Tasman and Roberts (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1938

Tasman and Roberts (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1938 (14 August 2025)

Applicant: Ms Tasman

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Mr Roberts
Tribunal Number: 2025/SC029425
Tribunal: General Member R Prasad
Place:Sydney
Date:14 August 2025

Decision: The Tribunal varies the decision under review so that Ms Tasman had 0% and Mr Roberts had 0% of the child from 17 April 2024.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentages of care – change in care – determinations revoked – child support case closed – child living with grandmother – mother sending money to support the child – returned to mother’s care – court orders – father allowed supervised visits – lack of evidence – no pattern of care during care period – decision under review varied

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

Ms Tasman (the mother) and Mr Roberts (the father) have a registered child support assessment for their child, born [in] June 2022. Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) has collected child support on the basis that the mother had 100% care of the child and the father had 0% care. These percentages denote the existing percentages of care.
On 19 May 2024, the father notified Child Support of a change in care on the basis the mother was no longer taking care of the child in Australia since 10 April 2024, and that she had left the child with family in [Country 1] who were supporting the child.
On 18 October 2024, Child Support decided to accept the father’s request for a new determination of care percentage (the original decision). As both parents were determined to have 0% care of the child, the child support case was closed with date of effect from 9 April 2024.
The mother objected to the original decision on 25 October 2024 stating that the child was living with her mother (the grandmother) overseas from April 2024 to September 2024 and she was sending money to support the child, and therefore the child support case should not have ended. She told Child Support that the child had returned to her care, and she was advised that she may still need to make a new application for a child support assessment.
On 10 February 2025, Child Support disallowed the mother’s objection (the objection decision).
On 3 March 2025, the mother sought review of the objection decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
The matter was heard on 31 July 2025. The Child Support Registrar elected not to be represented at the hearing but provided documentation (T1 to T120). The mother appeared by MS Teams video and the father appeared by MS Teams audio. An interpreter [was] available, but the interpreter’s assistance was not sought by the mother.

ISSUE

The relevant issue before me is whether…

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 Tasman and Roberts (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Tasman and Roberts (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1938
Case: [2025] ARTA 1938
Decision Date: 14 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Administrative Review Tribunal, Ms Tasman appealed the Child Support Registrar's decision to revoke her 100% care percentage and instead allocate 0% care to both parties. The dispute arose from a shift in the child's care arrangement, with Mr Roberts claiming the child was no longer in Ms Tasman's care from 10 April 2024, and Ms Tasman asserting that she continued to provide care and support to the child through her grandmother while overseas. The Tribunal was required to determine if there was a change in the child's care and, if so, whether the new care percentages were appropriate.

The key legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there had been a change in the care of the child, and if so, what the new care percentages should be. This involved assessing the evidence presented by both parties, including Ms Tasman's financial support to the grandmother and Mr Roberts' contention that the child had not been in Ms Tasman's care from 10 April 2024. The Tribunal had to consider statutory provisions that governed the determination of care percentages and the conditions under which care percentages could be revoked or altered.

The Tribunal concluded that Ms Tasman had not maintained a pattern of care for the child from 17 April 2024, as required by section 49 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. Although Ms Tasman claimed to be providing financial support and regular communication, the evidence provided was insufficient to establish that she had continued to care for the child directly. Consequently, the Tribunal found that Ms Tasman's care percentage should be reduced to 0% from 17 April 2024. Since Mr Roberts had not had any care of the child, his care percentage also remained at 0%. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a discernible pattern of care by Ms Tasman during the specified period.

The Tribunal varied the decision under review, setting both Ms Tasman's and Mr Roberts' care percentages to 0% from 17 April 2024. This decision effectively revoked the existing care percentages and closed the child support case as of that date. The Tribunal did not consider the subsequent court orders or the new care determinations from 30 October 2024, as these were outside the scope of the current review.

Orders