HI All

I have been watching with interest the new Child Support Sheme sneakily evolve. The new estimator is now at www.csa.gov.au.
New payments start in July.

According to this, my payments are going to be halved.I like many will be in dire straights.

I spoke to my local member who said they had a Child Support Seminar on March 4.but I was tthe first to complain so I don't think he is taking it too seriously.

I recommend everyone to work out their new amount on the calculator and start making a lot of noise.Speak to yopur local member ASAP. If we don't there are going to be alot of stressed families out there.

Worried

Perhaps I didn't try very hard because I no longer have need of this service. But I'm damned if I could work it out. Could you possibly outline for me not how the whole system works, but how the changes effect it?

My situation used to be that I was on Austudy with one dependent child. Father overseas paid no maintenance.

What are the worries of which you speak? I am not being disingenuous but am genuinely concerned.

I for one have been very critical of the previous system as it fails to treat all children as equal.

For instance, the way it was worked out, if I am correct, is on the non-custodial parents income, or rather a percentage of.

This just is not fair and I would be happy to see what the changes are and if they more reflect on the needs of a child depending on thier age rather than their social status as is the case now

I've not worked out the monies involved, I can expect some more sillt assessments in the near future.

A rework of the system should have started by factoring into the equation allowances for the decisions parents have made.
Parents who have done their utmost to have most of the care of the kids against the other parents wishes should not get the same as those who have been left with kids by an indifferent parent.

Parents who relocate and isolate children from the other parent should not expect or receive any money from the other parent.

Better still the government should recognise the problems keeping seperated and divorced people tied together financially causes for the individuals and their children and find a better way of doing this. People who are no longer together have no say over the other persons decisions and should not be held accountable for those decisions.

A corrupt system designed to reduce the load on the welfare system rather than to help kids.
A system focussed on ideology rather than on good outcomes.
A corrupt system which will not be fixed by fiddling at the edges.

R0bert

A very interesting point! Who is to blame, and what is justice! Well this should be a long debate, cause the system is not quite right, YET! If you bear children, you are responsible for the up bring of the case. I think once two people have gone their separate ways, its a new start for both of you! But the man still must support what he has started. But the problem is, with the new start to both parties, one is stopping the other from making the new start.

Rock in a hard place. Both sides must be able to live with and with out the cause of finger pointing.

If you split up, you made the wrong choice. And that's a fact.

When it come to money, I think the system is fair. So stop complaining.

The government is trying to clean up your mess, and just remember, you caused it.

Do you need your bums wiped for ever.

Think about it!

The Child Support scheme is not a service, it is just another form of TAX.
Any changes to the scheme is only an attempt to prevent a lot of public servants from being prosecuted due the offenses they knowingly committed every day when collecting from the non-custodial parent.
If you new the history of this legislation as it has gone through the various courts to the pretend High Court you would understand the problems with this garbage.
The constitutional validity of this legislation has been argued in what many thought was the
High-Court-of-Australia before many justices but the Court does not apparently keep a SEALED copy of any of the ORDERS of the court in relation to these matters that have come before it.
These issues were again before the pretend Federal-Court only two weeks ago as a result of a departure prohibition order, issued without grounds or authority, against a non-custodial-parent who was traveling overseas for short term employment and was prevented from leaving by the
Federal-Police. Even after the order was allegedly lifted by consent and by court order they still attempted to prevent him from leaving on Sunday.
When the so called justices of the High-Court are prepared to be dishonest in the interpretation of the legislation and the constitution there will never be confidence in the judicial system in this country by the people who are personally effected by these public servants who are prepared to engage in criminal conduct in order to take money and property from the male non-custodial parents.
The $ amount being taken in Child Support is based on information unlawfully obtained from the Tax-Commissioner in relation to Tax-File-Numbers which he is not authorized to pass to anybody without written consent of the individual involved. These provisions are provided for in the SCA legislation but they have put it in writing that they just ignore the law. This evidence is now before the pretend-Federal-Court so we will not expect too much to come of it.

10 years ago I had a 1 night trist with a blonde woman in Nth QLD.

I have paid this extortionist 18% of my gross wage ever since, my relationships and children hence have suffered because of this incubator of CSA. I have never laid eyes on my alleged child with this witch and have no desire to.

She is the moll of an outlaw motorcycle gang member. Would make things a tad hard.

For every dollar CSA gains from thedead beat dads it costs them $5.

Get rid of this crap all together and for christ sake remove the punitive feminists who make the non custodial parents life a fing nightmare.

Interesting to note that our Labour Govt refuse to meet with any of the MENS GROUPS and are reviewing the changes no doubt to make sure the horrible dirty blokes will be kicked in the guts and that no custodial parent will not be disadvantaged.

I can see the the big lefty love in now castrating whats left of thier blokes before moving on to reek revenge on the conservative right. My EX of 10 years ago is privy to my personal taxation information and more, the whole system is geared for custodial parent (read Female) men are discriminated against. We are lower than smoking nazi whale eating abortionists and its about time we regained our testicles.

Lady who started this, I wish your kids the best, just dont take it out on us of the 2 meat and Veg variety

Under the CS scheme, separated fathers can have effective marginal tax rates of up to 74% and much higher if a corrupt CSA official decides to garnish from their income or their bank account, something that is always done in secrecy so that the first the man knows is that he has no money, often leaving him in a position of abject poverty, unable to afford accommodation suitable for children on the rare occasions when the "single-mother" deigns to allow them "contact" with their child.

I'm ery tired, of hearing yet another "poor me, I'm a victim" whinge from a segment of society that has been as mollycoddled by the law as it is possible to be. I've been on the other side of those laws and seen the discrimination against men first-hand. I've watched as free legal services were provided to my ex in her pursuit of her goal to maximise her custody of the children in order to maximise her CS take from me, whilst I had to pay many thousands of dollars in legal fees to get any kind of hearing at all (of course, I work and she chose to become a full-time student when we split up). I've seen the farce that is the DV court, where the women are ushered under heavy (female of course) police guard into a "sanctuary room" for tea and bikkies, past all the "violent" men who are sitting in the corridor waiting their turn to have lies told about them, all in the interest of having a DVO that can be used to increase the "single-mother's" custody of the children and thereby increase her take from the father.

Frankly, my dear, I reckon it's about time that "single-mothers" woke up to the fact that they have a responsibility to their children's financial well-being, just as the father does and got off their bums to do something about making some money.

evolution, there is nothing even remotely "fair" about the system.
It penalises those willing to make an effort and panders to those who are willing to manipulate the system. Corrupt to the core.

It's adverserial nature means that if you want to challenge the basis that an assessment was made on you are reopening old wounds and if your ex is a player risking having your kids dragged into the dispute.

The ability to plan normally is destroyed by the impact of decisions an ex may make - if they find an excuse to reduce their work hours you have to pay more (or receive less if a recipient).

The current system totally fails to create any expectation that both parents have a responsibility to provide for their children, the one who has to provide is the one who gets the most income regardless of the effort that goes into gaining that income.

The current system has no checks and balances in it regarding how child support is used, extra money paid does not have any assurance that the money is used for the childrens wellbeing.

It's a punative system designed to reduce the welfare burden created by people who wanted to find a way to "make fathers pay" regardless of the harm done to children or their parents.

A presumption of equal shared parenting and equal shared financial responsibility for children would be a much better basis for minimising the harm done after relationship breakdowns.

R0bert

The real issue here is about the kids and the current system is flawed as it values the up-bring of a child depending on their social status rather than their age.

I have said it before and I will always say it, 'the cost of raising a child MUST be calculated by the age of that child, not based on the family situation they came from as that situation no longer exists.

Payment calculated as a percentage of ones wage leaves the system open to corruption, evidence of which is currently widespead.

As for the child resulting from the 'one night stand', tough titties to you. If you are stupid enough to have unprotected sex with a total stranger, given the millions of dollars we tax payers spend on 'safe sex education' then tough luck. Why should I pay for your stupidity, I have already spent enough on educating your type yet you now want to sherk your responsabillity. It is your type who have created this debarcle in the first case. People who have the child but don't want to take the financial responsabillity for caring for them.

This is the very reason why compulsory child care exists! Because you don't want to pay. ANYTHING

Robert Hi! I have to agree with REHCTUB. It takes two to tango, and because your a man, it doesn't mean you can just dump a human life onto the other party and the seeder gets off Scott free, that's what is not fair. My wife receives child support because the first guy she meet before me made her pregnant and done the runner when he found out. My stepdaughter is 17 years old now, and he has been paying for his 5 minuet fling ever since she was 6 mouths old. He was also one of these blokes that thinks that girls are just pieces of meat, and the payments that he has to make soon snapped him out of that low level thinking.

By the way, she loves spending his money. Child support is a good deterrent and yes every case is different, but this bed hopping has to stop for the child's sake. But what does money fix when you know your real dad is out there somewhere and it shows in her face when she hears his name. Its really painful for her and she has said in the past, why didn't my father love me. I think she was 9 that the time.

evolution "and because your a man, it doesn't mean you can just dump a human life onto the other party and the seeder gets off Scott free"

If you read what I posted I suggested that the decisions a person makes should be factored into the equation. So the person who chooses to become a parent and then tries to reneg on their responsibilities does not get to escape scot free (unless we decide the whole thing causes to much trouble - a viewpoint I lean towards).

The parent who makes decisions which effectively isolate the other parent from the childrens lives should not expect to be able to force the other parent to pay for the kids. At the moment a custodial parent who moves away resulting in the other parent not getting to see the kids can expect to receive extra money from the payer - hardly fair.

Both parents need to be held responsible for their decisions and accept that their life choices will be limited by those responsibilities.

One of my points is that I think any gains created by child support are far outweighed by the conflict created by a system that keeps two people who are not otherwise together tied together financially. They stay bitter at each other because their choices impact on each other. Kids get dragged into the conflict either by hearing bad talk about the other parent or by the withholding of access. Kids have their relationship with one or both parents damaged. We all suffer as a result. I don't have easy answers to that but far to often the debate about making people pay ignores what we all pay as a result of a system which contributes to kids lives being damaged.

We need to treat the positive involvement of both parents in childrens lives as more important than the earning capacity of one parent.

R0bert

Sorry rob, I tend to skim through and fail to pick up peoples points at times. I saw rehctub's post and what I wrote just came to mind.
But again, what Iam really annoyed at is, for each month she receives $40.00. Yes, there rights and wrongs with the system and this is one of them. I would like ask the government how does this amount help and bring up a 17 year old, let me tell you, they cost a hell of a lot
and its coming out of my pocket and Iam the one wondering where is his responsibility. The feeding, nappy changes, up that three in the morning, sore teeth and the list go's on. I did his hard work for him and he's "is" getting off scott free. He makes 41.000 a year and some how he gets away with $40.00 a month. yes, he has two other children, and i bet he spends more than $40.00 a month on them.

I have a cat that costs more than $40 bucks a month. I'd better stop it there.

The biological father should pay for the following.

1 All medical and dental.
2 All school expenses.
3 And I will be happy to pay the rest.

Now I will go back read what you wrote robert.

Every ones situation is different and in my case, he wants no contact with her. Yes the bad situations that you speak of, isn't fair, but most of these cases are for family services but the money must be maintained for the cost of the child's up bring. When I said the system is fair, I meant, its the best we have got. The child support percentage is currently 13.5%.

Rectum,

I dont see my responsibilty as being any further than wiping my bits off while walking out the door. I can just about guarantee I pay a shed load more tax than you asswipe. So you are not paying for squat on my behalf.

Women should be allowed to give birth only after signing a waiver not to pursue the sperm donor for CS. Otherwise get rid of it.

Charming.

Such a pity we can't apply SCOTTY's sentiments retrospectively to his mother.

Scotty

Mate, Quit while you are ahead because you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Many an innocent loving father is struggling to support two families because he has the decency to respect the values of a human life that he has had a part in creating.

The next time you get the urge may I suggest you visit a brothel, although I doubt you will find many 'biker moles' there.

You will be hard pressed to find anyone that supports your values, essecially one who pays maintinance becasue your type are the very cause of the way the system treats people now.

As for your tax comment, silly you, you contributed the most yet learned the least.

"Such a pity we can't apply SCOTTY's sentiments retrospectively to his mother."

CJ, you've outdone yourself.

R0bert, I don't have anything meaningful to add except you always strike me as someone who's clearly been done over, but who handles it with intelligence, grace, courage and sensitivity. I hope some of the male career-victims on this forum can learn from you, but I suspect it's a long shot.

Vanilla, I've been through some tough times with some of this stuff but when I've seen what others have copped I've not really been done over - rather looked into the abys.

Probably a combination of mindset, good luck and the fact that my ex is not vendictive just very self centered. I got close enough to see how bad it could be but so far have managed to limit the damage to stuff I can live with. I've got quite a few years to go yet before I'm out of the woods (a change of my sons residency could still send me under financially) but I deal with that by advocating for change.

I think that I and some of the others have been around long enough that if we were going to learn from each other it would have already happened. Whilst we share some concerns we have reached different conclusions.

R0bert

Evolution
Firstly I must confess that I am fortunate enough to have two children and a wife of 23 years so I don't go through the anguish that many do. Mind you, we have had our share of moments but some how we have avoided the obvious stress caused by marriage bust ups.
Furthermore, can I just say that I hold the up most respect for all non-custodial parents who pay their share of maintenance payments which brings me to my point.

You pointed out that CS is calculated at 13.5%. This is exactly where I disagree with the system.

You see the system calculates 13.5% regardless of the age of the child being supported or the amount of income earned by the payee. For instance, a child that is 3 is valued the same as a child who is 14 yet, due to income variations the 3 year old may be paid more than the 14 year old. Hardly seems fair to me.

I have said it before and I still say it, child support should be calculated by the age of the child involved regardless of their social status or the income of the other parent.

The system it's self allows corruption and that is evident.

If this aspect were to be addressed it would remove the issue of income hiding and would allow the other partner to move-on knowing that their child has the same support as all others.

It realy is quite simple to me.

The most basic thing re the CSScheme, now lost in 20 years of history is that it was introduced as a Scheme only, and has FULL redundency under the FLAct [called Child Maintenance]

So if Kevin 07 decided tomorrow to repeal the CSAAct [may as well keep the Collection Act] then the linkpin of s 66E simply says back to good old Child Maintenance [which did in fact work very well]

I have a case coming up soon based on CSA privacy invasion and High Court's "invite" in the Lemeah Meat case that may well blow CSA out of the water and Oz can revert to a civilised nation as it was pre 1989

OH yeah, to get back to the OP question, for the full bottle on CSA formulas just got http://www.csacalc.com where at present I am doing these reports for FREE

This is the site that severely embarrassed Howard as I had my calculator up and going a week after the details of the new formula were announced back in May 2005

but Howard was wanting to string it all out for 3 years as an election goodie so he allocated $600 million and 3 years to his Y2K Freaks to do the same job - and you will see as of last week it finally appeared at the CSA site, but still does not work and has more disclaimers than you throw a stick at

I am thinking of a automatic set rate, calculated on the cost of the child's needs until the age of 18. The overall figure would make people think twice about the decisions they make in life.

But in reality, as times get harder, (money wise) and it will, people like me, may have to put up with no child support at all. The good father's must be feeling the pinch, and we cant have some women or men black-mailing on the grounds of using children as a leaver and this does happen.

Thinking on the big picture, it maybe better to deal with the hand that we are all dealt with and just get on with it.

The child support system seems to be making more problem's than it's worth, and to be honest, I don't need his money. So to be fair to all, just have the system banned! I can only think this will take the pressure off an already struggling way of life.

Then no-one can complain. Its still a rock and a hard place and we can do well without the drain on the already over-loaded government system.

Just a thought.

Now you're thinking, Evolution. On the downside, there would be nearly 4000 unemployables released to the real world when their CSA sheltered-workshop closed down, but even paying them to exert their talents to the full by sitting on the dole would be a bargain, especially as it would mean that the thousands of men who are sitting on the dole because of the CSA would be able to return to work.
Not to mention that the millions of dollars it costs to have the CSA exist would be freed to do actual work, instead of shoring up the lifestyles of the previously-mentioned incompetent and corrupt unemployables.
Good move all round, in other words.

Evolution
I really hope you don't mean what you said in your last post as this looks like a case of 'it's all to hard'.

Let me tell you if I had a child/children that I was separated from I would support them all the way, it is just that the current system breads corruption.

Don't give up for your kids sake!

"I am thinking of a automatic set rate, calculated on the **cost of the child's needs** until the age of 18. The overall figure would make people think twice about the decisions they make in life."

well yes, that is the BLUE columns at http://www.csacalc.com

but governments NEVER want the easy way, as that would negate the NEED for govt

so we have the CSA Scheme