1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).
2. The issue which arises in this case is whether Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A] were members of a couple as at the date of Ms Sollenberger's claim for parenting payment, 3 December 2024.

1. Paragraph 4(2)(a) of the Act defines a person as being a "member of a couple" for the purposes of the Act if:

(a) the person is legally married to another person and is not, in the Secretary's opinion (formed as mentioned in subsection (3)), living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis ...

1. Subsection 4(3) of the Act requires that a decision-maker have regard to specific matters in determining whether a person is living separately and apart from the other person, and provides as follows:

(3) In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), subparagraph (2)(aa)(ii) or subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), the Secretary is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:

(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:

(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities; and

(ii) any significant pooling of financial resources especially in relation to major financial commitments; and

(iii) any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of the other person; and

(iv) the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household expenses;

(i) any joint responsibility for providing care or support of children; and

(iii) the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed;

(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:

(i) whether the people hold themselves out as married to, or in a de facto relationship with, each other; and

(ii) the assessment of friends and regular associates of the people about the nature of their relationship; and

(iii) the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage in, joint social activities;

(e) the nature of the people's commitment to each other, including:

(ii) the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the people provide to each other; and

(iii) whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely; and

(iv) whether the people see their relationship as a marriage-like relationship or a de facto relationship.

1. The Full Federal Court's decision of In the Marriage of Pavey [1976] FamCA 36 cited with approval the case of In the Marriage of Todd (No 2) [1976] FamCA 12 at [6] where the Court stated:

Where it is asserted that a separation has taken place it may be necessary to examine and contrast the state of the marital relationship before and after the alleged separation. Whether there has been a separation will be a question of fact to be determined in each case.

1. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that she and [Mr A] were married in 2018. She said that they separated on 19 July 2023 because her husband was disrespectful and his attitude bothered her. He was controlling and made decisions without consulting her. He had accrued a lot of debt and they argued a lot about money as she did not want to be responsible for his debts. On 19 July 2023, following an argument, Ms Sollenberger told [Mr A] that she wanted to end the relationship. He said that she could go but could not take the children with her.
2. The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it relevant to the criteria set out in paragraph 4(3) of the Act in forming an overall assessment of the nature of the relationship between Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A].

1. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that she and [Mr A] live in a home that was purchased by [Mr A] in 2020, prior to their separation. The home is held solely in [Mr A's] name. Ms Sollenberger did not contribute financially to the purchase of the marital home and she was not named as a borrower on the mortgage over the home. [Mr A] has always paid, and continues to pay, the whole of the mortgage repayments.
2. [Mr A] also purchased all the furniture for the home prior to their separation. Home and contents insurance is held in [Mr A's] name only.
3. [Mr A] owns a car which Ms Sollenberger said she uses if she is taking their 2 children out or taking them to and from school. Ms Sollenberger will pay for petrol if she uses the car. If she is going somewhere by herself, without the children, she will take a bus. The car is insured in [Mr A's] name and Ms Sollenberger said that she is not noted as an approved driver on the insurance policy.
4. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that she and [Mr A] have no joint bank accounts. However, she confirmed that she and [Mr A] did not hold any joint bank accounts at any time during their marriage. She banks with [Bank 1] and [Mr A] banks with [Bank 2].
5. Ms Sollenberger said that [Mr A] paid all the household bills prior to their separation. This appears to have remained the case as at the time Ms Sollenberger lodged her claim for PPS on 3 December 2024.
6. In her relationship details form lodged on 30 December 2024, Ms Sollenberger stated that:
   • [Mr A] owns the home in which she lives and she did not pay any rent or board/lodgings to live there.
   • [Mr A variant] paid for phone and internet, electricity and gas.
   • She would spend her family tax benefit on food for the children and [Mr A] would pay the rest of the bills.
   • They did not jointly own any real estate and did not owe any joint debts.
   • They did not have any joint bank accounts and did not have access to each other's bank accounts.
   • Neither party had a will, superannuation or life insurance.
   • The parties had made child support arrangements which were "private collect".
7. [Mr A], in a relationship details form lodged 5 February 2025, stated that:
   • He paid for phone and internet, electricity and gas and most of the food.
   • They did not jointly own any real estate and did not owe any joint debts.
   • They did not have any joint bank accounts and did not have access to each other's bank accounts.
   • Neither party had a will, superannuation or life insurance.
   • The parties had made child support arrangements which were "private collect".
8. In a subsequent relationship details form lodged on 19 March 2025, Ms Sollenberger stated that:
   • [Mr A] owns the home in which she lives and she paid rent on the basis that "I used to work for [business name] (belongs to [Mr A]) as his part-time admin officer. I now only help him with advanced admin tasks instead of a cash payment for rent".
   • She now paid for her own phone, and she paid the electricity and gas bills as they are in her name.
   • [Mr A] paid for the home internet.
   • They shared food expenses and both bought food for the children.
   • They did not jointly own any real estate and did not owe any joint debts.
   • They did not have any joint bank accounts and did not have access to each other's bank accounts.
   • Neither party had a will, superannuation or life insurance.
   • The parties had made child support arrangements which were "private collect".
9. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that [Mr A] runs his own [business]. Prior to separation, Ms Sollenberger said that she worked part-time in the [business]. She generally worked about 10 hours per week. The money she earned went into her own bank account and she spent it on herself. When they separated in July 2023, Ms Sollenberger said that she refused to continue working in [Mr A's] business. However, she then resumed doing some work for the business about 6 months later. She now generally works about 3 hours work per [week]. She said that she does this work in lieu of paying rent to [Mr A].
10. No details were provided by Ms Sollenberger or [Mr A] of any child support arrangements between them. In a letter to Centrelink dated 28 February 2025, Ms Sollenberger said that [Mr A] pays her $80 per year in child support. It is noted that such amount is far less than the minimum annual rate of child support that would be payable on any assessment by Child Support, even for a payer solely in receipt of Centrelink benefits.
11. Although Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A] do not jointly own real estate or other major assets, and do not have joint bank accounts, I place little weight on these factors as this situation reflects the financial arrangements that existed during the course of their relationship. [Mr A variant] has always purchased and held assets (including the family home and car) solely in his name and the parties have always maintained separate bank accounts throughout the marriage.
12. After separation, [Mr A] continued to pay for the mortgage, phone, internet, gas and electricity without any contribution by Ms Sollenberger. [Mr A] also paid for food for the household with some contribution by Ms Sollenberger.
13. Ms Sollenberger continued to work in [Mr A's] business and was not paid a wage as an employee of that business. Rather, she said that she worked "in lieu" of paying rent. There is no evidence however that [Mr A] has ever requested Ms Sollenberger to pay rent to remain in the family home, even in the period when she was not performing any work in [Mr A's] business.
14. The evidence indicates that [Mr A] has continued to financially support Ms Sollenberger after the date of their supposed separation by paying all costs for her accommodation as well as all household bills other than food, which Ms Sollenberger contributed to. It is noted that Ms Sollenberger subsequently transferred the gas and electricity bills into her name (which she says was done at Centrelink's suggestion) and she says that she now pays for all of the gas and electricity bills as well as for her own phone. [Mr A variant] however continues to pay all accommodation costs including the mortgage, rates and insurances. He continues to allow Ms Sollenberger use of his vehicle, with her contributing to petrol costs only. She continues to work, unpaid, in his business.
15. Overall I find that the financial aspects of the relationship support a finding that Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A] were not living separately and apart, and continued to be members of a couple, as at the date Ms Sollenberger lodged her claim for PPS.

1. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that she and [Mr A] live in a 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom home. She sleeps in a bedroom with the children and [Mr A] sleeps in the main bedroom with his own ensuite.
2. In her relationship details form lodged on 30 December 2024, Ms Sollenberger said:
   • She and [Mr A] do not share a bedroom.
   • She does all of the cleaning and washing.
   • They both do general maintenance.
   • She is responsible for looking after the children.
3. [Mr A], in a relationship details form lodged 5 February 2025, stated that:
   • He does not share a bedroom with Ms Sollenberger.
   • Ms Sollenberger does all of the cleaning and washing.
   • He does general maintenance.
   • Ms Sollenberger is responsible for looking after the children.
4. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that both she and [Mr A] do grocery shopping, but separately. She said that he does most of the grocery shopping and buys cleaning products needed in the house. She will buy food for the children's lunches.
5. Ms Sollenberger says that they both cook. She mostly cooks for herself and the children. [Mr A] works long hours 7 days a week and leaves home at 4.30am and returns at 7pm. Ms Sollenberger said that if there are leftovers from meals that Ms Sollenberger has prepared for herself and the children, [Mr A] will eat these once he comes home, otherwise he will cook for himself.
6. Ms Sollenberger said that she mostly did all of the cleaning in the home. After she started getting Centrelink benefits, Ms Sollenberger said that [Mr A] would do some cleaning and would wash his own clothes and dishes. [Mr A] takes the rubbish out and cleans his own bathroom. Ms Sollenberger cleans her own bathroom. As [Mr A] works long hours and is not at home most of the time, she does the vacuuming and mopping. If [Mr A] is home on the weekend he may do some vacuuming or mopping but he is not often there.
7. Ms Sollenberger is the primary carer for the children given [Mr A's] long work hours. They sometimes argue about what the children should do but they make decisions about the children together. She manages all the medical treatments for the children and takes them on outings while [Mr A] is working.
8. In the relationship details form lodged on 19 March 2025, [Mr A] indicated that both he and Ms Sollenberger look after the children, stating, "I work long hours but love my children. It is her job to take care of the children."
9. The evidence indicates that Ms Sollenberger continues to perform the majority of housework, child-rearing and cooking for the family, including preparing meals that [Mr A] eats, with limited assistance from [Mr A]. This state of affairs appears consistent with the traditional family roles adopted by each of the parties during their marriage.
10. Overall I consider that the nature of the household supports a finding that Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A] continued to be members of a couple, and were not living separately and apart, as at the date Ms Sollenberger lodged her claim for PPS.

1. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that she and [Mr A] do not socialise together. They do not undertake any joint family activities. Ms Sollenberger takes the children to activities such as the park or pool while [Mr A] is working.
2. Centrelink's records show that Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A] travelled overseas together in March 2025. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that they travelled together to Iran as [Mr A's] mother was ill and he wanted to take the children to meet her. Ms Sollenberger was worried about the children travelling alone with their father as they were very young, so she went with [Mr A]. [Mr A] purchased and paid for tickets for the whole family. Ms Sollenberger said that while in Iran she and the children stayed with her father and [Mr A] stayed at his mother's house. She said that [Mr A] then returned to Australia without her and the children. She had to borrow money from her father to purchase airline tickets to get home.
3. Both Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A] stated in their relationship details form that relatives, friends and regular associates consider them to be partnered. Ms Sollenberger stated that "We are keeping it a secret for now as it is not acceptable for Persians". [Mr A] stated "No need to tell anyone. It is none of their business" and "I have not told my mates or my relatives in Iran because it is none of their business". In her subsequent relationship details form lodged on 19 March 2025, Ms Sollenberger stated "Some of his Australian work friends know. My family in Iran don't know except for my sister. I am ashamed of my failed mariage [sic]".
4. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that she told her sister of her separation from [Mr A] a few months after it occurred. She also said that she told her mother about her problems while she was staying with her in Iran. No evidence was provided to the Tribunal by any third parties to demonstrate that the parties represented themselves to others as being separated. To the contrary, the evidence of both parties in their relationship details form was that they continued to hold themselves out as a married couple to family, friends and work associates.
5. Although I accept that Ms Sollenberger's evidence that she and [Mr A] engage in few social or family activities as a couple, I place limited weight on this factor as this appears to be consistent with what occurred during their marriage due to [Mr A's] long work hours limiting any family outings.
6. Having regard to the parties' overseas travel together as a family and the fact that they continue to hold themselves out to others as still being in a relationship, I find that the social aspects of the relationship support a finding that Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A] continued to be members of a couple, and were not living separately and apart, as at the date Ms Sollenberger lodged her claim for PPS.

1. Both parties stated that they do not have a sexual relationship. However, Ms Sollenberger stated in her relationship details form lodged on 30 December 2024 that the parties had not had a sexual relationship since December 2021, when [Mr A] had a hernia operation.
2. I accept Ms Sollenberger's evidence that she does not have a sexual relationship with [Mr A] but place limited weight on this factor as the lack of any sexual relationship was also a feature of the parties' relationship prior to separation.

Nature of the commitment and intention to continue to live together

1. Ms Sollenberger told the Tribunal that she did not intend to move out of the family home. She said that she could not afford to do so until she was earning her own income.
2. Neither Ms Sollenberger nor [Mr A] have taken any steps to legally end their relationship. In her relationship details form Ms Sollenberger said this was because it was not culturally acceptable for Persians. Ms Sollenberger has not attempted to request an assessment from Child Support for [Mr A] to pay child support for the children.
3. In relationship details forms completed by Ms Sollenberger and lodged on 30 December 2024 and 19 March 2025, and a relationship details form completed by [Mr A] and lodged on 5 February 2025, both parties stated that they did not provide any care or support to the other in any circumstances. However, in a relationship details form completed by [Mr A] and lodged on 19 March 2025, he stated that he did provide care, support or help to Ms Sollenberger during illness, stating, "I can't take care of her very much because I work very long hours. I took care of the kids when she was in hospital." This statement suggest that [Mr A] saw himself as continuing to be responsible for providing support to Ms Sollenberger and the children.
4. I accept that the parties provide limited care and emotional support to each other. However, they continue to make decisions about the care of the children together and [Mr A] cares for the children during Ms Sollenberger's periods of illness.
5. Consideration of the nature of the parties' commitment to each other does not strongly support a finding that the parties either remained or ceased to be members of a couple as at the date Ms Sollenberger lodged her claim for PPS.

1. I am satisfied on the evidence that Ms Sollenberger and [Mr A] were not living separately and apart on a permanent basis as at 3 December 2024, the day she lodged her claim for PPS. [Mr A] continued to provide substantial financial support to Ms Sollenberger by paying for all accommodation costs and the bulk of the household bills. Ms Sollenberger continued to provide primary care of the children and undertake the majority of household chores while [Mr A] worked. Ms Sollenberger continued to work in [Mr A's] business without being paid a wage.
2. The parties continued to represent to others that they remained members of a couple and travelled overseas together to visit family. The parties have taken no steps to separate legally or physically.
3. I accept that Ms Sollenberger's relationship with [Mr A] is not a happy one. However, as noted by the Tribunal in Re Hucker and SDSS [1992] AATA 11, at [21], "although the marriage seems to the Tribunal to be unsatisfactory and unsatisfying to all concerned it is still a marriage". There is nothing about Ms Sollenberger's relationship as at 3 December 2024 that was materially different from the state of her relationship with [Mr A] prior to their alleged separation in July 2023.
4. After weighing each of the relevant factors set out in subsection 4(3) of the Act, I find that Ms Sollenberger was not living separately and apart from [Mr A] and remained a member of a couple with [Mr A] as at 3 December 2024.
5. The ARO made a decision that Ms Sollenberger was a member of a couple with [Mr A] from 10 February 2025. There is no basis to limit that finding as applying only from 10 February 2025. It is necessary to consider whether or not Ms Sollenberger was a member of a couple and was not living separately and apart from [Mr A] as at the date of her claim for PPS, being 3 December 2024, for the purposes of considering her qualification for PPS as at that date.
6. As I have found that Ms Sollenberger remained a member of a couple with [Mr A] as at 3 December 2024, she was not qualified to receive PPS from 3 December 2024. This may mean that Ms Sollenberger has a debt raised for overpayment of PPS from 3 December 2024 onwards.
7. It is noted that Centrelink has made other "member of a couple" decisions both prior to and after Ms Sollenberger's claim for PPS was made on 3 December 2024. Those decisions are not before the Tribunal. However, given the Tribunal's findings that the nature of Ms Sollenberger's relationship after her supposed separation from [Mr A] in July 2023 did not materially change from the relationship during the time the parties were partnered, it would be open to Centrelink to review those earlier and later decisions.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the orders that:

• Ms Sollenberger was not living separately and apart from, and remained a member of a couple with, [Mr A] as at the date of her claim for parenting payment (single) lodged 3 December 2024;
• Ms Sollenberger was not qualified for parenting payment (single) from 3 December 2024 onwards.