Warning: file_put_contents(): Only 0 of 95 bytes written, possibly out of free disk space in /home/flfl1154/git/flwg.com.au/sources/global.php on line 625
View topic: Another case of C$A bias maybe? – Family Law Web Guide
Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Another case of C$A bias maybe?

Hi all,

I need some clarification on some issues and my current amount of $$$ that I have to pay :(

Me and my ex have a 1 kid between us

First, my ex has re-married and has 2 other kids with the new guy. She is a registered nurse in QLD and her taxable income for 2011 was $8000[yeah right, since when do health carers in the western world can not find a full time job?].
My first issue on this is, if she chooses to not work so she can look after the new kids why should I pay more for this?

Second, I can not find a child in any QLD school with the registered name of birth of my kid. If she changed the kids name, how did she do it without my authorization? If it is legal to change kids name without 1 of the parents authorization why should I pay C$A to a child that I don't even recognize by name?

Third, I have a new partner and 3 other kids but even so C$A has put a price on my first kid for the 2011 assessment for $1306/month and when I added my other kids it only reduced to $1002. So 1 of my kids is worth 1300 but all my others are only worth 100. How is this even fair in any calculation or formula?

Fourth, I live very far(more than 1000km) from where the kid lives with my ex, therefore 50/50 care share is just going to unstable the kid. But according the the calculator if I had the kid for 50% of the time it would reduce the C$A assessment a lot.  Should I look into getting the kid to live with me for 6 months of the year and really unstable his day to day life?


Cheers
Gazu
As a nurse she can salary package a lot of her pay which may lower her taxable income. You can try a Change of assessment process against her but as this process was designed to assist the payee to extract more $$$ from the payer it will more than likely backfire on you.

Yes it is very unfair that she has had more kids to someone else, reduced her income as a result making you pay more child support. There are many reports of this problem. C$A will not likely apply the same rules to her as you due to their collection mentality against the payer. I know this is wrong but this is the system.

I think you are correct that it is illegal to change names without consulting the other parent however I am not sure how she would have achieved this as schools are only allowed to use legal names.

Again C$A do not treat all kids the same - it's a problem. For ever $1 you pay in child support the Gov reduce the EX's family assistance entitlement by 50c so the Gov actually saves $$$. There are also many issues with payers supporting step children as C$A will not acknowledge them.

I doubt you will be able to change much care wise since you live too far away, however as your child gets older (secondary school) they may wish to live with you as they are more in a position to make such a decision.

I suggest you write to your local politician with these concerns. We wont get further changes to C$A unless people do this.
Gazu said
My first issue on this is, if she chooses to not work so she can look after the new kids why should I pay more for this?
As Fairgo has stated the legislation allows the recipient to very easily get around having to meet their capacity of being financially responsible.

Gazu said
Second, I can not find a child in any QLD school with the registered name of birth of my kid. If she changed the kids name, how did she do it without my authorization? If it is legal to change kids name without 1 of the parents authorization why should I pay C$A to a child that I don't even recognize by name?
Could the children be being home-schooled? You should be responsible for your children. However I have little doubt that not to the extent of the amount that the formula derives, which is based upon accumulation of costs for various scenarios rather than on actual costs. As Fairgo implies a large proportion of CS is a tax in all but name.

Gazu said
Third, I have a new partner and 3 other kids but even so C$A has put a price on my first kid for the 2011 assessment for $1306/month and when I added my other kids it only reduced to $1002. So 1 of my kids is worth 1300 but all my others are only worth 100. How is this even fair in any calculation or formula?
Other children actually, at least if the parent is working, are treated as well if not better. The costs of other children are worked out using the same cost of children tables as used for CS children. However, only using the income of the relevant parent but also getting the first slice reducing the income for the CS children.

It would appear that your Adjusted Taxable Income (ATI which is your taxable income and possibly some other amounts) is around $133,500 as for 1 CS child only (under 13) that equates to CS of around $1,300 per month, for 2011. The costs of the child in this scenario is $15,614 and in this scenario as your income is 100% of the combined child support incomes and that you have no care reduction then the amount of the CS.

The calculations without the other children(no RDC's) go something like

     Your Child Support Income(CSI) = $135,000 - $20,594 (Self Support Amount (SSA)) = $112,906.
     The other parent's CSI = $8,000 - $20,594 = $0 (negatives rounded up to 0).
     The Combined Child Support Income (CCSI) = $112,906 - $0 = $112,906.
     Your percentage of the CCSI is 100%.  

      The cost of the child will be worked out as $13,592 plus 10% for income over $92,672. Thus (($112,906 - $92,673) * 0.10) + $13,592 =  ($20,234 * 0.10) + $13,592 = $2,023 + $13,592 =  $15,615 (oops $1 out not that it really matters it's 8c per month, this discrepancy is due to rounding if I recall correctly).



If you then add in the 3 relevant dependant children (RDC's) then the CS reduces to $1045.42 per month. The costs of the 3 RDC's is determined as $28,950 which reduces your Child Support Income to $83956.

Here's how the calculation will go with the 3 RDC's


   Your pre-RDCA CSI = $112,906.
   As you have 3 RDC's then the costs of these is $24,095 plus 24% for the income over $92,672. Thus (($112,906 - $92673) * 0.24) + $24,095 = ($20,234 + 0.24) + $24,095 = $4,856 + $24,095 = $28,951
   Thus your CSI is now $112,906 - the cost of the RDC's, term the Relevant Dependant Child Amount (RDCA). Thus $112,906 - $28,951 = $83955.

   As before the other parent's CSI = $0.
   The CCSI = $83,955 + $0 = $83,955.
   Your percentage is of the CCSI is 100%.

   The cost of the child will be worked out as $9,885 plus 12% for income over $61,781. Thus (($83,955 - $61,781) * 0.12) + $9,885 =  ($22,174 * 0.12) + $9,885 = $2,660 + $9,885 =  $12,546.



Basically your income is reduced by close to $29,000 as consideration for the three RDC children. However as the CS is a percentage of the income used then the result on the CS will be reduced.

If we now consider the other parent having RDC's then as her pre-RDCA income is $0, then there will be no change as $0 fed into the cost of children will be $0 and the RDCA will be $0.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets