Stone and Griffith (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1978

Stone and Griffith (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1978 (15 September 2025)

Applicant: Mr Stone

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Griffith
Tribunal Number: 2025/BC029568
Tribunal: General Member A Byers
Place:Brisbane
Date:15 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that, from 11 October 2023, Mr Stone had 57% care of [Child A] and Ms Griffith had the remaining 43% care. The change takes effect from 11 October 2023 for each party.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentages of care – consent order of the Federal Circuit Court –default care arrangement – travel absence – change in care – dismissal request withdrawn – failed arrangement – new application required – special circumstances – decision under review set aside and substituted 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

BACKGROUND

Mr Stone and Ms Griffith are the parents of [Child A] and 2 other children. This matter concerns their respective percentages of care of [Child A]. During the period(s) relevant to this review, Mr Stone resided in [Suburb 1] and Ms Griffith resided in [City 1].
Material provided to the Tribunal post-hearing indicates Mr Stone contacted Child Support on 8 September 2023 advising a change in care for [Child A] from 19 August 2023. According to Mr Stone, he had 67% care of [Child A] from this date (and Ms Griffith had the remaining care).
A file note of 3 October 2023 records Ms Griffith’s response. The file note reads in part (with abbreviations expanded):
[Ms Griffith] advised that she has gone overseas 5 weeks to help other child set up
education. [Child A] has stayed with father during this period as one off block however
previous 100% to [Ms Griffith]. Agreement is that other parent should have children approximately 6 weeks a year but this has not happened. No pattern of care established. No Change in care. Current one off block is 35 nights and below regular care. Current 122 nights. Care is not being follow[ed].
Ms Griffith states she does not [agree] with other parent’s claims to change in care.
Ms Griffith provided Child Support with a copy of a consent order of the Federal Circuit Court of [April] 2020 (which is included in the post-hearing material provided). Under the order, [Child A] (and the parties’ other 2 children) were to live with Ms Griffith. Clauses 6 and 7 of the order covered the times the children were to spend with Mr Stone failing agreement to the contrary. In short, these times were:

(a)a block period of 4 weeks from the first Saturday after Term 4;
(b)one half of the school holidays following Terms 1 to 3 (the first half in even years and the second half in odd years);
(c)1 weekend per school term…

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 Stone and Griffith (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 1978
Decision Date: 15 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Stone and Griffith, the parties, Mr Stone and Ms Griffith, were disputing the percentages of care for their child, [Child A], within the context of child support arrangements. The matter was reviewed by the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The central issue before the tribunal was to determine the correct percentages of care for each parent, specifically addressing whether there had been a change in care since the last assessment and, if so, the effective date of this change.

The tribunal found that while the original decision-maker had correctly identified a change in care from 11 October 2023, there was a miscalculation in the percentages of care attributed to each parent. Mr Stone had argued that the objections officer misunderstood his submissions, resulting in an arithmetic error. The tribunal reviewed the evidence, including airline tickets and accommodation receipts provided by Ms Griffith, which detailed periods of care and travel. After thorough analysis, the tribunal concluded that from 11 October 2023, Mr Stone had 57% care of [Child A], while Ms Griffith had 43% care.

The tribunal also addressed the procedural issue of the timing of Mr Stone's application for review. Initially, Mr Stone had withdrawn his application but subsequently sought to reinstate it after an arrangement with Ms Griffith fell through. The tribunal found that the circumstances surrounding the failed arrangement constituted special circumstances under section 95N of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, allowing for an extension of the time limit for lodging the review application. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted it with the new determination of care percentages effective from 11 October 2023.

Orders