## Facts

- Natasha Hyde had a serious falling-out with her parents when she was about 16 years old and left the family home.
- After leaving, she attended college and worked, but her income was not enough to support herself.
- Hyde sought financial support through New Zealand’s statutory child support system, administered by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
- She filed applications seeking orders that her parents pay child support to her directly.
- In the application materials, Hyde identified herself both as the “child” requiring support and as the “custodian” (i.e., the person with day-to-day care), effectively asserting she was caring for herself.
- The applications were declined on the basis that the statutory scheme did not allow a child to apply to have child support paid to herself, and did not treat a child as capable of being her own custodian.
- Hyde appealed, arguing that because she was living independently and providing day-to-day care for herself, she should be regarded as her own custodian and therefore entitled to receive child support in that role.

## Issues

1. Whether, under New Zealand’s child support legislation, a minor who has left the parental home and is living independently can be treated as her own “custodian” so she may apply for and receive child support directly.

## Decision

- The Family Court dismissed Hyde’s appeal and upheld the refusal of her applications.
- The court held that the statutory child support framework does not permit a child to be treated as her own custodian for the purpose of making a valid child support application.
- Because Hyde could not meet the statutory requirement that an application be made by (or on behalf of) a qualifying custodian/person with care distinct from the child, she could not obtain orders requiring payment of child support directly to herself through the statutory scheme.

## Legal Principles

- The child support statute assigns different roles to the child (beneficiary) and the custodian/person with care (applicant and recipient); those roles are not interchangeable.
- A child’s factual independence or self-care does not, by itself, make the child a “custodian” within the meaning of the legislation.
- Where legislation sets out a defined administrative mechanism for assessments and payments, courts apply that structure as written and will not rework statutory categories to create a direct payee right for a minor absent clear legislative authorization.

## Conclusion

Hyde v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue held that, under New Zealand’s statutory child support scheme, a minor living apart from her parents cannot characterize herself as her own custodian in order to apply for child support and receive payments directly; the statutory roles require a custodian/person with care distinct from the child, so Hyde’s applications were not valid within the scheme.


Hyde v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue, [2000] N.Z.F.L.R. 385 (2000)