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.

1. Ms Dalman and Mr Kington are the parents of [Child 1] (born [in] April 2014) and this matter relates to his care. There is no court order or written agreement between the parents regarding [Child 1's] care.
2. On 29 August 2024, Mr Kington contacted Child Support stating that [Child 1] left Ms Dalman's care on or about 30 September 2023 and started residing with his older brother [Child 2] (then [age] years old). At the time of Mr Kington's call, his child support liability was assessed on the basis that Ms Dalman had 100% of [Child 1's] care from February 2023.
3. The following is an excerpt from the Child Support officer's record of Mr Kington's contact (with abbreviations expanded and some grammar corrected):

[Mr Kington] advised [[Child 1]] has moved in with older brother. This was due to a number of

reasons but mainly to assist the child getting to school as the child attendance was

dropping. [Mr Kington] is unsure where [Ms Dalman] is living. [Mr Kington] has known this for a while but there are concerns that, if the [Child Support] case ends, [Ms Dalman] may take the child from the older brother [Child 2]

January 2023 - Child was seeing [Mr Kington], after this visit care ceased due to an indifference between parties.

September/October 2023 - Child moved in with older brother [Child 2].

[Mr Kington] was not aware of [the change] until approximately 6 months ago. [D]ue to previous issues between the parties (Child Protection/Police involvement) [Child 2] had not advised him. [Mr Kington] has not informed Child Support as there are concerns that [Ms Dalman] will take child from [Child 2].

1. On 29 August 2024, Child Support spoke to Ms Dalman who stated that there was no change in [Child 1's] care. The following is an excerpt from the Child Support officer's record of contact (with abbreviations expanded and grammar corrected):

Customer advised she is currently at no fixed address and staying at a hotel.

Customer confirmed the child stayed with the older brother during the week

occasionally as the brother lives at the back of the child's school.

Customer confirmed she will provide a statement from the older brother ([Child 2]).

Customer confirmed she would contact the school for a statement confirming care arrangement.

Affidavits and evidence will be provided by 2nd September 2024.

1. On 2 September 2024, Ms Dalman arranged with Child Support to provide supporting evidence by close of business on 3 September 2024.
2. Not having received anything from Ms Dalman, at 5.03 pm on 3 September 2024, a Child Support officer decided there was a change in care for [Child 1] from 30 September 2023 whereby neither parent had his care from this date. It is unclear how the officer was able to confidently reach this conclusion in the total absence of any supporting evidence from Mr Kington (and bearing in mind the significant financial consequences for both parties but for Ms Dalman in particular).
3. On 4 September 2024, Ms Dalman contacted Child Support to object to the care decision. For some reason, it was not until 13 September 2025 that an objections officer considered the matter. In the meantime, Ms Dalman provided Child Support with supporting documentation (discussed in detail below) including school reports, school invoices, a childcare centre memorandum and referee statements.
4. The following is an excerpt from the objections officer's decision:

5. On 4 September 2024, [Ms Dalman] lodged an objection to this decision.

6. On 23 July 2025, we spoke to [Mr Kington] about the objection. [Mr Kington] made a verbal response. [Mr Kington] stated that [Child 1] is currently living with her parents at [Address 1]. [Mr Kington] stated that [Ms Dalman] is living in a tent outside the property and [Mr Kington] believes that [Child 1] was staying with [Child 2] from 30 September 2023.

In this case, there is no dispute between the parents surrounding that [Child 1] did stay with [his] brother.

Upon reviewing the evidence provided by [Ms Dalman] we are unable to make any conclusive finding as to clearly establish whether [Child 1] was primarily living with [Ms Dalman].

On this basis, we have made the decision to reflect on the assessment that both [Ms Dalman] and [Mr Kington] provide 0% care to [Child 1] from 30 September 2023.

1. In the absence of any apparent attempt to discuss with Ms Dalman the documentation she provided, the objections officer considered it had no evidential weight. The objections officer was then able to conclude in the total absence of any supporting material from Mr Kington that [Child 1] ceased to be in Ms Dalman's care from 30 September 2023. No thought appears to have been given to the possibility that, if [Child 1] was in fact staying with [Child 2], this might involve delegated care.
2. Ms Dalman sought review of this decision by the Tribunal on 10 October 2025 and the application was heard by telephone on 20 November 2025 in Brisbane. The parties gave sworn evidence.
3. At hearing I accepted into evidence the 'Section 23 Statement and Documents' provided by Child Support, comprising folios 1 to 98 (marked Exhibit 1). Most of the material Ms Dalman had provided to Child Support was so heavily redacted that it was barely comprehensible. Child Support subsequently provided unredacted copies at my request.
4. On the eve of the hearing, Mr Kington contacted the Registry indicating he had a statement from [Child 2] he wished to submit. Due to the lateness of Mr Kington's contact, the matter was left for me to consider at the hearing. Mr Kington read some passages from the statement which appeared to contradict Ms Dalman's sworn evidence relating to the period October 2023 to August 2024. I indicated to Mr Kington that, if I was to consider the statement, I would likely need to examine [Child 2] as a witness. I asked Mr Kington to impress upon [Child 2] the gravity of providing sworn testimony.
5. I gave Mr Kington until 25 November 2025 to provide the statement if [Child 2] was prepared to provide sworn testimony. I indicated to Ms Dalman that she would be provided an opportunity to respond and indicated to both parties that the hearing may need to be reconvened to hear from [Child 2].
6. Mr Kington submitted [Child 2's] statement on 24 November 2025. A copy was sent to the parties on 1 December 2025 and Ms Dalman was asked to respond in writing by 5 December 2025 (if she wished to respond).
7. In the absence of a response from Ms Dalman, the matter was reconvened on 13 January 2026. [Child 2] appeared as a witness and provided sworn evidence.

1. The division of care of an eligible child is regulated by Division 4 of Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.[1] Section 49 applies where a responsible person has no pattern of care of a child and section 50 where there is a pattern of care. A responsible person is defined in section 5 to mean a parent or non‑parent carer of the child.
2. Sections 49 and 50 provide that, before a determination can be made in relation to a responsible person, any care determination already in place for that person must be revoked. As far as is relevant, a revocation under section 54F can occur only if the decision-maker were to determine (under section 49 or 50) a different percentage of care for a specified care period and the person's cost percentage would change as a result.[2]
3. The wording of subparagraphs 49(1)(b)(ii) and 50(1)(b)(ii) require a decision-maker to have regard to the care position at the time a person contacts Child Support regarding a change. The decision-maker must consider the care period that should be adopted, as well as both the care in the period that has already occurred to the date of contact and the care that is likely to occur in the remaining period after this date.
4. In conducting a merits review, the Tribunal takes the place of the original decision-maker and makes a decision completely afresh. It therefore adopts the same position as described above for the original decision-maker.
5. As noted, both the original decision-maker and objections officer accepted Mr Kington's unsubstantiated claim that a change in care occurred around 30 September 2023. The position outlined by the Full Bench of the Federal Court in McDonald v Director-General Social Security [1984] FCA 57 is that (in the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary) there is no onus of proof in administrative law. However, a party asserting a claim (whilst addressing the requirements of a statutory provision) needs to ensure sufficient probative evidence is tabled to support the claim. Where the evidence tabled is insufficient for a decision-maker to establish on balance if the claim is made out, the decision-maker is to dismiss the claim.
6. As Mr Kington had not provided any evidence to support his claim regarding a change of care and the objections officer was unable to make any "conclusive findings", at law the objections officer should have decided there was no change in care on the material before them.

1. The issue of delegated care typically arises where a child is residing with a non-parent. Common examples of delegated care include a child attending boarding school, or spending holidays with a grandparent, other relative or family friend. If a care situation is found to involve delegated care, the non-parent carer will not be a carer for child support purposes.
2. On the issue of delegated care, the Full Federal Court in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Lowe [1999] FCA 705; (1999) 56 ALD 609 noted:

After all, most children will be at school for a large part of each year, and a few may board for weeks or months at some institution, such as a hospital, or a boarding school. Children stay at times with relatives. The delegation of daily care involved in such arrangements need not be regarded as denying the enduring role of a caring parent. While a child is at school, or in hospital, or staying with a relative, the child may remain, in a perfectly intelligible sense, "in the ... care" of a parent or parents.

1. Child Support's policy covering the administration of the child support scheme is contained in the Child Support Guide (the Guide), which includes the following at 4.1.1:

An object of the Child Support Scheme is 'that persons who provide ongoing daily care for children should be able to have the level of financial support to be provided for the children readily determined without the need to resort to court proceedings'. The CSA Act does not define the term 'ongoing daily care', however the Registrar will take into account a number of factors in determining whether a person cares for a child.

In most cases, it will be relatively clear whether and to what extent a person is caring for a child and care will generally be worked out based on the number of nights that the child is likely to be, or has been, in the care of the person during the care period. Where there is doubt, the Registrar will consider whichever of the following are relevant to the particular case, based on the extent to which the:

• person has control of the child, including having overall responsibility for the child and making
  • major decisions relating to who the child spends time with, and the child's health, education, discipline, recreational and/or social activities, and
  • arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child (delegated care)
• person meets the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, childcare, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra-curricular activities
• person pays for the costs of meeting the needs of, or otherwise provides financial support for, the child
• child provides for his or her own needs or has those needs met from another source
• child is financially independent or financially supported from another source.

1. I am satisfied this passage accurately details considerations relevant to assessing care and the related notion of delegated care.

1. Ms Dalman's evidence is summarised below:
   •  Prior to October 2023 [Child 1] was residing with Ms Dalman in [Town 1] where she operated a business since 2019. [Child 1] was attending [School 1].
   •  Ms Dalman is not in good health and has an autoimmune disorder. Ms Dalman's "older kids" who reside in [Town 2] suggested she move back to [Town 2] where they could help her with her health issues.
   •  Ms Dalman began packing up her business and arrived in [Town 2] around 22 or 23 October 2023. Ms Dalman sent [Child 1] to [Town 2] a week earlier to make the move easier.
   •  Both Ms Dalman and [Child 1] commenced living with [Child 2] on a temporary basis. [Child 2] has a full-time job and was renting the property. The 2 also resided with Ms Dalman's mother at times, although this was not ideal as Ms Dalman and her mother do not get along.
   •  Ms Dalman decided [Child 1] would attend [School 2] which is adjacent to where [Child 2] resides. As part of the enrolment process, Ms Dalman and [Child 2] went to the [Town 2] Court House on 25 October 2023 where Ms Dalman signed a statutory declaration. The point of the statutory declaration was to demonstrate that [Child 1] was residing with her at the address stated ([Child 2's] address).
   •  Ms Dalman had difficulty obtaining rental accommodation in [Town 2] and eventually settled for a rental property at [Town 3] in late February/early March 2024. It is about a 25-minute drive from [Town 3] to [Town 2]. As [Child 1] has ADHD and was settled at [School 2], it was decided with the assistance of the school's Guidance Officer that [Child 1] would continue his schooling there.
   •  To allow [Child 1] a sleep-in on some mornings there was an arrangement that, during the school week, [Child 1] could stay with [Child 2] or sometimes with Ms Dalman's daughter [Child 3], 2 or 3 nights a week. On the other nights and on weekends [Child 1] stayed with Ms Dalman and she drove him to and from school as needed.
   •  Whilst Ms Dalman was living in [Town 3] she continued to pay the gap for [Child 1's] out of school care with [Agency 1]. However, at times Ms Dalman would transfer funds to [Child 2] to make payments. [Child 2] was a contact for collecting [Child 1] on the days he was staying in [Town 2].
   •  Ms Dalman would also send [Child 1] off with food when he was due to stay with [Child 2] and Ms Dalman generally covered his food and other costs.
   •  This arrangement remained in place until an ex-partner (not Mr Kington) discovered where she was living. As a result, Ms Dalman was "put up" by "Housing" in temporary accommodation at [Location 1] in [Town 2] which she shared with [Child 1].
   •  Ms Dalman was obliged to move out in September 2024 (due to bookings for [an event in Town 2]) at which point she and [Child 1] moved back with her mother. Although the 2 still reside there, it is not a long-term solution.

1. Mr Kington said he believes Ms Dalman did not relocate from [Town 1] as claimed. Mr Kington was not able to provide any basis for this belief and it appears nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation.
2. It is evident that Mr Kington has no direct knowledge of [Child 1's] care from October 2023 to the present and is relying on what he has heard from [Child 2] and on [Child 2's] statement.

1. [Child 2's] evidence, which relates only to the period from October 2023 to August 2024, is summarised below:
   •  [Child 1] started residing with [Child 2] and his partner at [Address 2], in mid-October 2023 having moved from [Town 1].
   •  [Child 2] has no recollection of attending the [Town 2] Court House with Ms Dalman in October 2023.
   •  Ms Dalman at no point resided with [Child 1] at [Address 2]. [Child 2] is not aware where Ms Dalman was residing in the first 6 months although he was aware she did not initially have stable accommodation. [Child 2] is aware Ms Dalman later moved to [Town 3] with her partner.
   •  [Child 2] attended an initial appointment with [School 2] regarding [Child 1's] proposed enrolment. Both [Child 2] and Ms Dalman subsequently attended the actual enrolment meeting.
   •  Both [Child 2] and Ms Dalman were the school contacts. The school contacted [Child 2] about various things such as school excursions.
   •  [Child 2] had the day-to-day care of [Child 1]. A standard week starting Sunday night was bedtime at 9.00 pm. [Child 1] would arise at about 7.00 am in preparation for school. [Child 2] made his school lunches and walked him to school and later collected him from school. [Child 2] would then oversee [Child 1's] school homework.
   •  This was also usually the pattern for Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. As [Child 2's] work hours varied, on Tuesdays his sister [Child 3] would collect [Child 1] after school and take him to [Address 2]. On occasions [Child 2's] mother-in-law, [named], would also look after [Child 1] at [Address 2].
   •  [Child 1] would go into Ms Dalman's care when she was available. [Child 2] estimates this would have amounted to about 30 days involving 5 visits in the period to August 2024.
   •  There was a group chat on Messenger where [Child 2] kept the family "in the loop" about [Child 1].
   •  [Child 2] covered most of [Child 1's] schooling costs, although [Child 3] and Ms Dalman's parents covered some costs.
   •  [Child 2] arranged doctor's visits for [Child 1] relating to the school's desire to have [Child 1] undergo [specified] testing. [Child 2] accessed Mr Kington's private health cover but was still out-of-pocket by about $245. Ms Dalman offered to contribute although she did not do so.
   •  [Child 2] covered all of [Child 1's] food and other basic costs and did not receive a contribution from Ms Dalman.
   •  There was no formal arrangement/agreement between [Child 2] and Ms Dalman regarding [Child 1's] care. Ms Dalman needed to move from [Town 1] quickly and the main goal was to give [Child 1] a stable environment whilst things "were up in the air" for Ms Dalman. [Child 2] made both parents aware that he had no expectation of financial support and he did not attempt to claim family tax benefit for [Child 1].
2. After hearing [Child 2's] evidence Ms Dalman conceded that she never resided at [Address 2]. Ms Dalman's response was largely an attempt to discredit [Child 2] by claiming he had an arrangement with Mr Kington to falsify what happened. Both [Child 2] and Mr Kington stated categorically that there was no such arrangement or any inducement whatsoever.
3. My distinct impression is that [Child 2] is a truthful witness who fully understood the solemnity involved in giving sworn evidence. [Child 2] gave his evidence in a consistent and direct manner. [Child 2] has nothing that I can see to gain from concocting an account and I accept his evidence. As Ms Dalman had to alter her initial (sworn) evidence, to the extent her evidence differs from [Child 2's] evidence I prefer his evidence.

1. As noted, Ms Dalman provided Child Support with supporting documentation which the objections officer rejected as having no evidential weight. As noted, as the copies Child Support provided in the hearing papers were heavily (and for the most part frankly unnecessarily) redacted, I asked for unredacted copies to be provided. This material was provided to the parties subject to redactions made by the Registry.
2. Most of the material relates either to Ms Dalman's circumstances in [Town 1] before moving to [Town 2] or to her circumstances after August 2024. Relevant to the period between October 2023 and August 2024, there is the following material:

(1) an adjustment note from [School 2], dated 27 October 2023, addressed to Ms Dalman at her previous [Town 1] address;

(2) an email of 4 December 2023 from [Mr C] to Ms Dalman regarding [Child 1's] class allocation at [School 2]; and

(3) an email of 12 February 2024 from [Agency 1] to Ms Dalman and [Child 2] regarding an enrolment for after school care for [Child 1].

1. Ms Dalman also provided copies of statements from [Mr A] and [Mr B], each dated 26 September 2024. [Mr A] writes:

I am the housemate of [Ms Dalman] and have lived under the same roof since the beginning of March but l have known [Ms Dalman] for 10 years.

[Ms Dalman] is fully financially responsible for [Child 1].

Since I have known [Ms Dalman] I have seen her regularly and I see her with her children in particular [Child 1] all the time he has his own room at our place and he is with her the majority of the time. I am also aware [Child 1] does go and stay with his Brother because his house backed onto the school [Child 1] attends so he doesn't have to get up so early. I have seen [Ms Dalman] taking and dropping off food and other stuff with [Child 1].

I have knowledge of a few sums of money [Ms Dalman] gave [Child 2] in the past and have seen the bank statement where it was transferred.

I have known [Ms Dalman] for approximately 5 years and have become close friends with her during this time. She is better known to her me as [Name 1]. In the time I have known [Name 1], she has shared with me her circumstances and we have spent much time discussing what her ex-husband [Mr Kington] has put her and all her children ...

[Ms Dalman] bas full custody of [Child 1]. Always has him with her when I see them. [Child 1] is good mates with my son so we see them on a regular basis. I speak to [Name 1] every day whether in person or over the phone but [Child 1] always yells out hello. I will stand beside her 100% and state that she has 100% custody of her son [Child 1] ...

[Ms Dalman] is fully financially responsible for [Child 1]. She is always buying stuff for [Child 1] uniforms, sports gear, tutors amongst other things. That doesn't stop when he does go to his brother or sisters or grandparents place she is always paying for his things he needs. She was just looking at putting him in a sport out of school but can't now that [Mr Kington] has once again turned their world upside down and made a false accusation about [Child 1] not being in her care.

I have knowledge of a few sums of money [Ms Dalman] gave [Child 2] in the past and I have seen the bank statement where it was transferred.

1. The hearing papers include historical bank statements showing money Ms Dalman has given to [Child 2]. This was canvassed at the hearing and it suffices to say those sums are irrelevant for present purposes.
2. The statements by both individuals were made after August 2024 when (as outlined below) I accept [Child 1] was in Ms Dalman's sole care. The statements are general in nature and in my view do not carry the weight appropriately given to [Child 2's] account.
3. I accept from the documentation Ms Dalman provided that she was in contact with [School 2] about [Child 1's] schooling.

1. It is not contested and I find that [Child 1] was in Ms Dalman's sole care before he moved to [Town 2] in mid-October 2023. I am satisfied that Ms Dalman moved to [Town 2] on or about 23 October 2023 but was unable to obtain stable accommodation. I am further satisfied that, due to Ms Dalman's accommodation issues, it was arranged that [Child 1] reside with [Child 2]. Apart from providing [Child 1] with a stable home environment, there was the advantage that [Child 2's] home was close to [School 2].
2. I do not consider this arrangement involved Ms Dalman's delegation of care to [Child 2] (in the formal sense outlined above). In this regard, [Child 2] was a co-contact for [School 2]. I am satisfied [Child 2] adopted an independent caring role, which included covering [Child 1's] food, schooling and medical expenses. I am satisfied essentially that Ms Dalman left [Child 1's] care in [Child 2's] capable hands and did not provide [Child 2] with funds to cover [Child 1's] costs.
3. There is a brief period of transition from Ms Dalman's care to [Child 2's] care. As noted, Ms Dalman attended the [Town 2] Court House on 25 October 2023 to sign a statutory declaration for schooling purposes to the effect that she was living with [Child 1]. Ms Dalman gave the address as [a different house number near Address 2]. Although this indicates [Child 2] was probably not with her (as the correct address was [Address 2]), the statement nevertheless evidences Ms Dalman's continuing role in [Child 1's] care at this stage.
4. In my view, the arrangement with [Child 2] would have been firmly in place by 1 November 2023. I accept Ms Dalman's evidence that she returned to [Town 2] from [Town 3] in August 2024 and resumed full care of [Child 1]. I accept Ms Dalman resided with [Child 1] in temporary accommodation at [Location 1] until [the event in Town 2] in September 2024 and then resided with him at her mother's residence.
5. When Ms Dalman moved back to [Town 2] is not exactly known. It is evident from the Child Support file note of 29 August 2024 (quoted above) that Ms Dalman was in [Town 2] at that point. For present purposes I find [Child 1] returned to Ms Dalman's care in [Town 2] on or about 15 August 2024.
6. I am satisfied from [Child 2's] evidence that, from 1 November 2023 to 14 August 2024 (319 nights), Ms Dalman had [Child 1] in her care for around 30 nights. Using nights as the basis, this gives Ms Dalman 9% care in this period. From 15 August 2024, I am satisfied Ms Dalman had 100% care. Mr Kington has had no care throughout.

1. I accept for child support purposes that there was a change in care on 1 November 2023 whereby Ms Dalman had 9% care of [Child 1], [Child 2] had 91% care and Mr Kington continued to have no care. This change requires the revocation of the care determination in place at the time for Ms Dalman.
2. As Mr Kington did not advise the change of care within 28 days, the result under paragraph 54F(3)(b) is that the revocation takes effect for Ms Dalman (as a parent with reduced care) on 31 October 2023.
3. On my understanding, as neither parent had at least 35% of [Child 1's] care from 1 November 2023 and [Child 2] was not subject to the Child Support assessment in place, this result involves a terminating event for child support purposes under subsection 12(2AA).[3] I will accordingly leave the finding that Ms Dalman regained the sole care of [Child 1] on or about 15 August 2024 with Child Support.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that there was a change in care for [Child 1] on 1 November 2023 whereby Ms Dalman had 9% care and Mr Kington continued to have 0% care. The change produced a terminating event for child support purposes.

Date of original hearing: Thursday 20 November 2025

Date of reconvened hearing: Thursday 13 January 2026

[1] All legislative references are to this Act.

[2] Care determinations can also be revoked under other provisions. However, these provisions have no present relevance.