
[+Add your comment]
Who wants to be dictated to by the State on how you support your children what, how and when?
Whilst many views float around arguing for and against child support, most decent fathers and parents would argue the issue is not whether or not they wish to support their children, but rather the often unfair conditions imposed upon them.
Simply, it's an attack on the nature of a father's freedom and how he best wishes to raise and support his children in the many different ways a responsible father can, which are often more effective and benefical to a child than any 'slap-bang' instrument of government and statism can ever be.
For a father going through separation/divorce, experiencing the loss of family and children, horrendous false allegations, litigation, uncertainty of where your children are and how they are doing, often causes ill health, work and life instability in so many ways. Also, the effects from not having a fully functioning and emotionally present Dad in a child's life can be equally, if not more devestating as their development can be hindered considerably.
Then if that isn't bad enough, along comes an assessment from the Child Support Agency (CSA) for an outlandish sum of money based on your capacity to work at the highest rate when you were fit and able and on fire, which is possibly a stark contrast to where your financial position is today, or will be in the future if you are unable to recover from the upheaval of a traumatic separation that's often compared to a fate worse than death.
From 2006 CSA powers in Australia have increased to not only garnish your wages, but directly withdraw from bank accounts any amount they deem appropriate, siezing assets of any sort to pay the often highly questionable and unjust debts. As Fathers are assaulted with such draconian measures, one can only feel a sense of dictatorship giving rise to a totalitarian society not a free Australia causing fathers to unite and fight for their rights and freedom.
As there are many issues surrounding child support and the effects upon fathers, children and families,
Share your opinion and experiences about the pros and cons of child support,
lifting the veil on a most horrid part of family breakup!
Start writing a comment now...

where can you find the guides?
The ex and I had a private agreement while I was working for a local construction company. It was a once only chance to earn big money for a year and I took it. The private agreement was 750/week (3000/ month) for my son and daughter and this was recognised by CS. That opportunity has finished now and I am back in a much lower paying position. Now they tell me that I owe because I wasn't paying the full amount when I was in the higher paid job, even though there was a private agreement that they knew about and recognised. I have all of my documentation, but they say it doesn't matter, I have to backpay?



I have the same situation but right here in Oz. She is married, has another child and gets supported both by her husband and family assistance from Centrelink and why should she work? Her income is zero. Here is what just happened to me:
I was working in Sydney for a year. Work finished and I tried to apply for jobs in Perth because that's home and my partner is there as well as our life together pretty much. No job came through. I then rang CSA when I got to Perth to re assess my income because I was out of work and could not afford $500 a fortnight. I can't even see my child he is 10 now I last saw him 5 years ago anyway that's another story of its own.
Anyway, the assessment was sent to her few weeks ago. She was advised that she had a right to dispute the new assessment. She exercised her rights and disputed it citing I am employed. I got call from CSA advising me of this last week. They said I also have the right to respond. I don't want to because there is nothing to respond to and if I do that's exactly what she wants, war. I asked CSA what was going to happen with the new assessment since she had disputed it. They said nothing. That's when I decided not to respond. I said to CSA my employer contacted you that I had seized employment with them therefore they will not be making any child support contributions out of my wages. I asked them why didn't you tell her she is wasting her time because you have the evidence? They said to me she has the right to dispute. I said to them why contacting me then instead of you stopping it there and tell her you will not be making any reassessments? The were not clear in their responses pretty much. It's very very sad.

I believe the law needs amending regarding a lower scale of assessment payments when a child lives overseas, as the father is simply paying out money and getting nothing in return for his support for his child. I have enquired of Private Investigators in the UK to get details on her life, the quotes come in at $3,000 - $6,000!! Add legal proceedings to that for contempt and work the maths. What hope do you have when CSA won't do anything for him to enforce a current financial report from the mother and also then check her information out. If my son went to the UK to see him, the mother would take off "on a holiday" to Scotland or somewhere the day his plane landed. That is the spiteful strategist she is.YOU JUST GIVE UP and wait until your child is an adult and comes looking for his father.


DPO- I was told by CSA i was getting my second DPO put on me. 2 months ago they gave me 2 days notice so I left the country. So now stuck abroad waiting on appeal process. As I don't want to be stuck in Australia with no way out.
Today after copying in Senatro/omburdsman etc. CSA came back to me and said there is no second DPO. So they tell lies all the time.
So if they have DPO you need it in writing or probably BS.




From boys underperforming at school to spiralling male suicide figures, from the overwhelmingly male prison population to the Family Law courts, why is no one in politics speaking up for men, I ask.
Fish have greater ministerial representation than men.
Someone to champion their sustainability, fight for their welfare, fend off existential threats. A minister mandated to look after them. Parliamentary debates held in their honour. Fish have it good in Australia.
Science, intellectual property, forests, sport and tourism – they all have ministerial portfolios. As do children and families. Whilst the minister for women – the Education Secretary – sits in Cabinet. Nowhere, in any our government departments and their numerous subdivisions, is the welfare of men given a look-in.
It’s time to change this gaping omission. To at least put men on an equal footing – or fin – with fish. We should have a Minister for Men.

You point is absolutely valid and I would like to add it to my list of solutions.
Could you reword your suggestion without the male/female pronouns (ie. when a parent does X rather than he/she) and also give an example of what you think a fairer out come would be eg. what do you mean by "dealt with accordingly", what would this look like? Clearly our courts and CSA need to be guided on what a fairer and more just system looks like, we can't leave it up to them to figure it out!
I will add your suggestion to the list once clarified. Thanks.

Yep top system

4. Increase payments for those parents who pay only the minimum of $25 per fortnight, by assessing their income on the minimum weekly wage (approx $34,000pa)
This $25 is insulting, ineffective and only disadvantages children who most need this money. Let's assess the income of these parents based on the minimum weekly wage instead (unless on disability pension) - this will give these parents an incentive to find work!
5. When children are of school age, the primary carer needs to work a minimum of 25 hours pw.
Both the Australian govt and citizens expect that both parents should be working and earning once the children are at school. Why are so many single parents exempt from this? Widows and widowers don't have that luxury, they almost always work FT as a single parent because there is no one paying for them to stay at home every day.


I am a personal injury lawyer, hence this discipline is not within my scope of advice. Look forward to receiving your constructive advice re cs arrears.
Regarss
R






Bear in mind that the purpose of the dpo is to prevent deadbeat dads departing on a one way ticket. So a holiday is less likely to stick.
Also too, a common theme in preceeding cases is that the payer often unconciously alerts csa to the overseas travel provision. Dont be tempted to do this! Almost all dpo's are issued as a result of this (as opposed to the ex advising them)



That does not mean that if you booked your trip that a DPO cannot be issued 1-2 days before you leave or on the day you are leaving. Just the type of tactics you can expect.
If you are in a satisfactory payment arrangement then they cannot issue a DPO no matter how much you owe.Play their game. Write to them and ask them if they consider your current arrangement satisfactory. While the negotiations are in place they cannot issue a DPO. All negotiations must be in writing. You will achieve 2 things. You buy time and they will not lie to you in writing. Do not ignore your debt. It will not go away. Just continue to dispute your debt. Without knowing your full story this is the best advise I can provide. If you get a DPO issued on you life will become very hard.


BUT - CSA and government will NEVER do anything that involves taking money, or freezing payments because they deem that as punishing the children … and will not do anything to detriment the children
what you / we have to find is a way that adequately and appropriately punishes the parent without punishing the child … and that is the dilemma ...


Part 1 of 2:
5 quick fixes for the Child Support system
1. Be realistic with the Self Support amount (SSA) by increasing it to $30,000pa.
$23000 might be realistic if we were dealing with after tax dollars, but we aren't, therefore $23k is not a realistic Self Support Amount. (The SSA is based on1/3 of average male wage.)
Those parents who are already on govt pensions earn FAR less than the current Self Support Amount anyway, so increasing the amount to reflect a realistic cost of self support is not going to further disadvantage these parents - because any money that changes hands from payer to payee is meant to be "Child Support" not "alimony" and we all know that alimony is designed to support the cost of living expenses AKA Self Support Amount. The parents who are working and earning far above these government pensions generally have higher living expenses associated with working - business dress which they cannot claim on tax, travel and running costs of a vehicle driving to and from work, income and health insurance if they are out of work.
Most parents who don't have shared care or regular care of their children and are the payers, still ensure they provide bedrooms, bedding, toys and activities for their children when they visit, yet this is barely recognised or accounted for in any allocation of child support or govt payments under the current system
2. When parents have shared care of children, or each parent cares for one child FT (or a similar situation that results in equivalent shared care between 40-60%, Child Support payments are capped at $100 a fortnight regardless of the the payers income.
There needs to be a reasonable limit to the amount that parents who work hard and earn more are expected to give to the ex. When there is shared care, these CS Payments become more than just a CS, they become a form of alimony and the majority of Australians do not support this. We expect both parents to be working to support themselves, not relying on payments from elsewhere.
3. Introduce a compulsory Child Support Basics card for Payees for "enacted" or forced CS payments.
One frequent complaint by paying parents is that the CS money is not spent on the children but instead supports the receiving parent's addictions and vices.
Ensure that the proposed Child Support card produces monthly statements which are individually itemised by product, not just by store and provide the Paying parent with a copy.
If the payee wishes to avoid this level of scrutiny on how they spend the money, they can always arrange for a private agreement with the other parent, which saves the tax payers money in the long run by avoiding CSA collected payments.
To be continued....


Looking at the CSA solicitor I am favouring the defendant they imidiately asked for an adjournment so as they could seek instructions this matter was then settled out of court you see my friends you need to communicate in writing not online or over the phone it makes the process long but they will follow the law when it is written secondly ask them the same question more than once when you get an answer challenge the answer and the answer will change the more you challenge the more the answer will change this will give you the basis to go and see your local member take the written discrepancies show poeple they don't like to be exposed I currently have their mistakes made public if they make a mistake no matter how small challenge it
Lastly the comment that was made about them being able to do something as long as it is deemed reasonable I can guarantee you the courts take a much much much different view on the interpretation than CSA don't be afraid to take them on that the way the legislation appears and the way they interpret it is not going to be the same in a court of law
Oh and one last point the next time the CSA tell you that they can give you whatever income they like ask them why if you took that income to a bank and tried to borrow money against it they would laugh at you and if it is the case that they can do this at their discression then you have just solved a problem that every prime minister and president in the world has never been able to solve u see if CSA can do it to a father then the tax system can do it to everybody else hey presto the CSA just fixed the worlds debt crisis

If you dont agree with CSA decisions then it is only to your detriment not to talk to them.
A while back (12 months ago) they had a comments box in the online income estimation form. They have since removed it!! So now there is really no point in using this form because when you call them they ask all the same questions anyway. If you do not call them then they have the legislated right to reject it - AND, if it is rejected there is NO RECORD of you ever having provided it!
People dont complain to outside authorities for various reasons. I've seen many broken fathers (and heard of many suicides) due to fighting the system. Sometimes it is wise to roll over and take it, than fight it at a greater cost.
That being said, people like me are always open to constructive, specific, methodical advice as to how to fix our csa predicaments. Do you have any advice to share?

These are all valid question I would like answered truthfully as you claim they cannot be taken on.

I feel your pain, and I know exactly what you mean. I have had to flee the country so my new family could live. They have me down as 193K when I have tax return of 21K all due to being self employed. I had no means to pay the monthly CSA of $2500 if I did my family could not live so I had to go abroad as they where putting a DPO on me.
I wish you all the best, keep the head up

Most people on here seem to not follow one golden rule. Never talk to them. They tend not to lie in writing. Paper trials makes them accountable.
No matter what you all think. I will continue to fight them I have won and lost many battles and understand the war will take a long time to win.

I feel your pain, and I know exactly what you mean. I have had to flee the country so my new family could live. They have me down as 193K when I have tax return of 21K all due to being self employed. I had no means to pay the monthly CSA of $2500 if I did my family could not live so I had to go abroad as they where putting a DPO on me.
I wish you all the best, keep the head up

Unfortunately she didn't provide the BAS, CSA got it from the ATO without permission as she refused to provide it. That's when we provided the company financial,statements to show the company ran at a loss, but they claim they are dodgy, even though they were provided by our very reputable Accountant. Feels like we have to bend over and take it, but it's ruining my life, and the kids are feeling the strain as I can't afford to provide for them properly.

likely send you a message via Skype first to work out a time to have a chat


That is precisely my point tkjc - dont tell us "they cant do that"
Just tell us how do we fix it?
What form do i need to fill out? Who can i contact? What are the words etc etc - because until we action it in a productive fashion, cSA are screwing us. Big time. End!

you are correct. "Capacity" is not used to persecute someone who might be able to earn more (in ex's opinion) but doesn't UNLESS it fits with the other criteria, that is that they made a change to their circumstances to "avoid" liability.
so if you were a High Court Judge earning $500,000 and 8 years ago quit to go work part time as a gardener earning $50,000, then 5 years after that you and partner split and she want child support, she will not be able to claim "capacity" to $500K because the change wasn't initiated to "avoid" - it was a circumstance that was already in place.
However, if you earn $500K and you split with ex, and she claims child support so you quit your job, or move overseas, or start a business and then post a taxable income of $50K the CSA will likely deem your capacity at $500K and you will incur a debt if you do not make payments ...
as with any legislation, it turns on fact - but you CANNOT do anything that will be deemed "avoidance action" .. the LAW has changed not OPINION ...
Ian your example fits with my first example.
People - I understand the bitterness, anger, feelings of despair and unfairness. I have been in this system for 18 years and am counting down the 11 months I have left. There is no relationship with my children because it is not fostered by their mother, and our "fights" about child support payments do not help.
Bitching on this site will not change anything. Post examples of what you are going through (factual not opinion); post solutions - because one day, hopefully, someone with enough power will take those solutions and turn them into effective legislative changes.
do NOT listen to those that say "CSA cannot do this or cannot do that" ..the fact is the CSA can - or they wouldn't. I don't agree with all they do - but it is in accordance with legislation.

My skype ID is as follows Hail_Hail888

TKJC, what we are saying is that the term "reasonable" is not legally defined, therefore, it is whatever CSA choose it to be. for example if they say you once-upon-a-time, (before kids and old age) your earning capacity was $120k then we can reasonably deem that to be your earning capacity and there is nothing you can do about it......
i guess what we would like to know is what would YOU do in this situation? how do you overcome this? we are all striving for the same goal, to get our incomes for CSA purposes recognised as the taxable income, or even similar would be fine, just not these ridiculously large conjured up fake amounts!

Your BAS should reflect profit (sales minus expenses)
If you are a company or partnership then you should not provideBAS as a basis for assessment.
It sounds like you have either: an accounting error in your BAS, or a CSA representative who does not understand how to compute the BAS.
HTH!
Tjkc - you are HOPELESSLEY optimistic! It is written. It is law. They do not have to use taxable income. Its bullshit! But true bullshit.


My ex submitted a COA using Reason 8B "Earning Capacity", as in her opinion I could earn more than I do. However it was rejected by CSA, as I had not changed my occupation or working hours, and my Taxable income was higher than in the previous year.
The section that you refer to 98(L), in turn refers to section 117 (4) to (9), which has very specific conditions that must be met to make a Departure based on Earning Capacity.
I don't know the specifics of this discussion, but have learned that the legislation is very tricky to navigate and understand.
That said, the CSA are bound by the law and must back up any decision with reference to the Act.
Take care
Ian


My wife is actually the sole director of the company that is the trustee for the family trust, which runs the business. She set up the company with money she brought into our relationship, the intent was so that I could at least work part time in a flexible job around the kids. I can't work full time due the demands of the kids which I have 50% of the time, they are all at junior school and one has Cerebral Palsy, which means a lot of appointments at odd times. So even though its not my company, CSA are still using the financials of my wife's company to asses my capacity to earn. So yes the BAS does show the incomings & outgoings, they a have also been provided with a full accountant verified set of financials but they are obviously ignoring the fact that the company doesn't actually make a lot of money. And since I can't be relied to be there full time we have to have chefs and waiters on staff, and have to pay them adequately (I also drop my kids off and pick them up from school each day, and look after them during the holidays as my wife works for a corporate in the city). So in reality its not working out financially viable for us to continue like this, as CSA are leaving me with about $300 a week to live on. Its not up to my new wife to support me and my 3 kids (50%), as she has been for the past 5 years. I'm at a loss as to what to do as they continually bully me.

you are not being helpful by being blinded to fact rather than what you "believe" or "think"
check out the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 at section 98L(1)(a) which says:
the Registrar is satisfied that, in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to a child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child because of the income, earning capacity , property and financial resources of either parent
pretty unequivocal that the Registrar can consider "capacity"
we don't have to like it - but it IS law, so we have to live with it, or change it.

Registrar-initiated change of assessment
Since 1 July 1999 the Registrar has been able to initiate a change to a child support assessment where the Registrar believes that the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of either parent is not accurately reflected in the assessment (reason 8 (2.6.14)). This is called a 'Registrar-initiated change of assessment' (2.6.6)