The Forum > General Discussion > New Child Support Formula
New Child Support Formula
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Divorce Doctor, Thank you for the advie I will look at the cases you cited. It is the private school fees which are the straw that is breaking the camels back, so to speak.
Posted by Nate23, Friday, 6 June 2008 6:19:53 PM
| |
OK, just to fast track the issue for you, Div 4 of Part 7 is departures and Part 6A [the lousy COAT at CSA] was added in 1992 to mimic that
div 5 is for "other maintenance" [or it is done under Fam Law Act] and first question for a court is do you get a CREDIT from the assessment BUT CSA was never given any power to mimic div 5 - they just TOOK it under the Howard Green Light to do what they want if you want any direct help [to save 10,000 hours of study] just contact me [eg at http://www.csacalc.com ] and I will try to fit you in at "the surgery" Posted by Divorce Doctor, Friday, 6 June 2008 7:05:17 PM
| |
R0bert: "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."
I too find that a most disgraceful aspect of the CS debacle. It specifically disadvantages one parent in order to maintain the other in a style that they could not otherwise afford. One consequence can be that the paying parent (let's be sensible and say "father") is so financially distressed that he is no longer able to afford to have his children during the agreed "contact" which the CSA takes as reason to increase the impost. It's a vicious cycle fostered by a nasty piece of legislation administered by ideologically-driven incompetents. In spite of the demise of Tillmans and her jackboots, the Agency will continue to wage its assault on the rights of fathers to have a life after divorce - after all "it's for the children"... Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 7 June 2008 8:52:17 AM
| |
very topical you speak of the total abuse of privacy as just yesterday a case was commenced under the Privacy Act in M before R FM in the FMS [the fam ct has gone abreviation stupid of late so I am just following]
I would say we will now have that case bound for the High Court, "invited" by Kirby J in the Lemar Meat vs ABC case R FM appears to be stumped by the words of s 65 and has adjourned to collect his thoughts 65 How assessment is to be made In making an administrative assessment, the Registrar may act on the basis of the documents and information in his or her possession, and is not required to conduct any inquiries or investigations into the matter or to require (whether under this Act or otherwise) the giving of any information or the production of any document. seems this very basic element of the CSScheme from 1989 passed under the radar of Howard/Parkinson et al as they recently totally sanitized the Assessment Act to avoid mass compensation claims against the CSA stay tuned Posted by Divorce Doctor, Saturday, 7 June 2008 10:53:49 AM
| |
here is a shocking case just presented to me at http://www.csacalc.com
the payer will now be paying double that of the old formula see the new FREE EXTRACT "Parkinson's Curse" at http://www.ablokesguide.com read it and weep Posted by Divorce Doctor, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 3:53:28 PM
| |
hi everyone
I'm a little dismayed over the reaction to the new CSA formula I've read here. I'm a receiving parent however I rarely receive anything from my ex. He's working, changes jobs frequently (seems to me he changes jobs as soon as the CSA get his employment details and attempt to garnishee his wages to get back on track with payments) and only occasionally chooses to see our child. He also has a new partner and child with her. I pay for everything! School fees, sport, school uniforms, excursions, food, rent, petrol, books, the list goes on and on. I don't get a break very often either. I'm a recent uni graduate with a vocational degree but if I 'chose' to move in order to get a full time job he would be able to restrict my movement so that he can maintain the minimal contact he has. The fact that he moved away from our area when we separated and divorced doesn't seem to come into the picture! I'm restricted to casual work and can't even afford a slightly better car that might give me a better chance of improving my employment prospects. Get over yourselves. Try seeing things from the other side - we're not all biatches who are taking you for everything you've got. There are deadbeat dads out there - disown them now! Posted by RetroPastiche, Thursday, 19 June 2008 1:58:03 PM
|