It was rather idealistic of Bob Hawke to say that no child will live in poverty. One of the idealism behing the child support principles is that children should not experience a fall in the standard of living following divorce.

By default the custodial parent must also not experience a fall in the standard of living following divorce otherwise the childrens standard of living falls.

Attorney General Phillip Ruddock summed it up when he said "income sufficent to support one household has to now support two."

In Australia the child support formula is calculated on gross income and paid out of net income, subsequently 27% of pre tax income translates to 38.5% of income earned above $25,001 or 45% of income earnt above $75,000. This does not include the medi-care levy.

Just prior to the creation of the CSA, Lenore Weiztman published her research which supported the erroneous public perception that men lived it up following divorce. Her research showed that a woman's standard of living fell by 73% whilst a man's rose by 42%. The only problem with Weitzmans research is that it was wrong. Yet she claims to have influenced divorce laws.

In actual fact both of them expereince a fall in the standard of living.

Under the current CSA arrangements wives and divorce husbands, but fathers can never divorce their wives whilst they have to continue to support them.

Just the very name Child support Agency,sends up my blood pressure,this agency is biased,and very undemocratic,it is dictatorial,the following I CAN VERIFY,a friend of the family,who slaved his guts out for his wife and two children,she broke up the marriage,and this man was so devasted,up to this day he has not yet recovered,his career has been destroyed,just some time back he confided in me that,he had some money given to him,from his tax return,and the child support agency,just took it and gave it to his ex,without even consulting him,other little income he gets that is also just taken and given to his ex,this ex the cause of the breakup,has a good job,and on confidential talks with a lose friend of hers,she was left a large sum of money,by relative,he the husband,also has to pay his upkeep,his children gets well cared for by this husband's family,when he has them for two days of the week,hi has to get them and take them back to her,that petrol money takes a lot out of his existence money,the husbands family brothers and sisters,buy the best clothing for the two kids,much better then those supplied by the mother,and this poor husband is so greatful to his family for all the care they give to his two children,and is trying to get his life together again,so just were is the fairness of all this,please explain,so were is the justice in the system,the child support agency stands with her on all issues,and the poor husband just has to abide by their decisions,this department should be overalled,but as it now operates,is nothing but DICTATORIAL

Just an overall impression:

That is, if this is meant to be in the interest of children, then why is the individual earning capacity of either parent important?

At one stage the highest rate of individual child support payment being collected, for an infant, far exceeded what the government was paying under Austudy to a senior student who would be presumed to have greater needs. This shows something of a double standard.

If this is really all about the interest of the children, why are the interests of a child, of a father who has a higher income, more important than the interests of a child whose father has a lower income?

Instead, why not do a detailed study of the AVERAGE amount needed to provide a reasonable level of support for a child at various ages, then collect money from contributing parents and average those payments so that all children are treated equally?

Of course this would mean that some mothers would miss out on what they consider to be rightful spousal support from well off men who they decided they did not want any more, instead just wanting their money.

But I guess that while all children are equal, some children are more equal than other.

The Child Support Agency has facilitated the long term faud perpotrated against Liam Magill by his ex wife Meredith. The CSA have done this by not taking any legal action against the mother ( or the biological fatherfor that mattter ). CSA have refused to allow Liam MAGILL any refund or any credit for 2 children that were fathered by mums lover. The CSA prefer not to disadvantage the mother by making her(Meredith ) repay the years of over paid child support. Criminal Negligence. www.PaternityFraud Australia.com.au

Cheryl King - Enduring Power of Attorney for Liam Magill Ph/ 0416 031145

The Child Support Agency is one of only two government supported entities that actively and agressively behaves in a discriminatory manner.

It is not interested in truth; nor is it interested in correcting mistakes - it simply decides that the non-custodial parent is an open cheque book, and discriminates against them in perpetuity.

The staff of the CSA, in my beleif, are actively encouraged to create as much tension and hatred between the two parents, so that there is a "combatant like" atmosphere...which simply self-perpetuates the CSA's need for being.

If the CSA (and government) truly had the best interests of the children at heart, then there would be a default of shared parenting and NO CSA payments, unless one party could prove beyond a doubt in court that the other was not fit or capable to care for the children.

Then, and ONLY then, would the best interests of the children be put first...not the bigoted, antiquated, and illegal behaviours which we see today - stop turning children into emotional and economic weapons.

Robbing one struggling child... to spoil her brother - the C$A way
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=
Children live in households.
To show how evil C$A rules are.. look at this example. Here is a pretty typical situation. Two parents divorce, she gets the kids. Both re-partner and they end up each with two kids... the mother has his original kids, and the dad has one kid that came with his new wife, and they have had one kid together.

Dad's place
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
One wage
Two kids
One dependant wife ( with a young baby)
pays child support
= poor house

Mother's House
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Two wages
Two kids
No dependant adults
gets child support
= rich house

Yes, it's true... the money flows from the poor kids to their rich half-siblings.

If everybody working earns the average wage, Dad's household has $41,000 before tax, while the mother has $109,000. (before tax). The CSA (under the new formula) is $9000, after tax/tax free

This is the sort of evil that occurs when you forget the fundamental truth that all citizens should be treated fairly before the law and that kids live in households.

The rules are based on ignoring new spouses... so Dad's dependant spouse and her dependant kid is ignored. Meanwhile Mum's new breadwinner is ignored, yet both those rich kids are treated as if she is supporting them alone.

The double standards are blatant... If you are on the dole, and you hook-up with somebody (marry, de-facto) this affects your dole payment. Adults live in households, apparently... but children don't. If you are a C$A receiving mother and you get married, your new husband's income is irrelevant...

Who made up these rules? They aren't fair... they hurt children and they hurt dads... I wonder who gets the cash?


James ADAMS
PartTimeParent@pobox.com
www.fathers4Equality-Australia.org
James ADAMS
Analyst
Fairfax