Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Ex having another child

Child support going up...but....

OK Well the disastrous results of my getting mixed up with this woman 12 years ago continue and this weekend they have taken another turn.

So she tells me she is having another baby.

This means she will be leaving work. Therfore no income and my child support is going up. Wonderful. I pay up for her to have someone elses kid.

But here is the thing….she is not married or living with the bloke. And I'm not certain, but I don't think there is any intention to start living with the bloke.

About a year ago she was telling me she desperately wanted another child and suggested I provide her the means (non financial means if you get my drift). Not likely - after what she has put me through. (She's a real einstein my ex).

So she's been seeing this bloke on and off for a while and she's been getting more and more depressed that he wont move in with her or commit.

So, somehow (she says) she has talked this bloke in to giving her a child even though they apparently aren't living together and there isn't an intention to. (I don't believe there is - I ask the question - she ignores and says it's none of my business. If he were moving in she'd be flaunting it.)

I suspect she has said to this guy that he would be in no way financially responsible for this child and somehow he has agreed to it. Maybe they have a contract or something - I have no idea but I just don't see that he is expecting to pay towards the child. (He's an einstein too.)

So it's me that will be picking up the bill as usual isn't it.

My question is this.

- If he were paying child support - would his payments effect the amount I would have to pay?

- and, if it does effect the amount I would have to pay in child support then, if they do have a private "agreement" that he doesn't have to pay child support - is there any way I can force the CSA to consider that this is potential income that my ex is not accepting.

Seriously. I'm over it. At every turn this woman has cost me. Now she lands this on me. I just can't do this anymore.
 
GoodDad said
- If he were paying child support - would his payments effect the amount I would have to pay?

The answer is no. The formula is set up in a way that means that if you receive child support from 2 separate people, one payment does not effect the other.

GoodDad said
- and, if it does effect the amount I would have to pay in child support then, if they do have a private "agreement" that he doesn't have to pay child support - is there any way I can force the CSA to consider that this is potential income that my ex is not accepting.

If such an agreement exists, it won't stand up if she goes to register a child support case. First of all you can only enter into a child support agreement once the child is born and then you would have both parents requiring legal advice in order for it to ensure he wouldn't have to pay anything. More likely she will claim that she does not know who the father is so she can be exempted from claiming child support and still keep her full amount of Family Tax Benefit. If they have any sort of agreement it would be verbal at best and the prospective father would have a shock if he tried to claim it as a bar to child support assessment. Unfortunately there is nothing that can really be done about her taking time off to have the baby and the subsequent decrease in income.
That my friends is a serious flaw in the legislation. How any of the policy makers can consider it fair and equitable that fathers pay for children who aren't theirs is beyond me. It's just another way of protecting females at all costs.
And the inverse also occurs, that is if the father repartners and his new partner has a child(ren) then child support for the first family is decreased.  This cuts both ways and neither is fair. The system stinks on both sides of the equation.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
92% of payers are male. I accept that you're right in principle but statistically males are far more likely to suffer as a result of the aforementioned circumstances.

Although it's not direct gender bias, I must question whether the pertinent acts would remain as they are should that ratio be reversed somehow. I doubt it.
Sleepy said
Although it's not direct gender bias, I must question whether the pertinent acts would remain as they are should that ratio be reversed somehow. I doubt it.
  If the ratio was reversed it would be seen as discriminatory.  There'd be a huge outcry from women's liberationists and the lactating brigade and they'd hold protests around Australia until the laws were changed.  Come to think of it, the same would probably happen if they laws were changed to make them more "equitable" for males hence the reason why things will more than likely remain the same for many years to come and males will continue to be "cash cows".
Sleepy said
92% of payers are male. I accept that you're right in principle but statistically males are far more likely to suffer as a result of the aforementioned circumstances.

Although it's not direct gender bias, I must question whether the pertinent acts would remain as they are should that ratio be reversed somehow. I doubt it.
  It is not a percentage issue. Less than half of one percent of Australians want to be in a same sex marriage - yet with the massive lobbying and demonstrations it is only a matter of time before the Federal Gocvernment has to surrender on the issue. If 'payers' physically and financially supported organizations like the Lone Father Assocation and the Shared Parenting Council the change might happen. Organizations like those had to work long and hard to get the 2006 Amendments - but they got them!
wharty" said
….and the lactating brigade………………..
  What sections of the site and moderators rules do you not understand?

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
It's just crazy.

She has some ambition to have more children so she can quit work and do that - no questions asked - I just pay more child support.

I have an ambition to do another degree. I'd like to quit work or go part-time to do it. But if I try anything like that I'm certain that I'd have to keep paying child support at the rate I currently am (which is about to increase dramatically) due to my "capacity to earn".

I really can't swallow this. This legislation needs to be challenged. How does it fit within the framework of the constitution? Forget lobbying - that would mean years of wasted effort by a lot of people. Anyone looked at he legality of these laws or am I just kidding myself?
This is the exact question I asked my Federal MP back in December. He said he would request an explanation as to why there seemed to be a double standard in the area of capacity to earn and voluntary decisions made by parents that increase the C.S liability of the other parent.

At last communication the MP had not had a reply from the Minister, nor from CSA themselves.

Why am I not surprised??

A child is a gift, not a weapon. To be a parent is a privilege, one which unfortunately some parents do not deserve.
Sisyphus said
wharty" said
….and the lactating brigade………………..
  What sections of the site and moderators rules do you not understand?
 

Are you serious?  I've seen far worse posted on these forums (some by Senior Members and Moderators) yet nothing is said or done about it.  Either be consistent with your finger pointing or don't bother replying at all!
Dear CSA,


I am seeking an explanation of fairness in the child support system. I am the father of two children and pay regular child support to my ex-partner, in full on time every month. My ex partner is currently working so the child support payable is adjusted to reflect that.

My ex-partner has just advised me that she will soon be leaving work to fulfil a long time ambition to have a third child. As such, her income will reduce to zero, and, as a consequence, the child support payable will go up. I believe that her "capacity to earn" will not be considered by CSA to reflect this, it being her personal decision to have a third child. If however, I wanted to leave work myself to undertake a long term ambition of my own, such as to undertake another university degree, CSA would no doubt consider that I have a "capacity to earn" and that likely the child support payable would remain at the level it was when I was last employed. I feel that this alone is completely unfair.

Secondly, I am aware that my ex partner is having this child with a man she is not married to and is not living with. Because my ex-partner has had a long time ambition to have a third child and has been unsuccessful in finding a suitably committed partner, she has now decided to enter in to a private arrangement with the father of the child whereby he will not be required to contribute to the medical expenses or upbringing of the child by way of child support.

As far as I can see, what is going to happen now is that the child support money I am providing will not only be used to assist in paying her medical expenses for the third child, but it will then also be used to assist her in bringing up the third child - to the detriment of my own children. ie, it can be argued, that my children will now only have the benefit of 2/3rds of the money I am providing by way of child support for them. The other 1/3rd (or more if you consider all the paraphernalia that babies require) will be diverted to a child which is not mine.

I realise child support is a difficult thing to manage and that every case is somewhat different. But the above situation is really quite unconscionable. How can the government force me to provide my money to an ex-partner who is then free to spend that money on what or how she likes, and potentially not to the advantage of the children for which this money is intended?

There are many issues here, one of which must be the view that child support is set too high in the first place. My ex-partner has obviously considered the income provided by me to her and determined that it will be sufficient to provide for three children instead of two.

Also, I am sure, CSA, like any government department, is required to account for every cent provided to it to support it's programs and services. In fact most financial arrangements are like that on every level in government or private enterprise. Every cent used must be documented to show how it was used and what the benefits of the expenditure were. Why is it then, when it comes to child support, that the government can collect whatever it decides is reasonable, from a hardworking taxpaying father (in my case), and then distribute that money to my ex-partner, who is then able to use it as she fit, and then not provide to me an account of how that money has been used? Again this seems absolutely unconscionable.

I hear many times that Australia has a "Rolls Royce" or "best in the world" child support structure. And indeed, I am sure it is highly effective in collecting and redistributing money. But if a child support system like ours is to be implemented (and I am certainly of the belief that a system of some sort is required) and the government decides it is to have jurisdiction over it's management, then the government must also take on the responsibility of ensuring that the money collected is at all times being used to the benefit those for which that money is intended ie the children. And, if the government cannot account for how the money is being spent, or does not wish to enquire as to how the money is being spent, then the government should rightfully reimburse that amount to the individual that provided it in the first place. This must be the case on any level in a corruption free democratic society, accountability for monies spent and repayment of monies that cannot be accounted for. Unfortunately this must be the consequence of government's intervening in child support matters - otherwise there is a situation that arises where funds may be being used improperly, and the government as an enforcer of the process, must surely be deemed to be somewhat accepting of this.

 I do hope my comments are read and considered. I will be forwarding this letter to my local member and other relevant organisations in the hope that something can one day be done to introduce a fairer scheme that has the welfare of the children in mind rather then simply the rapid and ill considered redistribution of monies earned by honest, responsible and hardworking individuals.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets