Haldeman and Haldeman (Child support)

The case of *Haldeman and Haldeman* concerned a dispute over child support payments, brought before the court by the parties identified as Haldeman and Haldeman. The central issue revolved around whether certain payments made by the non-resident parent for school fees should be recognised as child support payments, thereby reducing their assessed liability. The court was asked to consider the application of provisions within the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) concerning prescribed non-agency payments and payments for school fees.

The primary legal question before the court was whether the Registrar of Child Support had correctly exercised their discretion in refusing to credit the non-resident parent for payments made directly to the school for the children's fees. This involved determining whether these payments qualified as "prescribed non-agency payments" and, if so, whether it was just and equitable to refuse to recognise them as satisfying the child support assessment. The court needed to assess the circumstances under which such discretion could be lawfully exercised.

Justice Thomson M affirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that while the payments for school fees might fall within the broad definition of prescribed payments, the Registrar had acted within their discretion in refusing to grant credit. The court applied the principles of justice and equity, considering the overall child support obligations and the potential impact of allowing such credits. The reasoning focused on the specific wording of the legislation and the established principles governing the exercise of discretion in child support matters, ultimately concluding that the Registrar's refusal was justified.