Stafford and Harmer (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 258

Stafford and Harmer (Child support) [2025] ARTA 258 (6 January 2025)

Applicant: Miss Stafford

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Party: Mr Harmer
Tribunal Number: 2024/BC028529 and 2024/BC028558
Tribunal: General Member M King
Place:Brisbane
Date:6 January 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and in substitution decides:
·     Miss Stafford be recorded as having 100% care of [Child 1], and Mr Harmer 0% care of [Child 1], from 1 August 2019;
·     Miss Stafford be recorded as having 0% care of [Child 1], and Mr Harmer 0% care of [Child 1], from 1 August 2021;
·     Miss Stafford be recorded as having 50% care of [Child 1], and Mr Harmer 0% care of [Child 1], from 1 October 2022;
·     Miss Stafford be recorded as having 0% care of [Child 1], and Mr Harmer 0% care of [Child 1], from 16 August 2023;
·     Miss Stafford be recorded as having 100% care of [Child 2], and Mr Harmer 0% care of [Child 2], from 1 August 2019.
Pursuant to section 87AA of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, the Tribunal’s decision in relation to [Child 2] will have effect from 21 February 2024.

Statement made on 06 January 2025 at 8:01am

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

Miss Stafford and Mr Harmer are parties to a child support case registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) in relation to financial support to be provided for [Child 2] (born 2003) and [Child 1] (born 2006).
Miss Stafford had been recorded as having 100% care of [Child 2] from 13 October 2003 and 100% care of [Child 1] from 20 November 2006.
On 23 August 2023 Mr Harmer advised Child Support that [Child 1] had been living with Miss Stafford’s ex-partner, [Mr A], from 1 August 2019.
On 14 September 2023 Child Support decided to record Miss Stafford and Mr Harmer as having 0% care of [Child 1] from 1 August 2019.
On 15 September 2023 Mr Harmer advised Child Support that [Child 2] had been living with Mr [A] from 1 August 2019.
On 15 October 2023 Miss Stafford objected to the percentage of care decision in relation to [Child 1].
On 27 October 2023 Child Support decided to record Miss Stafford and Mr Harmer as having 0% care of [Child 2] from 1 August 2019.
On 21 February 2024 Miss Stafford objected to the percentage of care decision in relation to [Child 2].
On 26 August 2024 a Child Support objections officer partly allowed the objection in relation to [Child 2] and determined that Miss Stafford would be recorded as having 40% care of [Child 2], and Mr Harmer 0% care of [Child 2], from 1 August 2019. The objections officer disallowed the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stafford and Harmer (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 258
Decision Date: 6 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stafford and Harmer (Child Support) was heard before General Member M King of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane. The matter involved a dispute between Miss Stafford and Mr Harmer concerning the percentage of care determinations for two children, [Child 1] and [Child 2], in the context of child support assessments registered with Services Australia. Miss Stafford sought to review the decisions made by Child Support regarding the percentage of care for the children, which had been altered following notifications that the children had been living with Mr [A], Miss Stafford's ex-partner.

The primary legal issues the Tribunal needed to address were whether the percentage of care determinations made by Child Support were correct and, if not, what the appropriate percentages should be for the respective periods. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided by both Miss Stafford and Mr Harmer, including documentary evidence, text messages, and statements from both parties. The court also considered the statutory provisions under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, which outline the rules for assessing and changing percentage of care determinations.

The Tribunal found that Miss Stafford should be recorded as having 100% care of [Child 1] from 1 August 2019 until 31 July 2021, as there was no evidence to contradict her claim that [Child 1] lived with her during this period. From 1 August 2021 to 30 September 2022, the Tribunal determined that Miss Stafford had 0% care of [Child 1], as the evidence showed that [Child 1] lived primarily with Mr [A]. From 1 October 2022 to 15 August 2023, the Tribunal found that Miss Stafford should be recorded as having 50% care of [Child 1], reflecting the shared living arrangements between Miss Stafford and Mr [A]. Finally, from 16 August 2023 onwards, when [Child 1] commenced receiving youth allowance at the independent rate, Miss Stafford was recorded as having 0% care of [Child 1]. Regarding [Child 2], the Tribunal determined that Miss Stafford should be recorded as having 100% care from 1 August 2019, as there was no evidence to contradict her claim that [Child 2] lived with her continuously during this period. The Tribunal's decision concerning [Child 2] would take effect from 21 February 2024, the date Miss Stafford lodged her objection to the initial care percentage decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the decisions under review and substituted new determinations regarding the percentages of care for [Child 1] and [Child 2], effective from the specified dates.

Orders