Kormann and Mason (Child support)

[2025] ARTA 1991

Kormann and Mason (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1991 (12 September 2025)

Applicant/s:  Mr Kormann

Respondent:  Child Support Registrar    

Other Parties:       Ms Mason

Tribunal Number:   2025/SC029951 

Tribunal:  General Member P Noonan

Place:Melbourne

Date:12 September 2025

Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – new determinations made – verbal withdrawal of application – not confirmed in writing – absence of party – child in grandmother’s care – interstate work on weekdays – no evidence of weekend care – decision under review affirmed 

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.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

1. This is an application by Mr Kormann (‘the father”), in respect to a care percentage decision made by Services Australia (“Child Support”) to register a change in the percentage of care provided by Ms Mason (“the mother”) with respect to their child [Child A] (“the child”).

2. On 5 April 2025 the mother contacted Child Support and advised that she had been made aware by children’s services that the child was not in the 100% care of the father from 26 January 2025 and instead was in the 100% care of the father’s mother.

3. On 5 May 2025, the existing registered percentage of care of 100% to the father was revoked by Child Support, effective from 26 January 2025. A new care determination of 0% care to the father and 0% care to the mother, effective from 26 January 2025 was recorded (“the original decision”).

4. On 6 May 2025, the father lodged an objection to the original decision. On 7 June 2025, an objections officer decided to disallow the objection.

5. 10 June 2025, the father applied to this Tribunal for an independent review of the decision.

6. A conference telephone hearing was held by the Tribunal on 8 September 2025. The Tribunal made several attempts to call the father at the appointed time for the hearing however the calls were redirected to the father’s voicemail on each occasion and ultimately the Tribunal was unsuccessful in contacting the father. I note that the father verbally requested a withdrawal of his application on 5 September 2025 but that he had not confirmed this in writing, as instructed, by the time of the hearing and as required under section 95 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act2024 for the matter to be registered as withdrawn. The Tribunal successfully contacted the mother and she indicated that she wished to proceed with the hearing and to give evidence.

7. The Tribunal may proceed in the absence of a party if satisfied that the absent party received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event pursuant to section 81 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act2024. I find that the father was sent written confirmation of the date, time and place of the Tribunal hearing on 18 August 2025 and that he was sent SMS reminders of the date, time and place of the Tribunal hearing on 4 September 2025 and 5 September 2025. Given the above I was satisfied that the absent party had received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event. I decided to proceed with the hearing and take evidence from the mother.

8. I have before me hearing papers numbered 1 to 93. I also have a pre-hearing submission from the father numbered A1 to A3.

9. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

ISSUES

1. The issue in this case is:

   ·     Should the existing care percentages be revoked, and, if so, what should the new care percentages be and from when?

CONSIDERATION

1. The first question to be answered in this matter is whether a change to the existing care percentages has occurred. Section 50 of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the responsible person has had, or is likely to have, a pattern of care during such period (the care period) as the Tribunal considers to be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances.

2. The objections officer records that the parents are in agreement that the father’s mother cares for the child while he works interstate during the working week. There appears to be no dispute that this arrangement commenced from 26 January 2025. The father submitted in writing, and also verbally to the objections officer, that he still makes decisions with respect to the child and provides his mother with direct financial support to assist in meeting the costs of the child. He supplied some evidence of bank transfers to his mother in support of this contention.

3. It was unclear to me, on the evidence before me, as to whether the father returns to care for the child every weekend or whether he has established some other pattern of care. There was no evidence from his mother before me.

4. The mother told me that, as far as she knows, the father stays interstate with his girlfriend. She does not know what he does on the weekends. She noted that she is now paying child support to the father’s mother.

5. As the father has chosen not to participate in this hearing I was unable to ask him about his pattern of care. The matter of Polec & Staker & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 959 is instructive on what constitutes care. Hughes FM stated at paragraph 56, that it is necessary to consider the following:

   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?

6. On the limited evidence before me I am satisfied that the child is living on a full-time basis with the father’s mother. It is unclear how often the father returns to his mother’s. While I acknowledge there is evidence of some financial transfers by the father to his mother, the evidence reflects that the weight of the above criteria lies with his mother and has done so from 26 January 2025. Accordingly, I find that, from that date, the father’s mother has had 100% care of the child and it follows that the father and mother of the child have had 0% care of the child.

7. Where one of the parents, who was to have at least regular care of the child under the existing determination now has no care, revocation of the existing care determination is mandated under section 54G of the Act. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the objections officer’s decision is correct.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Date of hearing:	Monday, 8 September 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	None
Representative for the Other party:	None