Carney and Waller (Child support)

This matter concerned a dispute between Ms Waller and Mr Carney regarding child support payments. Ms Waller contended that she continued to have the day-to-day care of the child, even though the child was temporarily residing with his elder sister. She argued that payments made by Mr Carney were for the child's expenses and not related to the elder sister's accommodation or the child's travel costs.

The court was required to determine whether there had been a change to the likely pattern of care for the child and whether a child support terminating event had occurred. Specifically, the court had to assess whether Ms Waller's actions and financial contributions constituted "care" of the child for the purposes of the child support legislation, despite the child's temporary residence elsewhere.

The court considered the definition of "care" in the context of child support legislation, referencing the principles established in *Polec & Staker*. This case emphasised that the words of the Act should be construed in light of its objects, which are to ensure adequate financial support for the person with the ongoing daily care of a child. The court outlined several relevant factors for determining care, including the extent to which a person meets the child's needs (accommodation, food, education, emotional support, supervision, transport, and extra-curricular activities), makes arrangements for others to meet those needs, pays for those costs, provides financial support, and the extent to which the child meets their own needs or is supported from another source. Ms Waller provided third-party statements from friends and her elder son, who testified that she was financially responsible for the child's living expenses and made day-to-day decisions for him during the period in question.