Stepney and Burton (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1597

Stepney and Burton (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1597 (3 July 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Stepney

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Burton
Tribunal Number: 2025/MC029097
Tribunal: Member J Moir
Place:Sydney
Date:3 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentages of care – child under state’s protection until 18 – change to the pattern of care – approved by Department – no longer working and living with mother – mother provides support – 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 Stepney and Ms Burton are the parents of [Child A] (born 2000) and [Child B] (born June 2007). This application relates only to [Child B]. [Child A’s] circumstances will not be referred to, except to the extent that they are relevant to the care of [Child B].
[Child B] was subject to an order of the Federal Circuit Court of New South Wales dated [October] 2014, placing her under the parental responsibility of the Minister for Family and Community Services in New South Wales pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. The portfolio name has since changed from “Family and Community Services” to “Communities and Justice”, and will be referred to by the current name for the remainder of these Reasons for Decision.
On 25 July 2024, Ms Burton applied to Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) for a child support assessment regarding [Child B], stating that [Child B] had been living with her for a number of months. When contacted by Child Support about this, Mr Stepney said that [Child B] was a ward of the State, had left school and was working full time. He did not agree that a child support assessment should be accepted, or that [Child B] was in the care of Ms Burton.
On 28 October 2024 Child Support accepted the application and decided that [Child B] was in Ms Burton’s care for 100% of the time, and in Mr Stepney’s care 0% from the start of the assessment on 25 July 2024.
On 8 November 2024, Mr Stepney objected to this decision. His objection was treated as an objection to the care percentage determination. Mr Stepney provided copies of the 2014 court orders confirming that [Child B] was under the parental responsibility of the Minister until she turned 18 and restated his concerns that [Child B] was working full time. He also said that he understood that she was living with her boyfriend.
Ms Burton provided a letter from the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ), confirming that [Child B] is under the parental responsibility of the Minister until she turns 18, but that on 5 March 2024, [Child B] had “self-placed” at Ms Burton’s…

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 Stepney and Burton (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Stepney and Burton (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1597
Case: [2025] ARTA 1597
Decision Date: 3 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Stepney and Burton involved a dispute over the care percentage determination of [Child B], born in 2007, under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. Mr Stepney contested the decision by the Child Support Registrar that [Child B] was in the care of Ms Burton for 100% of the time, and that he had no care of her at all, from the assessment period starting on 25 July 2024. This decision followed the Registrar's acceptance of Ms Burton's application for a child support assessment, which was in direct contradiction to Mr Stepney's assertion that [Child B] was under the care of the Minister for Communities and Justice until she turned 18 and was living with her boyfriend and working full-time. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with reviewing the Registrar's decision.

The key legal issues before the AAT were whether [Child B] was an "eligible child" for the purposes of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 during the relevant period, whether she was "in the care of" Ms Burton, and what the correct care assessment percentage should be for [Child B]. The AAT examined the statutory definitions and the broader context provided by the Child Support Guide, considering the evidence provided by both parties.

In determining whether [Child B] was an "eligible child," the AAT noted that children under the care of a Minister under a child welfare law in New South Wales are still considered eligible children for child support purposes. The AAT further considered that [Child B] was indeed "in the care of" Ms Burton, based on Ms Burton's first-hand evidence of providing accommodation, financial support, and various other forms of care, as well as the Department of Communities and Justice's confirmation that [Child B] had self-placed with Ms Burton in March 2024. The AAT preferred Ms Burton's evidence over Mr Stepney's second-hand accounts, finding it more reliable and consistent with the broader context. The Tribunal concluded that Ms Burton had 100% care of [Child B] from the start of the assessment period on 25 July 2024, until [Child B] turned 18.

The AAT affirmed the decision of the Child Support Registrar, finding that [Child B] was an eligible child, that she was in Ms Burton's care, and that the correct care assessment was 100% for Ms Burton and 0% for Mr Stepney. The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented, the statutory definitions, and the broader context of the child support legislation and guidelines.

Orders