Stark and Stark (Child support)

The matter of *Stark and Stark* concerned a dispute over child support payments, brought before the court for review. The primary issue was whether certain payments made by the father to a third party, in lieu of direct child support payments to the mother, could be credited as prescribed non-agency payments. The father contended that these payments should offset his child support obligations.

The court was required to determine two key legal issues. Firstly, whether there was a mutual intention between the parties that the payments made to the third party would be in satisfaction of the father's child support liability. Secondly, if such an intention was absent, whether these payments could nonetheless be credited as prescribed non-agency payments under the relevant legislation, particularly in circumstances where the child's care arrangements were more than regular.

Justice Longo M considered the provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* and relevant case law. The court found that for payments to be credited as non-agency payments, there must be a clear mutual intention between the parties that such payments would be in lieu of child support. In this instance, the evidence did not establish that the mother had agreed to accept the payments made to the third party as discharging the father's child support obligations. Furthermore, the court determined that the specific nature of the care arrangements, described as "care more than regular," did not alter the fundamental requirement of mutual intention for the payments to be credited. Consequently, the decision under review, which denied the credit for these payments, was affirmed.