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 Kavanagh is required to pay child support to Ms Kavanagh in respect of their child, [Child 1].

1. According to the records of Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support), on 3 July 2023 the mother submitted an online advice of a non-agency payment of $4,700.00 made to her. Such payments, referred to as NAPs, are offset against the paying parent's child support liability. The payment was accepted as a NAP on 3 July 2023.
2. On 19 December 2023, the mother objected to that decision. She was outside of the usual timeframe to lodge an objection to a NAP decision. She sought and was granted an extension of time.
3. On 5 May 2025, a Child Support objections officer allowed the objection. This meant that the original decision was changed such that the payment of $4,700.00 was not accepted as a NAP and was not credited against the father's child support liability (the first objection decision).

1. According to the records of Child Support, on 1 July 2023 the mother submitted an online advice of a NAP of $7,389.00 made to her. The payment was accepted as a NAP on 2 July 2023.
2. On 19 December 2023, the mother objected to that decision. As with the other NAP decision, she was outside of the usual timeframe to lodge an objection. She sought and was granted an extension of time.
3. On 5 May 2025, a Child Support objections officer allowed the objection. This meant that the original decision was changed such that the payment of $7,389.00 was not accepted as a NAP and was not credited against the father's child support liability (the second objection decision).

1. On 3 and 11 June 2025, the father lodged applications for review with the Tribunal of the two objection decisions made on 5 May 2025.
2. A hearing was held on 24 September 2025. The father attending via MS Teams video and the mother by MS Teams audio (the latter is equivalent to a conference telephone).
3. Child Support provided documents numbered 1 to 93 in relation to 2025/PC029899 and documents numbered 1 to 80 in relation to 2025/BC029952. Copies of both sets of documents had been provided to the parties before the date of the hearing.
4. On 25 September 2025, the father emailed the Tribunal to advise that according to the records of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), he had paid about $19,000 in Child Support during financial year 2023-24.
5. The Tribunal then issued a direction to the father to provide payslips to substantiate that claim, as a person can report what they paid in child support to the ATO, rather than the ATO gathering that information from another source. The father provided a further submission, including payslips, on 3 October 2025.
6. The Tribunal also issued an order to Child Support to provide background to the matter. Child Support responded accordingly.
7. The submissions from the father and from Child Support accompany these Reasons.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the following Acts:
   • Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989;
   • Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the R & C Act); and
   • Child Support (Registration and Collection) Regulations 2018 (the Regulations).
2. The issue which arises in this case is whether the amounts of $4,700.00 and $7,389.00, which total $12,089.00, should be accepted as NAPs.

1. There are three provisions under which payments made by the payer of child support can be accepted as NAPs and therefore be offset against their child support liability.
2. Section 71 of the R & C Act may apply if a payment is made by the paying parent directly to the payee (rather than via the child support system). Such payments may be credited against a parent's child support liability if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is that both parents intended for the direct payments to be paid in lieu of the child support liability as determined by Child Support.
3. Section 71A of the R & C Act may apply when a paying parent makes a payment to a third party. If both parents intended for that payment (or part of it) to be made in lieu of child support, then Child Support must credit the relevant amount against a parent's child support liability.
4. Section 71C of the R & C Act provides that when a payer who has less than 14% care of the child makes payments of a particular kind to the payee or another person, these payments may be credited against up to 30% of the child support liability regardless of the intentions of the payer and payee, if at least 70% of the liability has been paid.
5. Regulation 19 of the Regulations specifies the kinds of payments (prescribed payments) that could be credited against a child support liability regardless of the parents' intentions. The specified payments include the following:

(a) child care costs for the child who is the subject of the enforceable maintenance liability;

(b) fees charged by a school or preschool for that child;

(c) amounts payable for uniforms and books required by a school or preschool for that child;

(d) fees for essential medical and dental services for that child;

(e) the payee's share of amounts payable for rent or a security bond for the payee's home;

(f) the payee's share of amounts payable for utilities, rates or body corporate charges for the payee's home;

(g) the payee's share of repayments on a loan that financed the payee's home;

(h) costs to the payee of obtaining and running a motor vehicle, including repairs and standing costs.

1. Section 71D of the R & C Act allows for NAPs not to be credited under section 71, 71A or 71C if, in the circumstances of the particular case, the amount ought not to be credited.

Evidence and consideration of evidence regarding the NAPs

1. According to Child Support records, the mother lodged online advices on 1 July 2023 and 3 July 2023 such that the father had made payments of $7,389.00 and $4,700.00 directly to her. These payments, totalling $12,089.00, were accepted as NAPs on 2 and 3 July 2023 respectively.
2. At the time they were accepted, the father was up to date with his child support payments and there were no arrears.
3. The Child Support documents include copies of letters dated 2 and 3 July 2023 sent to the parents advising them that NAPs of $7,389.00 and $4,700.00 were credited against the child support liability.
4. At the hearing, the mother said that she has no recollection of notifying Child Support that such payments had been made. She did not know what the payments were about. The father said that he never made the lump sum payments.
5. Returning to Child Support records, the amount of $12,089.00 was then allocated against the father's child support liability from 15 July 2023 to 29 February 2024 on a fortnightly basis. Most of the fortnightly allocations were in the amounts of $684.57 or $716.16.
6. As these fortnightly allocations were being made in that fashion, the father did not appear to have arrears of child support but the mother was not receiving child support payments on a regular basis. This was because Child Support records showed that she had received the lump sum payments in July 2023 in lieu of ongoing child support payments.
7. On 18 December 2023, the mother contacted Child Support to advise that she was not receiving any child support. She was informed about the NAPs and that this was why she was not getting regular child support payments.
8. The Child Support officer wrote:

Cust was confused about the NAPs they lodged and presented as though they had no recollection of lodging them.

The cust could not provide a clear answer as to what the NAPs they lodged could have been for, however they did mention the possibility of school fees.

1. The mother was advised that if she felt the NAPs were lodged in error, she would need to lodge an objection to the decision to accept the NAPs.
2. At the hearing, the father said that he was told that the mother had erroneously told Child Support that the two amounts had come from him. He said that he was told this 18 months after it happened and Child Support told him he should reimburse the money.
3. The father said that he did not make those lump sum payments to the mother directly and he did not know what they were about.
4. The father said that as far as he was aware, his employer had continued to make regular deductions from his pay in respect of child support during the period July 2023 to February 2024. He noted that he changed employer during that period and was between jobs in February 2024 so may not have payslips for the whole period, but otherwise he should be able to get payslips. He said that both employers made the child support deductions. He said that when he got his payslips each pay period, the first thing he did was to check that his child support deductions were being made and if they had not been deducted, he would have queried it at the time.
5. After the hearing the father submitted payslips that showed fortnightly deductions from his net pay in respect of child support. These do not appear to be recorded on the Child Support records (CUBA screens) that show credits to the father's child support liability.
6. The mother was adamant that she did not receive child support during the period in question.
7. The Tribunal was of the view that both parents were honest and straightforward in giving their evidence although it was possible that they may have forgotten some things as it was more than two years since the NAPs were recorded by Child Support.
8. Towards the latter part of the hearing, the father said that he had just remembered that he was given a refund of about $14,000 from Child Support. Before he spent the money, he spoke to a Child Support officer and asked if they were sure about this. He could not recall when this happened but thought it may have been in 2023.
9. The father said he was not keen to use the money but Child Support told him they could not keep the money in his Child Support account. The father said he requested that they keep the money in his account but was told they could not do that.
10. The father made the points that (a) there was a delay of about 18 months between the mother lodging her objection and Child Support raising that with him and (b) he suggested to Child Support that they keep the $14,000 in his account but they would not do that. And now he has the problem of making good the shortfall in Child Support which arose because of someone else's ineptness.
11. After the hearing the Tribunal sought clarification from Child Support as to whether they had clear evidence that the mother had contacted them about NAPs in July 2023 and if they could shed any light on the payment of about $14,000 that the father said was made to him by Child Support.
12. Child Support's response included copies of records made on 2 July 2023 and 3 July 2023 that refer to NAP advices lodged by the mother on those dates. But they do not assist in explaining how those advices were lodged, given that the mother cannot recall doing so. For example, were they lodged via myGov or another way.
13. Child Support did confirm that they made a payment of $14,954.53 to the father on 23 January 2024. According to Child Support records, the father requested a refund of excess payments as he was not working although he expected to start a new job soon. This was consistent with the evidence the father gave about his payslips.
14. At the hearing the father said that in earlier years he had made sure that he was ahead in his child support payments, and this is confirmed by Child Support's records which stated that his account had been in credit since 2022.
15. The Tribunal is of the view that when the father requested a refund of excess payments, he was expecting to be refunded an amount of up to maybe $1,000 in excess child support that he had paid, rather than an amount of $14,954.53.
16. The Tribunal has been unable to establish exactly what occurred in July 2023 that gave rise to the current situation. However, it is satisfied that lump sum payments totalling $12,089.00 were not made by the father during July 2023 even though a decision was made at the time that they had been paid.
17. The Tribunal notes that the mother's objections were lodged on 19 December 2023 and the refund of excess child support payments was made to the father on 23 January 2024. It is unfortunate that no connection was made at the time between the two processes (the refund request and the objection). However, that did not occur and the net result is that the father now has arrears of child support which were $12,603.79 as at 24 June 2025 as a result of the objection decision.
18. The Tribunal is satisfied, given the evidence just set out, the objection decision was the correct decision.