Tammy,

You suggest a list of reasons for persons' current reluctance to undertake formal court challenges to CSA assessments: I'm concerned that the list seems to conflate two very different orders of concern.

One set of reasons from your list relates to matters of taste, priority and practical/systemic constraints (eg: costs, time, formality, poor literacy, etc.).

The second set of reasons relates to issues of direct and urgent concern to the safety and best interests of children: i.e., the sensible and realistic fears held, most often by custodial parents, of the malicious misuse of the power to harm, and of criminal violence. To term this 'family' violence has the effect of normalizing and neutralizing what we're talking about here: it is correctly understood as violence against women and children perpetrated by men, and fogging of this unavoidable reality is unhelpful. It constrains both our acknowledgement of its ubiquity and approaches to its amelioration.

So any discussion of the value of using, for example, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal as a forum to establish a reasonable outcome that's 'in the interests of the child/ren' needs to recognize that the perceived and actual threat of violence of all kinds remains an essential issue for many concerned parents around such proceedings.
And it must acknowledge that recent changes to CSA & Welfare regulation will have the effect, intended or not, of legitimating such violent expressions of the need to dominate, control and own other persons.

Anna

There is an essential difference between the Child Support Agency and other government bodies. Most agencies are balancing the desires of the individual against those of the state. The agency has an interest in its decisions in that sense, and there needs to be a recognisably impartial tribunal that can perform merit reviews of the agency's decisions.

The CSA by constrast is theoretically impartial. On the face of it, there is no particular reason why it should show bias towards one party or the other. Its internal review process should be an effective way of obtaining a review on the merits.

In practice, people distrust the CSA, which is widely regarded by liable parents as having a bias towards custodial parents. It doesn't help that there is a fairly obvious source of potential bias, in that the whole purpose of the child support system is to make liable parents pay more in child support than they otherwise would. While some CSA officers may regard it as just a job, it's difficult to see how people could feel comfortable doing the job for very long unless their attitudes favoured the custodial parents.

Whether moving the objections process out of the CSA would really change people's perceptions is debatable, though. There are still going to be winners and losers, and it would be a rare loser indeed who read the reasons for the decision and concluded that the decision was after all fair.

Nor do I see that it is practical to remove the adversarial character. If someone objects to a CSA decision, and the CSA reverses their decision, then the other party is likely to have a view on this. Once a decision is objected to, it seems unavoidable that the other party must be invited to offer their opinion.

The Family Court needs security protection akin to that used at airports, complete with x-ray machine. I suspect any child support review body would need the same.

Sylvia.

“For many clients of the CSA, decisions of the agency are final. Parents will often accept decisions they do not agree with, rather than risking further conflict by engaging in formal court processes.”

I would agree with that, and I would also think that CSA is not really involved in the “best interest of the child”.

CSA is basically an organisation that is involved in obtaining money from one parent, (the father in 90% of cases), and delivering that money to another parent (the mother in 90% of cases). Once that transaction has taken place, CSA plays no further part, and CSA does not become overly involved in whether or not that money is being spent on the child, or whether or not that money is being spent in the child’s "best interest”.

There are about 50,000 divorces each year, or about 140 per day. Each divorce would be different, so it becomes very difficult for any organisation to standardise the financial transactions that are to take place between each set of divorced parents. Whatever decisions CSA makes, would have to be rather blunt decisions, because CSA would not have the resources to fully investigate each case.

Combining all that, I would think it necessary for an external body to investigate complaints regards Child Support payments that are being made through CSA.

However I would think it even better if the parents developed their own agreements (and incorporate them into Parenting Plans etc), that would be better focussed upon their child, rather than leaving those decisions to an external bureaucracy.

I agree with most of the sentiments of Sylvia and Timkins. I also agree that a parenting plan would be the way to go. Unfortunately there is alot of rancour between parents whose hurt feelings often get in the way of the best interest of the children.

There is no single ideal solution - this is where an impartial system is nescessary. I haven't had any experience with the CSA. However, like our court systems, I have no doubt that its policies should reflect our changing society, where fathers are more involved with parenting than they used to be.

There will always be complaints - one parent will often feel that they have been unfairly treated - but the reasons for this could range from their very real love for their children through to a selfish desire for control over their spouse and children. And all the emotional permutations in between.

I believe, therefore, a complete overhaul of our system starting with the needs of our children as its foundation is necessary.

l think that Orwell would be laughing from the grave at the Newspeak and Doublethink of that wonderfully Machiavellian concept of 'in the best interests of the child.'

The so called 'best interests of the child' are only ever invoked by disgruntled parents who are pursuing THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST, whilst hiding behind, using and manipulating the children in order to get it. Politicians and beaurucrats also use and abuse it to great effect in order to manipulate people into accepting basic injustice.

The idea of subjugating one class (adults/parents) in order to promote the interests of another class (children) is very destructive to society. l heard a rumour that children grow up to become adults.

The discordant and divided parents and political merchants USE this concept for themselves and from where l stand it is utterly TRANSPARENT.

The children don't initiate divorce or child custody disputes.

Why?

Because its usually NOT IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS. Sure, there are cases of violence that are no good for kids, yet l think that concern is grossly overstated as an emotional ploy to render the oppossing party mute.

As someone who grew up in that sort of household, who wished for divorce on a daily basis, l can now say, some 25 years later, that l am glad my family overcame and stuck together. lt was tough but l think we are better for it. l think that the consequences for children in this sort of environment have a tendency toward gross exaggeration. It is not surprising to see that those who promote this perspective have the most to gain from the way it is used in dividing the spoils of a broken family.

How is it in the best interest of children to create blatant inequity and imbalance in these matters, when those children will one day grow up to become adults who will also be subject to systemic bias and an unnecessarily adversarial framework? Cutting off their noses to spite theif faces doesn't strike me as being in their interests. How is it in the best interests of children to alienate and fragment their very heritage, their essential link to those that brought them into existence? These are essential and fundamental aspects of human identity.

Use your kids to promote your own interests at your peril. Those children will grow up to resent their parent(s) who alienate them from their own identity. And the parent who gets the blame will be doomed to a life of fragmentation in their relationship with their children. Very short sighted.

The era of using glib dismissals and pursuing blantant SELF interests, rationalised by and masquerading behind the 'best interests of the child' is over. Use this ploy at great detriment to your credibility.

I agree with you trade215.

More often than not 'the best interests of the child' are used to squeeze what's really a defacto alimony payment out of the father. It's funny how 'the best interests of the child' always seems to coincide with 'the best interests of the mother'.

From my experince the CSA has not used the lestigative powers it already has at its disposal to assess. There needs to be transparency
which at the present time there is none. Self Employed can too easily
use creative book keeing as does my X.
The other comment I'd like to make is that I cannot believe that anyone believes that it is in a childs best interest to live in a home where they are abused or witness the abuse of a parent. Some attitudes need to change - what ever happened to the childs right to safety.

I agree with Trade.

The current system is so fundamentally flawed that 40% of fathers either pay the minimum $5 or pay nothing at all. Adding another layer of bureaucracy, in the form of a tribunal for child support disputes, is only likely to further frustrate. What will the tribunal do that the magistrates court cannot? Would the tribunal reduce the numbers of those not paying, or those paying multiples of what the child actually costs? Will the tribunal give equal weight to children in residency with a payer? Will it act outside the current Family Law framework, or against the child support formula?

I don’t think so.

Although I welcome the new Ministerial Taskforce Report on Child Support, I remain sceptical about its ability to properly disguise the stench of decomposition.

trade215, again I'm pretty much in agreement with your view on the abuse of the concept of "a childs best interests".

I have made a choice to use the term when required because those who call the shots insist on hiding behind it. I have also made a choice to point out the flaws in the concept when to those people when the concept arises. Hopefully I have struck a balance which leaves my credibility somewhat intact but also does not immediately disqualify issues I raise from consideration. I have always tried to be upfront about it when issues are a combination both of my own needs and my son's interests. No lies but some attempt to use the language the system demands.

Sachiel,
"The other comment I'd like to make is that I cannot believe that anyone believes that it is in a childs best interest to live in a home where they are abused or witness the abuse of a parent".

Not sure where you are coming from with this.
Based on governnment child abuse and neglect stats the current system is putting lots of children into situations where their risk of being abused or neglected is much higher than exists for most kids. Single parent prime care is dangerous for kids and should only be allowed as a last resort (where one parent is proven to be a serious risk or refuses to care for the child).

Two parents sharing the care are under less stress, have more opportunity to get a break, have adult social interaction, earn a living etc.

The rate of substantiated child abuse and neglect is a lot higher in single parent households (with parents of either gender) than in other types of households. There appears to be little research on rates for children involved in shared care but there are good reasons to think that children are safer in shared care arrangement.

R0bert

I have dealt with the CSA for many years and have had many an arguement with them. More often than not I have successfully argued my case and received favourable outcomes. Unfortunately, due to the agencies processes these debates have been stretched over considerable periods of time. These arguements have always been in relation to their interpretation of legislation and on each occassion their initial standard response has been "Argue it out with the mother via the objection process and court if needed."

My latest arguement with the CSA has been going on for sixteen months to date without an end date forseeable. My case is simple enough, I have two children to two mothers, one I am in private agreement with, the other chooses to go through the CSA. I ask that the non-registered child and the child support I pay for her be taken into account in my assessment for the registered child.
The CSA refuses to recognise this private agreement and does not view the child as an entity to be considered in the assessment for the child registered with them. Effectively, I am potentially liable to pay 33% of my gross income in child support for two children, 8% more than if both children were registered.

The Objects of the Child Support Legislation state private agreements are acceptable, the previous General Manager, Catherine Argall, encouraged such, as too many politicians and a number of CSA fact sheets. It's a fact, every child related Government Department or Agency recognise my private agreement EXCEPT the CSA, the very agency assigned to ensure the financial welfare of children from broken families!
And what's the CSA response? "Argue it out with the mother of the child registered with the CSA."

Why should I have to enter an adversarial situation with an ex wife when it's merely a misinterpretation of the legislation by the CSA that's at fault? Because the CSA will not accept liabilty for their mistakes and there is no easy avenue available for independent and objective reconsideration.

In order to marry my fist wife I had to join the Mormon Church, she is a Mormon, I'm not. After 7 years of marriage my wife wanted a divorce because I 'could not be a Mormon'. We had 2 daughters(ages 8 & 11). I remarried and now have a 2 year old son, with a new baby due in January 2008. My ex wife also re-married (a Mormon guy) and moved to Utah USA and took the girls with my blessing. I allowed her to take the girls as I thought they would be happier to stay with their mother. And also the fact that they had been brought up in the Mormon Church already, it seemed like the best idea for them to have Mormon parents. I am paying child support to my ex-wife under a private aggreement between ourselves. I now consider that the 2 girls are being supported by my ex wife & her husband as they are both working. My current wife & I are trying to get ahead in life and concentrate on our new family, we need to buy a bigger home, we need a larger car now etc. My concern is that I have not seen the girls since they went to the USA (about 3 years ago). There is no way in the world that we can afford to fly over there to see them. My wife is due to stop work shortly as she is 7 months pregnant, which means we will lose an income, making it even harder to pay Child Support. I requested that I temporarilly stop paying child support until my wife goes back to full time work. Of course my ex wife was not in aggreement. What can I do? Everything is in favour of the ex wife. Why should I pay any child support to her when I never see the kids or have anything to do with their lives (thanks to them being taken overseas). Will I still have to pay her if they become American Citizens?