Yucedag and Eardale (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 956

Yucedag and Eardale (Child support) [2025] ARTA 956 (23 April 2025)

Applicant/s: Ms Yucedag

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Mr Eardale

Tribunal Number: 2024/SC028920
Tribunal: General Member M King
Place:Brisbane
Date: 23 April 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that Ms Yucedag be recorded as having 88% care of [Child 1], and Mr Eardale 12% care of [Child 1], from 8 January 2024.
The change to the pattern of care was advised to the Child Support Registrar on 27 February 2024.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – new determinations made – care changeover services – below regular care – court ordered care arrangement – no interim care period – 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 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Ms Yucedag and Mr Eardale are parties to a child support case registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) in relation to financial support to be provided for [Child 1] (born 2017).
Ms Yucedag had been recorded as having 100% care of [Child 1].
On 27 February 2024, Mr Eardale advised Child Support that he had 23% care of [Child 1], and Ms Yucedag 77% care of [Child 1], from 1 January 2024 pursuant to a court order made [in] December 2023.
On 1 March 2024, Child Support decided to record Ms Yucedag as having 77% care of [Child 1], and Mr Eardale as having 23% care of [Child 1], from 1 January 2024.
On 5 March 2024, Ms Yucedag objected to the decision.
On 1 November 2024, a Child Support objections officer allowed the objection and decided to record Ms Yucedag as having 86% care of [Child 1], and Mr Eardale as having 14% care of [Child 1], from 8 January 2024.

On 27 November 2024, Ms Yucedag lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking an independent review of Child Support’s decision.

The hearing of the application before the Tribunal was held on 28 March 2025. Ms Yucedag and Mr Eardale attended the hearing by conference telephone and gave sworn evidence. The Tribunal deferred making a decision to allow Mr Eardale an opportunity to provide further submissions.
In considering the application, the Tribunal took into account the oral evidence and submissions of Ms Yucedag and Mr Eardale at the hearing, the documentary material provided by Child Support to the Tribunal prior to the hearing (the hearing papers), additional evidence provided by Ms Yucedag (marked A1 to A6) and an email received by the Tribunal from Mr Eardale on 15 April 2024.

CONSIDERATION

The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act). The legislation provides the Registrar, that is, Child Support,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yucedag and Eardale (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 956
Decision Date: 23 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Yucedag and Eardale [2025] ARTA 956 involved a dispute between Ms Yucedag and Mr Eardale regarding the percentage of care for their child, [Child 1]. The case was reviewed by the Australian Taxation Tribunal (the Tribunal) following an objection lodged by Ms Yucedag against the decision of the Child Support Registrar (Child Support). The key issue before the Tribunal was determining the percentage of care for each parent based on the actual care provided by each parent over a 12-month period commencing from 1 January 2024.

The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by both parties, including the sworn statements from the hearing, documentary evidence, and additional submissions. The analysis involved interpreting the relevant sections of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 to determine the appropriate percentage of care based on the actual care provided, as well as considering whether any interim care period could apply following the revocation of existing care determinations. The Tribunal found that the existing care determinations should be revoked and new determinations made based on the actual care provided by each parent. The evidence demonstrated that Ms Yucedag had care of [Child 1] for 88% of the nights and Mr Eardale for 12% of the nights over the 12-month period, with the pattern of care changing on 8 January 2024.

The Tribunal concluded that the existing percentages of care could be revoked pursuant to section 54H of the Act and set aside the decision under review. The Tribunal determined that Ms Yucedag should be recorded as having 88% care of [Child 1] and Mr Eardale 12% care of [Child 1] from 8 January 2024. The Tribunal further noted that any further changes to the pattern of care should be communicated to Child Support by either parent. The Tribunal made an order that Ms Yucedag be recorded as having 88% care of [Child 1] and Mr Eardale 12% care of [Child 1] from 8 January 2024, effective from the date the change to the pattern of care was notified to Child Support on 27 February 2024.

Orders