The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Child Support Scheme for Non-Residential Parents

The Child Support Scheme for Non-Residential Parents

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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.)
Posted by Communicat, Monday, 18 June 2007 5:38:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 18 June 2007 5:45:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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)
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Monday, 18 June 2007 5:58:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 12:52:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 1:01:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 12:56:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy