Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Just Curious

 
Is it just me or is anyone else curious to know whether parenting would be more "balanced" if financial incentives (Child Support, Sole Parent Pension, FTA/B) were removed from the equation.

 
Possibly but there may also end up being at lot of children post separation that neither parent would or could afford to raise. With out FTA/B only the rich could afford kids. FTA/B is the governments incentive to keep the population growing.

In relation to single parents pension, those who have school age kids and are unemployed in my opinion should be forced into doing community work to 'earn' their money. This may cut down the generational welfare trap that many seem to get stuck in.

The CS scheme needs changing, too many parents attempting to limit the other parents access to gain more money.
Here's a scenario:

If parent A is against shared parenting and actively pushes for more custody and parent B wants shared parenting and actively pushes for shared care, should parent A be financially rewarded or penalised (i.e. should they get more or less benefit)? Would parent A still be against shared parenting if they received less financial assistance or would they become a shared parenting advocate?

So,  does providing financial assistance based on level of care cause parents to think more about money instead of the benefits of shared parenting?
I firmly believe that the money from CS is a big factor in the reasons why shared parenting is fought against.
So,  does providing financial assistance based on level of care cause parents to think more about money instead of the benefits of shared parenting?
I think it depends on a individual basis. In my case I had 100% care of my daughter, due to her fathers mental illness caused by heroin use. I chose not to pursue child support & was happy to fully support her myself by working.

In my current partners case his ex refuses to allow him to have access to his 2 younger kids for more then 52 days per year, as this would reduce her CS.  We have had his oldest daughter for 80 days this year but his ex lied to the CSA about the amount of nights, of course CSA believes her. It's pretty obvious by her lying to the CSA and with holding the 2 younger ones, that money (CS and FTB) is a big incentive for her. Every case is different but I do believe if the truth could be known, with holding visitation for money reasons would be common.
I think that the system needs a massive overhaul, both to cut the cost of administering the scheme and to remove any incentive for one parent to deny the other parent contact with their children, to increase their payments.  Otherwise, we are running a very real risk of creating another generation of stolen children and we also need to remove the weapon of choice for a lot of bitter and twisted parents.

My idea would be to administer the scheme via Centrelink, instead of paying FTB, the receiving parent would receive say $150 per week, per child, in turn, the ATO would collect a higher rate of tax from the paying parent, this would then offset the cost to the taxpayer, ensure more compliance and make the system fairer and more equitable.  I believe it would also prevent those on higher payments depending on child support and welfare, instead of participating in the workforce.

A tribunal could be set up to look at cases with special circumstances, such as abnormal medical issues.

This is just a loose idea but I think it could work, after all, the system for collection and disbursements are already in place.
I believe in the system, even with its flaws, mainly because it is the only one we have. I think there should be more of a concentration for BOTH parents to financially supprt the children. As far as I am aware, this is the reason for CSA. The tax paye should not have to support the children, they have two parents who can do that. I also know that the Newstart is not meant to be lived on, CL staes that quite clearly. That alone is incentive to work - to stop the chance of becoming homeless. Sadly, there will always be good and bad people who rort the system, no matter what that system is, and no matter what gender they are.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
There's definitely something wrong with the way things work now as it's based around financial remuneration, not shared parenting.  I also believe we're already on the path to creating another generation of stolen children.

With regards to Child Support, yes the system has helped many parents however it has also destroyed many lives.  Yes there will always be people who rort the system regardless of gender.  That said, should we just accept the way things are currently implemented because it's the only system available or should we push for change? Is pushing for change realistic?

BTW, why is it that we only seem to hear about non-paying parents and not about the parents using the system as a weapon to get even with ex-partners or to gain greater financial remuneration?
Shared parenting is not an absolute given right for every parent. The childs rights and need for a stable, healthy and safe environment to grow up in is a right. It is up to the parents to find the way to do that fairly and rasonably. Sadly that does not happen all the time, and the small percentage of cases where there is an extrene breakdown in facilitating this end up in the FMC.

And on this forum I beleive that both cases are put forward eaqually.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Yes it is up to parents to find a way to provide their child(ren) with a stable environment however providing a parent with increased financial assistance based on their level of care means that parents focus more on the "money" aspect of care and not shared parenting.  I believe that shared parenting is a given right for all parents and should be the starting point of all parenting discussions.  Parent A should not automatically get greater care over parent B as is the case in so many relationship break-ups.

Outside these forums I have heard very little about parents using a child as a weapon to get even with an ex or to gain financial remuneration.  I have however heard many stories about non-paying parents.
kalimnadancer said
I firmly believe that the money from CS is a big factor in the reasons why shared parenting is fought against.
 
In some cases this would definitely be true and in others not.  You must remember too Kalimna that not all separated parents (even the ones that go through Court) even seek shared care and nor is it a viable solution for all children (their needs must always come first).  Each situation is different.

EDIT..

 
I believe that shared parenting is a given right for all parents and should be the starting point of all parenting discussions.
Parent A and Parent B separate.  Parent A was a stay at home parent working 2 days prior to the separation.  Parent B works very long and inflexible hours that involve some travel. Parent A and Parents B go to Court.  Shared Care is the starting point according to the law.  Parent A wants shared care 50/50 intends to get a full time job and is not willing to have the children more time than 50%.  Parent B wants EOW + Half Hollies due to Work commitments and does not want to change their work commitments.  What Happens?

Last edit: by CrazyWorld


"Never, "for the sake of peace and quiet," deny your own experience or convictions". Dag Hammarskjold
I needed help with my case and couldn't afford a lawyer and found these guys invaluable  srl-resources.org
in my case the arguement of level of care has been financially motivated not by myself but from the other party. im on a higher income where i dont receive any benifets but the other party is on all the benifets she can get her hands on. the fact it was financially motivated is she is paying off her car with the CS i am providing.
AdelaideD, do you have under 14% care of your kid/s? if yes, you can do a Prescribed Payment without the mothers consent……
14% was the level of consent… its now 37% i have since notified CSA accordingly so lets see how long it takes to re assess the liability
Hi AdelaideD,

You stated 14% was the level of consent, how did you come across 37% - courts?
yeah was a dragged out process that took over a year and about 30k later. the courts seen how the other parties attitude was and made the threat of awarding costs should it goes to trial so we managed to settle out of court.

Do Your Research

Child Support is Voluntary, do your research.

If you are paying child support you are doing it voluntary.

A number of people have tried to tell you this on postings throughout this site.  Stop conforming to public servants who have no authority over you.

Tax is voluntary.  Only public servants have to pay tax.  Do your homework.  

The Family Court is operating unconstitutionally, again do your research.  Look at the fake seal.  The Family Court is a private corporation and steals children, money etc. from you.

Ask yourselves.  "What authority do the public servants working at the place known as the "Family Court" have over you?" and you will find absolutely none.  If you cannot conclude that, you need to do your homework.

I'm the messenger.




First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
Calista, It does not surprise me that you would repeat this (and forget saying you are the messenger). You are typical of people that do not understand that they themselves are the problem and responsible for their own ills.

Tellthetruth is an (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules)

Behaves like a (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules)  and I have reported this (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules) and others on this site to the Federal Police who have the details.  I only need to activate the case I have with the (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules), solicitor, and other moderators of this site.

If anyone wants more details about this please contact me.

I am a person of credibility and I choose to not participate in the rubbish of these (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules).

Please view this as a warning to others on this site who genuinely seek assistance.

Feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance to you.

Moderator Warning

As a Moderator of this site I feel that I have an obligation to warn any person considering heeding this advice, that this advice is not sound advice.


These (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules) (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules).  They have (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules) and enjoying (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules) others by (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules) and (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules) others.  

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Please contact me privately if anyone wants more details.

Moderator Warning

As a Moderator of this site I feel that I have an obligation to warn any person considering heeding this advice, that this advice is not sound advice.


Please make up their own mind whether to take the stuff on this site seriously.  Do your own independent research.

Just browse and you will see that there are many complaints about people on this site who (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules) others if they don't happened to think their way. Just look at them!  I don't come on much because I find it disappointing in that it is (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules), and (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules), and responses by these  are (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules), and often (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules), they (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules).

The owner of the site appears to be "(deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules)" (sorry owner) but you are (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules).  Contact me if you want clarification please.

"All are equal under the law"

Peter Nolan and John Rambo are 110%

Contact me please if you want further information, I'm happy to help!

Tellthetruth (deleted by moderator due to the term being, used as it was, a contravention of the site rules),  I know who you are and this has serious consequences for you doesn't it?

We know who you are!

Last edit: by MikeT


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
So if CS is voluntary, and i dont pay it, will C$A then NOT garnish my paycheck and tax refund?…..yeah, right…….
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets