relation to the responsible person.
Section 49 of the Assessment Act applies where the Registrar is satisfied that a responsible parent has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care whereas section 50 applies where the Registrar is satisfied that a responsible parent has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care. Sections 49 and 50 of the Assessment Act require initial percentage of care determinations to be made upon initial registration of a child support case, usually based upon the actual care of a child which parties to a child support case have during a care period.
A person’s respective care is usually assessed on the basis of the number of nights a child or children are in their care (see section 54A of the Assessment Act and the Guide), but determining care in this way is not mandated. If another assessment is more appropriate to identify the care of a person then such a method may be used.[2]
[2] P v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCAFC 98 and the Guide at 4.1.4.
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.
In addition, they would attend the gym at least once per week. He stated that he did not take the children for any medical appointments during the period but has done so recently. He stated that he would also talk to the children about what they were doing in the future and took an interest in their activities, but Mr RCLB confirmed that Ms BSCR was the one who put more effort and time into their schooling. Mr RCLB stated that he did not give any documentary evidence in the first review of this matter with the Tribunal because he did not expect that decision. He stated that Ms BSCR would usually take the children to school and they would use their scooters to travel home.
In support of this application, Mr RCLB provided documents and statements from other people in support of his care of the children. A number of the documents provided refer to Mr RCLB’s care from December 2024. I have not considered these documents and statements as they do not relate to the care period under review, but have considered those documents which refer to the relevant care period.
Ms BSCR’s evidence
Ms BSCR stated that she has been responsible for the children since birth. She stated that she has undertaken all of the cleaning, grocery shopping and cooking for the children. She stated that she started working in July 2024. The rent of $900 per week, which they both paid, and which accounted for the majority of Mr RCLB’s $550 to $650 per week contribution. The remainder of his contribution was towards the utilities and food costs. Ms BSCR stated that the shopping which Mr RCLB referred to was for his own consumption, such as buying steaks, and not for the children. On occasion, he would cook a meal for the children, but not as often as stated at hearing.
Ms BSCR stated that one of the children played golf but they did this on their own and that Mr RCLB did not ‘caddy’ during the period, as the child would usually play with other people at the golf club. Ms BSCR did acknowledge, however, that Mr RCLB had done this prior to July 2024. Ms BSCR also confirmed that the children did go to the gym with Mr RCLB, but she stated that this only occurred on one or two occasions. She had organised and paid gym memberships for the children at another gym. Ms BSCR stated that there was a period where Mr RCLB had a second job and so during this period he was unable to do many activities with the children. She also stated that Mr RCLB did not take the child, who played violin and drums, for any of his lessons. She stated that the violin lesson was on Monday at 6.30am and drum lesson was on Tuesday at 7am and she would take the child and then drop the child off at school.
Ms BSCR stated that Mr RCLB would cook for himself, and occasionally would cook steak for the children. She stated that this happened less than once per week. She stated that she was paying for all the children’s extra-curricular activities and also assisting with their schooling. She stated that she and the children do the cleaning and laundry, with the children assist her with these things. Ms BSCR stated that the people who made statements in support of Mr RCLB’s submissions had no contact or had any part of their life, as opposed to the children’s teachers, committee members or their coaches who provided statements on her behalf.
Assessing the evidence as to the pattern of care for the children
I have considered both the oral evidence at the hearing and the documentary evidence provided in this matter. In respect of the written evidence, I have also taken into account those documents provided by the Registrar, as well as by Mr RCLB and Ms BSCR.
The Assessment Act requires the determination of the level of care provided by an eligible carer. A statutory definition of “care” is not provided for in the Assessment Act. As stated in Polec & Staker (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959 (Polec) the court found that in the absence of a statutory definition of ‘care’, the meaning should be construed having regard to the purpose or objects of the Assessment Act. The court in Polec stated that ‘The objects are clearly directed to ensuring that a person with the ongoing daily care of a child should receive adequate financial support from the parents of the child according to the capacity of each of the parents to provide that support.’[4]
[4] Polec & Staker (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959 at [40]-[42].
In making a care percentage determination under section 49 or 50 of the Assessment Act, consideration must be given to the ‘pattern of care’ a person has for the children during the care period. In determining the pattern of care of Mr RCLB and Ms BSCR in this application, I have considered the meaning of the term ‘pattern of care’ as articulated in Parent A and Child Support Registrar and Parent B [2013] AATA 562.[5]
[5] Parent A and Child Support Registrar and Parent B [2013] AATA 562 at [33].
Section 54A of the Assessment Act provides a method for determining the actual care of the child. The section relevantly states:
(1)The actual care of a child that a person has had, or is likely to have, during a care period may be worked out based on the number of nights that the Registrar is satisfied that the child was, or is likely to be, in the care of the person during the care period.
(2)The extent of the care of a child that a person should have had, or is to have, under a care arrangement during a care period may be worked out based on the number of nights that the child should have been, or is to be, in the care of the person during the care period under the care arrangement.
(3)For the purpose of this section, a child cannot be in the care of more than one person at the same time.
Care is usually determined on the basis of the overnight arrangements in place. As is clear in section 54A of the Assessment Act, this is not mandated. Other factors can also be taken into account and a different methodology may be used. [6]
[6] P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1312 at [60]-[62].
Chapter 4.1.4 of the Guide provides information as to circumstances where care other than nights is assessed, and states as follows:
Generally, the number of nights a person cares for a child will be the best measure of their percentage of care. However, there may be some occasions where only counting the nights in care does not accurately reflect the caring arrangements for the child. For example, one parent may provide care every night while the other parent provides care from 8 am to 6 pm every weekday (Guide references removed).
In such cases, the Registrar may calculate the number of hours of care for each carer in determining the pattern of care and convert that into a care percentage. The Registrar will take into account the information from each parent or non-parent carer about the care they provide and why they think nights or hours is the better measure of care.
In Polec, the court provided some guidance as to matters that should be taken into account in considering the extent to which a person has care of a child:
a.     To what extent does the person meet the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, child care, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra-curricular activities?
b.     To what extent does the person make arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child?
c.To what extent does the person pay for the costs of meeting the needs of the child?
d.     To what extent does the person otherwise provide financial support for the child?
e.     To what extent does the child provide for his or her own needs or have those needs met from another source?
f.   To what extent is the child financially independent or financially supported from another source?[7]
[7] Polec & Staker & Anor at [56].
The above considerations provide guidance, but as stated by Wigney J in P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1312:[8]
“In my opinion, however, paragraph [56] of Polec should be approached on the basis that it is no more than what Hughes FM intended it to be; namely a workable guide to assist decision-makers in determining the extent of care. It should not be approached on the basis that it provides some sort of exhaustive check list of matters that it is mandatory for decisions-makers to consider irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the particular case at hand.”
[8] P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1312 at [107].
Mr RCLB did not dispute the evidence of Ms BSCR regarding the care of the children but added that he also provided care. His evidence was that he would take the children to the beach and mountain bike riding, and he took the eldest child to music lessons at least twice per week, as well as dropping the children to school. He also caddied for his eldest child while playing golf on at least five occasions during the period.

Ms BSCR conceded that Mr RCLB had taken the children for ice-cream and on bike rides on the weekend when he was not working, however, she also stated that for part of the period, prior to travelling overseas for four weeks in September-October 2024, Mr RCLB was working a second job over the weekend which limited his activities with the children. She disputed his claim of caddying for the eldest child. Ms BSCR also disputed that Mr RCLB took the eldest child to his music lessons, stating that these were at 6.30am on Monday (Violin lessons) and 7am on Tuesday (Drum lessons) to which she would take the child and then drop the child to school on her way to work as Mr RCLB would not be up this early.
Ms BSCR’s evidence was that she was entirely responsible for the day-to-day needs of the children. She stated that she provides all the cooking and cleaning for the children, making arrangments for the children to attend extra-curricular activities such as violin, drum lessons and BMX training and competitions. Ms BSCR’s evidence was also that she was responsible for the payment of all of the utilities and for the costs associated with the children and their activities, providing invoices for the utilities, music lessons and school costs. Ms BSCR also stated that she took the children to the doctor as required and arranged consultations relating to the eldest child’s autism diagnosis and occupational therapy sessions. Ms BSCR provided written evidence of paying for the children’s mobile phone plans.
Mr RCLB’s evidence was that he did not provide this information on first review because he did not expect the decision to be changed. He has provided statements in support of his care in this review. I have not given any weight to these statements in this application. The statements refer to the period from December 2024 onwards, outside the relevant care period and do not refer to the period prior to December 2024. One of the statements provided refers to Mr RCLB’s parenting and the best interest of the children, which while important, are not matters to which I am able to consider. The statements do not refer to Mr RCLB’s actual care during the period, nor refer to the extent to which Mr RCLB makes arrangements for the children’s accommodation, clothing, food, child care, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra-curricular activities.
In contrast, the statement provided by Ms BSCR, from the youngest child’s BMX coach confirmed Ms BSCR took the child to training and competition. The statement also acknowledged that Mr RCLB would occasionally attend. Other statements provided, by committee members at the child’s BMX club, support the information provided by the coach and Ms BSCR’s arrangement of the children’s extra-curricular activities. Mr RCLB’s own evidence confirmed he was unable to attend his youngest child’s bike races on Saturday as he worked but had, on an irregular basis, attended training.
In response to questions from the Registrar’s representative, Mr RCLB confirmed that Ms BSCR would make arrangements and organise activities and events for the children. He indicated that Ms BSCR was making arrangements in relation to the children’s education, extra-curricular activities and medical appointments. He stated that he would support the children through communication and engagement in conversation, particularly with his eldest child and his autism.
Ms BSCR stated that she liaised with the school, coaches and music teachers throughout the care period. She confirmed that she had assisted in ensuring that the children were undertaking their schoolwork and liaising with teachers to ensure the eldest child was passing their subjects. She stated that she uses music with her eldest child to support him, as well taking the children to their respective extra-curricular activities. The documents contain a report from a consultant paediatrician regarding the eldest child’s autism diagnosis and referral to occupational therapy amongst other assistance. While the report is dated 19 December 2024 and is after the care period, the referral to the consultant was made on 22 November 2024. Ms BSCR also provided weekly gym membership for the children to which she is making payments.
Mr RCLB also referred to his bank statements as evidence of his financial contributions towards the children’s costs. Mr RCLB’s bank statements as provided show circled amounts transferred to the joint account of between $500 and $600 on a weekly basis. The account also shows other circled amounts for discreet expenditure, including purchases at supermarkets, eateries, butchers and other venues. Ms BSCR disagreed with Mr RCLB’s statement that he did grocery shopping for the children. She stated that she did the grocery shopping for herself, the children and also Mr RCLB and that any grocery shopping that Mr RCLB was doing during this period was for himself.
Ms BSCR conceded that Mr RCLB would sometimes cook a steak for himself and the children, but this was not a weekly occurrence. Ms BSCR’s evidence that they had divided the rent ($900 per week) between them and that Mr RCLB had agreed to contribute between $500 and $600 per week towards his half of the rent ($450) plus an amount for utilities and food costs. Ms BSCR stated that she paid for all of the children’s extra-curricular activities.
I accept that there is evidence of this care, and I have determined that the care should be based on the principles as discussed in Polec and P v Child Support Registrar (noting that this is not an exhaustive list of considerations) rather than the nights in care. I accept, as it is not in dispute, that Ms BSCR and Mr RCLB were separated under one roof during the care period from 4 July 2024 until 4 December 2024. As stated above, I am satisfied that the appropriate care period to consider is the period from 4 July 2024 until 4 December 2024. I have decided that the care period should commence on 4 July 2024 as this is the date of the application to the Registrar, and a new care determination has been made from 5 December 2024. I have determined, based on this evidence, that the evidence shows that Ms BSCR provided the majority of the care of the children during the care period when compared to Mr RCLB.
I do not discount that Mr RCLB was engaged with the children emotionally and provided such support, and also undertook some activities with the children, such as going to the beach and bike riding. However, Mr RCLB also travelled in this time overseas to visit his parents and was working a second job which impacted his capacity to provide care during this period. It is clear on the evidence that the children’s day-to-day care needs were being met by Ms BSCR, such as transportation, supervision, cleaning and extra-curricular activities.
Ms BSCR arranged the children’s extra-curricular activities, attended these activities with the children and organised their other needs, such as their medical and educational requirements. While there was equal contribution to some financial expenses for the children’s benefit, such as rent, in respect of other costs, these were being paid for by Ms BSCR. Mr RCLB did provide care of the children during the care period, but the majority of the care was undertaken by Ms BSCR.
Applying the principles from Polec and P v Child Support Registrar, I am satisfied that the percentages of care under section 50 of the Assessment Act, are 90% of the care provided by Ms BSCR and 10% of the care provided by Mr RCLB from 4 July 2024. I am therefore satisfied that it is appropriate to reflect the percentage of care of the children as 10% to Mr RCLB and 90% to Ms BSCR from 4 July 2024. Accordingly I affirm the decision under review.
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.

Date(s) of hearing:

15 July 2025

Applicant:

Self-Represented

Representative for Registrar:

Other Party:

Ms M Kopic, Services Australia

Self-Represented