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?