Sloane and Allston (Child Support) [2025] ARTA 2839 | Case summary

CHILD SUPPORT - percentage of care - change to the pattern of care - objection outside the 28-day period - special circumstances - deductions from wages - decision under review affirmed

Mr Sloane and Ms Allston are the parents of [two named children]. Services Australia - Child Support ("Child Support") registered a child support case from 16 October 2023. It also decided to record Mr Sloane as providing 28% care and Ms Allston as providing 72% care for the children with effect from 16 October 2023.
On 29 February 2024, Ms Allston objected to the care decision. On 9 April 2025 an objections officer made two decisions.
First, the objections officer decided to allow the objection and record Mr Sloane as providing 0% care and Ms Allston as providing 100% care for the children with effect from 16 October 2023. The decision was made under sections 49 and 50 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.
Second, the objections officer concluded that Ms Allston objected to the original care decision more than 28 days after she was notified of the decision, but special circumstances had prevented her from objecting within the 28-day period. The objections officer decided to extend the 28-day period to 29 February 2024 under subsection 87AA(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. At a practical level, the second decision allowed the first decision to have full retrospective effect despite Ms Allston's delay in lodging her objection.
On 22 May 2025, Mr Sloane applied to the Tribunal for review of the objections officer's first decision. I heard the matter on 5 September 2025. Both parents attended the hearing via MS Teams. They gave sworn evidence via an [interpreter].
During the hearing, Mr Sloane confirmed that Ms Allston was providing 100% care for the children from 16 October 2023. There is no dispute that the objections officer made the correct care decision.
Mr Sloane explained that he lodged an application for review by the Tribunal because he felt that Child Support mistreated him when it started deducting a portion of his wages. He confirmed that he was agreeable to contributing to the children's costs via child support payments. In response to further questions, he said his feeling of mistreatment may have been the result of a misunderstanding. In any event, as I explained during the hearing, my role is confined to reviewing the objections officer's care decision.

Sloane and Allston (Child Support) [2025] ARTA 2839 (8 September 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Sloane and Allston (Child Support) [2025] ARTA 2839 (8 September 2025)

Legislation Cited (2)