Legal Research
Cases
Viranese and Ryale (Child support)

Viranese and Ryale (Child support)

Case [2025] ARTA 955 23 April 2025

Administrative Assessment

Family Law

Type to search within this case.

Viranese and Ryale (Child support) [2025] ARTA 955 (23 April 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Viranese

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Ryale

Tribunal Number: 2024/BC028914
Tribunal: Senior Member A Suthers
Place:Perth
Date:23 April 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution:
·The percentages of care applying in the assessment on and from 16 January 2024 will be recorded as 21% to Mr Viranese, and 79% to Ms Ryale.
·This decision will have effect on and from 19 November 2024.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentages of care – change to the pattern of care –– application for a new assessment – objection lodged – objection disallowed – evidence of regular pattern of care – other party did not make herself available for evidence to be tested – determinations revoked and new determinations made – no special circumstances – renewed application for an assessment – 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

SUMMARY

Mr Viranese and Ms Ryale (‘the parties’) are the parents of [Child A], who is [Age] years old. A child support case was first registered with Services Australia – Child Support (‘Child Support’) on 25 December 2020. Mr Viranese had been recorded as providing 28% care for [Child A], with Ms Ryale providing the balance (72%) of care.
However, Child Support ended the assessment, for reasons that are not apparent from the material before me, apparently at a time when Ms Ryale was hospitalised and unable to provide care for [Child A] in October 2023.
On 16 January 2024, Ms Ryale notified Child Support that a change to the care arrangements for [Child A] had occurred from 20 November 2023. Child Support treated that as an application for a new assessment.
On 16 March 2024, an original decision-maker accepted that application, and recorded updated percentages of care of 0% to Mr Viranese and 100% to Ms Ryale (‘the original decision’).
An objections officer considered an objection lodged by Mr Viranese on 19 March 2024 (which was within the prescribed time to do so), and on 18 October 2024 disallowed the objection, thereby affirming the original decision (‘objection decision’). Specifically, the objection decision noted that:
During our discussion with [Ms Ryale] when she lodged her application for an assessment, she stated that she had spent some time in hospital during the lead up to her having [Child A] back in her 100% care from 20 November 2023.
When we attempted to discuss the assessment details with [Mr Viranese] we were unsuccessful.
[Mr Viranese] lodged an objection to the decision made on 16 March 2024 but did not provide any supporting evidence.
[Ms Ryale] did not participate in the objection process and we have to rely on her verbal statements made…

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 Viranese and Ryale (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Viranese and Ryale (Child support) [2025] ARTA 955
Case: [2025] ARTA 955
Decision Date: 23 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Mr Viranese and Ms Ryale, concerning child support for their child [Child A], was reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Mr Viranese challenged the decision made by the Child Support Registrar regarding the allocation of care percentages for [Child A]. Initially, Mr Viranese was recorded as providing 28% care, with Ms Ryale providing the remaining 72%. However, after Ms Ryale was hospitalised in October 2023, the assessment was ended, and Ms Ryale subsequently applied for a new assessment on 16 January 2024, claiming 100% care for herself and 0% for Mr Viranese. Mr Viranese objected to this decision, but his objection was disallowed. He then applied for a review of the objection decision, arguing that he provided regular care for [Child A] on a fortnightly basis.

The legal issues that the Tribunal needed to decide were the correct percentages of care for the parties, the date from which these percentages should apply, and the date from which the Tribunal's decision would take effect. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by Mr Viranese was more credible than the recorded statement by Ms Ryale, as she did not participate in the objection process and had not made herself available for cross-examination. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Viranese provided care for three nights each fortnight, resulting in a care percentage of 21% for him and 79% for Ms Ryale. The Tribunal decided that these percentages would apply from the date of the renewed application for an assessment, 16 January 2024. The decision of the Tribunal would have effect from 19 November 2024, as Mr Viranese's application for review was not lodged within the prescribed time, and he did not provide special circumstances to justify the delay.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted it with new determinations. The percentages of care applying in the assessment on and from 16 January 2024 will be recorded as 21% to Mr Viranese and 79% to Ms Ryale. This decision will have effect on and from 19 November 2024.

Orders