Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

1. Mr Halligan and Ms Healy are the parents of [Child 1] (born 2006) and [Child 2] (born 2008). Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) registered a child support assessment for the children on 18 May 2011, and any child support liability has been registered for collection since that date. At all relevant times, the children have been recorded to be in the care of Mr Halligan as 33% and Ms Healy 67% of the time. At the time relevant to this review, Mr Halligan was assessed to pay child support to Ms Healy.
2. The parents have consent orders from the Federal Circuit Court dated [in] June 2013 in relation to the parenting arrangements for the children. It contains no directions regarding the payment of any expenses for the children.
3. On 10 November 2024 Mr Halligan made a claim to Child Support for multiple payments he had made to third parties for orthodontic work for both children between 2022 and 2023, and an overseas flight for [Child 1] in 2024 to be credited against his child support liability as "non agency payments". The amounts claimed totalled $7,471.46 for [Child 2] and $9,890.08 for [Child 1], with $1,542.71 of this being for the overseas flight.
4. When contacted by Child Support, Ms Healy disagreed with the orthodontic payments being credited as non agency payments, stating that Mr Halligan had booked the dental work and paid for it himself and she had no part, nor did she want the dental work. Similarly, she said that Mr Halligan had booked the overseas flight without her agreement, and did not agree this should be credited against the child support liability.
5. On 25 November 2024 Child Support decided not to accept the claimed payments as non- agency payments because the parents did not mutually intend these to be credited in lieu of child support.
6. On 17 December 2024 Mr Halligan objected to the decision not to accept the orthodontic payments as non-agency payments, and on 8 April 2025 an objections officer disallowed his objection.
7. Mr Halligan asked this Tribunal to review this decision on 7 May 2025. The hearing was held on 15 August 2025 and Mr Halligan participated in person and gave evidence under affirmation. Ms Healy notified the Tribunal prior to the hearing that she did not wish to participate, but wanted the Tribunal to consider her written material. The Child Support Registrar did not attend the hearing. In addition to the parents' evidence, the Tribunal had regard to the documents provided by Child Support (numbered 1-163), supplementary papers (numbered 1-2), and documents from Ms Healy numbered B1-7. A copy of all of these documents had been sent to the parties.
8. Mr Halligan told the Tribunal that he did not agree with Ms Healy's documents (B1-7) being accepted into evidence because they had both been advised of the timeframe for submission of material in May 2025. Given her late lodgement, he submitted the material should not be accepted. The Tribunal confirmed that Mr Halligan had read the material, which was not extensive, and mostly contained Ms Healy's submissions. A screenshot of communication between Ms Healy and Mr Halligan regarding the orthodontic treatment was already in the hearing papers (folio 83). The Tribunal gave Mr Halligan a further opportunity to read and comment on the material, which he did, pointing out some discrepancies in Ms Healy's statements.
9. Although the material was submitted outside the timeframe, the Tribunal saw no disadvantage to Mr Halligan in accepting the material. The Tribunal considered that Ms Healy may be disadvantaged if it was not accepted, given she had elected not to participate in the hearing and had asked the Tribunal to rely on her written submissions. The Tribunal accepted the documents B1-7 into the evidence for this application.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act).
2. When a child support liability is registered under the Act for collection, the amount payable is a debt due to the Commonwealth and must be paid to Child Support, not to the payee.
3. Sections 71, 71A or 71C of the Act provide for Child Support to credit payments made directly to a payee or to a third party against a child support liability that is registered for collection (an enforceable maintenance liability). Credits under sections 71 and 71A are referred to as 'non-agency payments'.
4. Section 71 relates to payments made directly to the payee parent.
5. Section 71A provides for payments to a third party to be credited. The amount paid by the payer to the third party must:
   1. partially or completely satisfy a debt owed by the payee, the payer or both the payer and the payee (paragraph 71A(1)(a));
   2. be intended by both the payer and the payee to be paid in complete or partial satisfaction of an amount payable under the liability in relation to the child support enforcement period (paragraph 71A(1)(c)). The "child support enforcement period" is the period during which a registered maintenance liability is enforceable under the Act (section 4 of the Act).
6. Section 71C of the Act relates to payments referred to as "prescribed agency payments" which may be credited in partial satisfaction of the child support liability, regardless of whether the parents agree. A number of specific criteria must be satisfied for this provision to apply, including that the paying parent has less than "regular care" of the child, where "regular care" is defined at subsection 5(2) of the Act as being between 14% and 35%. Mr Halligan has 33% of the care for the children, and on this basis, the provisions of section 71C cannot apply in his case. This means that any payments made to third parties, can only be credited against the child support liability under section 71A, which requires the parents' agreement.
7. Section 71D of the Act provides a discretion for the Registrar not to credit an amount which would otherwise be credited.
8. The issue which arises in this case is:
   • Should the payments Mr Halligan has claimed for [Child 1] and [Child 2's] orthodontic treatment in 2022 and 2023 be accepted as non-agency payments under section 71A of the Act?

1. Mr Halligan has provided Child Support with copies of the reports and quotes for orthodontic work for both children from [a named] orthodontist, dated 25 October 2021 and 28 January 2022. Both of these were addressed to Mr Halligan alone and the financial agreement at the end of the quotes is unsigned.
2. Mr Halligan also provided evidence of payments he has made in instalments for this orthodontic treatment for both of the girls, in 2022 and 2023. These comprise 34 separate payments totalling $15,845.19, and span the period 28 January 2022 to 28 August 2023. He confirmed he was not objecting to the decision in relation to the airfare for [Child 1].
3. Ms Healy provided Child Support with:
   1. A copy of an email dated 19 September 2021, from her to Mr Halligan, which states "See attached orthodontic treatment plans [for] both girls. If you agree to the full payment for both of the girls, you can fill out the paperwork and send back to the [provider] and let me know once you have done so".
   2. A copy of a screenshot of text message communication between herself and Mr Halligan, dated 25 January 2022. Mr Halligan writes "See attached orthodontic treatment plan for braces for [Child 1]. She will be getting braces next week. Do you agree to pay for half of the treatment costs? Please reply back by the end of today". On the same day, Ms Healy replies "No I do not agree".
4. At the hearing Mr Halligan submitted that it is not relevant to paragraph 71C(1)(c) whether the payee parent agreed to contribute to the payment of the expense. He submitted that the real issue, is whether there was a mutual intention that the expense be credited against the registered maintenance liability. He agreed that the communication from Ms Healy indicated she was unwilling to contribute to the cost. However, he submitted that the mutual intention to credit the payment against the maintenance liability is a separate matter which could, and, in this case should be inferred from the circumstances. He submitted that this approach was consistent with the Child Support Guide (the Guide), at section 7.5.1, which provides some guidance to Child Support if the parents do not agree that there was a mutual intention.
5. In support of this Mr Halligan noted:
   1. That Ms Healy had made the initial approach to the orthodontist regarding the proposed treatment for the children, which he said indicated her intention for the treatment to proceed;
   2. That the expense was not for a "trivial" matter, such as a pair of shoes, which was an example used in the Guide;
   3. That the expense was for treatment that was "medically necessary", and that for this reason, he felt the responsibility to ensure that the children had the treatment. He relied on the reports and quotes from the treating orthodontist in determining that the treatment was "medically necessary" as opposed to being desirable or recommended;
   4. The relationship between himself and Ms Healy is such that it was not possible for them to communicate about the issue beyond the communication provided to the Tribunal;
   5. That Ms Healy did not specifically state that she did not agree to the expense being credited against the registered maintenance liability. He contrasted this to a recent message he received from her, which he read on the record, in part, where she declines to pay for something he has proposed, and also explicitly states that she does not agree to it being credited against the registered maintenance liability.
6. Mr Halligan could not identify any other matter from which the Tribunal could infer that there was a mutual intention from the parents that the orthodontic costs he had paid would be credited against the maintenance liability for both children.
7. The Tribunal asked Mr Halligan whether he accepted that Ms Healy may not have specifically said she did not agree to the amounts being credited against the registered maintenance liability in 2022, because this was not what he had asked her, and that it was not something she contemplated would be an issue. This was in contrast to her recent communication with him, given that the question of crediting payments against the maintenance liability has been highlighted by these proceedings. He did not accept that this was the case.
8. The Tribunal asked Mr Halligan whether Ms Healy's clear advice that she did not intend to financially contribute to the cost of the orthodontic work could be inferred to mean that she did not agree to the amounts being credited against the maintenance liability, on the basis that crediting the amounts in this way would necessarily mean that she was contributing to the cost of the orthodontic work, by accepting a reduction in the child support she received. Mr Halligan did not accept that such an inference could or should be made.
9. Ms Healy's written submissions state, in relation to the orthodontic work, that she does not agree with the payments being credited, and that she had "no intention that the payment was to go towards child support or carer debt. I do not agree with the necessity, timing or amount of this treatment and it is a disputed payment. It cannot therefore be treated as a shared expense or non agency payment. I did not agree to this expense, I was not consulted beforehand". She refers to the legislative provisions regarding non- agency payments and prescribed non-agency payments and states that neither are satisfied. She also addresses the claimed expense of the overseas flight, which is not part of this review and concludes that accepting the costs as non-agency payments would "unfairly reduce the amount of child support available to me for the children's day to day needs".

1. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Halligan made all of the payments claimed and that these were for the childrens' benefit. However, section 71A requires both that the amounts are paid at least in partial satisfaction of a debt owed by one or both of the parents (paragraph 71A(1)(a)), and that both Mr Halligan and Ms Healy intended that the amounts were to be paid at least in partial satisfaction of an amount payable under the child support liability (paragraph 71A(1)(c)).
2. The Tribunal notes the email from Ms Healy to Mr Halligan, referred to above, where she clearly states she does not intend to contribute to the cost of the orthodontic work, but that Mr Halligan could proceed with it if he was willing to cover the whole cost. The Tribunal also notes the text message where she explicitly states she will not pay half the cost for [Child 1's] braces, although Mr Halligan indicates that the procedure would be going ahead the next week. The Tribunal also notes there was no evidence that he specifically indicated his intention or, asked her views about crediting the payments towards the maintenance liability for either child. There is no evidence that Ms Healy signed any contract or other documents which committed her to making any contribution to the cost of the orthodontic work. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any portion of the orthodontic fee for either child is a debt owed by Ms Healy. The Tribunal is, however, satisfied that the amounts paid were a debt owed by Mr Halligan, and on this basis satisfy paragraph 71A(1)(a).
3. There is no direct evidence that Ms Healy and Mr Halligan mutually intended that these costs be paid by Mr Halligan in full or partial satisfaction of the child support liability. In her submissions to the Tribunal, Ms Healy is clear that she did not agree that this should be credited against the child support liability.
4. Mr Halligan asserts that because Ms Healy took the children to an orthodontist for review, she clearly intended them to have braces; the treatment was important (medically necessary) and that she never explicitly said she didn't agree to the amounts being credited against the maintenance liability. Mr Halligan's view that mutual intention can be inferred was based on his interpretation of the Guide, which states at section 7.5.1:

In making a decision, the Registrar will take into account the following factors:

• Whether the parents have agreed that previous payments made in similar circumstances were for child support, as this may indicate the same intention in relation to the present payment.
• The circumstances in which the payment was made. For example, where a payer has made payments or provided goods as part of a contact visit, this may have occurred without the prior knowledge or consent of the payee.
• Any documents that support the case of either parent. For example, if there were legal proceedings in progress at or before the time of the payment, there may be relevant documents which refer to payments made by the payer to the payee or a third party.
• Sometimes the notations on a court order will refer to the payment of expenses. While notations are not part of the court order, they may support the proposition that a parent has agreed that they are separately or jointly responsible for certain payments.
• Whether one of the parents has previously stated that payment was to be credited, but subsequently changed their statement. The Registrar will examine both statements to determine what their intention was at the time the payment was made.

1. The Tribunal does not consider that any of these matters are relevant to the circumstances in this application. They do not provide rationale in this case to draw an inference that the parents mutually intended that the cost of the braces would be credited against the child support liability. On the contrary, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Healy's clear refusal to contribute to the cost of the braces for either child is appropriately inferred to be a refusal to have the cost credited against the child support liability. This is because crediting some or all of the cost against the child support liability effectively results in Ms Healy sharing the cost of the braces, which she explicitly declined to do.
2. On this basis, the Tribunal does not consider that paragraph 71A(1)(c) is satisfied and consequently, the amounts claimed for payment of the orthodontic fees cannot be credited against the child support liability for either [Child 1] or [Child 2].