Lyon v. Wilcox

Heath Lyon was born in November 1979. His mother, Lyon (plaintiff), and his father, Wilcox, (defendant), who resided in New Zealand, had a brief relationship. When Heath was a young child, before New Zealand enacted its child-support guidelines, a court in New Zealand ordered Wilcox to pay NZ$10 per week in child support, and Wilcox complied. Lyon married Arlidge, and Heath, Lyon, and Arlidge subsequently lived together. Arlidge cared for Heath as if he were Heath’s father. In 1992, the Child Support Act took effect. The Child Support Act contained child-support guidelines that were based on the income-shares model. Under the guidelines, child support was calculated using a formula that took each parent’s income and parenting time into account. Lyon applied to the commissioner of inland revenue (the commissioner) for a determination of child support under the child-support guidelines. Without taking Arlidge’s income into account, Lyon’s financial position was far weaker than Wilcox’s. The commissioner calculated the amount of child support Wilcox owed without including Alridge’s income and determined that Wilcox should pay about NZ$676 per month in child support. Wilcox moved the family court to grant him a downward deviation from the child-support guidelines, arguing that Alridge’s income should have been included in the calculation because Heath lived with Alridge. The family court dismissed the motion, reasoning that Arlidge’s income should not be considered in the child-support calculation because Arlidge did not have a duty to support Heath. Wilcox appealed to the New Zealand High Court, which reduced his child-support liability by half, reasoning that Lyon was in a better financial position than Wilcox and that Arlidge, who was not a party to the proceedings, had a moral duty to support Heath. Lyon appealed, arguing that the determination of child support should not include Arlidge’s income.