Hi,

Ths is my first post, and I just wanted to let any one who is intrested know that the new child support formula may seem reasonable however, the same old ideologies are still aplicable to the CSA. Just had a reassesment and they used the benift the new formula provided in order t survive and took it to pay for more demands that the ex re-assesed to place on me.

So if you think the formula may in your circumstance be benifical financial wise, dont count your chickens. The CSA still has the same autocratic approach to deciding what is best.

It is, however, worth noting that the former Qld Regional Registrar, latterly National Compliance Manager, Angela Tillmans, who was responsible for some of the most egregious examples of excesses from the Agency, has now gone to greener pastures.

It seems that despite a budget of $143 million as National Compliance Manager, the use of private investigators for surveillance on ordinary Australians, nasty thuggish threats to make people "fear the next phone call or knock on the door" and a very expensive ad campaign (recently canned by the new Govt) she wasn't able to collect much money from the so-called "deadbeat dads".

So Angela has now moved on to the greener and presumably less arduous pastures of the Cerebral Palsy League, as CEO. I don't know if she has a family or other connection with CP, but her record doesn't bode well for the League. I urge all those with an interest to contact the League's Board to express their concern. Their website has the relevant details.

yes indeed the matter of the Child Support Hoax [just turned 20 years old] takes up considerable space in my book A Bloke's Guide to Family Law http://www.ablokesguide.com

and I have kept abreast [as FREE extracts] as all the abuses you mention come to the surface

or to simply get figures for your own case up to 18 years into future use http://www.csacalc.com

Antiseptic and Divorce Doctor, thanks for the post's. The whole thing with the CSA is that they don't realise or accept that things change upon seperation.

Sure you may be doing well with two incomes comming into the one household, however once seperation occurs, the CSA still thinks that horse riding is a necessity or private school is the only way to educate.

They keep going on with the old phase "what was the intention", yeah fine the intention was to educate the children, private was good,public would be fine as well, however now you find yourself locked into private schools for the rest of the childs schooling life. The CSA does not accept that you dont have they money you once had and insist on forcing you to privately educate the children.

I have reviewed and gone to the SSAT and they all come back the old comment what was the intention when you were married. Nothing else matters, not that you cant afford it, you just have to pay it or build up a debt. That was the reason the CSA had no problem this time saying pay for private education" because the new formula gave me a supposed extra $190 per month, so rather than be able to have the money to help live, you are dictated to to use the money for private education.

I wonder what the government has against its own public school system, or are they just trying to keep as many people as possible in private to allevaite any presure on the public system. I tell you what, it is a good job I never told the ex that I would buy her a car for her 45th birthday otherwise the CSA would say to me the intetion was you would, so you will! So basically the new forumla which I had been waiting for implementation, did nothing to alleviate any financial presure.

Nate23, I find that particular aspect deeply flawed. Imagine the outcry if couples who were still together were not allowed to make changes which might impact on a childs standard of living - taking a sea change, one parent stopping work to further education or taking a lower paying job because they were not coping with the pressures of the higher paying job. There would be a massive outcry.

Kids will be impacted by divorce and seperation, the financial/lifestyle issues may be important but not nearly as significant as the damage done when parents are kept at each others throats or gradually destroyed by an unrealistic system.

A starting place for working out what is reasonable for the government to require is what are the legal obligations on parents in intact families. What proportion of their income are they required by law to spend on their children. Are they allowed to change their childrens schooling arrangements if they believe they can no longer afford a previous approach. Can parents in such families take a lower paying job for work/life balance even if it impacts on their kids.

R0bert

well unfortunately you are playing directly into their hands by "giving" them power they do not have

this seizure of power started with Perryman case in 1992 and accelerated hugely under Howard/Parkinson - it is a long story and all I can say is read the book

as for the COAT you mention, I explain in the book [having dealt with some 4 thousand cases over 10 years] that you simply were dished out Template C, which is bloke pays school fees as well - like I can tell you the exact wording of what you got

the only way to win is to at least make an applic to a court [take no notice that CSA tells you no more courts] and you may well get departed from the whole scheme as many of my clients have done, in order that a court precedent is not set to lift the lid on CSA illegalities

Part of reason Bryant got shunted from boss of FMS to FCA by Howard was that she observed case law on school fees back to 1986 case of Mee & Ferguson [which cases YOU can use mate] so had to be put out of the action, especially following her zap of the CSA in one of my cases called W & C [2002] FMCAfam 166 (17 May 2002)

take a look at Austlii