Tribunal: Senior Member S Trotter (second review)

Decision: The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that, in respect of child:

1. the pre-existing percentage of care determination of 100% to ZZDN is revoked from 6 May 2023 and replaced with a new percentage of care determination of 79% applying from 7 May 2023; and
2. the pre-existing percentage of care determination of 0% to YXPP is revoked from 6 May 2023 and replaced with a new percentage of care determination of 21% applying from 7 May 2023

Names used in all second review child support published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by sections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

CHILD SUPPORT - care percentage determinations upon registration of child support case - relevant care period - actual care - conflicting evidence

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)

Child Support Registrar v BKCZ [2023] FCA 1109

MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2121] FCA 1767

Hneidi v Minster for Immigration and Citizenship [2110] FCAFC 21: (2110) [2010] FCAFC 20; 182 FCR 115

Minister for Home Affairs v G [2119] FCAFC 79; (2119) [2019] FCAFC 79; 266 FCR 569

Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2111] FMCAfam 959

QSKJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2125] ARTA 164

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Department of Social Services, Child Support Guide (Guides to Social Policy Law, version 4.90, 12 May 2025)

1. ZZDN (the Father) and the YXPP (the Mother) are parties to a child support case registered with Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) in relation to financial support to be provided for their daughter born 2008, (the child). The application concerns a single decision of Child Support about the percentage of care determinations for each parent for the child utilised in the calculation of the child support liability.
2. The pre-existing percentage of care determinations applying in the child support case for the child were 100% to the Father and 0% to the Mother, percentages of care which had been recorded from 21 February 2023. Child Support's records show that on 25 May 2023, the Mother notified Child Support that the care of the child had changed to 50% to the Father and 50% to the Mother from 7 May 2023.
3. On 8 August 2023, Child Support decided to revoke the pre-existing percentage of care determinations and record new percentage of care determinations of 50% to the Father and 50% to the Mother from 7 May 2023.
4. On 10 August 2023, the Father objected to the 8 August 2023 decision and, on 27 February 2024, a Child Support objections officer allowed in part the objection deciding to revoke the pre-existing percentage of care determinations of 100% to the Father and 0% to the Mother respectively and to record new percentage of care determinations of 89% to the Father and 11% to the Mother from 7 May 2023.
5. On 18 June 2024, following application by the Mother for first review of that decision, the Social Security and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) set aside the decision of the objections officer and decided to revoke the pre-existing percentage of care determinations of 100% to the Father and 0% to the Mother respectively and to record percentage of care determinations of 50% to the Father and 50% to the Mother from 7 May 2023. The decision was notified to the parties under cover of a letter dated 2 July 2024.
6. On 29 July 2024, the Father lodged an application with the AAT seeking second review of the decision.
7. On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
8. The Father, the Respondent's representative and the Mother participated by telephone in a hearing before me on 17 April 2025, with the Father and the Mother giving sworn evidence.
9. In addition to the Father's and the Mother's oral evidence and the oral submissions at hearing from all parties, I took into account the following documents before me:

(a) Documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT) Act), index and pages numbered 1 to 391, marked as Exhibit R1; and

(b) Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) dated 28 January 2125, marked as Exhibit R2 for identification.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act). Unless otherwise noted, all legislative references in these Reasons are to the Act. The legislation provides the Registrar, that is, Child Support, and the Tribunal on review, with rules for assessing and changing percentage of care determinations, which are then used as part of the child support formula to assess child support rates.
2. I also had regard to the Child Support Guide (the Guide) where relevant. As recognised by the Federal Court in MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2121] FCA 1767:

The part which a governmental policy should ordinarily play in the determinations of the Tribunal is a matter for the Tribunal to determine, in the context of the particular case, informed by considerations of the desirability of consistency of administrative decisions, but balanced against the ideal of justice in the individual case (Hneidi v Minster for Immigration and Citizenship [2110] FCAFC 21: (2110) [2010] FCAFC 20; 182 FCR 115 at [43]). Further, it is well-established that the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision in each case on the material before it and that the Tribunal is at liberty to adopt whatever policy it chooses, or no policy at all, in fulfilling its statutory function (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 642-643 per Brennan J). The important matter is compliance with the terms of the relevant statute itself Minster for Home Affairs v G [2119] FCAFC 79; (2119) [2019] FCAFC 79; 266 FCR 569.

1. The child support legislation provides for assessment of child support using a formula taking into account numerous variables, including relevant care percentages for each party to a child support assessment.
2. Sections 49 and 50 require initial percentage of care determinations to be made upon initial registration of a child support case usually based upon the actual care of a child parties to a child support case have. Existing percentage of care determinations are usually required to be revoked, pursuant to either section 54G, 54F or 54H, when a change of care occurs and new percentages of care apply.
3. Except in certain circumstances not relevant to this case, care percentages are to be determined corresponding to the actual care a person has had, or is likely to have, during a 'care period'.
4. As to the appropriate 'care period' to be considered, a care period is defined in the Act as being such a period as considered to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances. The Guide provides that a care period is generally the 12-month period starting from the date the actual care of the child began or changed. The same care arrangements will then be assumed to continue to apply after the end of the care period unless Child Support is notified or becomes aware of a subsequent change in the pattern of care and the requirements of the legislation are satisfied for a new care decision to be made.
5. Both sections 49 and 50 first require consideration of whether the relevant person has had, or is likely to have, no pattern of care or a pattern of care for a child for the care period. If applicable, section 49 then requires a percentage of care determination of 0% for a person with no pattern of care. If applicable, section 50 then requires that the percentage of care determined for the relevant person must be a percentage that corresponds with the actual care the person has had, or is likely to have, during the care period. Section 54A provides that the actual care of a child that a person has had, or is likely to have, during a care period may be worked out based on the number of nights that a child was, or is likely to be, in the care of a person.
6. The legislative test therefore first requires consideration of whether a person has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care of a child for a care period and, if so, then assessment of the actual care a person has had, or is likely to have, during the care period is required.
7. As was recognised by Thomas J in the Federal Court case of Child Support Registrar v BKCZ [2023] FCA 1109 at [72], section 50 allows a decision-maker flexibility to consider what care a person 'had or is likely to have' depending upon when, relative to the care period, the decision is being made.
8. The issues which arise in relation to this application are:

(a) Are the pre-existing percentage of care determinations of 100% for the Father and 0% for the Mother, in relation to the 25 May 2023 notification of a change in care, to be revoked? And, if so,

(b) What are the new percentage of care determinations for the Father and the Mother? and

(c) What are the dates of application of the new percentage of care determinations?

1. There are a number of background circumstances of understandable importance to both the Father and the Mother which were raised in evidence which are not relevant to the issues before the Tribunal. I have confined the evidence addressed in these Reasons to only the evidence relevant to the issues before the Tribunal.

1. The Father's 29 July 2024 application for second review was accompanied by a statement[1] setting out the reasons for his application. To the extent potentially relevant to the issues in relation to this application, the Father stated that the decision on first review was incorrectly based on assumptions that the Mother's care diary was representative of the entire 12 months the decision affects. Further, the Father stated recognising care to the Mother based upon money the Mother had expended on food, clothing, education and other financial support and arrangements the Mother had made for various appointments for the child, amounted to double-dipping because the Mother had also applied to have monies spent by her credited as Non Agency Payments in relation to the child support case.
2. At hearing, the Father said that he thought it had been agreed at the hearing upon first review what the real care facts were of the child from the end of February 2023 continuing on until late August 2023, when the child did start spending a reasonable amount of time with the Mother, which then continued for about 3 months, with the child then going back to spending the majority of the time in his care. He thought that it was agreed at hearing that the care was 60% to him and 40% to the Mother for the three month period from August 2023 such that 60/40 or 50/50 for that period would be appropriate however that was only for three months and it doesn't recognise what has happening the other 9 months of the 12-month period.
3. A letter from the Mother dated 1 April 2024[2] sets out her position in relation to the care of the child. To the extent potentially relevant to the issues in relation to this application, the Mother states that while the child was technically living with the father (trying to make up for lost time and to ensure that he is ok), she still provided a large share of parental responsibility including as regards education, medical, emotional, health and beauty, food, social and cultural activities. The Mother seeks that her care calendars be taken into account including overnight dates of care she had of the child from September to December (2023) and January to February 2024. The Mother also seeks that details of the very regular transport she provided, regular meals, schooling decisions, medical appointments and scripts, psychologist appointments (with $221 payments), clothing, hairdressers, school fees and holidays as shown in a parental care table prepared by her, also be taken into account. The Mother states that whilst the child may have slept overnight at the Father's house on certain nights, as in shown in the table, there were many instances where she provided three meals for the days and the child only slept at the Father's house. The Mother also stated that as the Father lost his licence in January (2024), she has been required to drive the child everywhere. The Mother details in the letter her involvement in matters related to the child's education and medical needs.
4. The evidence before me as to whose overnight care the child was in at relevant times included as follows:

(a) a letter from the Father to Child Support dated 22 August 2023[3] stating, amongst other things, that the dates that the child had been in the Mother's care since 22 February 2023 were:

(b) care calendars[4] completed by the Mother highlighting the nights of care she had of the child in the period May 2023 to May 2024 as follows:

7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 (14 nights)

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31 (17 nights)

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24 and 25 (17 nights)

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 21, 30 and 31 (12 nights)

1. As regards the records of overnight care kept by each parent, the Mother's evidence was that her care calendar was based upon contemporaneous records she kept and maintained whenever the child stayed overnight.
2. I noted at hearing that the care calendars provided by the Mother in the documents only went up to the end of February 2024. The Mother's evidence was that based on calendars she kept contemporaneously, she had overnight care of the child on 7, 18, 21 and 25 March and no overnight care in April or May 2024.
3. I discussed with the Father and Mother at hearing that where there is inconsistent evidence as to whose actual overnight care the child was in at any given time, I would ultimately have to reach a conclusion one way or the other. I further noted that I would give limited weight to third party statements, particularly in circumstances where they were based upon information told to the author and/or where the content of the statement did not specifically address actual dates of overnight care.
4. Both the Father and the Mother acknowledged that they may have made a mistake one night here or there in their records but otherwise maintained that their respective records of the overnight care was largely what occurred in relation to the child's overnight care. The Father's position at hearing, however, was that he would not dispute the overnight care recorded by the Mother and those nights added up to whatever they totalled.
5. In addition to the overnight care of the child she had, the Mother relies upon a table (which will be referred to in these Reasons as the Table) she has prepared showing additional care provided by her to the child. She noted the table is not complete because of the time-consuming nature of going through bank records and texts to complete the table, but rather is indicative. The table is annexed as Annexure A to these Reasons.
6. The Mother confirmed at hearing that some of the monies that she had spent on the child from time to time, as detailed in the Table, had been claimed as non agency payments in relation to the child support liability. The Mother's evidence was that her understanding is that the only expense she received a credit for was psychologist's fees. The Mother submitted, however, that there were many occasions where she provided all of the child's meals for the day and all the child's transport for the day even though the child stayed overnight with the Father.
7. In response, the Father said that he acknowledged that the Mother may have provided three meals per day to the child on occasion but that would likely only occur on school holidays, a very minimal part of the 12-month period. He said that as a school student, he would transfer money from his account to the child's account for her to purchase meals (lunch) at school. He said the reality is that he was providing at least lunch, if not breakfast and dinner as well on the days/nights the child stayed at his house. He said that he may have well also been providing meals on the same day as the Mother - they both may have been providing meals. The Father observed that the Mother could state anything in the Table and he is simply not in a position to disprove what is stated - however that does not mean that what is stated is necessarily correct. The Father submitted that the weight that should be placed upon the Table by the Tribunal should be minimal.
8. I discussed with the Mother that there are many entries in the Table that indicate that the Mother was providing emotional support (by way of messages and otherwise) and was in contact with the child regularly. I noted that I did not diminish in any way the importance of such support, but that it did not necessarily follow that the provision of that sort of support would correlate to a percentage of care of the child for the purposes of calculating the child support liability. The Mother did not take issue with that and noted that when she took advice from Child Support, they indicated that she should detail all particulars of the care she was providing so she did.
9. The Mother submitted that even though the child may have been staying overnight with the Father, she was so involved in the day to day live of the child, including emotional support, provision of transport and meals, that she feels she was the predominant carer at times even when she did not have overnight care. I noted that a number of the entries in the Table show the provision of meals by the Mother, namely for example, six dates of 5, 12 and 28 October 2023 and 11, 13 and 15 November 2023 but that most of the entries in the Table are in relation to the provision of emotional support and details of contact with the child, with some entries being about transfer of monies for some lunches and dinner. I suggested to the Mother that it does not appear that the provision of three meals per day, as indicated on the specified dates was a regular occurrence or consistently something that was happening as often as in October and November 2023. The Mother agreed that was correct.
10. The Respondent's written submissions (marked R2) included that it did not advance a position a position as to the findings of fact the Tribunal is called upon to make and that its submissions were confined to identifying and analysing the relevant legislative provisions.

Issue 1: Are the pre-existing percentage of care determinations of 100% for the Father and 0% for the Mother, in relation to the 25 May 2023 notification of a change in care, to be revoked?

1. In order to determine whether the pre-existing percentage of care determinations are to be revoked, I first need to consider the appropriate care period in relation to the 23 May 2023 notification of a change in care.
2. The Respondent confirmed that a subsequent decision had been made by Child Support that the care had changed further from 4 May 2024, with the Father having 100% care and the Mother having 0% care from that date such that it would not be open to the Tribunal to apply a care period extending past 3 May 2024: paragraph 37 of the Respondent's SFIC (marked R2).
3. Having regard to all matters, I am satisfied that there was a change in the actual care of the child from 7 May 2023 with the Mother commencing to have some care of the child from that date. This is not disputed by either parent. In those circumstances I find the appropriate care period is 7 May 2023 to 3 May 2024.
4. Section 54F provides that an existing care percentages decision must be revoked if the Child Support Registrar is notified, or becomes aware, that the actual care that is taking place does not correspond with the existing percentages of care recorded, that the change would alter the cost percentage used for a parent in the administrative assessment, and that section 54G does not apply and section 51 does not apply or no longer applies.
5. I have found the care changed on 7 May 2023. As to the care then occurring, the term care is not defined in the child support legislation. Subsection 54A(1) provides that the actual care of a child that a person has had, or is likely to have, during a care period may be worked out based on the number of nights that a child was, or is likely to be, in the care of a person. Subsection 54A(3) provides that, for the purposes of section 54A, a child cannot be in the care of more than one person at the same time. Previous Court and Tribunal decisions have recognised that although section 54A recognises that nights of care may be used as the methodology for determining care, it is permissive and not mandatory. P v Child Support Registrar [2115] FCA 116 and QSKJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2125] ARTA 164.
6. The Guide at 2.2.1 addresses measuring care other than based upon nights including as follows:

Generally, the number of nights a person cares for a child will be the best measure of their percentage of care. However, there may be some occasions where only counting the nights in care does not accurately reflect the caring arrangements for the child. For example, one parent may provide care every night while the other parent provides care from 8 am to 6 pm every weekday.

In such cases, the Registrar may calculate the number of hours of care for each carer in determining the pattern of care and convert that into a care percentage. The Registrar will take into account the information from each parent or non-parent carer about the care they provide and why they think nights or hours is the better measure of care.

1. The evidence before me does not detail the hours of care, as opposed to nights, of care that either the Father or the Mother had of the child during the care period. Rather, the Mother seeks that other aspects of the care she provided be taken into account, in addition to the overnight care she had of the child.
2. The Federal Magistrates Court in Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2111] FMCAfam 959 articulated aspects of care it considered necessary to take in to account in determining whether and to what extent a person has care of a child for the purposes of the Act as follows:

(a) 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 extra curricular activities?

(b) To what extent does the person make arrangements for others to meet the needs of the child?

(c) To what extent does the person pay for the costs of meeting the needs of the child?

(d) To what extent does the person otherwise provide financial support for the child?

(e) To what extent does the child provide for his or her own needs or have those needs met from another source?

(f) To what extent is the child financially independent or financially supported from another source?

1. As recognised in QSKJ at [21], (the) 'factors in Polec were not articulated to address the problem of identifying when using the number of nights in care as a methodology would not appropriately reflect the actual care or extent of care a person has'. Under consideration in the case of Polec was the situation where neither parent had any overnight care of the child. The child was in the care of a third party and regard was therefore had to other aspects of care. Unlike in Polec, it is not in dispute that it was either the Father or the Mother who had overnight care of the child during the care period. The Mother seeks, however, recognition of care additional to the overnight night care she provided, either in addition to or substitution for assessing care based upon overnight care.
2. For the purposes of assessing care, Senior Member Kennedy in QSKJ noted the observations of the Tribunal in Warne and Secretary, Department of Family, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and Anor [2106] AATA 159 (Warne) where Deputy President Hack said:

It would be wrong, I think, to require the Secretary to undertake a minute examination and comparison of the expenditure of the parties on their children. Moreover it would in all likelihood certainly lead to greater disputation between the parties in an area where there is already sufficient disputation.

and in the particular circumstances of the case in QSKJ, Senior Member Kennedy concluded that he was 'not persuaded that the calculation of care on the basis of nights, permissible under section 54A of the Act and treated as the 'general' approach in practice, does not appropriately reflect the actual care or extent of care each person has'. I am of a similar view in relation to this application. Section 54A permits calculation of care based upon the overnight care. There is evidence of the nights of care each parent had in the care period. Where there is an inconsistency in that evidence, the Father has conceded those nights in the Mother's favour.

1. As also observed in QSKJ, the Court in the case of P examined the Explanatory Memorandum to the legislation that introduced section 54A noting that it stated:

... if the number of nights in care does not appropriately reflect that actual care or extent of care the person, then the Registrar may use a different method to determine the percentage of care.

1. I considered whether the number of nights in care appropriately reflects the actual care or extent of care each of the Father and the Mother had of the child during the care period.
2. Evidence at hearing and upon first review included that the Father recognised that the Mother, an English teacher, helped the child with school work but that he also helped the child with schoolwork, including maths and science and that he also has provided care in the nature of, for example, taking the child to the doctor and providing other support to the child. He disputed the Mother providing three meals a day to the child in circumstances where he said the child does not eat breakfast (or her choice). I acknowledge the support shown by the Mother to the child, including at times when the child was not in the Mother's overnight care. I note that this involved significant contact by way of messages and emotional support and also at times, additional meals and transportation, including when the Father was not able to drive. That support and care is not to be diminished in any way. However, I am not satisfied that regard to that type of care is more appropriate to have regard to than nights of care in this matter. The circumstances are not like Polec where neither parent was providing overnight care. Rather the evidence allows a reasonably accurate conclusion to be reached as to whose overnight care the child was in at any time (with the Father conceding the nights of care to the Mother when the evidence was inconsistent). I am satisfied that the both the Mother and the Father provided additional aspects of care other than overnight care. This is not an exercise of qualitatively assessing the care and support provided. On a similar basis as observed in Warne I consider it would be wrong to undertake a minute examination and comparison of expenditure or indeed of emotional support provided by either parent. Having had regard to all matters, consistent with the general approach pursuant to subsection 54A(1), I conclude that overnight care is an appropriate measure of care in the circumstances.
3. Based upon the Mother's care calendar, the Mother had 79 nights care of the child in the care period 7 May 2023 to 3 May 2024 and the Father had the balance 285 nights care. 79 nights care corresponds to a care percentage of 21%[5] and 285 nights of care corresponds to a care percentage of 79%[6]
4. Subsection 54F provides that an existing care percentage decision must be revoked if Child Support Registrar is notified, or becomes aware, that the actual care that is taking place does not correspond with the existing percentages of care recorded, that the change would alter the cost percentage used for a parent in the administrative assessment, section 54G does not apply and section 51 does not apply or no longer applies.
5. Section 55C contains a table that is used to work out a person's cost percentage:

1. Section 54G provides that a care determination must be revoked if a parent was to have at least regular care pursuant to an existing percentage of care determination and the other parent was to have more than 0% care, they have no care or less than regular care (subsection 5(2) defines regular care as being care between 14% and 35%) despite the other responsible person making care available, and the change in care was notified within a reasonable period of time. The Mother was not previously having at least regular care. Section 54G therefore does not apply. Section 51 also has no application in the circumstances of this matter.
2. Care of 79% to the Father and 21% to the Mother does not correspond with the pre-existing percentage of care determinations recorded by Child Support of 100% to the Father and 0% to the Mother. A change in care to 79% to the Father and 21% to the Mother would change each parent's cost percentage pursuant to the table in section 55C.
3. The pre-existing percentages of care of 100% to the Father and 0% to the Mother are therefore required to be revoked pursuant to section 54F.

Issue 2: What are the new percentage of care determinations for the Father and the Mother?

1. Percentage of care determinations are required pursuant to section 50 respectively. I determine that the Father's percentage of care is 79% and the Mother's percentage of care is 21%.

Issue 3: What is the date of application of the revocation of the pre‑existing percentage of care determinations and the date of application of the new percentage of care determinations?

1. Pursuant to paragraph 54F(3)(b), as the change in care was notified by the Mother on 25 May 2023, within 28 days of when I have found the change occurred on 7 May 2023, revocation of the pre-existing percentage of care of 100% recorded for the Father and of the pre-existing percentage of care of 0% recorded for the Mother takes effect the day before the date I have found the care changed, that is, on 6 May 2023.
2. Pursuant to section 54B, new percentage of care determinations apply from the application day, that is, the day immediately after revocation of the previous percentage of care determinations. Therefore, the new percentage of care determination of 79% for the Father and the new percentage of care determination of 21% for the Mother both apply from 7 May 2023.
3. It follows that the decision under review will be set aside and a decision substituted.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision that, in respect of child:

1. the pre-existing percentage of care determination of 100% to the ZZDN is revoked from 6 May 2023 and replaced with a new percentage of care determination of 79% applying from 7 May 2023; and
2. the pre-existing percentage of care determination of 0% to YXPP is revoked from 6 May 2023 and replaced with a new percentage of care determination of 21% applying from 7 May 2023.

In addition to the overnights [the child] has had at my house, as per calendar supplied, these are the additional times where [the child] has been fed while technically not staying overnight. I have not covered some information from September and October as this is very time consuming going through our texts and bank records. Hopefully I have provided enough information for you to gain the picture here.

Provided breakfast, lunch and dinner, snacks, showered (but collected from [ZZDN] late after dinner)

Provided breakfast, lunch and dinner, snacks, showered (but collected from [ZZDN] late after dinner)

Provided breakfast, lunch and dinner, snacks, showered (but collected from [ZZDN] late after dinner)

Provided breakfast, lunch and dinner, snacks, showered (but collected from [ZZDN] late after dinner)

Provided dinner. Messages all day. Excited about getting the electives for 2024 she selected.

Provided breakfast, lunch and dinner, snacks, showered (but collected from [ZZDN] late after dinner). Need a lot of emotional support and help with school assessment.

Collected [the child] from Pomona at a friend's house.

Collected [the child] early from school with medical condition. Got an emergency doctor's appointment and went to QML.

Help with school. Messages all day. Emotional support.

Pick up from school, doctor, script, breakfast, lunch, new uniform to fit after losing a lot of weight. Messages all day. Emotional support. Help with school assessment. Sleepover at her friend's house.

Pick up from school early (anxiety), provided lunch, dinner, purchase a new formal tie uniform for 2024. Messages all day. Emotional support. Help with school assessment.

Bank transferred $15 for lunch. Helped with school assessments that were due. Messages all day. Emotional support. Stayed overnight.

Messages all day. Collected [the child]'s school IPAD from Coolum and returned it to her school as per policy.

Dropped off a black dress to [the child]'s friend's house that [the child] had borrowed. Messages all day

Collected printed labels from [the child]'s school for her to complete an order for body scrubs. Picked up [the child] from Coolum. Made [the child] a batch of homemade soup at her request as she felt so ill. Provided lunch and dinner, products from pharmacy for medical condition. Dropped her back to Coolum. We went to the Plaza to try and purchase the jars from K Mart at the Plaza for her body scrub order.

Bank transferred $21 for lunch. Messages all day. Provided lots of emotional support today. Lots of help with a medical condition. [the child] was vomiting with anxiety. We discussed going to hospital.

Spent the day together. Provided breakfast and lunch. Got her nails for her at the civic.

Drove [the child] to Caloundra to purchase jars from K Mart for her to make body scrubs

for an order. Provided lunch and dinner. Purchased products from pharmacy for

Sent [the child] her report card. Messages all day.

Called into Coolum to help [the child] with an order of body scrubs for a friend. Supplied

the ingredients for her, helped her make it, then delivered the goods for her to

Messages all day. Provided $10 for food, and sent her $50 of her own money for

shopping. Dropped off goods for her at Coolum house at her request.

Sent [the child] $65 for a nose piercing. Messages all day. Took her to the doctor, and

QML. Collected a script, and had lunch. Dropped off some goods at Coolum for

Provided breakfast and lunch. Messages all day. Messages about respect and behaviour also. Sent $30 money at [the child]'s request for food.

Picked up [the child], took her to get a colour correction at the hairdresser. Provided breakfast and lunch. Dropped her back home. Over 50 messages between us. Some disciplinary messages about behaviour and respect.

Bank transferred $21 for lunch at [the child]'s request. Messages all day

Provided breakfast and lunch. Saw [the child] for her birthday early and gave her presents and money. Messages all day

Picked up [the child] for lunch from Coolum. Dropped her back afterwards. Messages all day

[the child] stayed overnight and had Christmas dinner. Collected more medical supplies from the pharmacy for her to have here.

Bank transferred $21 for lunch. Messages all day. Helped [the child] with medical treatment again. Explained how it all worked.

Messages all day. Sent $21 for lunch again ([the child]'s request). Provided medical treatment for [the child] (paid for and dropped off to Coolum).

Messages all day. Sent $10 for lunch again ([the child]'s request)

Messages all day. Checking up on [the child]'s medical treatment (that I purchased). She did it.

Messages all day Sent $10 for lunch again ([the child]'s request)

Messages all day. Sent $10 for lunch at Plaza ([the child]'s request)

Messages all day. Sent $40 ([the child]'s request)

Messages all day. [the child] did another medical treatment (that I purchased). Nails done for Bali.

[the child] stayed and we went to Bali with a group of friends and their children from 13-21 January and enjoyed lots of social and cultural events. [the child] did lots of shopping and we got her teeth whitened too.

[ZZDN] lost his license for four months.... and since then I have picking [the child] up from school or various outings and dropping her to [ZZDN]'s home in Coolum frequently.

... provided emotional support. She was quiet distressed. Sent $21 for food (Ash's request).

Messages all day...I picked her from school and took her first day school photo. Drove her back to Coolum. I completed the online paperwork for her school device so she could collect it.

[the child] asked me to drop her sports uniform and extra school socks to Coolum. Messages all day.

[the child] asked me for emotional support to go somewhere with her and drive her.

Dropped off [the child]'s uniform steroid cream for her at Coolum. Messages all day.

Took [the child] to the plaza to find clothes that fit her. Transport to a friend's house. Messages all day.

Overnight - friend over, plus bought shorts online

Provided breakfast, lunch and dinner plus overnight

Messages all day. Provided lunch and she stayed the night.

Bank transferred $21 for lunch ([the child]'s request). Messages all day. [the child] came over to collect denim shorts that she had purchased online when she was at my house a couple of days earlier.

Provided Lunch and dinner bank transferred $40. Messages all day.

Bank transferred $21 for lunch ([the child]'s request). Collected [the child] from school as she was having an anxiety attack and bought her back to my work and dropped her off at Coolum afterwards. Messages all day.

Doctor for a referral to a psychologist, lunch. Messages all day.

Pick up, drop off, dinner together at Mexican. Messages all day.

[the child] sick again, dropped her off a batch of homemade Chicken and sweetcorn soup and a large lemonade to Coolum at [the child]'s request (lunch and dinner0.

Friend sleep over also. Dinner at her grandmother's house.

Provided clothes from Sunshine Plaza to value of $85 that fit her as she has lost so much weight. We went there together and had an experience.

[the child] spent the day at my place breakfast, lunch and dinner and had [ZZDN] collect her in the evening.

Had [the child] all day from midday. She had not eaten when I picked her up from Coolum. Provided breakfast, lunch and dinner. Attended Pink concert in Brisbane

I left work early to collect [the child] from Coolum to take her intake (first) psychologist appointment at 2.45pm.

[the child] message me all day (over 21 times) from school about being sick. I offered to collect her and take her to my house until I finished work as I did not have the time to drive her from Cooroy to Coolum and back and make my meeting. [the child] declined and waited for the bus. During one of the texts I explained that whooping couch was going around her school. [the child] advised that [ZZDN] never reads the school emails. [the child] asked me to arrange a haircut for her and sent me Tik Toks

[the child] home sick - called and message multiple times. Also reminded her about school work experience forms that we have been organising together. She sent an email to follow up.

[5] Rounded down pursuant to paragraph 54D(b).

[6] Rounded up pursuant to paragraph 54D(a).

[7] The bolded entries are the Tribunal's emphasis and are dates aligning with nights of care the Mother had of the child.