WGQQ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) - [2025] ARTA 1212

WGQQ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1212 (30 July 2025)
Applicant/s:  WGQQ
Respondent:  Child Support Registrar
Other Parties:  CYHF

Tribunal Number: 2024/6207

Tribunal:Senior Member J Longo (second review)
Place:Melbourne
Date:30 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that, as follows:
1.The existing percentage of care determination of 67% to Ms WGQQ is revoked from 14 May 2023 and a percentage of care determination of 0% applies for Ms WGQQ from 15 May 2023; and
2.The existing percentage of care determination of 33% to Mr CYHF is revoked from 3 July 2023 and a percentage of care determination of 100% applies for Mr CYHF from 4 July 2023.

Statement made on 30 July 2025 at 12:23pm
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Catchwords
CHILD SUPPORT – review of care percentage determinations – whether there has been a change in the pattern of care – whether existing determination of care should be revoked – whether interim care determination should apply – no interim care – decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Act 2024 (Cth)
Cases
G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229 (Cth)
DPQT and Child Support Registrar [2024] AATA 2603
G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229
Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Child Support Guide
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

The applicant mother, Ms WGQQ, and the father, Mr CYHF, are the separated parents of three children. This application is in relation to one of their children. Since 23 January 2017, Ms WGQQ has had 63% care of the child and Mr CYHF has had 37% care.
On 4 July 2023, Mr CYHF contacted the Child Support Registrar (the Registrar) and advised that the care of the child had changed from 15 May 2023 and that the child was now in his 100% care from 15 May 2023. On 9 August 2023, a delegate of the Registrar accepted that Ms WGQQ had 0% care of the child and Mr CYHF had 100% care of the child from 15 May 2023, but that an interim period should apply from 15 May 2023 until 12 November 2023.
Mr CYHF lodged an objection with the Registrar on 15 August 2023. On 12 March 2024, an objections officer of the Registrar allowed the objection and…

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 WGQQ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second revie...

Details

AGLC: WGQQ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1212
Case: [2025] ARTA 1212
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between WGQQ and the Child Support Registrar involves a second review of care percentage determinations. The primary issue is whether there has been a change in the pattern of care between Ms WGQQ and Mr CYHF, and if so, whether the existing determination of care should be revoked and a new interim care determination should apply. Ms WGQQ argued for a change in the care arrangements based on evidence including invoices from her solicitor and text messages between her, Mr CYHF, and their child. Mr CYHF's evidence indicated that the child chose to live with him from 15 May 2023 and that they had an arrangement for the child to have dinner with Ms WGQQ on a weekly basis. However, Mr CYHF did not notify the Registrar of the change in care until 4 July 2023. The court had to decide whether an interim care determination could be made and whether the existing care determinations should be revoked. The court found that an interim determination could not be made as the care had been revoked. Therefore, the new care determination was based on the actual care that was occurring. The Tribunal revoked the existing care percentage determination of 67% for Ms WGQQ from 14 May 2023 and substituted it with a 0% care determination from 15 May 2023. Similarly, the Tribunal revoked the existing care percentage determination of 33% for Mr CYHF from 3 July 2023 and substituted it with a 100% care determination from 4 July 2023. This decision effectively recognised the child's choice of residence and adjusted the care percentages accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In support of other attempts to enforce the court orders, Ms WGQQ provided an invoice from her solicitor to the Registrar’s delegate as evidence of her consultation regarding the care change.[8] Ms WGQQ also provided text messages to the child and Mr CYHF regarding the care of the child and attempts to undertake mediation.[8] [T25] at page 447 and 450.Mr CYHF’s evidence Mr CYHF’s oral evidence regarding the care of the child was that the child chose to live with him from 15 May 2023. He stated that the decision was entirely left to the child to decide and he did not withhold the child from Ms WGQQ’s care. He stated that Ms WGQQ and the child would text message and speak on the telephone regularly and the child would have dinner with Ms WGQQ on a weekly basis. Mr CYHF stated that the mother would collect the child from his home and then drop the child at his home after dinner. He stated that before the child was in his care 100% of the time, the child would come into his care after school, usually making their own way to his home by public transport. Under the court orders, he would have 5 nights per fortnight and Ms WGQQ would have 9 nights per fortnight. With the exception of when the child was in his care during school holiday periods, the child would always use public transport to make their way to his home. During school holidays, the child would be collected from his and Ms WGQQ’s respective homes. Mr CYHF stated that the idea of the child living at one of their homes was first raised by Ms WGQQ in a text message to the child prior to the change occurring. He recalled this exchange occurred at the start of the year but no decision was made until April 2023. He had indicated at the time that he was fine with this arrangement. The Tribunal referred Mr CYHF to the text message exchange between himself and Ms WGQQ referring to a meeting in person to discuss the issue of where the child was to stay.[9] The text message exchange indicates that the meeting occurred in person and Mr CYHF confirmed that this meeting occurred in person. Mr CYHF stated that the purpose of the meeting was for the child to tell them both where they had chosen to live and he stated that it was Ms WGQQ’s suggestion that the child choose where she wanted to live at the time. Mr CYHF stated that the child made the decision and this was stated at the meeting. Mr CYHF stated that he travelled overseas from 5 May 2023 until 15 May 2023. When he returned, the child came to stay with him at his home and apart from the dinner arrangements with the mother, did not return to her care.[9] [T22] at page 416. In response to the Tribunal’s questions relating to the notification of the Registrar as to the change in care, Mr CYHF confirmed that while the care change occurred on 15 May 2023, he did not notify of the change in care until 4 July 2023. Mr CYHF further stated that he waited until July to notify regarding the change in care because he was not in a hurry to change the child support arrangements until he was certain the change was permanent. Mr CYHF stated that the change in care was experimental in his view and due to the time commitment required to contact child support he wanted to wait until he was certain to the permanency of the arrangement.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Accordingly, an interim determination cannot be made in this matter as the care has been revoked pursuant to section 54F of the Assessment Act and therefore the new care determination is based on the actual care which was occurring. Accordingly, I set aside the decision under review.DECISION The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that, as follows:·The existing percentage of care determination of 67% to Ms WGQQ is revoked from 14 May 2023 and a percentage of care determination of 0% applies for Ms WGQQ from 15 May 2023; and·The existing percentage of care determination of 33% to Mr CYHF is revoked from 3 July 2023 and a percentage of care determination of 100% applies for Mr CYHF from 4 July 2023.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.