Sylvia Else,
I don’t think the government’s system is the only system, as parents can form their own agreements. Those agreements can be informal, or they can be lodged with the court and become formalised and binding.

It is interesting to see where the Task Force recommendations have come from, as I believe they are not unique. It appears that they are basically a version of an “Income Shares Model”, http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/fightcase/incomeshares.htm and there are various versions of this model in a number of states in the US. There are probably just as many complaints in the US about Child Support as there are in Australia, but the main US complaints seem to be as follows:-

1. It can lead to Child Support payments that are beyond the requirements of the child, and the custodial parent then begins to live off the Child Support payment. The Child Support payment then becomes a form of alimony, which is not the origional intention.
2. The system can become a government imposed system, and government agencies can begin to pry into the lives of the parties involved. It becomes a “Big Brother” type of system.

Now the last may become very relevant with the recent recommendations, as those recommendations now take into consideration the incomes of both parents (and perhaps the incomes of their partners also). So there is the very real potential for government to be keeping many records on many people, but no one has any real idea if those records are accurate.

So people can just form a budget for the child, and work out their own agreements. If they can’t work out their own agreements, they will have to use the government’s system.

But as stated earlier in postings, in the future we will have a system that moves away from the custodial and non-custodial parent scenario, and the future system will probably emphasise shared parenting. So the old formulas will not work in the new scenario

Timkins,

Certainly the government has not sort to impose the child support formula on any couple who have no desire for the government to intervene, and who are not receiving government support. In practice, many parents are receiving Family Tax Benefit, and the requirement that Centrelink approve agreements before they can be registered has been an obstacle. The report recommends that Centrelink no longer have to approve agreements - but that it will simply pay FTB as if the agreement had not been made.

On the results of the income shares model, the primary area of contention appears to centre around whether the payer should have to pay based on the child's requirements, or the child's cost. These are different. A child's requirement is presumably that amount that is necessary to avoid the child living in poverty (according to some definition of poverty). This does not accord with the objective of having the child share in the standard of living of both parents. The income shares model attempts to determine how much would be spent on the child in an intact family, and treats that as the child's cost.

I think the Big Brother concern is overstated. The incomes used for the calculation are taxable incomes, as assessed by the tax office. Only in special cases would the CSA start looking at whether the payer's capacity to pay is not properly reflected in the taxable income.

A new partner's income is not considered in any circumstance, even though that new partner may be contributing to the costs of any children of the partnership. This leads to the rather strange looking recommendation 1.19 in paragraph 9.10.1. Yet the alternative of involving the new partner's income is clearly unacceptable, and presumably the taskforce thought so too.

Even with shared care, the system still involves payments. For example, with 50% care by each parent, in uncomplicated cases (no new children), the parent with the higher income will pay support to the parent with the lower income.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else,
I would agree with the idea that the new recommendations are very complex, and perhaps too complex. I would also agree with the idea that dependant children are basically defined as being as people who are below the age of 18.

Now political powers in government came come and go (every 3 years in Australia), and those political powers can adjust or manipulate whatever formulas they want if they have the power to do so. (ie. Power in the House of Representatives and the Senate, which means that they have power over the Courts)

Now if the child is primarily dependant on their parents, then the parents should begin to determine what is in their child’s best interest, not the government.

It becomes a rather contentious issue I suppose, who has the best interests of the child. At present I would go for the parents, as they should be closer to the child, and should know more about their children, and not the government.

This is why I would also go for mutually agreed Parenting Plans which incorporate the financial aspect of the child’s life, rather than government imposed standardised systems.

Cotter, you ask about mens groups talking about the hip-pocket. Maybe you are missing the strong emphasis on shared parenting coming from the mens groups. From my perspective that topic gets a much higher focus.

The "Hip Pocket" is certainly relevant. There is a strong view amongst many that the various child support payments assocated with custody (Child support, Family Tax benefit, parenting payments, rent assistance etc) are a factor in the reluctance of a lot of mothers to cooperate with shared parenting. Maybe nobody is making a fortune from this stuff but in some cases it is a nice alternative to the unemployment benefits. It is clear that a parent who wants to undermine shared parenting has a lot of options to do so, removing financial incentives to do so might help.

I favor a system that provides less benefits to parents who choose not to cooperate with the other parent having residency. At the moment the system does not appear to take any account of the circumstances and decisions which led to one parent having most of the residency.

For all those who speak about child safety please have a look at the Abused Child Trust web site stats -

http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp#
What types of families are involved in abuse and neglect?
Family types involved in substantiated abuse and neglect:
27% two parent - natural families

23% two parent - other families

37% single female parent families

5% single male parent families

Also have a look at reports on the National Child Protection Clearinghouse esp "Who abuses children?" http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.pdf and "Notifications, investigations and substantiations" http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa02-03/cpa02-03-c02.pdf

Timkins

"This is why I would also go for mutually agreed Parenting Plans which incorporate the financial aspect of the child’s life, rather than government imposed standardised systems."

Such a cooperative approach would certainly be preferable. But what are you going to do when the parents can't agree?

Are there many liable parents out there who think it would be reasonable to pay more? Are there many payee parents who consider that they're getting too much?

Under the current system, parents can agree, and leave the CSA out of it entirely. It doesn't seem to happen very often.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,
What to do if parents can’t agree? I guess they will have to use the government’s system. But as I have tried to reason earlier, I think it advisable that they develop their own system to finance their children, as it should be more in tune with each child’s needs, and if too many parents start to use the government’s system, then the government’s system can become a bureaucratic monster (and I think that agencies such as CSA could already be described as such).

As was stated by the Committee of Enquiry into child custody, the present Family Law systems can become too confrontational, where a Family Law solicitor is often the first person to be contacted, but in reality a mediator should be the first person to be contacted.

The Family Relationship Centres, (if they operate properly), should be proving counselling and mediation, and a part of this should be providing example Parenting Plans that encourage Shared Parenting. I have never heard of a Family Law solicitor offering their client an example Parenting Plan.

What to do with the 100,000’s of couples who have already separated but don’t have mutually agreed Parenting Plans? Difficult area that, but hopefully those parents will begin to develop Parenting Plans in time.

With 1 in 3 children now not living with both natural parents, it has produced a social disaster. It has adversely affected an enormous number of children and families, and it becomes an exercise in going back and trying to fix this social disaster.