CHILD SUPPORT - percentage of care - father's records overstate provision of care - mother's records not disputed by father and accepted as correct - no ongoing pattern of care, and decision made for limited period - 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. Mr Geller and Ms Beath are the parents of [Children 1 and 2]. A child support case is registered with Services Australia - Child Support ("Child Support"). By way of background, Child Support recorded Ms Beath as providing 86% care for the children with effect from 17 June 2023 and Mr Geller as providing 14% care for the children with effect from 15 November 2023.
2. On 4 July 2024, Mr Geller reported a change in care of the children from 1 June 2024. On 13 November 2024, Child Support recorded Ms Beath as providing 60% care with effect from 1 May 2024 and Mr Geller as providing 40% care with effect from 4 July 2024. Ms Beath promptly objected to that decision. An objections officer allowed the objection and recorded Ms Beath as providing 72% care with effect from 1 May 2024 and Mr Geller as providing 28% care with effect from 4 July 2024. Mr Geller promptly applied for further review. I heard the matter on 29 August 2025. Mr Geller and Ms Beath gave sworn evidence via MS Teams.
3. On 13 May 2024, both parents signed an agreement with a view to having a court make orders in those terms. During the Tribunal hearing, both parents agreed that the change in care occurred on 13 May 2024.
4. On 2 September 2024, Ms Beath proposed a different arrangement, and the following day, Mr Geller agreed: page 113 of the hearing papers. On 22 November 2024, Ms Beath informed Child Support that a change in care occurred on 5 September 2024: page 102 of the hearing papers. As at 16 June 2025, Child Support had not made a care decision in respect of that information (or even recorded the reported change in care in its computer system): page 157 of the hearing papers. It should attend to that matter promptly.
5. During the Tribunal hearing, both parents agreed that for the purpose of determining the parents' percentages of care from 13 May 2024, it would be appropriate to consider the period from 13 May 2024 to 4 September 2024 (on the basis that Child Support would make a separate care decision in respect of a period from 5 September 2024). At the end of the hearing, Mr Geller queried whether it might be appropriate to consider a different period such as a twelve-month period. I deal with that issue below.
6. Mr Geller provided a list of "Days that I had care of the children", and Ms Beath placed a tick or a cross against each of Mr Geller's entries. During the hearing, Mr Geller explained that he had recorded his days of care, and not his nights of care. In response to further questions, he said that if he provided one night of care, he would record two days of care. Ms Beath explained that her ticks and crosses reflected her records of Mr Geller's nights of care. I explained why Mr Geller's methodology overstated his provision of care. (For example, if each parent had provided alternating nights of care, Mr Geller would have recorded himself as providing care every day, but recording him as providing 100% care would overstate his provision of care.) Section 54A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 ("the Act") expressly states that a parent's percentage of care may be calculated on the basis of their nights of care, and in practice, that is usually the appropriate methodology: see generally 4.1.1 of the Child Support Guide. It is the appropriate methodology in this case.
7. According to Ms Beath's records, Mr Geller provided 28 nights of care during the 115 nights from 13 May 2024 to 4 September 2024, which equates to 24.3% care. Mr Geller did not dispute the accuracy of Ms Beath's records of his nights of care, and I accept them as correct.
8. Care decisions are made under the Act. Percentages of care that are less than 50% are rounded down to the nearest whole percentage: section 54D of the Act. Mr Geller did not report the change in care within 28 days of its occurrence and so Ms Beath's reduced percentage of care, from 86% to 76%, has effect from when the change in care occurred, and Mr Geller's increased percentage of care, from 14% to 24%, has effect from when the change in care was reported: sections 50, 54B and 54H of the Act.
9. At the end of the hearing, Mr Geller queried whether the parents' care percentages could be calculated over a longer care period such as twelve months. He said his provision of care has been increasing since January 2024. I did not consider it necessary to hear from Ms Beath on that issue.
10. As I explained during the hearing, decision-makers must determine the appropriate care period over which to calculate the parents' percentages of care. Care periods of twelve months are commonly used because parents often provide an ongoing pattern of care during school terms and a different ongoing pattern of care during school holidays, and twelve-month care periods fairly reflect the parents' overall pattern of care. On Mr Geller's account of events, he has not been providing an ongoing pattern of care. On his account of events, his care has been increasing under successive patterns of care. It was for that reason that I concluded that the appropriate care period in the current proceedings was the period from 13 May 2024 to 4 September 2024.

The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution, Ms Beath is recorded as providing 76% care for the children with effect from 13 May 2024, and Mr Geller is recorded as providing 24% care for the children with effect from 4 July 2024.

The Child Support Registrar is referred, in particular, to paragraph 4 of the Tribunal's Statement of Reasons.