Tasman and Roberts (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1938
•14 August 2025
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 there was a change to the child’s care.
CONSIDERATION
What is required?
Section 49 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides that if I am satisfied that a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care for a period (the care period) as I consider to be appropriate in the circumstances, I must determine the percentage of care for the child to be 0%. If an existing determination of a care percentage is revoked or suspended, and I am satisfied a responsible person has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care for the child during the care period, under section 50, I must determine the responsible person’s percentage of care. I must therefore consider the relevant pattern of care for the child.
Section 51 of the Act provides the percentage of care must be determined where a care arrangement applies but is not complied with, and the person with reduced care of the child is taking reasonable action to ensure the care arrangement is complied with. Section 54 defines ‘reduced care of a child’ to mean where a person has less actual care than the care that is provided for under a care arrangement, such as a court order.
The Act, under section 54A, provides that actual care may be worked out based on the number of nights the child was, or is likely to have been, in the care of the relevant person.
Under section 54F of the Act, a determination of an existing care percentage must be revoked if sections 51 and 54G do not apply and there is a change to a person’s cost percentage, which is dependent on a change to the care percentage. Section 55C sets out the relevant cost percentage.
Care determinations must be revoked under section 54G of the Act if a person was to have at least regular care of a child during a care period and has had less than regular care of the child despite the child being made available, a determination of the other responsible person’s percentage of care has been made under section 50 and the other person notified of the care change within a reasonable period. Subsection 5(2) of the Act provides that a person has ‘regular care’ of a child if the person has at least 14% but less than 35% care of the child.
What information has been provided in relation to the care of the child?
Various matters have been raised in this matter but I will only address those that are relevant to the issues before me.
The mother advised that she travelled to [Country 1] with the child [in] March 2024, and returned to Australia by herself on 17 April 2024. She provided flight details in this regard. She was not aware why the father was saying the child was not in her care from 10 April 2024 as she was together with the child until 17 April 2024. She stated that from this date and until [September] 2024, the child was with the grandmother. As the grandmother was not working, the mother would transfer $[amount] fortnightly to pay for expenses for the grandmother and the child. Copies of some bank transfers have been provided which note “Send family” and “Family” in the description, although the recipient is not identified. She provided a statement from a friend who stated that the mother was meeting her child’s daily needs by regularly sending money to her family to support the child’s upbringing and well-being. The mother said she also purchased a lot of baby items, such as a pram, bed and mattress, before she returned to Australia but did not have any receipts. She said that she would also video call daily and order all the child’s needs online. She said she was responsible for all the child’s financial needs and bought many little things, but only provided evidence of the larger amounts and otherwise did not have evidence of the calls. She asserted that as the child was still with her family, she had 100% care during this time.
The mother advised that she had travelled to [Country 1 in] September 2024 and returned to Australia [in] October 2024 with the child, and provided flight details in this regard. She had informed Child Support of this and was told that her child support case had ended and that if the original decision was overturned then the case would reopen. She was also informed to make an application for a new child support assessment in case the decision was not overturned. The case recommenced only from November or December 2024. The hearing papers provide limited information regarding the decision to recommence the case but indicate that the mother has been recorded as having 100% care of the child and the father 0% care from 30 October 2024, and that her application for a child support assessment was accepted with the child support period being from 19 November 2024. The mother was informed that the decision to recommence the case from a later date had separate review rights and was not subject to this review.
In relation to taking the child overseas, the mother explained that she and the father were in the Family Court regarding custody of the child, and that she took the child to stay with the grandmother as she did not wish to risk the child’s safety before the court orders were made. Prior to the court proceedings, the parents had a private agreement that the mother have 100% care since the child was born. She advised that the court has now granted her 100% custody of the child, referring to court orders dated 30 October 2024, but also noted that the court had not made final orders.
The mother stated that as a result of Child Support’s decision she now owes $4,000 in child support, and that it has been difficult for her as she is not receiving any payments and has to repay the father.
The father considered the objection decision to be correct as the mother had abandoned care of the child. He initially did not know the child was taken overseas and was only informed through another ex-partner of the mother, and referred to the text messages with him that he had provided to Child Support. The dates of the text messages are not clear, with 31 May 2024 being the only date indicated. When asked to clarify why he considered the child was not in the mother’s care from 10 April 2024, the father advised he thought that was the date from the photos he had seen, referring to some of the social media posts he provided, and said he did not understand from the flight details that she had returned on 17 April 2024. In this regard, he was happy to concede that the child was not in the mother’s care from 17 April 2024 rather than 10 April 2024.
The father asserted that the mother was claiming that she was providing financial support and other forms of care to the child, but has not provided any evidence from the grandmother or other evidence such as of the video calls or other payments she made. The bank transfers also do not show the recipient.
The father stated that the mother said she took the child overseas for safety but had emailed to meet him days later. He confirmed there had been a private arrangement where the mother had 100% care of the child, and they were currently awaiting orders in relation to his supervised visitation. The next step would be unsupervised visitation. He noted the mother had contravened the current court orders of 30 October 2024, and as a result, he has missed four days of care. He also stated that he has never sought repayment of the child support amounts he had paid since April 2024.
Has there been a change to the care of the child?
I am undertaking a review of the applicable care percentages afresh. The father has confirmed that the child was not in his care due to a private arrangement and he has not been able to have his supervised care in accordance with court orders dated 30 October 2024. I will therefore consider the mother’s care of the child and whether there has been any change in care. While I am considering the mother’s care, I understand I am able to consider relevant events that have occurred after the date of notification of the change in care.[1]
[1] Child Support Registrar v BKCZ [2023] FCA 1109 at [86]; Child Support Registrar v DQFY [2023] FCA 601 at [94].
The father has conceded that the mother had care of the child from 10 to 16 April 2024, so the care period I am considering is from 17 April 2024. As mentioned above, there is no dispute the father has not had care of the child before and after this date. I note that a new care determination appears to be in effect from 30 October 2024, and any further changes to the care will need to be notified to Child Support. The new care determination/s, and the decision to recommence the case from a particular date, is not subject to this review, and have separate review rights.
The facts before me indicate that the mother’s care of the child has changed and is less than what was previously recorded with Child Support, being 100% care. I have considered the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court in Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959 (Polec), when making this finding. That matter provides guidance on the factors that could be considered when determining whether a parent is providing care for a child:
a. To what extent does the person meet the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, child care, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra curricular activities?
b. To what extent does the person make arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child?
c. To what extent does the person pay for the costs of meeting the needs of the child?
d. To what extent does the person otherwise provide financial support for the child?
e. To what extent does the child provide for his or her own needs or have those needs met from another source?
f. To what extent is the child financially independent or financially supported from another source?[2]
[2] Polec at [56].
Having considered these factors, I am not satisfied the mother was providing care for the child while the child was overseas with the grandmother. The information provided shows the mother had left the child in the grandmother’s care from 17 April 2024. The mother asserts she paid for all of the child’s needs, and that she was otherwise calling her on a daily basis. However, the information she has provided is minimal, comprising of a few bank transfers that do not identify who the funds were transferred to and a statement from a friend that supports and restates her claims. Her evidence was also that the funds were for the grandmother as well, and not only for the child. She said she did not have any other evidence, including of the calls she made on a daily basis. Having considered the information before me, I am unable to be satisfied that the child remained in the mother’s care from 17 April 2024.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the requirements of section 49 of the Act are met and there has been no pattern of care during the care period. Therefore the relevant care percentage for the mother has been 0% since 17 April 2024. Similarly, as mentioned above, the father has not had care of the child and, his percentage of care is also 0% from 17 April 2024. I note that there has been no change to the father’s care, that is, his care percentage was 0% before and after the change to the mother’s care of the child.
The parties confirmed there was no care arrangement during the care period with court orders only applying from 30 October 2024, and therefore section 51 of the Act is not applicable. Further, the father was not to have at least regular care of the child, and therefore the requirements of section 54G are not met.
As the mother previously had 100% care of the child and now has 0% care, her cost percentage has changed pursuant to section 55C of the Act.
Given sections 51 and 54G do not apply, and the cost percentages have changed as the care percentages have changed, the determination of the existing care percentages must be revoked pursuant to section 54F. As the mother’s care percentage has reduced and the father’s care has not changed, the date of revocation of the determination is 16 April 2024.
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.
| Date of hearing: | 31 July 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self represented |
| Representative for the Other party: | Self represented |
0
3
0