The Balance of Family Test

The rule

The Balance of Family test is satisfied if at least half of the parent's children are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or eligible New Zealand citizens usually resident in Australia — or if more of the parent's children live in Australia than in any other single country. Two independent ways to pass; satisfying either one is enough.

There is no discretion attached. Unlike many migration criteria, the test has no waiver, no compassionate exception, and no weighing exercise — the count either works or it doesn't. That is why the family map should be established precisely before any money is spent on a permanent parent application.

Counting children correctly

• All children count — biological and adopted children of any age, whether or not they live with the parent, are financially independent, or are estranged. A child is a child for this test at 5 or at 55.
• Step-children can count where the relevant relationship exists — blended families should have the count checked professionally, because step-children can change the answer for one parent and not the other.
• Residence, not citizenship, drives the "other country" limb. A child who is a citizen of the home country but permanently resident in Australia sits on the Australian side of the ledger.
• The Australian side needs status — children in Australia count towards the first limb when they are citizens, permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens usually resident here. A child in Australia on a temporary visa does not anchor the test the way a permanent-resident child does.
• Every child must be disclosed. Officers cross-check family composition against previous applications. A child omitted from an old form who appears now — or vice versa — invites questions that are much easier to answer before lodgement than after.

Worked examples

• 4 children: 2 in Australia (both PR), 1 in India, 1 in the UK. Passes — half the children are in Australia, and no other single country has more than Australia.
• 3 children: 1 in Australia (citizen), 1 in Nepal, 1 in the USA. Fails — and this one surprises families. One of three is less than half, so the first limb fails; and on the second limb Australia (1) does not have more children than each other country (1 each) — a tie is not enough. A second sibling migrating to Australia permanently would flip the result.
• 5 children: 2 in Australia (PR), 3 spread across three different countries (1 each). Passes the second limb — Australia (2) has more than any other single country (1 each), even though fewer than half are in Australia.
• 4 children: 2 in Australia (1 PR, 1 on a student visa), 2 in the home country. On the first limb, only the PR child anchors Australian status — 1 of 4 is under half. On the second limb, usual residence is assessed on the facts; the home country (2) at least equals Australia. Likely fails — and shows why a sibling's pending PR application can be worth waiting for before lodging the parent's application.

The middle examples are the point: families routinely mis-predict the outcome by counting heads without checking status and single-country concentrations. Run the count formally before committing to the contributory pathway's costs.

Timing — application, decision, and a decade in between

The test must be satisfied when the application is lodged, and the family composition is considered again at decision time — which for parent visas arrives a decade or more later. Practical consequences:

• Sequencing matters. If a sibling's permanent residence application is close to grant, lodging the parent's application after that grant can convert a fail into a pass.
• Changes during the wait cut both ways. A sibling later gaining Australian PR strengthens the position; children departing Australia permanently can undermine it. Keep the family map in view over the queue years, and update the Department when composition changes.

When the test fails: the honest options

• The Subclass 870 — no Balance of Family test at all. Temporary only (3 or 5 years per grant, max 10 total), sponsor income requirements apply, and it never becomes permanent residence — but it is the one parent pathway open on any family map. See the 870 guide.
• Change the map — where siblings genuinely intend to migrate, their permanent residence changes the count. This is a long-horizon family strategy, not a quick fix, but for near-miss families it is often the real answer.
• Long-stay visitor visas — repeated Subclass 600 visits (including longer-validity options) for time together without any parent-visa eligibility at all.
• What does not work: omitting children from the application, or asserting a child is "estranged and shouldn't count" — the test has no such carve-out, and misstating family composition creates PIC 4020 integrity problems far worse than a failed test.