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. Mr Dasper (the father) and Ms Sekanic (the mother) have had a registered child support assessment for their children born [October] 2008 and [October] 2010. Since 1 February 2024, Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) has collected child support on the basis that the father had 57% care and the mother had 43% care of the children. These percentages denote the existing percentages of care.
2. On 21 October 2024, the father notified Child Support that the children had been in his care since 19 October 2024.
3. On 31 December 2024, Child Support decided to accept the care change and amended the particulars of the assessment to reflect that the father had 100% care and the mother had 0% care from 19 October 2024 (the original decision).
4. On 2 January 2025, the mother objected to the original decision on the basis that she had missed some care events but the regular pattern of care remained in place.
5. On 25 February 2025, Child Support allowed the mother's objection (the objection decision).
6. On 4 March 2025, the mother sought review of the objection decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
7. The matter was heard on 30 June 2025. The Child Support Registrar elected not to be represented at the hearing, but provided documentation (T1 to T145). The father appeared by MS Teams video and provided documentation (A1 to A18), and the mother attended the Tribunal.

1. The relevant issues before me are whether there was a change to the children's care arrangements, and, if so, the date of effect of the new care determination.

1. Sections 49 and 50 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) require that I consider the relevant pattern of care for the children and if there has been any changes.
2. The Act, under section 54A, provides that actual care may be worked out based on the number of nights the children were, or is likely to have been, in the care of the relevant person.
3. Sections 54F and 54G of the Act provide the circumstances when a determination of an existing care percentage must be revoked and this is dependent on if there is a change to the care percentage.

What information has been provided in relation to the care of the child?

1. The parties have raised various matters but I will only address those that are relevant to the issues before me.
2. The father advised that the children came into his care on 19 October 2024 and stayed with him full time for 27 nights before returning to the mother's care on 15 November 2024. He wants recognition that the children were in his care outside the current arrangement and noted there were costs involved in having the additional care. The usual care arrangement for the children is that each fortnight the children are in his care for eight nights and in the mother's care for six nights. This is different to the court orders which are not being followed. In his submissions, the father stated that the additional care he had was not a temporary disruption as the mother had described to Child Support, which he said minimised the "seriousness of the change". He said that these "were not casual or planned absences but a complete shift in the children's residence, following their ejection from their mother's home and relocation to [his home] for comfort and safety". He stated that the mother had told the children to leave her home and not return unless they agreed to conditions regarding contact with him during the days the children were in her care, noting that it started with gym membership he took out for the children. He noted that at the time, they did not know if the children would return back into the mother's care or not.
3. The father disagreed with the example used in the objection decision that the change was a "minor departure" as it was not a missed weekend of care or due to short-term illness. He stated as the children stayed with him for 27 consecutive days, this materially changed the care arrangement.
4. The mother confirmed that the children went to stay with their father on 19 October 2024 and returned to her care on 15 November 2024, which meant that they were not in her care for 12 days or six nights per fortnight in that period. She said that she agreed with Child Support as it was not a change to their regular pattern of care. She confirmed that she had a disagreement with the children but it took longer for them to return to her care due to the communication that was taking place. It was always open for them to return home, which they did on 15 November 2024 when the usual pattern of care resumed. She confirmed that there were court orders that were not being followed.
5. Both parties provided statements from third parties which also confirm that the care that took place during that period. The father's care calendar indicates that if the usual pattern of care was followed, the children would have been in the mother's care from 18 to 23 October 2024, the father's care from 24 to 31 October 2024, the mother's care from 1 to 6 November 2024, the father's care from 7 to 14 November 2024, and then back into the mother's care from 15 November 2024 for her usual six nights' care.

Has there been a change to the care of the children?

1. I am undertaking a review of the applicable care percentage afresh and am required to consider the actual pattern of care undertaken. While undertaking this task, the Act provides that actual care may be worked out based on the number of nights the children were, or is likely to have been, in a parent's care.
2. It is not disputed that the children were in the father's care from 19 October 2024 to 14 November 2024 and that the mother missed two care events from 19 to 23 October 2023 and 1 to 6 November 2024. I understand that the children were in her care on 18 October 2024 before they returned to stay with the father from 19 October 2024. This means that during this period, the mother missed 11 nights of care.
3. The purported change of care does not indicate any alternate pattern of care. I note that one-off or discrete events would not constitute a change to the pattern of care. The operative word is pattern in this regard. The Act requires that I consider the actual pattern of care and not simply reconcile what care has occurred. The Tribunal has previously considered the meaning of the term 'pattern of care' in Parent A and Child Support Registrar and Anor (Parent A):

The phrase 'pattern of care' is not given any special meaning for the purposes of the Assessment Act. Having regard to the text of ss 49 and 50 of that Act, and the content and purposes of Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 5, the phrase can be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. A pattern may be construed to mean a regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in certain actions or situations, on which the prediction of successive or future events may be based. While these features may be necessary to establish a pattern of care, to my mind, in the wide variety of circumstances that may arise between parents in respect of care for children, especially where communication is afflicted by conflict and reason may be upset by emotional turmoil, room should be given for flexibility in the arrangement of care for children. In other words, the pattern looked for is not one characterised by precise conformation of detail, day by day, or by unbending regularity. Some accommodation may be expected for vicissitudes of circumstance in the care of a child, although the extent to which a pattern of care may bend or flex to accommodate variation is a matter to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case. This interpretation is consistent with the Guide, which provides that that minor departures from the normal care of the child will not constitute a change to the pattern of care.[1]

1. In this regard, the Child Support Guide (Guide) at 4.1.3, which the objection decision referred to, states that minor departures from the normal care of the child, such as missing a weekend of care due to illness or work, will not constitute a change to the pattern of care, and will not result in a new care determination. I am permitted to have regard to the Guide, though I am not bound to follow it.[2] The Federal Court has observed that in the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide the exercise of a statutory power is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to take into account in performing its review task.[3]
2. The father has disputed that this policy should apply to the circumstances here as the change was not only for two nights but instead 27 nights, and the mother not having care of the children during this period was not akin to missing care due to illness or work. Accordingly, he did not consider the change that occurred was a minor departure. I understand the father's submissions in this regard and accept that the mother did not have care due to a disagreement with the children rather than illness or work. However, minor departure refers to discrete temporary changes to the pattern of care that is provided to the children. The examples in the policy are not an exhaustive list and include other temporary changes that affect the care provided, such as staying additional nights at the home of a parent, sleeping over at the home of a friend or relative, or travelling on a trip.
3. While I accept there was a disruption to the usual pattern of care for the children in this case and there was uncertainty from 19 October 2024 whether the children would return to the mother's care or when they would return to her care, the fact remains that this was resolved a short time later and the children did return to her care on 15 November 2024. I consider this change, with the mother missing two care events, to be discrete events or a minor departure from the usual pattern of care.
4. For completeness, I note the Guide at 4.1.3 also states that care periods are generally for a 12 month period, but may be less where the pattern of care will gradually change over a definable period of less than 12 months in a specific and measurable way. In this case, the pattern of care did not gradually change in a specific and measurable way. Rather, there was only a minor departure, as referred to above, from the usual pattern of care.
5. In light of the above, I am not satisfied that there had been a change in the pattern of care provided to the children.

[1] Parent A at [33], which has been cited with approval in other cases.

[2] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.

[3] G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229.