One of the most striking things about this debate is the way in which it is argued holistically.

In reality, there are a number of distinct payer groups whom the system treats quite differently.

a) Payers who pay according to the formula, based on their true earnings.

b) Payers who pay according to the formula, but who use various methods to reduce their taxable incomes.

c) Payers whose liability has to be estimated, because the CSA has no reliable data on their taxable incomes.

d) Non-payers, who simply don't pay.

A fair system will contain a fair formula, and all liable parents will be in the first payer group.

The report recommends that the CSA be given resources to address the impacts of mechanisms used by people in the (b) group.

The ATO can already levy penalties for non-lodgement of tax returns, and can also take a person to court for refusing to comply with the requirement that a tax return by filed.

The CSA already has powers to deal with non-payers, although it appears those powers are not used very effectively.

Once people are compliant payers, in the (a) group, the issue becomes one of fairness. Essentially the question is one standard of living should the child receive after separation.

There are those who think the child should have the standard of living that they would have had had the relationship not failed. This requires so many assumptions as to what would have happened as to be almost meaningless.

Those custodial parents who look on with jealousy at their ex partner's post separation standard of living need to ask themselves a difficult question - are they willing let the other parent have custody so that the child can benefit? Of course, this is not always an option, but often it is. There is thus an element of choice for the custodial parent. If they're tolerating a lower standard of living, it's because they find some other value therein.

...continued.

... continued

In most cases, the reason that the custodial parent experiences a drop in standard of living is not that insufficient money is provided for the upkeep of the child, but that money is no longer being provided by the non-custodial parent for the upkeep of the custodial parent. In otherwords, there is no spousal maintenance. The child's standard of living drops, if it does, because the custodial parent is spending some of the child support on their own upkeep, even though it's meant to be spent on the child.

This is not a criticism - it's almost unavoidable, because much of the standard of living is determined by shared resources, such as the place of residence.

Some single parents nevertheless manage to get jobs and provide themselves and their children with a decent standard of living.

However, it is also true that some parents seem content to live on single parenting payment and child support even when their youngest child is in its teens. Such parents need not look far for an explanation of their relative poverty.

The child support system exists because there is a conflict between the amount of money the custodial parent wants, and the amount the non-custodial parent is willing to give. It is pretty much inevitable that both groups will feel hard done by. The taskforce's research indicates that custodial parents have been paying more than the true cost of their younger children for quite a while, and the changes seek to address that.

Those who lose out will claim that it is unfair. Nothing new there.

Sylvia Else.

Tired,
Thankyou for attempting to stereotype myself (EG “Everything you write smacks of this”). I certainly hope that you don’t teach children stereotypes such as “Mothers are custodial, Fathers are non-custodial”’

Cotter, Sylivia Else
I would think it difficult to develop a standard cost for a child, as each child is different, but one of the greatest problems with the present Child Support system is that the father pays the money, but has no say in how that money is spent. The mother alone decides the way the money is spent. The mother can spend all the money each month, with no savings for the child’s later education, sports, possible illness or emergencies etc. The father does not know any of this.

The Task Force recommendations, (if implemented), would act as the government’s system for Child Support, but it is a standardised or “one size fits all” type system. Personally I think there are many flaws in the recommendations. There are no sliding scales, it assumes there will be a custodial parent and a non-custodial parent, (which doesn’t really equate to Shared Parenting Responsibility), it does not take into account property settlements etc.

But parents can develop their own Child Support system which can be incorporated it into a Parenting Plan and lodged with the court. They can develop a budget for the child, which is know by both the mother and the father.

There are going to be Family Relationship Centres established in the future, and because of those centres, it will be interesting to see how many couples choose the government’s standardised or "one size fits all" Child Support system, or develop their own. This is assuming that they do decide to separate. If there is proper counselling and mediation, they may decide not to.

Tired wrote "Until we as a society can actually DEFINE 'in the best interests of children' ...

Actually Tired, society probably does want to define 'in the best interest of children' but Law will not 'codify' it.I, your usual force-separated father from my child, taken to my case to high court on the basis family court is not a 'competent jurisdiction' and want high court to legally recognize the anatomical and physiological entity we all have called the emotional brain, which in children is the predominant expression before intellectual brain (neocortex) takes over in teenage to adulthood. High court has taken to block the case, becuase once its done it will turn this family court-child support abuse on its head.

Now, in law everything is broken down to its smallest parts. For example take a situation where two people come to agreement so one performs to produce a result needed for another, and whom gets returns like payment as agreed. Simple, right? Now go into a Library and look at Contract Law, which is what its legally codified into, shelves of books and seen books exceed 600 pages. Now look for a law book on 'best interest of child'... even after all day search, its the big wall of nothing.

Even I, as a medical officer, have scientific information that would fill a 600 page text book on this, I guess. Why would our learned justices all of a sudden look blank, and prevent legal codification of this fundamental aspect that affects all of us, all the time, and most important in childhood. Even McInnes I think would concede to this.

I am learning about the judicial process, make my mistakes, note lawyers are happy to give expert advice but will not represent me, I assess it as a fear, but I have to succeed, my little child girl is depending on it for a happier future.

Sam

Timkins - violence is a significant but not overwhelming factor in divorce and separation, and has to be taken into account; and most violence IS perpetrated by males, not just in the family but in the wider society.

Tired - shared custody CAN work, and doesn't have to mean kids have no home: it can mean they have two. I share custody of my two children equally with their mother and they are happy and stable and they would HATE to lose out on one of us. Of course they want us to be together, but most kids want that, often even when there HAS been violence.

For it to work the parents have to be able to bury the hatchet and THEMSELVES put the chilren's welfare ahead of their own. this is not easy, but it can be done if the adults are reasonable and sensible AND if there is no history of violence or other abuse.

Similarly with child support. It is a fallback system, after all. If the parents can work out finances between them they don't NEED the Child Support system. E.g., I don't pay child support by any formula... I don't even consider it child support. I just pay what needs to be paid - things such as school uniforms, shoes, fees, clothes, whatever - and pay more than she does cos I can afford it and they're my kids too.

So obviously there is a need for the system in situations involving violence and abuse... but I never understand why more people - men and women - can't get their sh#t together and just work it out for the kids' interests

The reality is, if ordinary people can't put the kids' interests first, how can a bureaucratic system?

if the Government REALLY cared about kids' interests it would ensure that all families - single and dual parent - had an adequate standard of living regardless of how much child support they were getting

Sam,

Even if it's true that society wants what is in the best interest of the child to be codified, the apparent agreement is illusory. The moment you try to codify it, you'll discover that there is disagreement on the detail. Indeed, if both parents of a child were to agree on what constituted the child's best interest, then there would be no problem, regardless of whether such things are codified or not. It is exactly because people disagree that there's a problem.

Timkins.

I don't think it's fair to describe the scheme as being 'one size fits all'. After all, it's not prescribing a particular amount of money to be paid in all circumstances, but is a formula designed to capture information about the incomes of the parents, and the amount of care each provides. Paragraph 0.6.5, item 5, discusses how various proportions of care are handled.

My main technical concern about the scheme is the way that it contains bands for both incomes, and amounts of care. I have the same concern with taxation bands. I can't see any good reason for using bands, rather than continuous variation. In the case of amounts of care, the existence of bands creates barriers to increased contact (this was noted in the report), because one extra night's contact can dramatically alter the child-support level. This fact alone brings the fairness of the level of child support into question on either side of the threshold.

The scheme still allows for departures from the assessment for special circumstances. Although I can understand the invidual desire to be able to present their case for a modification of the assessment just because they perceive it as unfair, allowing that would result in huge disruption to the lives of the people concerned, and an unmanageable, and expensive, administrative burden.

I understand that payer's want some control over expenditure, but it would inevitably lead to disputes. To a limited degree, there is already scope for the paying parent to direct payments for specific purposes. One example is that money be used to pay for private health insurance.