Swichter and Webber (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 2214
•7 August 2025
Swichter and Webber (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2214 (7 August 2025)
Applicant/s: Mr Swichter
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Ms Webber
Tribunal Numbers: 2025/BC029307 and 2025/BC029345
Tribunal: Member S Letch
Place:Brisbane
Date:7 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – sporadic and ad hoc care of teenager – some nights spent with boyfriend or friends – conflicting information and no agreement for new pattern of care – child’s mental health consultations – tolerance for missed care events or relatively minor changes to general pattern of care – nights with friends effectively under mother’s supervision – 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
Mr Swichter and Ms Webber are the parents of [the child]. This matter concerns decisions by Child Support about her recorded care.
It is convenient by way of background to set out some extracts from the objections officer’s decisions both dated 6 February 2025:
SUMMARY OF OBJECTION DECISION
The outcome of this decision is that it has been disallowed.
We have made the decision to refuse to reflect the care of [the child] as 100% to Mr Swichter and 0% to Ms Webber from 28 September 2024, notified 30 September 2024.
The effect of the objection decision is: There is no change to the assessment.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
The decision to refuse to reflect the care of [the child] as 100% to Mr Swichter and 0% to Ms Webber from 28 September 2024, notified 30 September 2024.
Mr Swichter has objected to this decision because he advised the care for [the child] has been 100% to Mr Swichter from 28 September 2024.
…
WE CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IN THE DECISION
1. On 30 September 2024, Mr Swichter notified the care for [the child] is 100% to Mr Swichter and 0%
to Ms Webber from 28 September 2024.2. On 14 October 2024, Ms Webber disagreed with the care reported by Mr Swichter and advised her care percentage for [the child] is 100%.
3. On 12 December 2024, the decision was made to refuse to record the care for [the child] as
100% to Mr Swichter and 0% to Ms Webber from 28 September 2024.4. On 3 January 2025, Mr Swichter objected to this decision on the following grounds: The care of
[the child] has been 100% to myself from 28 September 2024. I don't understand as to whythe care change was rejected. I supplied evidence.
…
7. Evidence received from Ms Webber:
- Third party statements
- Text message correspondence with [the child’s] school
- Email correspondence with [the child’s] school
- Medicare statement
- Plane tickets for [the child] in December 2024
- Correspondence from family lawyer
- [Mental health services provider 1] document
- Medical certificate for [the child]
- Text message correspondence with friend of [the child’s] parent8. Evidence from Mr Swichter:
- Email correspondence between Mr Swichter and Ms Webber
- Third party statements
- Statement from Mr Swichter
- Discharge summary from [Mental health services provider 2]
- Court order dated 19 August 2024 outlining that all previous orders be discharged and that
[the child] be at liberty to live with, spend time and communicate with parents in accordance
with their wishes.- Affidavit from Mr Swichter
…
The evidence from Ms Webber identifies a continued presence in [the child’s] life. This is outlined from text messages dated from 12 October 2024 to 1 November 2024 between a parent of one of [the child’s] friends and Ms Webber. Throughout this period, Ms Webber provides multiple updates to [the child’s] friends parent about the care occurring for [the child]. In addition, Ms Webber has regular communication with [the child’s] school to advise of any absences dated up to November 8 2024.
Third party statements from [Ms A] and [Mr B] confirmed they have witnessed
[the child] living with Ms Webber up to November 2024.On the contrary, the evidence provided by Mr Swichter also suggests that he has been having 100% care of [the child] from 28 September 2024. Mr Swichter provided third party statements from a friend and a neighbour who both confirm they have witnessed [the child] at his residence from 28 September 2024.
As Mr Swichter and Ms Webber have provided conflicting information regarding care arrangements for [the child], we will consider whether there is common expectation about future care. If there is agreement to a certain point on what the new care arrangements will be, then we will use that 'point of agreement' to determine the appropriate start date and the new care percentage.
We cannot identify a common point of agreement between Mr Swichter and Ms Webber for a new pattern of care.In these circumstances, where the information provided by the parents may be inconclusive to the extent that we are unable to determine what care percentage each parent or carer is likely to have over the relevant care period, we will assume that the state of affairs known to it at the time the existing care determination was made is continuing. As there is no change in the care percentage, the existing care determination cannot be revoked, and the child support assessment will not be amended.
Therefore, we refuse to record the care of [the child] as 100% to Ms Webber and 0% to Mr Swichter from 28 September 2024.
The objection has been disallowed.
…
SUMMARY OF OBJECTION DECISION
The outcome of this decision is that it has been disallowed.
We have made the decision to refuse to reflect the care of [the child] as 72% to Mr Swichter] and as 14% to Ms Webber from 7 March 2024.
The effect of the objection decision is: There is no change to the assessment.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
The decision to refuse to reflect the care of [the child] as 72% to Mr Swichter and as 14% to
Ms Webber from 7 March 2024.Mr Swichter has objected to this decision because he advised that from 7 March 2024 [the child] was discharged from hospital into his care for a month, then from April 2024 the established pattern of care was 4 nights a week in Mr Swichter’s care.
…
WE CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IN THE DECISION
1. On 7 March 2024, Mr Swichter notified a change in care for [the child].
2. On 19 March 2024, the change in care reported was discussed with Mr Swichter. The details of
the change in care for [the child] are confirmed as 260 nights a year with Mr Swichter, 52 nights a
year with Ms Webber and 53 nights a year third party care. This equalled to 14% care to
Ms Webber and 72% care to Mr Swichter from 7 March 2024.3. On 20 March 2024, Ms Webber advised that she disagreed with the change in care reported by Mr Swichter and that the care has remained as 100% care to Ms Webber for [the child].
4. On 12 July 2024, the decision was made based on the evidence provided, to refuse to reflect the care for [the child] as 72% to Mr Swichter and 14% to Ms Webber from 7 March 2024.
5. On 26 July 2024, Mr Swichter objected to decision made on 12 July 2024.
…
As Mr Swichter and Ms Webber have provided conflicting information regarding care arrangements for [the child], we will consider whether there is common expectation about future care. If there is agreement to a certain point on what the new care arrangements will be, then we will use that 'point of agreement' to determine the appropriate start date and the new care percentage.
We cannot identify a common point of agreement between Mr Swichter and Ms Webber for a new pattern of care.
In these circumstances, where the information provided by the parents may be inconclusive to the extent that we are unable to determine what care percentage each parent or carer is likely to have over the relevant care period, we will assume that the state of affairs known to it at the time the existing care determination was made is continuing. As there is no change in the care percentage, the existing care determination cannot be revoked, and the child support assessment will not be amended.
Therefore, we have made the decision to refuse to reflect the care of [the child] as 72% to
Mr Swichter and as 14% to Ms Webber from 7 March 2024.The objection has been disallowed.
…
Mr Swichter and Ms Webber participated in the Tribunal’s hearing by conference telephone.
Mr Swichter objected to materials supplied by Ms Webber which he said were designed to paint him in an inappropriate light and were of no probative value. Mr Swichter drew attention to the discharge summary from [Mental health services provider 2, Suburb] which records that [the child] was released to his care on 6 March 2024: folio 443 of the Child Support hearing papers. [The child]’s statement supports that position. He has submitted, amongst other things, photographic evidence establishing that [the child] was living with him, as well as statements from third parties. [The child] was a teenager; there were times she would stay at her boyfriend’s place and he concedes there were times she stayed with Ms Webber. Mr Swichter contended that [the child] was with him for 100% of the time in March 2024; from April to August 2024 he submits it fair to have recorded care as “50/50”. That would recognise that [the child] started to live with him and at times lived with friends and to a lesser extent with Ms Webber. Mr Swichter conceded his care in the April to August 2024 period was sporadic and ad hoc; he submits he should be recorded as having 100% care in September, October and November 2024. He incurred a significant financial burden caring for [the child]; he is now unemployed and receiving Centrelink payments. He said Ms Webber earns more than $300,000 per year.
Ms Webber told the Tribunal that she, too, has submitted supporting statements recording her care of [the child]. [Mental health services provider 2] suggested that [the child] make contact with her father with whom she had no contact for three and a half years. Ms Webber said she had encouraged [the child] to have a relationship with her father. [The child] made the contact as suggested by [Mental health services provider 2]; Ms Webber said she became concerned for [the child]’s wellbeing when she was told she had left [Mental health services provider 2] with her father. Ms Webber said she was advised by the facility that [the child] was returned. Ms Webber disputed that [the child] was “living with her father”; she continued to be responsible for [the child] in matters such as schooling and health issues, as well as meeting her financial needs. She does not think the arrangement was “chaotic”. Ms Webber pointed to Mr Swichter’s multiple notifications of percentages of care to have changed; she said she is frustrated that every time Mr Swichter made a contact with Child Support she was required to provide responses. Ms Webber submitted that school records confirm she had 100% care of [the child]; she drove her to school every day and took her to numerous medical appointments.
Ms Webber told the Tribunal that she was not aware of any nights [the child] stayed with Mr Swichter following her discharge; she had understood all nights away were with [the child]’s boyfriend or with another friend. Mr Swichter pointed to an email (folio 172) in which Ms Webber was advised [the child] spent three days with Mr Swichter and suggested Ms Webber was lying to the Tribunal.
Mr Swichter submitted that [the child] spent no nights in Ms Webber’s care in March 2024 – she stayed mostly with him, and some nights with friends. From April to August 2024, [the child] would spend a couple of nights with him and a couple of nights with Ms Webber, with the balance of the time with friends. He submitted that he and Ms Webber had roughly the same care and that “50/50” would be reflective of that.
Ms Webber told the Tribunal that she would concede three nights of care to Mr Swichter upon discharge but that [the child] was in her 100% care (or with friends under her supervision) for the remaining period.
In relation to the second decision, Mr Swichter raised issue of an incident involving [the child] in September 2024. That was when [the child] started to live with Mr Swichter full-time. Mr Swichter drove [the child] to numerous “[Mental health services provider 3]” appointments, amongst other things. Mr Swichter contended that Ms Webber had “alienated him” from [the child], which is why he had not been able to see her for so long prior to March 2024. Mr Swichter submitted he should be recorded as having 100% care of [the child] from September 2024 until the case ended in November 2024.
Ms Webber told the Tribunal she does not agree with the purported care in September 2024. Her supporting evidence gives examples of appointments and schooling arrangements. For a significant period of time in August, [the child]’s best friend was with her. Ms Webber conceded there had been an argument with [the child] and her boyfriend in September 2024. She conceded there may have been a night here or there when [the child] stayed with Mr Swichter but she was with her (or friends under her supervision) for the majority of the time. All of [the child]’s possessions stayed in her bedroom. Ms Webber said that the statements purportedly by [the child] should not be accepted as she had no capacity to use those words. Mr Swichter rejected that suggestion and said that [the child] is a tertiary student and capable of making the statements she made. Ms Webber said [the child] is not a uni student – she started a course but withdrew. In response to Mr Swichter’s suggestion that Ms Webber had not solicited a contrary statement from [the child] supporting her position, Ms Webber said she had not done so because [the child] has mental health issues and she has wanted to protect her from becoming involved in any legal disputes.
Application of the law
Care percentage determinations are governed by Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. It is important to observe that each care change is the subject of a separate notification, and separate decision. A decision-maker determines whether the existing care percentage determination should be revoked and if so, replace it with a new determination.
I also note that these assessments are not intended to account for every single night. There is tolerance for missed care events or relatively minor changes to the general pattern, or likely pattern, of care.
Application 2025/BC029345
This matter concerns an original notification by Mr Swichter on 7 March 2024 that he had 72% care of [the child] and Ms Webber 14%, with the balance of care to a third party. Child Support refused to revoke the existing determination allocating Ms Webber with 100% care of [the child]. Mr Swichter now contends he should be recorded as having 100% care for the month of March 2024 following [the child]’s discharge; and that although care was “chaotic” from April to the end of August 2024, it would be “fair” to record his care as 50%.
I do not consider it appropriate to give weight to [the child]’s statements which I cannot be satisfied were made at arm’s length. As a general proposition, third party statements from friends, family or acquaintances are given lower weight.
I gave most weight to my assessment of the evidence given by the parties during the hearing. To the extent of inconsistency, I generally preferred Ms Webber’s recollection of events. I consider that until [the child] turned 18 years of age, Ms Webber was at all material times primarily responsible for major decisions including schooling and medical issues, and was primarily responsible for meeting [the child]’s financial needs. I accept Mr Swichter’s evidence that he had several nights of overnight care in March 2024 following [the child]’s discharge from [Mental health services provider 2]; thereafter, I consider [the child] likely stayed predominantly with Ms Webber and at her boyfriend’s home, in addition to occasional stays with other friends and some ad hoc nights with Mr Swichter.
Mr Swichter’s evidence was that the arrangement was “chaotic”. In my assessment, for the period prior to September 2024, I cannot be satisfied that there was a discernible pattern of care attributable to Mr Swichter. He had not had contact with [the child] for several years; I accept he provided assistance and support to her following her discharge from [Mental health services provider 2]. I consider that Ms Webber remained responsible for major decisions surrounding [the child]; nights that [the child] spent with her boyfriend and friends should properly be regarded as having been under the effective supervision of Ms Webber.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the existing care percentage determination recording Ms Webber as having the 100% care of [the child] should have been revoked.
As this is the same conclusion as the objections officer, the decision in matter 2025/BC029345 will be affirmed.
Application 2025/BC029307
This matter is concerned with a notification made by Mr Swichter on 30 September 2024 that he had 100% care of [the child] from 28 September 2024. Child Support determined not to revoke the existing care percentage determination allocating Ms Webber the 100% care of [the child]. Mr Swichter contends that his care should be recorded as 100% from a date in September.
I accept Mr Swichter’s evidence concerning the assistance he said he was providing to [the child]; Ms Webber concedes there had been an argument and that [the child] may have spent a “few nights” with Mr Swichter, but the majority of her nights were with friends or with her until the case for [the child] ended in November 2024. For similar reasons to my conclusions above, I do not consider that Mr Swichter can establish a discernible pattern of care notwithstanding that I accept it likely she spent a number of nights in his care on an ad hoc basis. I consider the nights [the child] spent with friends should be regarded as effectively being under Ms Webber’s supervision and attributed to her.
I am not satisfied that the existing care percentage determination recording Ms Webber’s care as 100% should have been revoked. As I have reached the same conclusion as the objections officer, the decision in application 2025/BC029307 will be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.
| Date(s) of hearing: | Wednesday, 16 July 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self-represented |
| Representative for the Other party: | Self-represented |
0
0
0