Legal Research
Cases
Reibey and Reibey (Child support)

Reibey and Reibey (Child support)

Case [2025] ARTA 1105 15 May 2025

Type to search within this case.

Reibey and Reibey (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1105 (15 May 2025)

Applicant/s: Ms Reibey

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Mr Reibey

Tribunal Number: 2024/MC029005
Tribunal: Senior Member A Suthers
Place:Perth
Date:15 May 2025
Decision:The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution, the parties’ respective existing percentages of care for [Child A] will not be revoked as a result of the notification of a change in care by Mr Reibey on 26 June 2023.
This decision has effect on 12 December 2024.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change to the pattern of care – Federal Circuit and Family Court – court orders – care calendar of nights in care not allowed in evidence – submitted too late – requested adjournment to seek legal representation – discretion not exercised – school refusal disorder – refusal to stay with father – mother contemporaneously kept her diary – father recreated his record from previous messages – no change to the cost percentage – existing percentages of care will not be revoked – no special circumstances prevented the application being made in time – 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

SUMMARY

Ms Reibey and Mr Reibey (‘the parties’) are the parents of, relevantly, [Child A], who is [Age] years old. A child support case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (‘Child Support’) on 13 October 2022. Ms Reibey has been recorded as providing 79% care for the child with Mr Reibey providing the balance (21%) of care.
On 26 June 2023, Mr Reibey notified Child Support that a change to the care arrangements for the child had occurred from 2 February 2023.
Child Support recorded that it also contacted Ms Reibey on 26 June 2023, and that she agreed to the ‘facts of the change in care, as notified by [Mr Reibey]’.
On 26 June 2023, an original decision maker accepted that change and recorded updated percentages of care of 63% to Ms Reibey and 37% to Mr Reibey from 2 February 2023 (‘the original decision’).
An objections officer considered an objection lodged by Ms Reibey on 22 March 2024 (which was not within the prescribed time to do so), and on 30 June 2024 disallowed the objection, thereby affirming the original decision (‘the objection decision’). The objection decision noted, relevantly, that:
[Ms Reibey] has objected to this decision because there are court orders, but the court orders have never really been followed. [Child A] is encouraged to go to his dads but has had some difficulties at his father house so often care has been missed. [She has] recorded the actual nights of care that [Child A] has spent with [Mr Reibey] since February 2023 in a diary…

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 Reibey and Reibey (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Reibey and Reibey (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1105
Case: [2025] ARTA 1105
Decision Date: 15 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Reibey has applied for review of the decision of the Child Support Registrar to change the respective percentages of care for [Child A] from 79% to Ms Reibey and 21% to Mr Reibey, to 63% to Ms Reibey and 37% to Mr Reibey. The Registrar had accepted a notification from Mr Reibey of a change in care from 2 February 2023. The parties were subject to final parenting orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which provided for [Child A] to live predominantly with Ms Reibey and to spend time with Mr Reibey during school terms on an alternate weekly basis, as follows: Week 1 – from the conclusion of school on Thursday to commencement of school on Monday (or 9.30 am if a non-school day); and Week 2 – from the conclusion of school on Thursday to the commencement of school on Friday (or 9.30 am if a non-school day). Mr Reibey is also to spend one-half of each school holiday period with [Child A] in his care. The Registrar’s decision was based on conflicting statements from the parties as to the number of nights [Child A] spent in Mr Reibey’s care from 2 February 2023. Ms Reibey sought an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that she had not previously been aware that Mr Reibey was to be legally represented, and she was not. I was not satisfied that it was appropriate to exercise my discretion to adjourn. Ms Reibey’s evidence was often generalised and was occasionally difficult to follow. She did not impress as someone who is careful to consider her evidence and provide thorough responses. Mr Reibey, on the other hand, was careful and methodical in his evidence, giving the general impression that he was doing his best to give accurate evidence. However, Mr Reibey, as the party originally notifying a change of care, lodged nothing to substantiate his method of recreating the dates he was supposed to spend with [Child A], but did not. The evidence of the parties was conflicting as to the number of nights [Child A] spent in Mr Reibey’s care. I am persuaded that there was a change to the pattern of care, but the existing percentages of care should not have been revoked. There were no special circumstances preventing Ms Reibey from lodging her application for review in time. This decision will have effect on 12 December 2024.

Orders