When Mum’s the Best Support Worker: Tribunal Backs Paid Family Care for NDIS Participant
- Max Jones
- Aug 24, 2025
- 2 min read
Scaramella and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) [2025] ARTA 870
Case Summary:
In mid-July, the Administrative Review Tribunal heard the case of Romina Scaramella, a 26-year-old living with Level 3 ASD. Scaramella was seeking a Change of Situation (issued by her mother, Rosanne, as her NDIS plan nominee) in regard to her NDIS funding; one which would provide her mother with 38 hours of paid supports per week.
After denial from the NDIA, Rosanne requested an internal review of the decision. Such review resulted in the original decision being varied, creating a new NDIS plan being created for the applicant, however, one which specifically excluded Rosanne’s requested funding.
After the commencement of a review application within the ART, it was noted that Rule 5.3(b) of the NDIS’ “Transitional Supports Rule” expressly excludes funding for the purpose of ‘income replacement’ to be granted.
Notably, strong consideration was given to the longstanding application of supports being “reasonable and necessary”. To satisfy such a definition was a requisite for Rosanne if she was to be ruled in favour of for her daughter’s supports.
General Member F Robertson’s ruling was one which shocked many, stating:
“The support is necessary to address Romina’s needs arising from her qualifying impairments; it will assist her in pursuing foundational goals essential for her health, safety, and any future development… I find that the Revised Requested Support - that is, funding Rosanne for 38 hours per week to provide 1:1 high intensity support to Romina - is a reasonable and necessary support for Romina”
The granting of $2,360.94 per week to be paid to Rosanne, alongside other funding, stands as a landmark decision.
What it could mean for other participants:
While Tribunal decisions are not binding, this ruling is persuasive for future NDIS cases involving family-provided supports. It offers a clear interpretation of the “income replacement” rule, confirming that payments to family members are not automatically excluded.
In addition, the decision confirms that any conflict of interest for a plan nominee can be managed, rather than simply a barrier to funding.
While this does not change the law, it could influence how the NDIA applies its own guidelines and how future Tribunal members decide similar disputes.
