Gabrilovic and Gabrilovic (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Gabrilovic to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of a decision by the Child Support Registrar. Mr Gabrilovic sought to have payments totalling $21,951.94 credited to his child support liability, representing amounts he had paid directly to Ms Gabrilovic or to third parties for the benefit of their three children. The Child Support Agency (CSA) had declined this request, and an objections officer had subsequently allowed only $3,398.78 of the claimed amount.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the payments made by Mr Gabrilovic were intended by both parents to be in lieu of child support, and if not, whether certain "specified payments" could be accepted in the absence of mutual intention, and if so, whether they were made during a period when Mr Gabrilovic did not have at least regular care of the children. The tribunal was required to determine if the objections officer had erred in rejecting the majority of the claimed payments.

The tribunal applied the provisions of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. Section 71 of the Act requires mutual intention between both parents for direct payments to be credited against a child support liability. In the absence of such mutual intention, section 71C allows for certain "specified payments" (such as childcare costs, school fees, and medical expenses) to be accepted. However, paragraph 71C(1)(ba) prohibits the acceptance of specified payments during periods when the payer has at least regular care (14% or more) of the children. The tribunal found that Mr Gabrilovic and Ms Gabrilovic gave conflicting evidence regarding any mutual intention for the payments to substitute child support. Consequently, the tribunal focused on whether the payments qualified as specified payments made during periods of non-regular care. While Mr Gabrilovic provided a submission of payments made after he ceased having regular care, the tribunal found that most of these payments were made after the date of his original claim to the CSA and were therefore not reviewable by the tribunal. Furthermore, Mr Gabrilovic failed to identify any specific payment made between 23 March 2020 and 21 April 2020 that he believed was wrongly rejected by the objections officer.

The tribunal affirmed the decision of the objections officer, finding that Mr Gabrilovic had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the objections officer had erred in rejecting the claimed payments.