Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Child Support Resource - Starting the ball rolling.

Do you support the idea of a Child Support Resource Group

Guests cannot vote in polls
I have said in a few posts that I can see a benefit of having a group, similar to the SRL-R, but for dealing with child support, the CSR.

This topic is about getting the ball rolling a little in trying to determine what the CSR would do and how.

Here's an outline of my view of what the proposed CSR could perhaps offer :-
  • Assiting with applying and responding to Change of Assessments.
  • Assisting with and acting as an agent with regard to general issues that are not change of assessments (e.g.  a firm line could be taken with what appears to be the frequent disrespect of one parent's word is taken as proof but the other parent's is not)
  • Assisting with the complaints process (i.e. going to SSAT and perhaps beyond).
  • Gathering, storing and reporting statistics on the above items to the forums, the CSA, FACSIA, perhaps the media and other interested parties.
Are there other areas? Should any of these areas not be covered?

Any comments and or suggestions are welcome, especially ideas for the hows.

Not if it helps separated mothers ripoff Dads

In principle it is a great idea Mike.

I would not like to see such a group if it was going to help separated mothers, who ended their relationships and took the children away from the fathers.  I would view that as a travesty of injustice, given that there are other women's groups already do that AND that the majority of CSA victims are fathers.

IMO to go for the moral equivalence level playing field model would be to provide an unfair advantage for mothers trying to screw over fathers in an environment that is already very  father-unfriendly.  We don't see this willingness to help both sexes from women's and feminist groups.  I would seriously question the motives of anyone wanting to spend his time and money helping mothers do over fathers.

Doing that would only make it harder for children and fathers to spend time together and for fathers to support their children when they are with them.
dad4life said
In principle it is a great idea Mike.

I would not like to see such a group if it was going to help separated mothers, who ended their relationships and took the children away from the fathers.  I would view that as a travesty of injustice, given that there are other women's groups already do that AND that the majority of CSA victims are fathers.

IMO to go for the moral equivalence level playing field model would be to provide an unfair advantage for mothers trying to screw over fathers in an environment that is already very  father-unfriendly.  We don't see this willingness to help both sexes from women's and feminist groups.  I would seriously question the motives of anyone wanting to spend his time and money helping mothers do over fathers.

Doing that would only make it harder for children and fathers to spend time together and for fathers to support their children when they are with them.
Dad4Life,

I must admit that I hadn't thought of that aspect, however is there such a selection process when joining and making use of the SLR-R? I'm not aware of any, there again I'm not aware of many things SLR-R wise.

Perhaps helping such people could see that an adversarial approach isn't necessarily the best approach and who knows they may even change their ways. Perhaps that's a little too optimistic.

Perhaps being that this would be endorsed by the SPCA, that there could be some form of agreement that the ethical view of shared parenting be adopted or accepted.

With regard to the amount of care I suspect that it is primarily those with the lower amount of care, who are being told that their word carries less weight than the word of the other parent and would use that aspect of the CSR. If the CSR did it's job well enough then the CSA would no longer try this tactic on.

In some ways I see the CSR as an intentionally self defeating entity, as much I guess as the SLR-R prime goal would be for it to not ever be needed.

Certainly there are many questions and aspects that I haven't thought of and hence this topic to see if such an entity can and should go beyond the visualisation.
I think this is an excellent idea.  While we've only received one COA judgement with which we've violently disagreed, we've encountered the same problems of process time and time again.  It would be great to have a forum who could raise these as systemic failures to the CSA - for example unsubstantiated information being taken as fact, receiving new information immediately before a conference with no way of getting comments to SCO before conference starts, and the use of subjective/emotive wording in final report.  As someone with an objection in progress, it would have been very useful to have a forum who could have provided objective advice before the objection was submitted.

Re: dad4life's comments: So long as the forum provides objective advice, I don't care who the advice is provided to.  It's about making the process a level playing field (which in MHO it clearly isn't at the moment).
OK so daintree dongler is OK but "the book" is a banned word

kinda Nazi hey people?

but thanks for the poof for my affidavit which I may write when i am sober
Which moderator approved this - now deleted - garbage from a QLD Bogan, who's only here at FLWG to disrupt, abuse and advertise REALLY DODGY fee-for-service 'help' that will make your CSA problems 100 times worse.  Just ask some of his ex 'clients'.
I think a child support forum for specific help would be good.

SRLr does not accept everyone and anyone. A certain amount of honesty and transparency is required. In other words, you can't help if you don't get the full story.

I don't believe there are any "secrets" to help people get more money from someone. I think Greebo nails it on the head.

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. 
So long as the forum provides objective advice, I don't care who the advice is provided to.  It's about making the process a level playing field - greebo wrote

^ that comment I like, I think you may find dad4Life that woman are in that situation too. I hope to perceive this forum as non gender bias. I am a payee in CS and have found no male bias at all. I was owed a substantial amount of money and CS told me how it is. ( no bias)  CS is a bit like FC - it's a very grey area with loads of variables. After reading many websites myself, I have figured its the persons actions that count not their gender. There are nasty woman and men. Just like lying in the FC, people do it with CS also. Thats a problem they both need to create a solution for and adhere too.

Mike T - sounds like a good idea, as long as the forum is for both genders. That way WE can all learn something.   
And with a glossary. CSR - I thought that was sugar?  :o

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. 
Artemis.

I'm a sweet guy, sheesh didn't that come over. :)  :$  

A glossary as such exists in the CS FAQ, not fully comprehensive, it's here CSA FAQ Glossary. Alternately click on Web Guide (at the top), then on Child Support (on the left) and then on FAQ (to the left).

BecB, personally I see it as being a resource to help all, however it's not only what I think that matters, in fact it would rely upon others. For instance my experience is based primarily around navigating the legislation and other material with regard to ascertaining how the formula works. I've had very little interaction with the CSA as mine is a pretty clear cut case. Another limiting factor is that I also have a full time job. However so do others who give so much valuable time.
MikeT - you got anymore on this?? Where are you at with it… Interested in starting something.

I am not against what the underlying premise of CSA is trying to do… just the way they go about it. It does not promote a "lets be fair" attitude from payers or payees..

Its either a "get it all" or give em nothing attitude i find.

I do however see CSA stepping well outside its charter, due process etc and would be interested in providing some form of assistance… have a lot of knowlege that is experieinced rather than read in the guide, here, CSA web or the legislation.. Know alot of the tricks o the CSA.

I am definitely interested in setting up a "surveillance" review panel of peers both payer and payee (suitably) qualified that review any surveillance evidence CSA plan to use in relation to a COA or CTP… where the panel can make recommendation about its validity, context and suitability to be used against someone.
nxus said
MikeT - you got anymore on this?? Where are you at with it… Interested in starting something.

I am not against what the underlying premise of CSA is trying to do… just the way they go about it. It does not promote a "lets be fair" attitude from payers or payees..

Its either a "get it all" or give em nothing attitude i find.

I do however see CSA stepping well outside its charter, due process etc and would be interested in providing some form of assistance… have a lot of knowlege that is experieinced rather than read in the guide, here, CSA web or the legislation.. Know alot of the tricks o the CSA.

I am definitely interested in setting up a "surveillance" review panel of peers both payer and payee (suitably) qualified that review any surveillance evidence CSA plan to use in relation to a COA or CTP… where the panel can make recommendation about its validity, context and suitability to be used against someone.

Nxus,
       I don't really have anymore other than I'm certainly interested in your interest and also have my eyes on perhaps getting Big Red involved. Basically it's currently an idea although it does have the support of those behind this portal.

Currently my attention is on the Advanced CS Calculator which will hopefully be available in the very near future. It's actually accessible on here if you know how although there's perhaps going to be some minor changes made, so that work is sort of over until bugs and things are found.

The idea I have is that a more secure forum, along the lines of the SRL-R forums (which I've never seen). However I would really appreciate the ideas of others, especially, as I have said above, as I have had little in the way of dealings with the CSA processes and things like COA's having never gone that way. The only thing that I have done is negotiate with the ex to get of garnishee oh and the odd complaint which as we all know rarely get's anywhere anyway.

Another idea I have to expand upon the forum, is a database of people's problems/dealings/results with the CSA, sort of like they do with Family Law Judgements, this could then be used to drive generalised complaints/changes through the available channels a sort of conduit for the people, a conduit that I would hope would have more power than the individual. Perhaps it could even become a respected body with much weight. To be respected though it, would have to interact in a way that it would be listened to rather than ignored, that's an area that I have little in the way of experience or skill and where the expertise of groups such as the SPCA would come in. I also see it as a monitoring system as well and hopefully one that could enforce some form of standardisation as I believe that the CSA gives much power to individual decisions which lack consistency. I envisage that issues about surveillance would be catered for by this.
"To be respected though it, would have to interact in a way that it would be listened to rather than ignored, "

I guess its a 2 way street in this case. The group assist other payers with the "experieince" side of the street - teliing them what to expect, what to say where and when to lodge complaint and objection, how to keep pressure up…. dont think CSA would ever see the group in a golden light.

As you say self-destroying …. LOL "the anger within" will do the same thing i guess
Nxus said
I guess its a 2 way street in this case. The group assist other payers with the "experieince" side of the street - teliing them what to expect, what to say where and when to lodge complaint and objection, how to keep pressure up…. dont think CSA would ever see the group in a golden light.

3 way street at least, i.e. the inbetweenies (i.e. the CSA-R, the CSA and those seeking to use facilities). A note that it would not be specific to payers, payees as well, it's all about fairness to all and like the SRL-R it would be selective according to fairness, the payer/payee expecting less/more would not be entertained unless what was being done was unfair. Saying that it would hopefully gain the authority to be something of an authority and be representative. Well that's my ideals anyway.  With regard to being seen in a golden light, that's not necessary, in some ways I'd see being the biggest pain in the butt to the CSA, but in the correct way(s), as the most effective way of getting fairness consistently applied. However the CSA itself may not be the prime target for persuasion, they jump when told to according to the sound of others, so if the others can be persuaded then jump is what the CSA will do. This is where the recording of decisions and results if of sufficient quantity could come in into play.

There again who knows what will happen, these are just my thoughts as to what could/should happen from my very limited view and perhaps even more limited position.
Miket you know my views on csa.
As far as a support group/ resources area - it probably would help many people if practical process, examples, templates  can be provided, I have a full-time job too so can't do much.
The problem is that CSA is a long term invasion - at least with Family court you can be out of it in 5 or 10 years - csa goes on for decades.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
JP, Yes those are some of the sort of things that I would see the group doing and perhaps sooner rather than later.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets