Voaden and Marriott (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by the father, Mr. Voaden, against a decision of the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on whether payments made by the father to a third party, specifically his mother, constituted payments made in lieu of child support obligations owed to the mother of the children, Ms. Marriott. The father contended that these payments were intended to satisfy his child support liabilities.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine whether the payments made by the father to his mother were made with the intention of both parents that they be in lieu of child support. This required an examination of the parties' intentions at the time the payments were made and whether there was a mutual understanding that these third-party payments would discharge the father's statutory child support obligations.

The Court considered the evidence presented regarding the communications and understandings between the father and the mother. It was found that while the father may have intended the payments to his mother to reduce his child support burden, there was no clear evidence that the mother shared this intention or agreed to accept these payments as satisfying the father's child support debt. The Court applied the principle that for a payment to a third party to be considered in lieu of child support, there must be a clear intention and agreement between both parents to that effect. As this mutual intention was not established, the Court set aside the Registrar's decision. The Court substituted its own decision, finding that the payments made to the father's mother did not discharge the father's child support liability.