CHILD SUPPORT - percentage of care - change to the likely pattern of care - regular care - frequent changes of living arrangements - unreasonable to live at home rate of Youth Allowance payment - existing care determination revoked - decision under review sets 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 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

1. Ms Scotten and Mr Walmsley are the separated parents of [Child 1] and [Child 2]. The child support assessment was registered in May 2006. This review is only in relation to [Child 1]. [Child 2] is no longer a child of the assessment.
2. According to records of Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support), the registered care attributed to Mr Walmsley and Ms Scotten in respect of [Child 1] from 6 September 2014 was 7% and 93% respectively.
3. On 16 December 2024, Mr Walmsley contacted Child Support and advised that the registered care no longer reflected the actual care provided by the parents. He advised that [Child 1] had been in his sole care for 100% of the time since 7 November 2024.
4. On 17 April 2025, a delegate of the Registrar decided to accept the changes in care as notified by Mr Walmsley. As such, Mr Walmsley was attributed with 100% care of [Child 1] and Ms Scotten was attributed with 0% care of [Child 1] from 7 November 2024.
5. On 20 April 2025, Ms Scotten lodged an objection to the decision to accept the changes in care as notified by Mr Walmsley. On 1 August 2025, an objections officer decided to disallow Ms Scotten's objection.
6. On 4 August 2025, Ms Scotten applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an independent review of Child Support's decision. The matter was heard on 25 November 2025. Both parents participated by conference telephone and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal on affirmation.
7. The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents from Child Support numbered 1 to 164, information provided by Ms Scotten, numbered A1 to A4 and information provided by Mr Walmsley, numbered B1 to B7. Ms Scotten confirmed receipt of the documents. Mr Walmsley advised that he had not received any documents from Child Support. He did, however, receive A1 to A4 and B1 to B7 via email from the Tribunal.
8. On 25 November 2025, the Tribunal decided to defer making a decision in this matter to enable both parties to provide additional supporting evidence and for Mr Walmsley to receive and peruse the hearing papers. On 3 December 2025, the Tribunal received information from Ms Scotten in the form of a series of text messages and bank transfer details numbered A5 to A134 and additional information in the form of some text messages and bank transactions from Mr Walmsley, numbered B8 to B18. The A and B documents were exchanged with all parties for comment.
9. The Tribunal also requested further information from Child Support in respect of a pending care change from 20 February 2025 and from Centrelink in respect of entitlements of [Child 1]. A request was also made to Child Support for an unredacted page 96 of the hearing papers.
10. The Tribunal received a response from Child Support on 10 December 2025, numbered 165 to 170. Further information was received from Child Support on 24 December 2025 and on 5 January 2026, numbered C1 to C6. All documents were sent to the parties for their information and the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision.

1. The law relevant to this review is contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Registration Act).
2. While Ms Scotten contended that the registered care of [Child 1] was in accordance with the consent orders made in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia [in] February 2014, both parents agreed that the care changed a few years prior to 7 November 2024 when Mr Walmsley relocated some 400 kilometres away from where Ms Scotten and the children resided. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that the care of [Child 1] was no longer in accordance with the consent orders in early November 2024 and had not been since around 2022.
3. The issues for determination in this review are:
   • Should the existing determinations of the percentages of care in respect of [Child 1] be revoked? If so, from when should they be revoked?
   • Should new determinations of percentages of care be attributed to Ms Scotten and Mr Walmsley in respect of [Child 1]?
   • If there is a change in the percentages of care attributed to the parents, from what date should the administrative assessment be amended to reflect the change?

Issue 1 - Should the existing determinations of the percentages of care in respect of [Child 1] be revoked?

1. In relation to care change matters, the legislative scheme requires a new care percentage determination to be made following notification to Child Support of a change of care arrangements. As the court orders in respect of care of [Child 1] have not been followed for a number of years, section 51 of the Act is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the primary decision maker is required to assess the actual or likely pattern of care, by reference to an appropriate care period, to determine whether to revoke the existing care determination and make a new one.
2. Sections 49 and 50 of the Act require a new determination of percentage of care for a child to be made where an existing determination has been revoked. In this case, the Tribunal must first be satisfied that there has been a change in the level of care provided by each parent for [Child 1] before revocation under Subdivision C of Division 4 of Part 5 of the Act can be considered.
3. Section 49 applies, if the parent "has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances". Section 50 applies if the parent "has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care for the child during such period (the care period) as the Registrar considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances".
4. It was undisputed that the existing care of [Child 1] that was registered with Child Support prior to 7 November 2024 was 7% to Mr Walmsley and 93% to Ms Scotten. It was also undisputed that the care percentages that were actually taking place in relation to [Child 1] from 7 November 2024 no longer corresponded to the registered care percentages.
5. According to Centrelink records, in the period commencing 20 February 2025, [Child 1] commenced receipt of youth allowance and continues to be a recipient. Child Support records dated 1 August 2025 indicate that [Child 1] was granted the unreasonable to live at home rate of payment from 20 February 2025. That means he is paid at a higher rate of youth allowance to recognise that he is independent from parental income due to extreme circumstances. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that neither parent had any care of [Child 1] for child support purposes from 20 February 2025.
6. Government policy in regard to a care period, as set out in topic 4.1.3 of the Child Support Guide (the Guide), is that a care period is generally a 12-month period from the day on which the actual care for a child changed. This policy is not binding on the Tribunal and the Tribunal can determine a different care period.
7. In this case, for the sake of efficiency, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to consider two care periods, being from 7 November 2024 to 19 February 2025 and from 20 February 2025 until a terminating event occurs in respect of the child support assessment for [Child 1].
8. The Tribunal has the benefit of hindsight in hearing the matter almost 12 months after notification to Child Support by Mr Walmsley. In the case of Child Support Registrar v BKCZ [2023] FCA 1109 (BKCZ), a care matter, Thomas J addressed the question of whether the Tribunal should take into account relevant information which was not before the Registrar but had since become available to the Tribunal.

Thomas J noted that the role of the Tribunal was to:

re-exercise the function of the administrative decision-maker so as to determine the correct or preferable decision.

In undertaking the review, the AAT determines the question by reference to material before the AAT, and not limited to that material before the original decision-maker. This includes information which comes into existence, or events which occur, after the date of the original decision (up to the time of the hearing before the AAT).

1. Thomas J also concluded that incorporating a consideration of events occurring after the date of notification of a care change was consistent with the intention of the legislative text within the broader child support and family assistance regimes.
2. At 4.1.1 of the Guide it states that:

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.

1. The Guide goes on to state that in order to determine the extent of care provided by a person, one must consider 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, child care, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extra-curricular activities.
   • person pays for the costs of meeting the needs of the child, 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.
2. The guidelines were expanded in the matter of Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959, where Hughes FM stated as follows:

In my view, in determining whether and to what extent a person has care of a child for the purpose of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, it is necessary to consider the following:

• To what extent does the person meet the needs of the child by providing the child with accommodation, clothing, food, child care, education, health care, emotional support, supervision, transport and extracurricular activities?
• To what extent does the person make arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child?
• To what extent does the person pay for the costs of meeting the needs of the child?
• To what extent does the person otherwise provide financial support for the child?
• To what extent does the child provide for his or her own needs or have those needs met from another source?
• To what extent is the child financially independent or financially supported from another source?

1. The care of an older child was considered in the Federal Court decision Secretary, Department of Social Security v Lowe [1999] FCA 705; (1999) 92 FCR 26) ( Lowe), where it was noted that in respect of a child being in an adult's care:

... It is wrong to regard these words as requiring the adult's immediate physical presence at all times over a period of a fortnight, or any other period. 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. Ms Scotten gave oral evidence that in terms of overnight care, she does not dispute that she has had 0% care of [Child 1] since he left her home on 7 November 2024. She further stated that he left school early after an argument with her on the morning of 7 November 2024 in relation to his phone. She told the Tribunal that she was sending [Child 1] money on a regular basis after he left. Evidence in the form of bank statements were before the Tribunal which supported her oral evidence that she transferred money to him on a weekly basis between 30 November 2024 and 18 December 2024 in the amount of $30, which increased to $100 per week after Christmas until 7 February 2025.
2. In November 2024, [Child 1] went to the area where Mr Walmsley and his family resided. Ms Scotten does not agree that Mr Walmsley has had care of [Child 1]. Her understanding is that [Child 1] has been living with various family members and friends, including his grandmother and grandfather, both of whom reside at different addresses.
3. In Ms Scotten's view, [Child 1] should be registered as being in 0% care of both parents. Her understanding is that Mr Walmsley picked [Child 1] up from the train station on 7 November 2024 and took him to his grandmother's residence.
4. Mr Walmsley gave oral evidence that he was also residing with his mother and still does. As such, he considers that [Child 1] was in his care. He was less than forthcoming in responding to questions of the Tribunal in relation to living costs for [Child 1]. He told the Tribunal that he contributed half of the rent, utilities and Wi-Fi at his mother's residence, and he purchased all of the food for himself and [Child 1]. He also did all of the cooking for himself and [Child 1].
5. In response to text messages provided by Ms Scotten, Mr Walmsley gave oral evidence that while [Child 1] visited his grandfather, [Grandfather A], he did not always stay overnight with him. [Child 1] had only recently met his grandfather. He further stated that [Child 1] would also stay with some cousins for no more than around once a fortnight. This was generally when he had organised to do an activity with them.
6. Mr Walmsley told the Tribunal that he took [Child 1] to orientation at [College 1] on 2 December 2024 in relation to his interest in [occupation 1]. However, he did not attend [College 1] again. He further stated that he assisted [Child 1] in applying for a few [vocational] courses and work through an employment agency, but he loses interest very quickly, so nothing eventuated. Furthermore, he told the Tribunal that he could provide details of the various employment agencies, enrolments and Centrelink visits to which he has accompanied [Child 1]. Text messages in relation to [School 1] contact on 29 November 2024 were before the Tribunal. The text messages in relation to [named] employment services are dated in early March 2025 and an [Employer 1] application discussion in July 2025.
7. Mr Walmsley maintains that [Child 1] had no access to regular funds until he applied for Centrelink benefits in February 2025 and it was he who met his necessary costs via electronic transfers, in addition to directly purchasing items for him. Bank transactions provided by Mr Walmsley after the hearing related to transfers totalling $140 in June 2025 and $70 in November 2025. There is no evidence of regular transfers of money to [Child 1] in the period prior to June 2025. However, the Tribunal accepts that he likely directly purchased items for him at times.
8. An undated text message prior to 25 November 2024 between [Child 1] and Ms Scotten indicates that [Child 1] wants to stay with his Dad. A text message dated 18 December 2024 states that [Child 1] is staying with [Grandfather A], his grandfather, as he is bored at his Dad's. A text message from Mr Walmsley's mother, provided to Child Support on 16 December 2024, stated as follows:

As the mother to [Mr] Walmsley and the grandmother to [Child 1] , I am aware and have full knowledge that [Child 1] has been residing with his father [Mr Walmsley], since 7 November 2024. I see both [Mr Walmsley] and [Child 1] on a very regular basis.

1. A further text message from Mr Walmsley's sister to [Child 2] notes that [Child 1's] grandmother took him in when he was in need of somewhere to go.
2. The Tribunal pointed out that it appeared unusual that Mr Walmsley's mother did not state that he and [Child 1] resided with her, rather than just seeing them on a regular basis. Mr Walmsley was hesitant in answering the Tribunal's questions in relation to his provisions for [Child 1]. His oral evidence that he and [Child 1] had continued to reside with his mother since 7 November 2024 contradicted evidence in the doc records of Child Support of a discussion on 15 March 2025 where Mr Walmsley stated that [Child 1] resides in a camper trailer on his property, while also visiting his aunty and/or grandmother to stay for a couple of days. Furthermore, a declaration signed by Mr Walmsley on 31 March 2025, states that he and [Child 1] reside at the [Location 1]. This is also where [Grandfather A] resides. Mr Walmsley's oral evidence at hearing was that [Child 1] only "visited" [Grandfather A], sometimes overnighting depending on organised activities.
3. Ms Scotten gave oral evidence that after speaking with police in February 2025, they followed up [Child 1's] whereabouts and told her that he had left his grandfather's residence a few weeks earlier. She gave oral evidence that the police had agreed with her description of [Child 1's] living arrangements as being "transient".
4. Ms Scotten maintains that the letter Mr Walmsley provided from [College 1] confirming his attendance on 2 December 2024 was a deliberate attempt to provide a false narrative in respect of what was actually happening with [Child 1].
5. Ms Scotten posted a box of clothing, learner driver's licence and wallet to [Child 1] at his grandmother's address in [Town 1] on 19 November 2024, where [Child 1] requested she send it. Mr Walmsley confirmed that the address on his learners permit was [Location 1], where his grandfather, [Grandfather A], resided. Mr Walmsley told the Tribunal that he also uses that postal address for convenience.
6. Based on text messages, it appears that Ms Scotten communicated with [Child 1] on a regular basis until around 19 December 2024, when [Child 1] then ceased contacting her or advising of his whereabouts, unless he wanted money. Mr Walmsley told the Tribunal that he was aware that Ms Scotten was sending money to [Child 1].
7. Mr Walmsley was adamant that [Child 1] has been in his sole care at his mother's residence since 7 November 2024 and remains residing with him now at his mother's residence. This is in contrast to the text message to Ms Scotten from [Child 1] where he stated that he is no longer welcome to reside with his grandmother, albeit the text message is undated. A further undated text message referencing him being "kicked out of Nan's last week" refers to him staying at his cousins place. And, as noted above, is contradictory to the written declaration by Mr Walmsley dated 31 March 2025 provided to Child Support whereby Mr Walmsley declares that he and [Child 1] reside at the [Location 1]. The Tribunal finds the oral evidence of Mr Walmsley to be unreliable.
8. The Tribunal notes that [Child 1] was 17 years of age [in] November 2024, at the end of his Year 10 level at school. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the care of [Child 1] changed from 7 November 2024 and he was no longer in the care of Ms Scotten for 97% of the time. [Child 1] was living some 400 kilometres away from Ms Scotten. The Tribunal accepts that she continued to provide emotional support and financial assistance over the first few months from November 2024 to February 2025.
9. From 7 November 2024, [Child 1] had relocated to the same area as Mr Walmsley. The Tribunal is not persuaded that [Child 1's] main residence was with Mr Walmsley. Mr Walmsley's oral evidence contradicted written evidence in relation to where he and [Child 1] resided. While Mr Walmsley's oral evidence was that he transferred money to [Child 1] for expenses if he was staying with friends or relatives, the bank transactional evidence provided by Mr Walmsley does not support that in the period prior to June 2025.
10. Given the close proximity of Mr Walmsley to [Child 1] from 7 November 2024, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Walmsley also provided support to [Child 1], both emotionally and financially. The Tribunal accepts that he assisted [Child 1] to attempt to find study/work and also in relation to his Centrelink claim. The Tribunal is satisfied that he also assisted him financially at times. However, it appears that [Child 1] was making his own decisions about with whom he stayed and when and organising his own social activities.
11. As set out in Lowe, in regard to the care of an older child for child support purposes, it is wrong to require an adult's immediate physical presence at all times. In this case, based on the available evidence and on the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal is satisfied that [Child 1] resided at various places with various relatives and friends. However, regardless of where he was overnighting, he continued to receive emotional and financial assistance from both parents prior to February 2025.
12. Overall, in respect of the care period 7 November 2024 to 19 February 2025, the Tribunal is satisfied that the parents shared the financial and emotional support of [Child 1]. "Shared care", as defined in subsection 5(3) of the Act, is at least 35% but not more than 65%. In the absence of persuasive supporting evidence, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to attribute 50% care of [Child 1] to each parent.
13. In respect of the second care period commencing 20 February 2025, when [Child 1] began receiving youth allowance in his own right, he is considered financially independent. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the parents have continued to assist him emotionally, the Tribunal is satisfied that neither of them have provided 14% care or more and it is appropriate to attribute 0% care to each parent.

The care period 7 November 2024 to 19 February 2025

1. As the Tribunal has found that the existing care percentages in respect of [Child 1] attributed to Mr Walmsley and Ms Scotten of 7% and 93% respectively do not correspond to the care percentages found by the Tribunal in respect of the care period 7 November 2024 to 19 February 2025 of 50% each, it went on to consider the revocation provisions.
2. The criteria set out in each of the revocation provisions under Subdivision C of Division 4 of Part 5 of the Act are not mutually exclusive and all of them must be met before the Tribunal can consider revoking the existing care percentages.
3. Subsection 54F(1) of the Act provides that if an existing determination of care was made under section 49 or 50 of the Act, then the existing care determination must be revoked if all of the four criteria are met. As Child Support was notified that the care of [Child 1] actually taking place did not correspond with the existing percentages of care, the first criterion under paragraph 54F(1)(a) of the Act is met.
4. In relation to the criterion in paragraph 54F(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal must consider whether each person's cost percentage would change if a new percentage of care determination were made under section 49 or 50 of the Act. Relevantly, section 50 is applicable where a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care during the care period.
5. Section 55C of the Act contains a table that is used to work out a person's cost percentage. Under the child support assessment based on the existing percentage of care determinations at 7 November 2024, the cost percentages of Mr Walmsley and Ms Scotten were 0% and 100% respectively. If new determinations were to be made in accordance with the Tribunal's findings above, the cost percentages applicable to Mr Walmsley and Ms Scotten would be 50% each. Therefore, the second criterion under paragraph 54F(1)(b) is met.
6. Section 54G of the Act is not applicable in this matter as neither parent has reduced their care of [Child 1] to less than regular care. Regular care is defined in subsection 5(2) of the Act as at least 14% care and less than 35% care, the third criterion under paragraph 54F(1)(c) of the Act is met.
7. As there is no written care arrangement that relates to the care period in this matter, section 51 of the Act is not applicable and therefore the fourth criterion under paragraph 54F(1)(d) is also met.
8. As all of the criteria under subsection 54F(1) of the Act are met, the Tribunal must revoke the existing care determinations.
9. Subsection 54F(3) of the Act sets out when the revocation of the determinations takes effect. The date of effect depends on whether Child Support was notified of the care change within 28 days after it occurred. As discussed above, the care change advised by Mr Walmsley on 16 December 2024 took effect from 7 November 2024. As the notification was made more than 28 days after the change in care occurred, the revocation of the existing determinations takes effect in accordance with paragraph 54F(3)(b) of the Act. That is, in respect of Mr Walmsley's increased care percentage,15 December 2024, being the day before the Registrar was notified of the change in care. In respect of the decreased care percentage attributed to Ms Scotten, the date of effect is 6 November 2024, being the day before the change of care day.

Care period from 20 February 2025 until a terminating event occurs in respect of the child support assessment for [Child 1]

1. The Tribunal must consider the same revocation provisions under Subdivision C of Division 4 of Part 5 of the Act in respect of the care period commencing 20 February 2025. Subsection 54F(1) of the Act provides that if an existing determination of care was made under section 49 or 50 of the Act, then the existing care determination must be revoked if all of the four criteria are met.
2. Child Support records indicate that they became aware that [Child 1] was in receipt of youth allowance at the unreasonable to live at home rate during the objection process. The notepad is dated 1 August 2025, the date of the objections officer's decision. Therefore, the first criterion under paragraph 54F(1)(a) of the Act is met.
3. In relation to the criterion in paragraph 54F(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal found above that neither parent had at least 14% care of [Child 1] from 20 February 2025, when he is considered to be financially independent. The Tribunal is satisfied that each person's cost percentage in accordance with section 55C of the Act, would then change from 50% to 0% if a new care determination were made under section 49 or 50 of the Act. Relevantly, section 49 is applicable where a responsible person for the child has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care during the care period. Therefore, the second criterion under paragraph 54F(1)(b) is met.
4. Section 54G of the Act is not applicable in this matter as neither parent has been attributed with care under section 50 of the Act. Therefore, the third criterion under paragraph 54F(1)(c) of the Act is met.
5. As there is no written care arrangement that relates to the care period in this matter, section 51 of the Act is not applicable and therefore the fourth criterion under paragraph 54F(1)(d) is also met.
6. As all of the criteria under subsection 54F(1) of the Act are met, the Tribunal must revoke the existing care determinations.
7. Subsection 54F(3) of the Act sets out when the revocation of the determinations takes effect. The date of effect depends on whether Child Support was notified of the care change within 28 days after it occurred. As discussed above, Child Support became aware of [Child 1's] receipt of youth allowance and subsequent attribution of less than regular care to each parent on 1 August 2025. As this was more than 28 days after the change in care occurred, the revocation of the existing determinations takes effect in accordance with paragraph 54F(3)(b) of the Act. That is, in respect of Mr Walmsley's decreased care percentage, 19 February 2025, being the day before the change of care day. In respect of the decreased care percentage attributed to Ms Scotten, the date of effect is also 19 February 2025, being the day before the change of care day.

Issue 2 - Should new determinations of percentages of care be attributed to Mr Walmsley and Ms Scotten in respect of [Child 1]?

1. Having revoked the existing determinations, the Tribunal must make new determinations of the percentages of care attributed to Mr Walmsley and Ms Scotten in respect of [Child 1]. The Tribunal considered section 50 to be the relevant section of the Act in respect of the care period 7 November 2024 to 19 February 2025. Under section 50, to make a new determination the Tribunal must be satisfied that, relevantly, an existing care determination made under section 50 has been revoked and that a parent has had or is likely to have a pattern of care for the child. These matters have been discussed above and the Tribunal is satisfied that the determination made under section 50 of the Act to attribute 97% care of [Child 1] to Ms Scotten and 7% care to Mr Walmsley should be revoked under section 54F of the Act.
2. Furthermore, in respect of the care period commencing 20 February 2025 until a terminating event occurs in respect of the child support assessment for [Child 1], the Tribunal is satisfied that the determination made under section 50 of the Act to attribute 50% care of [Child 1] to each parent should be revoked under section 54F of the Act.
3. Based on the oral and written evidence of the parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the actual care of [Child 1] during the care period 7 November 2024 to 19 February 2025 was 50% to Mr Walmsley and 50% to Ms Scotten.
4. Based on the evidence from Child Support and Centrelink, the Tribunal is satisfied that the actual care of [Child 1] during the care period commencing 20 February 2025 until a terminating event occurs in respect of the child support assessment for [Child 1] was 0% to each parent.
5. Accordingly, new care determinations are to be made under section 50 of the Act in respect of the period 7 November 2024 to 19 February 2025 and under section 49 of the Act in respect of the care period commencing 20 February 2025.

Issue 3 - From what date should the administrative assessment be amended to reflect the change?

1. Section 54B of the Act sets out the date of effect of new determinations of percentages of care. The percentage of care applies to each day in a child support period on and from the "application day." Relevantly, and in accordance with subparagraph 54B(2)(c)(ii) of the Act, the application day for new determinations of percentages of care is the day after the revocation of the existing determinations.
2. In relation to the period 7 November 2024 to 19 February 2025, the Tribunal has revoked the existing determinations in respect of Mr Walmsley and Ms Scotten with effect from 15 December 2024 and 6 November 2024 respectively. Therefore, the new determinations apply in respect of [Child 1] for Mr Walmsley from 16 December 2024 and for Ms Scotten from 7 November 2024.
3. In relation to the period commencing 20 February 2025, the Tribunal has revoked the existing determinations in respect of Mr Walmsley and Ms Scotten with effect from 19 February 2025. Therefore, the new determinations apply in respect of [Child 1] for both parents from 20 February 2025.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

• The existing care determination attributed to Mr Walmsley in respect of [Child 1] of 7% is revoked at 15 December 2024 and a new care determination of 50% applies from 16 December 2024;
• The existing care determination attributed to Ms Scotten in respect of [Child 1] of 93% is revoked at 6 November 2024 and a new care determination of 50% applies from 7 November 2024;
• The care determination attributed to Mr Walmsley in respect of [Child 1] of 50% is revoked at 19 February 2025 and a new care determination 0% applies from 20 February 2025; and
• The care determination attributed to Ms Scotten in respect of [Child 1] of 50% is revoked at 19 February 2025 and a new care determination of 0% applies from 20 February 2025.