Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Can I apply to CSA under REASON 1 to claim a reduction in CS due to my legal costs for contraventions against my eX.

A year ago, CSA had informed me that I could apply under Reason 1. I applied under Reason 1, and now CSA inform me that payers cannot claim court cost as the laws were recently changed to prevent this.

A year ago, CSA had informed me that I could apply under Reason 1 to claim a reduction in CS due to my legal costs for contraventions against my eX.  So recently, I applied under Reason 1, and now CSA inform me that payers cannot claim court cost as a reason as laws were recently changed to prevent this.

I can't see why Legal Costs can't be claimed under reason 1 as it definitely cost me more than 5% to see my children and also, this was permitted in the past but now they have disallowed this.

Again, why can't child support payments be linked to contact orders !!!!  If it were, I would have been seeing my kids from the start and without any legal proceedings.   This would prevent Payees in doing the wrong thing !!!

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

Contravention of Child Support payments results in:

1) Your not being allowed to travel overseas

2) Your salary being garnisheed

3) You & your partners bank accounts being investigated

4) CSA officers investigating in great detail - your financial affairs

5) Intercepting your Tax Refund cheque

Contravention of contact orders results in:

1) Nothing

2) Something sometimes but then it is overturned or they become martyr

The system is designed to protect payees - its not 'all about the children' - or their relationships with their fathers etc, their mental health, their levels of stress, their lack of certainty, the parents ability to work and earn a living or start a new life without government intervention.

Its about giving money to the payee - as quickly and ruthlessly as possible. That's what it was designed for.

Its also designed to make it an expensive, time consuming (now with an added layer of SSAT), complex (more laws every day). Tweaking with bits here and there can only do so much.

Fundamental changes in expectations of men and women need to happen now - and that cannot be done by law alone.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Thanks Jon.

Due to a recent decision by CSA to increase my child support again as they claim I earn more than I actually do. I objected to the determination and just this week was advised that my objection was disallowed…

Again, the Objections Officer claims that I earn more than I actually do… I even provided them bank statements of my pay deposit and pay slips but they have stated I earn $350 more which coincides to the extra amount of CS that I have to pay per month.

I was thinking now to take this to SSAT, but reading your (& others) comments about SSAT,  it could even go worse for me!

Not sure what to do now…

CSA payments

How did they work out that you earn more than what you say you do? Are you self employed?

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Hi Monteverdi. I'm not self employed.  I work for a large Australian company.

I'm surprised how he came up with that figure.  I called to speak with the Objections officer to ask how he determined that I earned more, unfortunately he was not in and CSA said he will call me within 48hrs.  He should be returning my call by Tuesday.

As I said, I presented copies of bank statements and payslip which clearly shows $X amount.

CSA

Do you have a novated lease? Company shares plan etc. Seems strange but not unusual to me!

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
No Lease, no share plans…  seems that they said this to justify giving more money to the eX.  As I said… I'm thinking about taking it to SSAT but as CSA are so biased against payers,,  i have second thoughts of going to SSAT…  seems we just can't get a fair hearing…
If you made more money last year, they often trigger extra payments from this return. This is why it's important to furnish them with current payslips.

Perhaps if you asked what triggered the increase in payments, that will help you decide what course of action to take.

ALL income is counted. Rental properties, bank investments the lot.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
bugsiboy said
…and now CSA inform me that payers cannot claim court cost as a reason as laws were recently changed to prevent this. I can't see why Legal Costs can't be claimed under reason 1 as it definitely cost me more than 5% to see my children and also, this was permitted in the past but now they have disallowed this.
I can't see why not either and will take this up with FaCSIA in the morning. There are specific allowances for high costs of contact. I agree that having to pay significant costs in litigation should be considered. I have not actually taken a case to an "Objection" but would like to see some more detail if any one has.
bugsiboy said
Again, why can't child support payments be linked to contact orders !!!!  If it were, I would have been seeing my kids from the start and without any legal proceedings. This would prevent Payees in doing the wrong thing !!!
Aaahhhh DeJa Vu… If you refer to the Topic

Should the CSA consider witholding child support funds where contact is withheld from the Payer by the Payee then you will get some idea of the feeling for this suggestion. I noted the poll at that forum is RED HOT!!

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Thanks Secretary_SPCA for moving this into a new topic…

As I said before, in April 07, I had submitted a Change for Assessment under Reason 1 for legal costs that I incurred to get contact with my children as per court orders as I was advised by CSA that I could do this.  With my application, I submitted the contraventions, affidavits and the court ruling that states my eX was found contravening the court orders.  However, my application (COA) was returned to me from CSA with the following note…

"As per our conversation on 14/07/2007 enclosed are the documents you submitted under reason 1 which cannot be considered as part of the change of assessment process…  regards…CSA "

Also, during a recent COA interview, I commented that I have incurred legal fees for Contraventions by my eX and requested a reduction in CS so that I can pay of my legal fees.  In the Notice of Decision, the SCA stated… "I note Mr X submitted during his conference that due to court procesedings between the parties he has incurred legal costs. As indicated to him previously legal costs cannot be considered as necessary costs for his self-support and as such are not a reason for reducing his child support liability"…

Note that I wasn't asking for a massive reduction, only $200 per month from the already $2400 CS per month.

It's really unfair that legal fees cannot be submitted under Reason 1 especially when this costs was incurred by the payee who contravened family court orders and yet,  airfairs, bus train and car costs that is more than 5% of CS can be claimed under reason 1 but not legal costs (Its all money spent to see the children).  Whats even more disappointing is that legal costs were once allowed under Reason 1.  It seems that with the high number of payer's having to go to court for contact contraventions,  CSA has removed this as it was bringing in less money to the Payees.

If you need any more info or would like to use my situation/case when meeting with FaCSIA, happy to assist.   
bugsiboy said
Thanks Jon.

Due to a recent decision by CSA to increase my child support again as they claim I earn more than I actually do. I objected to the determination and just this week was advised that my objection was disallowed…

Again, the Objections Officer claims that I earn more than I actually do… I even provided them bank statements of my pay deposit and pay slips but they have stated I earn $350 more which coincides to the extra amount of CS that I have to pay per month.

I was thinking now to take this to SSAT, but reading your (& others) comments about SSAT,  it could even go worse for me!

Not sure what to do now…
 Hi
I would suggest the review officer either does not know the legislation or he is not trained properly in his/her job, if you can show your payslips and your annual gross income which states x amount, then your case officer is completely wrong and out of line, I suggest you send your payslips and annual gross return to Mr Matt Miller Manager CSA 40 Cameron St Belconnen ACT 2617.

Barry Williams LFAA

The thing is - no CSA officer can be held to account-they suffer no consequences YET they can deal with a situation where a woman is getting $2400 a month AND NOT BLINK ABOUT determining that she needs even MORE MONEY.

They can be so mindlessly casual about the lives they ruin with their decisions.

It is of course an insane system.

All Matt Miller is concerned about is making sure CSA does not look like its doing anything wrong - its his job. Its not his job to care about the children and the damage caused to people - only the damage caused to the reputation of CSA. After all CSA is inhabited by people with a number of different agendas - he cant influence them all.

As I pointed out at the conference - the deep seated language of PAYER/PAYEE and the models and attitudes run so deep - no amount of tweaking process or legislation will fix it. Its so deep they don't even know its there.

Fundamentally of course - FORCIBLY TAKING MONEY TO GIVE TO WOMEN is what the system is about. Its these cases which take the effort. If a man has been influenced enough to believe he owes the woman a living every fortnight then he can always pay voluntarily and they can reach an agreement. The bulk of the cases are where PEOPLE DISAGREE - and these are the ones where CSA IS VERY RELUCTANT TO REDUCE THE MONEY THEY TAKE FROM MEN. - "its all about the children" "Its just the formula" "You can always object" (24 objections,SSAT and multiple court appearances- no problem)

Fundamentally MALE PAYERS are discriminated against by the process and outcomes. There are no consequences for the CSA staff for their ignorance or wrong judgements - no matter how much damage they cause. You can't get your money back, you can't sue for damages and stress and the CSA staff cannot be sacked (unless they commit a crime).

Its the perfect mindless MONEY GRABBING system.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
The legal costs of running a Contravention is a controversial subject at the CSA and one where a good fight with them may be necessary

Look at the issue

Parent denied contact/Children denied contact/Increased Child Support Costs/Legal Costs

One Parent has more contact and claims more money by committing an offence, yet has not made any false declarations about the level of contact, yet the increased contact has been due to committing a 'minor' criminal offence

Small wonder that particularly the Federal Magistrates Courts (who bear the brunt of other CSA hearings) frequently order make up contact. Cost are another issue as on many occasions a costs order is pointless if one side cannot afford to pay it - which unfortunately is a common scenario








Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Agog said
The legal costs of running a Contravention is a controversial subject at the CSA and one where a good fight with them may be necessary

Look at the issue

Parent denied contact/Children denied contact/Increased Child Support Costs/Legal Costs

One Parent has more contact and claims more money by committing an offence, yet has not made any false declarations about the level of contact, yet the increased contact has been due to committing a 'minor' criminal offence

Small wonder that particularly the Federal Magistrates Courts (who bear the brunt of other CSA hearings) frequently order make up contact. Cost are another issue as on many occasions a costs order is pointless if one side cannot afford to pay it - which unfortunately is a common scenario.
Hi Agog,, I totally agree with your comment…  and I state again,, if Contact Orders (or the absence of Contact) were linked to Child Support Payments,  then Payees will think twice about keeping the children away from Payers/fathers…  this will take the burden of the overloaded Court Hearings over Contraventions.

IF CSA is all about the "children",  then what are they doing to ensure children do have contact with their Fathers.  I know many fathers who do pay child support but struggle to see their children as agreed contact orders.  At the end, fathers are forced to take matters to the Family Courts and get hit for their own legal fees.  This should not occur.
bugsiboy said
Hi Agog,, I totally agree with your comment…  and I state again,, if Contact Orders (or the absence of Contact) were linked to Child Support Payments,  then Payees will think twice about keeping the children away from Payers/fathers…  this will take the burden of the overloaded Court Hearings over Contraventions.

IF CSA is all about the "children",  then what are they doing to ensure children do have contact with their Fathers.  I know many fathers who do pay child support but struggle to see their children as agreed contact orders.  At the end, fathers are forced to take matters to the Family Courts and get hit for their own legal fees.  This should not occur.
Have you voted Should the CSA consider witholding child support funds where contact is witheld... at the forum that discusses this topic?  O_o

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Thanks Secretary… Yes I have voted on this subject,  think I was the 2nd person to Vote on this…     LEt's hope that CSA will change to address contact issues…      Keep up the good work…

Unfair legal practices by unethical lawyers and judges gives no contact and money to pay

Jon Pearson said
Contravention of Child Support payments results in:

1) Your not being allowed to travel overseas

2) Your salary being garnisheed

3) You & your partners bank accounts being investigated

4) CSA officers investigating in great detail - your financial affairs

5) Intercepting your Tax Refund cheque

Contravention of contact orders results in:

1) Nothing

2) Something sometimes but then it is overturned or they become martyr

The system is designed to protect payees - its not 'all about the children' - or their relationships with their fathers etc, their mental health, their levels of stress, their lack of certainty, the parents ability to work and earn a living or start a new life without government intervention.

Its about giving money to the payee - as quickly and ruthlessly as possible. That's what it was designed for.

Its also designed to make it an expensive, time consuming (now with an added layer of SSAT), complex (more laws every day). Tweaking with bits here and there can only do so much.

Fundamental changes in expectations of men and women need to happen now - and that cannot be done by law alone.
Has any one else got a simular case such as mine.

My son was taken from me by unethical lawyers and judges who were on my son's fathers side. No evidence was read that I was dangerous which is against the Evidence Act in Australia. I HAVE EVIDENCE I AM NOT DANGERROUS TO MY SON but I dont have the money to pay legal cost and have exhausted all government legal aid funding. What can I do. Basicly under the UN Human Rights my for children my son's rights to see his mother have been violated. But it doesnt seem to matter in Australia. Childrens rights I dont think that matters its about judges and lawyers rights and how they can use unjust and unfair law practices in the Australian Legal System to make themselves very wealthly people.

Please someone see the light and not give judges and lawyers so much power. In history when ever anyone group or person is given to much power their is always corruption. Human nature is human nature and the temptation is far to great for some people. That is why other first world countries other than Australia have very strict laws in place for unethical conduct of their judges and lawyers in their societies. These countries create these laws to make judges and lawyers accountable for their actions and try them in a criminal court for sentencing for unethical conduct and neglegence of Duty of Care. Like Medical Professionals eg Doctors can be tried in Australian Criminal Courts. Lets try judges and lawyers the same way. No excuses like using legal loopholes in the Australian Legal System such as Discresessional Judgement eg looking into someones face and saying they were a medical expert and knew they were dangerous with no medical trainning. Only a Medical Professional can do this. Not a judge or anyone else but a Medical Professional. This is a very dangerous practice.

This happened to me. My child was kidnapped from me by his father through unjust law practices in Australia. And now I have to pay my sons father money when I can never see my son.

I live in another country now as I have been threatened with jail if I use my freedom of Speech. I am told this is a gross violation of Human Rights of that of my child and myself. I have other children who have another father and live with me they need the money. My sons father does not need the money as He is in a very well off financal position I am not.

Is there anyone else out their with the same problem please write in. Both men and women this happens to it is about lawyers and judges and a vendictive parent with plenty of money to give legal professionals.
AGOG Said:

The legal costs of running a Contravention is a controversial subject at the CSA and one where a good fight with them may be necessary

Look at the issue

Parent denied contact/Children denied contact/Increased Child Support Costs/Legal Costs

One Parent has more contact and claims more money by committing an offence, yet has not made any false declarations about the level of contact, yet the increased contact has been due to committing a 'minor' criminal offence

Small wonder that particularly the Federal Magistrates Courts (who bear the brunt of other CSA hearings) frequently order make up contact. Cost are another issue as on many occasions a costs order is pointless if one side cannot afford to pay it - which unfortunately is a common scenario.

This is an interesting concept;

now I am looking from a south australian point of view. If party A is contravening the court order by taking the kids for extra time and then claiming the extra time for CS then are they not committing an offence!

How you ask? The court ordered contact for partyBis say6 days fortnight but party A is only allowing 4 days. Knowing this she has then told CSA thatthey have the extra contact. This is a lie in that they are not entitled to state the extra days as they are days Party B SHOULD have. Party A receives a benefit from CSA and PArty B is in a detriment by two fold - less time with children and more money going to Party A.

I believe it is a lie as PArty A does not have a LAWFUL claim to that time as it is in contravention of the court order.

Only problem is DPP or Police Prosecution would not likely to take the case as it is all too hard.

But an interesting concept I think.:ninja::ninja:
Dcell since the introduction of the new legislation Party B needs to contact the CSA to a) register the court orders and b) to request that the care level indicated in the court orders is the recorded level of care as their is no agreement to the current level of care (see sections 49-55 of the Child support assessment act or the CSA guide (2.2.9).

Cautionary note about the CSA's Guide

I do believe the guide, in section 2.2.9, does not accurately reflect the legislation as it appears to indicate that the last agreement always stands whilst I believe that the legislation allows disagreement with and oral agreement (section 51 of the Child Support Assessment Act) and if this is the case, then that agreement doesn't still stand if there were prior court orders or written agreements).
i.e.

CSA Guide - 2.2.9 said
Determining a percentage of care

Generally, a carer's percentage of care will be determined by the most recent care arrangements agreed upon by the parents (or the parent/s and non-parent carer/s). This agreement might take the form of an oral agreement, written agreement, parenting plan, or court order in relation to a child's care. See Chapter 2.2.5 for more information on how percentages of care are worked out.

If the parents or carers provide conflicting information about the care arrangements for a child CSA will attempt to clarify the position so that a care percentage can be calculated.

Disputes about a child's care

When a parent makes a request to change the care records of a child CSA will seek to confirm the information with the other parent. If the other parent does not confirm the information, CSA will ask both parents to provide details of the care arrangements.

CSA will make a decision on the basis of the information provided by the parents to substantiate their claims.
Child Support Assessment Act - section 51 said
51  Person no longer agrees with oral agreement

If:

(a) an oral agreement determines, under section 49, a percentage of care of a child that a parent or non parent carer is likely to have during a care period; and

(b) the Registrar becomes aware that a parent or non parent carer of the child no longer agrees with that percentage of care; and

© immediately before the oral agreement was made, a parenting plan or court order determined the percentage of care of the child that each parent or non parent carer would have during the care period;

the percentage of care of the child that a parent or non parent carer is likely to have during the care period is as determined in accordance with the parenting plan or court order.
Party B should also make attempts to have that contact according to the court orders.
dcell said
Only problem is DPP or Police Prosecution would not likely to take the case as it is all too hard.
Follow MikeTs advice - get those orders to the CSA. If you are getting less than what the orders state -let your ex explain that to the CSA, it will create a record trail.

No DPP or Police prosecution. Family Court orders are Civil Court orders.


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets