CHILD SUPPORT - percentage of care - child in father's care since leaving school - some care by mother, including during and after hospitalisation - period of disrupted care relatively short - date of change of care - broadly consistent agreement about dates - decision under review 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.

1. Ms Dobbin and Mr Pratt are the parents of [the child], born [September] 2008. He will soon be 17 years old. The mother is the paying parent.
2. On 24 January 2025, the father contacted Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) to advise that he had been providing 100% care for [the child] since 22 November 2024.
3. At the time of contact, and since 9 June 2023, the Child Support system recorded that the father provided 72% of [the child]'s care and the mother provided 28%.
4. On 19 April 2025, an officer from Child Support decided that the father provided 100% of [the child]'s care from 22 November 2024, as notified on 24 January 2025 (the original decision).
5. On 28 April 2025, the mother lodged an objection to the original decision.
6. On 21 May 2025, an objections officer from Child Support disallowed the objection (the objection decision). This meant that there was no change to the original decision.
7. On 17 June 2025, the mother lodged an application with the Tribunal for review of the objection decision.
8. The matter was heard on 10 September 2025. The mother and the father attended the hearing via MS Teams audio, equivalent to attending by telephone. The parents gave affirmed evidence.
9. The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents provided by Child Support, numbered 1 to 119 and separately, page 120, copies of which were provided to the parties before the hearing.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the R&C Act).
2. The issue which arises in this case is the date from which the father provided 100% care for [the child].

1. Section 50 of the Act requires Child Support to determine a person's percentage of care during a care period, if Child Support is satisfied that the person has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care during the care period. The percentage of care so determined must be a percentage that corresponds with the actual care of the child that Child Support is satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, during the care period.
2. If a parent or non-parent carer has had no pattern of care during a care period, section 49 of the Act requires that a determination is made that the percentage of care was nil.
3. Section 54D of the Act is about rounding up or down percentages of care if the percentage of care works out to be not a whole percentage. If the percentage is greater than 50% then the percentage is rounded up. If it is less than 50% then it is rounded down. (An example is that 62.2% is rounded up to 63% and 37.8% is rounded down to 37%.)
4. The legislation provides for existing percentage of care determinations to be revoked (sections 54F, 54G and 54H of the Act) and replaced by new percentage of care determinations (sections 49 and 50 of the Act).
5. Section 54F of the Act sets out that a care determination must be revoked if a change in the care percentage would affect the cost percentage. (If the cost percentage is affected, the rate of child support payable changes.)
6. Section 54H of the Act allows for the Registrar (Child Support) to change a care percentage even though the cost percentage will not be affected. This essentially gives the decision-maker discretion to record a change or not, depending on the circumstances, even though the rate of child support payable will not be affected.
7. A care period is defined in the Act as being an appropriate period having regard to all the circumstances.

1. The care provided by each parent for [the child] had been split 72/28. The mother provided care for four nights a fortnight, equivalent to 28%.
2. The mother said that [the child] would come to her place every second Thursday and then he would go to school on the Monday morning. This meant that he was in his mother's care for the nights of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday every other week. This was the pattern when [the child] was at school.
3. The father told Child Support that [the child] had been in his 100% care since leaving school on 22 November 2024.
4. However, at the hearing, both parents agreed that the mother had provided some care for [the child] between then and 22 December 2024. The father said that after school finished, [the child] was going to work with his father so he would not have been with his mother on the Thursdays and Fridays, as was the pattern when [the child] was still at school.
5. The mother said that [the child] did not start work until January 2025. He was not working in December 2024.
6. The mother said that [the child] was with her from 24 November 2024 to 29 November 2024.
7. [The child] was hospitalised on 24 November 2024 for two days with appendicitis. The mother took him to hospital. After being discharged, [the child] stayed with his mother for two nights and then returned to his father's care.
8. The Tribunal understood from the evidence that [the child] was discharged from hospital on 26 November 2025 and was with his mother for the nights of 26, 27 and 28 November 2024. He returned to his father's care on 29 November 2024.
9. On 30 April 2025, the father told Child Support that since 29 November 2024, [the child] had not stayed with his mother.[1]
10. However, at the hearing, the parents agreed that [the child] had stayed with his mother between 5 and 9 December 2024 and two nights between 19 and 22 December 2024.
11. Given the mother took [the child] to hospital on 24 November 2024 and he stayed with her for two nights after that in November 2024 and stayed with her again on two occasions during December 2024, for at least two nights each time, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it is reasonable to assert that the father provided 100% of [the child]'s care from 22 November 2024.
12. The Tribunal asked the mother for the last date when [the child] was in her overnight care. She said it was the period from 19 to 22 December 2024. The father said that [the child] was with his mother for two nights during that period as [the child] was with his father in [City] on 19 and 20 December 2024.
13. The Tribunal observed that the parents were largely in agreement as to the nights that [the child] was in his mother's care although there was some discussion to pin down exactly which nights. But, broadly, the evidence they each gave was consistent with that of the other.
14. The Tribunal formed the view that during the period 22 November 2024 to 22 December 2024, the usual pattern of care was disrupted because [the child] had finished school. His mother still provided overnight care in that period. It was agreed that the last time she provided care was Sunday 22 December 2024. For that reason, the Tribunal is satisfied that the father had 100% care of [the child] from 23 December 2024.
15. The Tribunal does not consider that it is reasonable to determine a pattern of care other than 72/28 for the period from 23 November 2024 to 22 December 2024, given that this was a relatively short period and that the mother did provide care for [the child] during this period. It appears to be a period of transition from the old care pattern of 72/28 to the new pattern of 100% care to the father.
16. In a letter to the Tribunal dated 16 June 2025, the mother contended that the father should be recorded as providing 100% care of [the child] from 17 January 2025, rather than an earlier date. At the hearing, she said that was the date that the father stopped [the child] coming to see her. The father did not agree that he stopped [the child] from seeing his mother. The Tribunal is not required to make a finding on that point.
17. The mother said that [the child] was due to stay with her for the usual four days for the fortnight following the period of 19 to 22 December 2024. The next period would have run from 2 to 5 January 2025. However, [the child] was not with her for that period as she was away. The mother said the care was to have resumed on 17 January 2025 but it did not, which was why she believed the change of care should be recorded as happening from that date. The Tribunal disagrees with that reasoning.
18. For the purpose of this review, the Tribunal is required to ascertain what the actual care was on different dates in order to determine when the father started having 100% care of [the child], rather than why that occurred. The Tribunal has already set out its reasoning for why it has determined that the old care arrangement should be revoked as of 22 December 2024 and the new care arrangement is to start from 23 December 2024.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides as follows:

• The care determination for [the child] whereby Ms Dobbin provided 28% of his care and Mr Pratt provided 72% is revoked on 22 December 2024.
• From 23 December 2024, Mr Pratt provided 100% of [the child]'s care.
• The notification of the change in care was 24 January 2025, as recorded in the decision under review.

[1] Page 95 of the Child Support documents.