The Child Support Scheme has been reported on many occassions to have been exploited by single mums. These single moms (or residential parents) try to extort money via the Child Support Scheme from their ex-partners.

Is the Child Support Scheme fair on non-residential parents? (Non residential parents are the parents who do not live with the child).
Do you think that the Child Support Scheme should be changed in any way to be improved? Is the government doing enough to support the children and single parents after divorce?

In the Australian construction industry, and for that matter much of the remote mining one.
Men by agreement spend a great deal of their life away from home, paying for that home and a far better lifestyle for the family.
After the stress breaks the relation ship, and it does quite often , the man pays always both with the loss often total of the children.
And in cash, we must one day truly see being female does not always say they are right.
Australia must at least try to be even handed and fair in this area ,it never has in my lifetime.

I don't believe that the scheme is "fair" for anybody.
Least of all the kids it claims to help.

- The adversarial nature of the whole process perpetuates conflict between seperated/divorced parents.
- The lack of respect for privacy in CSA's processes goes completely against what we have come to expect in other areas of our lives.
- The failure of the system to take into account the reasons why family arrangments are the way they are is a serious flaw. The parent who has had fought tooth and nail to take the children from the other parent gets just as much as the parent who has been left with the kids by a parent who does not want them.
- The capacity to earn provisions CSA seem to care so much about are too open to the biases of the assessor and don't seem to take into account the changes in someones lifestyle and living arrangements following seperation. Nor do they take into account when someone is just plain lazy.

I'm currently a residential parent (12 to 13 days a fortnight) and still supposed to be a payer (no requirement on the ex to increase her income when she ceased shared care).

I'm not game to persue a change of assessment because my son does not need to get dragged into another conflict between mum and dad. He does not need to be told that dad is trying to take money away from mum.

Nor do I have confidence that I would be treated fairly by CSA in that process. CSA won't allow us to reach a binding agreement for less than what they assess.

In my view the harm and cost to children and society from this scheme far outweighs any benefits that may result. It encourages adversial behaviour when we should be providing a framework that lets parents work together for the well being of their kids.

R0bert

The current CSA is definately discriminatory, and biased in all matters AGAINST the payer. (NOT gender, financial)

The reason the perception is that this department is gender-discrimanatory is simply that, as stated previously, it is mostly the fathers who work the most, to provide the most.

Unfortunately, the CSA is bound by legislation - or that's what they would have you believe. The silly thing is, that they CAN and quite often do make exceptions - but only if you are the "hard done by custodial parent".

It is the FAMILY COURT which is gender biased beyond all understanding, they will constantly and consistently award custody to the maternal parent - even though there is no legal justification (other than she's the mother). This means that the CSA can continue to inflict financial agony on the non-custodial parent.

Generally, the non-custodial parent is forced to set up a new home, with all facilities for the children...even though the custodial parent is granted 10-15% more in the settlement so that they can have a home for the children. There is no logic in this, as BOTH parties have to ensure a home is provided.

Shared Parenting or Joint Custody is SUPPOSED to be the norm, but the courts still don't care. Plain and simple: just because a relationship breaks down, does not mean that one parent is any worse than the other (with obvious exceptions when there has been violence or abuse) The BIG issue here is that if the Family Courts (and subsequently) the CSA were to adhere to the shared care scenario, most of them would be out of a job....so they keep doing what they are doing; keep causing more and more agression between parties; and thereby ensuring that their jobs remain "needed"

There is bias, discrimination, and predgiduce in the system, and until it is done away with, EVERYONE who has the trauma of associating with the CSA will continue to suffer - most of all the children, who are not seen as human beings, but more as Fianancial Tools of War.

You would be surprised at the number of fathers who come to a mate for help.
Not the best way to handle the problems but that trust just has to be respected by handing it on to a trained counselor or legal help.
Right now wifes who only months ago would not hear a word said about a hard working husband now?
Fighting to try to see dad never sees his kids again!
We may well do more harm than good in bringing girls up to think they are princesses, that only males need have good manners.
Australia needs to reinvent the way it handles relationship break ups and we all need to remember children are no ones property.
Family court? cute but it is in no way related to justice.

Scrapnmafia, I'm not convinced that significant gender bias does not exist in CSA but do agree that the drive to maximise money transfered is a big part of the problem.

Current brags on the web site focus on how much money is transfered. Some years ago (not sure if it's still the case) CSA executives had as part of their performance pays a measure based on money transfered. It appears to be a major performance target for the organisation so there is a drive to maximise assessed amounts regardless of fairness.

One thought that did occur to me to reduce the conflict between parents would be to break the link between CSA payers and payees. If we must keep the scheme then at least break the direct link between parents.

Each Parent would be assessed and pay into a pool. Parents are paid out of the same pool for the time children are in their care.

The existing system keeps the parents tied together financially and impacted by choices made by the other party over which they have no control.

The linking between payers and payees provides a means to get at the other parent and to feel got at.

Removing the finacial linkage from the process might take some of the emotianal weight out of the system.

That might be a viable starting place to reduce one of the more obvious parts of the system which harms kids.

R0bert

This problem is almost certainly insoluble. What happens when a partner goes into another relationship and has more children or takes on the new partner's children.
My own feeling is that the children you have first should have first priority and that both people in a relationship need to be held responsible for those children.
One of the difficulties is the irresponsible group (and I have no idea how large it is but it does exist) who try to minimise their incomes so as to stop paying child support. They are not thinking about the children of course but the fact that they do not wish to pay their ex-partner anything. I have seen this happen.
Mothers do not always make the best custodial parent either...in fact there are times when the children would be better off in the care of someone else altogether.
It is toughest of all on the children who often end up feeling as if they are to blame (and indeed I have heard parents blame their kids for the break up of a marriage..."if you hadn't have been such a b...nuisance I'd still of been married to your Dad." What a thing to land on a kid as emotional baggage.)

Communicat, "One of the difficulties is the irresponsible group (and I have no idea how large it is but it does exist) who try to minimise their incomes so as to stop paying child support."

A larger problem is those who set their their living arrangments to maximise unearned income including C$A payments, FTB (A and B), rent assistance, pension etc. Those often cause direct harm to their children by isolating their children from the other parent for finacial benefit.

If we had a system which provided a more realistic formula and as I suggested earlier broke the ties between seperated parents then the other issue would become self defeating.

R0bert

Communicat - there are many irresponsible people on both sides of the CSA argument, who do try to rort the system. Unfortunately it is the children who suffer.

I believe that Robert is right in separating the financial link between parents. This way the 'adversarial' nature will dissappear.

I think also, though, if Joint Custody was the default (with exceptions made where proven neccessary), a lot of the "financial tools" issue would be removed. It would also mean that parents would not be able to USE the children in the way that is done now.

The CSA and Family Court system have failed our children. It doesn't matter which side of the divorce you are on, the CHILDREN have been left to suffer the cruelest punishment - removal of THEIR right to see their family (parents, grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts - all of them)

OK, I am retired (male) and receive $5.00 a week child support, and for many years to come, even so all my children are adults. Let me explain.
As a “constitutionalist” I am concerned with the intentions of the Framers-of-the-Constitution and they held that the Federal-Government had no power to reduce the children to slavery! Well, the CSA is precisely doing this, as I have set out extensively in my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series.
While it did cost me an arm and a leg, so to say, I decided to go after the mother for child support. The judge argued that with her income (in 1992) of a mere $912.00 a week she could not afford it. Years went on and finally a judge ordered $20.00 a week. Well, forget about paying it because she refused. CSA finally wrote to me that with the child being an adult I better cancel it now. I decided not to cancel it and made clear they would put men through all kinds of troubles and so I wanted them to collect every cent. They advised they only could if the mother agreed, and she agree to backpay $5.00 a week. OK I might be long dead before I get the monies but that is not my issue. My issue was to expose the rot, after all the monies is to me not the issue.
Do I think men are hard done by? Well, I was assisting this women to gain custody as she maintained the father was abusing their two daughters. At a previous incident, at court, when he was without his lawyer I made known that as the mothers Atto4rney he ought to be careful as to what I may state, but I held he better agreed with orders being made but disputing the evidence. He did and his own lawyers later advised he acted wisely. After she obtained custody, I phoned the father (not his lawyers) inviting him to travel to Victoria and collect his daughter that day and I would arrange all documents being appropriately singed for this.

He came and got the girls with all documents signed. The mother having advised me she deceived everyone, including me, and made it all up, etc. Regrettably she was not the only woman who deceived the Courts in that way. Hardworking fathers often robbed of their children and make to pay for the deceptive wife. Then again, I also had women likewise cheated out of their children! It is the system that allows this to happen.
When a woman then having in excess of $912.00 a week is deemed not being able to pay child-support where as with a man they pay regardless what, then clearly there is something wrong.

Also, while the Constitution allows for the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate in the end it should be a State Court, such as the Family Court of Australia that deals with Family Law matters, not a federal court.

When I visited Michael Alderton in prison, who in 1994 drove a car through the glass plate windows, of the building housing the Family Court, it became clear that this was a man driven to his end, all he wanted was to see his children. However, he ended up in prison instead and subsequently hanged himself there.
For many years I pursued a Family Tribunal where lawyers would be banned but three social workers with a presiding magistrate would deal with matters, and only if they were unable to resolve matters could lawyers be involved. This, as too often lawyers are adding to the problems in their own way!
Being it a man or a woman, too easy a parent is robbed of the right to see its child(ren) and often the reward is a better Child Support income!
In my view, child support should be abolished and replaced with a system that is fair to all. But that is another story, as set out in my books.

The point about people minimising their income to reduce child support liability has had me revisiting some thoughts on this topic that were not fresh in my mind yesterday.

I've often wondered how people would react of the same capacity to earn type rules were applied to families where parents were still together.

- Would society accept it if a couple was not allowed to take a sea change because that would result in a lower level of money available to raise their kids? Where the parents decide that there are things more important to themselves and their kids than a high stress, high income job and choose a simpler life for the other benefits it brings.
- What would be the reaction if parents were not allowed to withdraw children from private schools because of financial hardship (not sure if it's still the case but it used to be that if a couple had their kids in a private school prior to seperation the payer had to continue to pay for that dispite the change in circumstances).

Some people may minimise their income to reduce child support payments, in some cases plain pig headedness and in others a reflection of how unfair the current scheme is.

For many a reduction in income will be an all to real consequence of the devestating impact a divorce can have on a person, the reality that most of us don't function well when our lives have been ripped to bits and jobs are impacted by all of the junk that goes with divorce and residency issues.

Outside the issue of finances
- Would people accept having to justify keeping their children because someone else might be able to provide a better life (assuming that there is no history of abuse or neglect)? The failure to support a default position of shared care does this when residency is contested.

R0bert

Doing away with the Family Court and putting these matters back into the mainstream would probably help for a start. I was not trying to suggest that there aren't problems on the other side as well...I know there are.
All I really wanted to try and point out was that it should be "children first" in the equation.
The choice to have children also means taking on the responsibilities of caring for them. Too many people forget that.

Communicat, agreed. Sorry if I've misread your earlier posts. I'm somewhat over the public bagging of payers by C$A and others whilst they never speak out against payee's. We see report on report about their efforts to recoup unpaid money from payers but I've never seen anything about efforts to encourage payee's to take financial responsibility for their kids.

I think many payers don't see much connection between C$A payments and helping pay for their kids costs of living. There is no process to ensure that C$A money goes towards the real needs of the children.

I also think that most child residency issues would be better handled by the mainstream laws relating to child protection. Start with a default position of shared care and deal with the exceptions.

R0bert

It is nonsense to argue, as the courts at times does, that a parent who does not pay child support is a dead beat mum or dad. Neither do I accept that a parents ability to pay or not to pay child supports has anything to do with the right to see once own children.
In particular where lawyers are acting for tender children, they tend to implant their personal views as to translate it if the non custodian parent should or should not have access. What they ought to do is to be impartial and consider it from the child’s right that it is entitled to have contact with both parents unless there is a real danger (not a fictitious one) to the child’s welbeing and safety!
Regretfully, we had the B&B case where the judge denied the father his previous access because the judge held that the mother desired to get remarried and going to live with her new husband and it was in the interest of the children their mother would be happy as otherwise it would harm the children and so the biological fathers access rights were from then on denied., this, even so the judge acknowledged he had done no wrong.
In my view, the judges rightful place was at the bench all right, that is a bench holding the sink in a kitchen in a sanatorium and not a bench in a court of law.
It appeared to me that too often custody and access rights has to do with it being fixed between the lawyer and a judge rather then as to what the evidence was about.
This post does not allow a full set out, but I used to advise people to check the affidavit of their opponent, that was held at court file, and make a copy of it, before they filed their response. Then after they filed their response to check and get another copy and more then likely the opponents Affidavit would have been amended (but not by the deponent of the Affidavit)!

Life can grab you in the strangest ways, while contributing to this thread it came back in real life to haunt me again.
A bloke who can not even see his kids fronted me at work.
He did nothing wrong still loves his wife she no longer loves him.
And the kids he loves will learn to forget him, some middle class goose will hear his wife out and he will by degrees not have his kids in his life.
Doubt it? ask generations of dads it s the way we deal with far too many of them

Belly, "And the kids he loves will learn to forget him"

I don't know what research has been done on this but I have the impression that a lot of kids eventually seek out their dads. They reach an age where they want to know for themselves. If mum is in the habit of power games and controlling behaviours, in the habit of using the kids to get at others it will probably show when the kids really start questioning.

Dads and kids lose badly along the way, those missed years, the chance for the kids to learn from dads as they grow and for dads to be a part of their kids growing.

Currently the law does not really provide protection against the abusers and in some ways I doubt that it can do so so.

Often the best that a dad can do is to make sure he is not part of the problem. To ensure that when he does see his kids that he is someone they will want to know and be proud of when they do make contact.

Cheers
R0bert

RObert of course you are right, but some dads do not get to see the kids again.
Take one pair of boys 19 years ago, they in front of me talked of the lies mum told in court.
They spoke of the boy friends mum bought home while new dad was at work.
And pledged they would come look for real dad as soon as they could, but the lies continued.
Dad had died mum said! after she broke him with court costs she took his kids away with lies.
Kids first always but our country has no idea of justice and fairness in this area.

CSA is a euphemstic organisation.

It has no interest in the children.

The kids are being used as pawns. So are the parents.

The vultures exploit family breakdown for their own cynical ideologically driven desire to re-engineer 'society' (whatever that is).

No fault divorce is a joke. A contract that has no remedy, nor sanction in the casue of a defaulting party is not worth the paper its written on. Marriage contract has been reduced to a mere postcript to romantic pretension. It not really a contract if one isn't held to the terms or accountable for breach thereof.

Kids are used as pawns. In the name of their best interest. Most kids, l believe, when asked, would prefer their parent to stay together, even if they dont get along. Look at who claims divorce is better for the kids. Look who is pushing agenda behind the kids. Its the one holding the baby and yes men do it too.

'Child support' as a percentage of income, is, beyond a certain point, alimony/spousal maintenance by stealth. There's no accountability for use of the funds. Yes, there are men who manipulate the system too.

l think that this whole area of family breakdown is the frontline of the gender war. Both men and women are being used as pawns in that war. Family is considered the backbone of the social structure which is held accountable for gender based imbalance. It has long been known that by destroying the family, the imbalance can be redressed. True enuff. Its just that this rhetoric is driven be a deeper agenda, which is to ultimately rob the individual of any personal soverignty and autonomy and bring him/her under the whip of the state. For the sake of 'society' you understand.

We have been turned into useful idiots.

Belly unfortunately true. I guess I'm not optimistic of substantial change anytime soon (at least change that brings improvement).

The Libs have made some moves to improve the system but still the main claims coming out of C$A in the light of the "fairer" system is the extra money they are getting out of payers. We will probably have a labor government late in the year, labor set up this mess in the first place and if my understanding is correct have opposed reforms which would have made a fairer system.

We need to advocate for change but recognise that it is unlikely that dads and kids kept apart by the existing system will see a fix in a meaningfull time. Even a change in law would take a massive time to follow up with a review of existing situations to identify those that are genuinely about childrens safety.

I wish I could see the hope of a real solution.

R0bert

Actually, I think it's MORE Mother Support than Child Support. I know I may lose a lot of women here but it's the truth. I don't have children but I have relatives, as well as friends that are paying support and some of these women are ridiculous! If their checks get garnished, their mortagage or rent increases, they have more children, they feel the non-custodial parent should pay more money. Let me say this, MOST of them have remarried or have a lover, rather he/she lives in the same household. When a person meet and start a relationship with someone that has kids, they're a package, so don't feel you and your NEW lover should be able to live off the ex, come on, tell him what your kids need! I know I'll get bad comments but I would like to hear from the people that agree with me, it's Mother Support, NOT Child Support. Where's the men support group? At least those that pay!:)

Darkeyes - you will hear no argument from ME! I'm a "subsequent spouse"... I married a man who had children to his ex, and we have paid through the nose every single day. Thank goodness there are other women out there who actually can see the truth through all the "single mothers' rhetoric".

And do you know that, even though there are refuges for women all over this country, there are only ONE OR TWO for men? Does that strike you at all as discriminatory? Do you also know that there is NO funding for male groups, however the govt. pays hand over fist to the womens'?

There is no gender equality - and until more people like you stand up and 'state the obvious', there will be no change.

Thank you DarkEyes, from all the "subsequent spouses".

Scrapnmafia,
Thanks! I wish others out there that feel the same and is on this forum or searching find this topic, maybe we can get something started and HELP these men. My heart goes out to your husband as well as my family and friends. No,I wasn't aware of the slim support men have and you are right, they(gov't) pay for the single Mom's, they need to help the ex's as well. It's ashame to sit and listen to these women take over, it's like men are being punished because the women chose to be intimate with them, without protection. Married or not, we ALL know what can happen when you have unprotected relations, pregnancy, and or diseases.These women were NOT raped! It's NOT ethical at all. The men go to court, have the right to speak but it's like the judges ignore them and grant the woman what she wants, which is TOTALLY unfair! I know this one guy, recently went to court and the judge, which was a female, is making him pay her more than the guidelines because she chose to move to a community where the expenses are extremely high and he has to suffer. Check this out, after that amount they're giving her, his taxes, etc. He will bring home a little over $100 a week, how is this man supposed to live. I told him, go and appeal it, DON'T allow them to do that to you. Why is it that the men MUST show up to court but the women don't have to and still get what they're asking for? If the man doesn't show up, she's still granted what she wants, that's why it SHOULD be mandatory for the female to show up or there's no modification!! We NEED to do something about this. Let's try to think of something. Good Day!:)

Scrapnmafia, I've not been involved with a mens group for a while but I had the impression based on a discussion with the leader of one that some money may be available but that the strings which came attached made it unusable. The ability to speak out would be compromised. Someone who puts ethics ahead of money - yeah.

Certainly no well funded government departments to do most of the heavy work. I did notice recently that the federal government has a links for men section referenced off the same page as the links for women section. http://www.australia.gov.au/front/info-for and http://www.australia.gov.au/411 for the main mens section.

I'm not sure how long they have had that up. The Queensland Government still lists resources for Women but not as far as I can tell specifically for Men http://www.qld.gov.au/services_for_queenslanders/health_and_communities/community_services.html but I might have missed it elsewhere.

The shelter situation is largely explained by the snow job that has been run on the DV issue and the idea of protecting women and children. Whilst there is plenty of quality research that shows that most levels of DV are not genderised the pollies and their minders stick to the advocacy research.

I do think that there is a significant shift underway in regard to mens needs and community acceptance of single fathers. I am concerned that if the federal government changes some of that will be undone. My impression is that Labor is too strongly tied to gender politics to provide any hope of working towards a fairer system (although I don't know Rudd's stance on that).

R0bert

In my time as a single parent (father) I would hear women at kinder advising each other how they best could out of a marriage to be financial better off. In one case, the woman was making clear that she didn’t at all had any problems but just that the financial side was the issue. So, she was instructed how to manipulate the court system to split from her husband and have a property settlement that he is left with the debts and then she is better off.
As such, I am well aware of the rot that goes on, where women are couched by others how to get financial better.
.
Then there is this millionaire who always screamed poor, and pays himself next to nothing as an income because he spends up big on business account, and so avoided paying child support.
.
Child support actually became a financial bonanza, so to say, to the Federal Government, as now they ended up having to pay a lot less out to single parents, in many cases.
.
With one child I managed a total of $300.00 child support to be paid over 15 years, against that I had to spend about every month hundreds of dollars to provide this child on access.
With 4 of my other children there was never any child support.
.
When I became a single parent I purchased a house in the country (paid half of it then in cash) and over the years, other then paying the interest, I did not pay much off the original loan, but at least we had a roof above our heads we called our own.
.
Despite the hardship we had, at least I managed with a mere $300.00 ever received in child support! I then ask why is it that when it comes to a non-custodian father they have to pay so much every week?
.
I view child support should be abolished all together and rather that it be replaced with a form of taxation over the general community as ordinary tax is

continued...

as to make sure that a non-custodian parent who may have been divorced by no fault on his own, is not made to suffer while the guilty party can use it to his/her advantage to rake in child support as some personal spending funds.
.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Federal Government could not make slaves out of children. Well, that is basically what it did using the child support system.
.
Divorce should be made very unattractive as to protect the rights of the children.
.
I accept that if there are genuine reasons to divorce then it generally is better to do so, but to divorce willy nilly and generally then the husband is denied proper contract while ta stranger may have all the time and ability to be with the children merely because of being the boyfriend of the wife, I view is an unacceptable situation.
.
Men are far too often denied custody because the judges take the position that they were working and so were not the primary caregiver. What a nonsense, as generally men have no choice but to earn the crust for the family and as such rather then being recognised for their effort to provide for the family then it is being used against them. Their real ability to care for their children under estimated by pre-conceived idea’s rather then that where a father pursues custody than this alone ought to make clear that he desires to care for his children.
.
No woman is born being a competent mother, indeed some never can become competent at all. Why then demand from men that somehow they have to prove it all without first being given the opportunity?
.
We need to averhaul the entire system to make it fairer to all, not just the mother, or the father, or the children but for all in totality.

De-Fathered and Marginalised - The F4E Blog

I am looking for a recently separated father to write a daily blog (4 to 5 paragraphs per day) for the soon to be released Fathers4Equality Single-Father Blog, on his efforts and experiences at trying to continue to play an active and constructive fatherly role for his children's benefit, post separation.

Implicit in these daily descriptions would of course include the obstacles faced by the father in trying to achieve this goal. The true identity of the father or those mentioned in the blog will be concealed for obvious reasons.

I am ideally looking for someone who can write in an honest, compelling and sympathetic manner, without resorting to hate rhetoric, and without portraying the mother or the institutions of family law in this country in an overly simplistic, one dimensional manner.

It would also be ideal for the father to be using, or in some way be exposed to some of the arms of the family law industry, including counselling centres, family relationship centres, the Police, the Child Support Agency, DoCS, family law legal practitioners and the court system, and providing an observational insight into how these entities function in terms of their fairness and treatment of this father, and in how they have responded to the government's directive for equal parenting emphasis and fairer treatment for non-custodial fathers.

Please note that I am hopeful that this blog will be read primarily by non-single fathers, and the intent would be to challenge the current pervasive views of some politicians and the media that separated fathers are in general failures, and incompetent, angry and violent dead-beat dads who are less worthy and less capable of being a parent than mothers are. This is obviously not the case, but this is a stigma that all single-fathers are faced with, whether the politicians, media, police or other related institutions care to admit it or not.

If you wish to volunteer for this role, please submit a test blog entry for one day's events in the following feedback form.

http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/f4efeedback.nsf/feedback

Ash Patil
President:Fathers4Equality

Ash, good luck with that. Overcoming those kind of perceptions is a long slow road.

On a positive note as a single dad with prime care I've been amazed at how supportive and encouraging women generally are to my role. Most seem amazed that I'm doing it being used to the model of dads not bothering with their kids.

R0bert