Ricker and Zappa (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1942
•18 August 2025
Ricker and Zappa (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1942 (18 August 2025)
Applicant/s: Mr Ricker
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Ms Zappa
Tribunal Number: 2025/MC029710
Tribunal: General Member I Sheck
Place:Melbourne
Date:18 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentages of care – ordinary pattern of care – in accordance with court order – flexibility in arrangement – additional ad hoc care does not count – determinations revoked and new determinations made – decision under review affirmed
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
Mr Ricker and Ms Zappa are the separated parents of twins [Children A and B], born [in] September 2018. A case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (“Child Support”) for the assessment of child support on 27 September 2023. From 13 October 2023 the assessment of child support was based on care percentages of 14% to Mr Ricker and 86% to Ms Zappa. On 8 April 2024, Ms Zappa notified Child Support that from 12 March 2024 she had care of the children for 323 nights per year and Mr Ricker for the remaining 42 nights.
On 10 April 2024, Child Support contacted Mr Ricker regarding the change in care and he stated that he agreed to the facts of the change in care as advised by Ms Zappa. On 10 April 2024, a decision was made that Mr Ricker had 11% care of the children and Ms Zappa had 89% care, with effect from 12 March 2024.
On 19 August 2024, Mr Ricker objected to the decision and provided a list of the nights that [Children A and B] had been or would be in his care during 2024. He provided an updated list and supporting documentation on 20 December 2024. On 28 March 2025, an objections officer of Child Support disallowed the objection; this meant that they affirmed the original decision made on 10 April 2024.
By application received on 24 April 2025, Mr Ricker asked this Tribunal to review the decision of the objections officer. On 14 August 2025, the Tribunal conducted a hearing at which Mr Ricker and Ms Zappa gave evidence by MS Teams video. The Tribunal had before it the relevant documents from Child Support (pages 1 to 121), which had been copied to the parties.
CONSIDERATION
The legislative provisions relevant to this decision are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”). The Act sets out the statutory formula for the calculation of child support, which takes into account each parent’s adjusted taxable income and the level of care they provide for each child of the assessment. The provisions require Child Support (and the Tribunal on review) to determine 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.
Has there been a change in care?
As at April 2024, Child Support had recorded that in respect of [Children A and B], Ms Zappa had an attributed percentage of care of 86% and Mr Ricker had 14%. The first issue is whether the care that was actually taking place corresponded with the recorded percentages of care.
The background to the case is as set out above. In determining that Mr Ricker’s percentage of care was 11% with effect from 12 March 2024, the original decision maker made the following notes (at page 39 of the Hearing Papers) regarding the “ordinary pattern of care”:
[Mr Ricker] has 2 weeks (14 days) of care over the Christmas School Holidays
[Mr Ricker] has 1 week (7 Days) each term holidays x 3
One night a month for February, March, May, June, August, October, November
Total of 42 nights each year as per court order.
The Court Order in question was that made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia [in] December 2023. It relevantly provides that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for [Children A and B] (point 1) and that they live with Ms Zappa (point 4). Point 6 of the order sets out when the children spend time with Mr Ricker and is as listed above. Point 6.3 of the order additionally provides that Mr Ricker may “travel to [City 1] at such times of his choosing to spend time with the children, provided always that the Father shall provide the Mother with not less than 7 days’ notice of his intended travel.” This is the basis of Mr Ricker’s case. He submits that during the course of the 2024 year [Children A and B] were in his care for 53 nights, which included his visits to [City 1] in accordance with the terms of point 6.3 of the Court Order. This is equivalent to 14% of the time.
Mr Ricker has listed the nights that [Children A and B] were in his care in his spreadsheet at page 76 of the Hearing Papers. Ms Zappa expressed some concerns regarding the accuracy of the dates listed, however the Tribunal is satisfied on balance that they are accurate. The basis of Ms Zappa’s case is that she has accommodated Mr Ricker’s requests to spend additional times with [Children A and B], however the additional nights were of an ad hoc nature and therefore should not be included in the calculation of the overall care percentages.
Section 50 of the Act provides that a person’s percentage of care for the purposes of the child support assessment is based on the “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”. The care period is not necessarily the period for which the care determination will apply, it is simply a mechanism to enable a pattern of care to be determined. Once a care determination is made, it will continue to apply until it is revoked. What then is a pattern of care? This term is not defined in the legislation. Section 54A of the Act however provides as follows:
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.
The Tribunal concludes from this that in working out a pattern of care regard is also had to the nights that a child or children is expected to be or is likely to be in their parent’s care. This would support the proposal that ad hoc changes are not sufficient to disturb the underlying pattern on which the care percentages are based. The Tribunal therefore concludes that in this matter [Children A and B] are expected to be in the care of Mr Ricker for 42 nights of the year, in accordance with the regular arrangements as set out in the Court Order of [December] 2023. The fact that there is flexibility in the arrangement (such as for instance to facilitate the children spending Mother’s Day or Father’s Day with the appropriate parent) does not alter this. The Tribunal notes that Mr Ricker also submitted that this was only an Interim Court Order, however the Tribunal was not of the view that this alters its conclusion as to the pattern of care that the order establishes.
Should the existing care determinations in relation to [Children A and B] be revoked?
Subsection 54F(1) of the Act sets out circumstances in which a determination of a percentage of care must be revoked. Specifically, it states that an existing determination must be revoked if the Registrar is notified that the care taking place does not correspond with the responsible person’s existing care of the child or children and the responsible person’s cost percentage for the child would change if the Registrar were to determine another percentage to be the person’s percentage of care for the child. Turning then to the cost percentages, these are set out at section 55C of the Act. If a parent has a care percentage of less than 14%, their cost percentage is 0% and if their care percentage is between 14% and 35%, then their cost percentage is 24%.
As discussed above, the Tribunal has calculated that Mr Ricker’s expected care pursuant to the Court Order was 42 nights a year. This corresponds to a percentage of care of 11% with effect from 12 March 2024. Accordingly, the previous determinations of care, that Mr Ricker had a percentage of care of 14% and Ms Zappa had a percentage of care of 86%, must be revoked under section 54F with effect from “the day before the change of care day” and new care determinations made.
Date of effect of the decision to revoke the care determination
In terms of the date of effect of the new care determinations, if a party has advised of the care change within 28 days of the change, then the new determination takes effect from the date of the change. That is the case here. The notification by Ms Zappa of the change in [Children A and B’s] care was received by Child Support on 8 April 2024. The revocation of the old care determinations must therefore take effect from 11 March 2024. New care determinations are then made from the day after the relevant revocations, setting out the new care percentages for each of the parties.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Date(s) of hearing: Thursday, 14 August 2025
0
0
0