Riley and Riley (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Child Support Registrar regarding the crediting of non-agency payments made by the father, Mr Riley, to the mother, Ms Riley, for the benefit of their child. The dispute centred on whether certain payments made by the father for purchases, rather than direct child support, should be recognised and credited against his child support liability.

The primary legal issue before the Registrar was whether the payments made by the father for goods and services for the child satisfied the requirements of a "prescribed payment" under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) such that they could be credited against his child support assessment. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was a mutual intention between the parties that these non-agency payments would be treated as child support.

The Registrar reasoned that for a non-agency payment to be credited, it must be made with the mutual intention of both parties that it be in satisfaction of the child support liability. The payments in question were made for specific purchases, such as clothing and school supplies, and there was no evidence to suggest that Ms Riley had agreed to accept these payments as discharging Mr Riley's child support obligations. Consequently, the Registrar found that the condition for crediting the payments as a prescribed payment had not been satisfied.

The decision under review, which refused to credit the non-agency payments, was affirmed.