Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Moving to a Non-Reciprocating country

Hi All,

I was hypothetically thinking out loud and was wondering if any one had any answers..

Say I move to a Non-Reciprocating country, and moving my permanent place of abode, this would trigger a terminating event with C$A.

what other options would the C$A, Court or Ex have? in trying to collect CS.

NOTE: this is a hypothetical question..
The only thing that a court/CSA could do is to issue a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) that could stop you leaving Australia. Obviously this would be before the fact and would require you to have a debt and to have persistently, without reasonable grounds, failed to pay the debt.

Basically in a non-reciprocal jurisdiction, in regards to child maintenance, Australia and thus the courts and CSA are nothing and can do nothing. Even in reciprocal jurisdiction the courts and the CSA can only request, they have no jurisdictional powers.
Thanks MikeT, your answer is very interesting, the reason for asking this was because of this case Carrigan & Fredericks (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 544 (15 June 2011) where the CSA tried to continue a child support case after a terminating event had occurred (baring some other factors)  … therefore if you have fulfilled the requirement for this terminating event then no DPO can be put in by CSA and a court is powerless to do any thing…. as the law is fulfilled.

Am I correct in assuming the above…..???? O_o
Halo_dad,
             yes and no. That is for the terminating event to have occurred residence in the no-reciprocal jurisdiction would have to have been established (i.e you'd have left the country). However, if you left and there was still a debt and there were still persistent no-payments of that debt (note simplification), then a DPO could still be obtained, whether in the country or not. Thus if a DPO had been obtained and even if there had been a terminating event but if there was still a debt then that DPO could be applied. However, I suspect that only a passport known to Australia would trigger enactment of the DPO. So if you got a passport from the non-reciprocating country that could perhaps bypass any DPO issued. Note that I say suspect.

That judgement was of interest and really goes to show how the CSA/SSAT should not be allowed to make judicial type decisions. If, as I've said on numerous occasions, the CSA were limited to purely administering (inputting data) into a rule based system then a great deal of taxpayers money would have been saved in this case as the facts are clear under the Tax Act, the payer had ceased to be a resident for taxation purposes and was also a resident of a non-reciprocal jurisdiction and therefore the terminating event happened on 17th Jan 2008 not some 1.5 years later as SSAT conjured up.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets