Carey and Carey (Child support)

The case of *Carey and Carey* concerned a dispute over child support payments, specifically whether certain travel costs incurred by the non-resident parent were intended to be in lieu of formal child support payments. The matter came before the court for review.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the travel costs paid by the non-resident parent were mutually intended by the parties to be in lieu of child support, and consequently, whether those payments should be credited against the child support assessment. The court was required to determine the intention of the parties at the time the payments were made and the legal effect of such an arrangement.

The court considered the principles governing non-agency payments in child support matters, focusing on the requirement for a mutual intention that such payments would discharge or reduce the liability for child support. The court analysed the evidence presented to ascertain whether this mutual intention was established. In one aspect of the decision, the court found that part of a payment was intended to be in lieu of child support and therefore set aside the previous decision to allow credit for that portion. In another aspect, the court found that the travel costs were not mutually intended to be in lieu of child support, and affirmed the decision not to credit those payments.