Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

No contact for Dad's - no money for Mum

Jon Pearson said
Maybe instead of nights they could use 'number of sleeps' (including daytime naps) Or maybe 'quality time minutes' or 'play time' or 'good food times'.

i am just not sure the government is intervening enough. Surely the highly paid 'policy people' could invent more exciting and invasive terminology? :thumbs:
Jon you always get a smile :) from me and it is sorely needed at times. I have no answers for the problem we face of legislating ourselves to bits. The new 2008 legislation is still unfolding as we start to find out more of the intricate detail.

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
 
MikeT said
Lifeinsight, I agree and furthermore I completely disagree with the 7.1% rule, care is care. If it costs one it costs the other. I also believe that the various care levels should be done away with and a graduated curve be used, and that care by the hour or even minute be catered for.
Yes Mike this is ridiculous. If you change the % of care and move to another band that is that. The fact you have to move 7.1% care is just going to be a non event for most. It is usually hard enough to get 1% let alone 7.1% (And it is 7.1% of YOUR care not total care) although the new formula and provisions do reduce the middle medium payment model significantly so it is not such a great impact.

But clearly when you get a court order or a new parenting plan amendment or you have agreed additional contact and it moves into a new band of care then that band of care should be used. I think we are going to see many disappointed payers here. We would certainly advocate small changes of care should not have any substantial change but clearly where you enter a new band of care regardless of the size of change then you should be assessed on the new regime that operates in that band of care.

Below regular = 0% to 13%
Regular = 14% to 34%
Shared = 35% to 65%
Primary = 66 to 86%
Above Primary = 87% to 100%

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
 
Why not put microchips in the back of each child's head and a GSP locater service which track the location of each child. Then that could alos be hooked up the the brain to measure dopamine and andrenaline to automatically assess happy and stressed times. This could then be fed into one large government computer where CSA officers, Facsia and other staff could analyse the data and shift money around (access to all bank accounts and assets) and invent new policies.

Then instead of giving money the government could give food and clothing rations for all people who are divorced but have children - so they can insure that the money is spent properly and not on booze.

We have the technology.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
ok jon, we should also have drug and alcohol ankle braclets for children over the age of 12 and all parents so we can tell when they are drunk.

i resent of csa assesments that time with the cild is still described as custody, eg sole custody

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
The whole government money law thing is getting more and more out of hand - too much law, too much money too much administration. The government carries the responsibility that people seem unable to accept for themselves. In George Orwell's 1984 (and numerous other books)  - this was highlighted but it was not clear to me until recently how willing the populous is to be treated this way.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Seems to me the problem with a lot of regulation/legislation is that it is not applied as intended.  Rather, a "stovepipe" approach is applied whereby responsibility for part of the process is delegated to a team or person but they are unable to make a decision on the whole.  Trouble is the person on the receiving end is aware of the whole.   
here you are Lifeinsight

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 said
48  Working out percentage of care
   (1)   A person's percentage of care for a child for a day in a child support period is the percentage of care of the child that the person is likely to have during the period (the care period) of 12 months from:
   (a)   the day on which an application is made under section 25 or 25A for a parent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child; or
   (b)   the day on which the Registrar becomes aware of the following:
   (i)   a change of at least 7.1% in the percentage of care of the child that the person has that affects the annual rate of child support payable for the child;
   (ii)   that the person's percentage of care for the child has fallen below 14%;
   (iii)   that the person's percentage of care for the child has increased to 14%, or above 14%; or
   ©   if the child is a relevant dependent child in respect of whom section 73A applies–the day specified in that section as the first day on which the parent is taken to have had the child.
Note:   The Registrar is not entitled to amend an administrative assessment in respect of a person's percentage of care unless the Registrar becomes aware of an event mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) (see subsection 75(2)).
   (2)   The percentage of care is to be worked out in accordance with this Subdivision.
Note:   Generally, a person's percentage of care for a child is worked out based on the number of nights that the child is likely to be in the care of the person during the care period.
   (3)   If a person's percentage of care worked out in accordance with this Subdivision is not a whole percentage:
   (a)   if the percentage is greater than 50%–the percentage is rounded up to the nearest whole percentage; and
   (b)   if the percentage is less than 50%–the percentage is rounded down to the nearest whole percentage.

The 7.1% is also here, which with the note, seems to contradict section 48's :-

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 said
74A  Date of effect of change in care
      If:
   (a)   child support is payable for a child; and
   (b)   the Registrar is notified, or otherwise becomes aware, that:
   (i)   a person's percentage of care for the child has changed by at least 7.1%, and the change affects the annual rate of child support payable for the child; or
   (ii)   a person's percentage of care for the child has fallen below 14%; or
   (iii)   a person's percentage of care for the child has increased to 14%, or above 14%; and
   ©   as a result, the Registrar amends an administrative assessment under section 75 to alter the annual rate at which the child support is payable for the child; and
   (d)   section 53 (Registrar determinations if care less than 14%) does not apply in respect of the child;
the altered annual rate is to apply on and from the day the Registrar was notified, or otherwise became aware, of the change of percentage referred to in paragraph (b).
Note 1:   7.1% is one night per fortnight.
Note 2:   If the Registrar becomes aware of a relevant dependent child who was not taken into account for the purposes of making an assessment, the Registrar must take action in accordance with section 73A.

And Lastly :-
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 said
75  Amendment of assessments
   (1)   The Registrar may, at any time, amend any administrative assessment by making such alterations and additions as the Registrar considers necessary to give effect to this Act or the Registration and Collection Act.
   (2)   However, if the amendment relates to a person's percentage of care for a child, the Registrar must not amend an administrative assessment unless:
   (a)   the change to the person's percentage of care is at least 7.1%, and the change affects the annual rate of child support payable for the child; or
   (b)   the person's percentage of care falls below 14%; or
   ©   the person's percentage of care increases to 14%, or above 14%; or
   (d)   the child is a relevant dependent child and the Registrar has become aware that the child was not taken into account for the purpose of making the assessment.
Note:   7.1% is one night per fortnight.
   (3)   Subsection (1) has effect despite the fact that:
   (a)   child support has been paid under the administrative assessment; or
   (b)   the child support period, or the part of the child support period, to which the administrative assessment relates has ended; or
   ©   proceedings are pending in a court having jurisdiction under this Act or the Registration and Collection Act, or in the SSAT, against or in relation to the administrative assessment.
   (4)   Without limiting subsection (1), the Registrar may amend any administrative assessment for the purpose of:
   (a)   correcting any error or mistake (whether or not made by the Registrar); or
   (b)   correcting the effect of any false or misleading statement made to the Registrar; or
   ©   giving effect to the happening of a child support terminating event in relation to a child, the liable parent, the carer entitled to child support, or all 3; or
   (d)   giving effect to the happening of an event or change of circumstances that, under this Act or the Registration and Collection Act, affects the annual rate at which child support is or was payable; or
   (e)   giving effect to the acceptance of a child support agreement by the Registrar; or
   (f)   giving effect to a decision or order of a court having jurisdiction under this Act or the Registration and Collection Act, or of the SSAT.
   (5)   Where a provision of this Act or the Registration and Collection Act expressly authorises the Registrar to amend an administrative assessment, that provision does not by implication limit the power of the Registrar (whether under this section or otherwise) to amend the assessment.
   (6)   Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or the Registration and Collection Act, every amended administrative assessment is to be taken to be an administrative assessment for all the purposes of this Act and the Registration and Collection Act.

LifeInsight said
Even though it says the change relates to the person percentage of care, the notes suggest the percentage of care change is really based on the total care available.
 Hey LifeInsight

 I think you are right about the correct interpretation of this. It is awkwardly worded and could be read either way, but the notes, as you say, are the key.

 a change of at least 7.1% in the percentage of care of the child that the person has that affects the annual rate of child support payable for the child;



Taken literally, as legislation usually is, this  could be read as 7.1% of 'the percentage of care of the child that the person has' or
7.1% of e.g. 33% if 'the percentage of care of the child that the person has' is, for example 33%. That is of course a change of 2.3% of the total.


It could also be read as a change of at least 7.1% in the 'percentage of care of the child' that the person has, meaning a change in that persons share of the total care of the child.

Unfortunately, as you say,the notes make it clear that the latter is to apply.


I don't think there is really any contradiction here, just some rather unfortunate ambiguous wording.



I suggest a read of Subsection 13(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act for the meaning of notes.
Why is there no note in S48?

Could it be that S48 would apply when an assessment is not being amended?, i.e. it is a new assessment replacing an existing one? e.g. taxable income has been reported.

Certainly I think this deserves to be clarified and likely amended.
The use of notes or the lack of notes in legislation is a product of who drafts the legislation and the style that applies at the time.  During the mid 90s it was common to insert notes, but the last time I was the instructing officer (late 2006) I was told that if the legislation was clear and the explanatory memorandum explained the intent a note was not necessary.

And "NO", I have had no experience with Child Support legislation until my recent experiences as an object of its application.
bugsiboy said
unfortunately,  I'm in the same boat,  I would luv to have my kids spend more time and overnight stays with me but as this would reduce CS payments,  the mother will not allow it.

As for your topic No contact - no Money,  I've raised a number of topics/discussion around this topic on this site and my comment is that, if a payer takes the payee to court for contact contraventions and if FM rules in for the payer, ie, has found that the payee has contravened contact orders,,,  then CSA should reduce/withhold CS payments to the payee.  In my case, I spent thousands in legal costs,  I won all contraventions but left with a debt to pay legal cost AND still pay CS…

If CS payments was reduced/withdrawn,  how many payees will then stop children having contact with the payers  ….   !!!!
 

I am in the same boat also………. Given that today is the first pay day that falls under the new legislation, and my support payable has dropped quite a bit as a result, My ex has just made a very abusive phone call to me after sending numerous nasty text messages demanding that "all of her support" be placed into her account.

I was then told in no uncertain terms that I would be lucky to see my children now at all as a result……….. (my kids currently spend 3 nights a fortnight with me)

I do not have the money to go to see a movie let alone consult a lawyer regarding custody orders etc.

Makes me sad :(:(:(
Townie you should pursue getting some legal aid, if you really are under financial strain and you can show that your outgoings would be substantial you might be eligible for legal aid.People who work get legal aid. Your ex will have to go a long way in court to stop you from seeing your kids, trust me court is easier than not seeing them, fighting for them is worth the effort and the tears.

It is better to throw a stone and see what you get than do nothing and not do anything and in the long term your kids will suffer.

I wish everyone had the financial support we have of being able to live with family and pay minimal board and bills. We are able to save 300-400 a fortnight and pour it into a fund for the lawyers and pay off 200 fortnight loan for the legal fees.

The only thing you can do if you really do have to go to court is SRL. I know that the people here are qualified to help you if you have to take that jump.

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Keep all information that she texts as well as record it in a diary and record phone calls to establish evidence.

There are going to be a few hiccups with the new system, there is no doubt about that but lets hope most of them are just rants, it's not like parents are not informed about the new changes.

Fingers crossed that she rings C.S.A. and they tell her where to get off.

All best D4E
townie said
bugsiboy said
unfortunately, I'm in the same boat, I would luv to have my kids spend more time and overnight stays with me but as this would reduce CS payments, the mother will not allow it.

As for your topic No contact - no Money, I've raised a number of topics/discussion around this topic on this site and my comment is that, if a payer takes the payee to court for contact contraventions and if FM rules in for the payer, ie, has found that the payee has contravened contact orders,,, then CSA should reduce/withhold CS payments to the payee. In my case, I spent thousands in legal costs, I won all contraventions but left with a debt to pay legal cost AND still pay CS…

If CS payments was reduced/withdrawn, how many payees will then stop children having contact with the payers !
I am in the same boat also … Given that today is the first pay day that falls under the new legislation, and my support payable has dropped quite a bit as a result, My ex has just made a very abusive phone call to me after sending numerous nasty text messages demanding that "all of her support" be placed into her account.

I was then told in no uncertain terms that I would be lucky to see my children now at all as a result… (my kids currently spend 3 nights a fortnight with me)

I do not have the money to go to see a movie let alone consult a lawyer regarding custody orders etc.

Makes me sad :(:(:(
Do you have orders in place? What do they say?

Monti

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 we do not have any orders in place.

I'm in the process of responding to the fourth COA submitted by my ex in the last 2 years…

Does CSA note this constant COA submission cycle and somehow address it? As changing my income details whilst under a COA is impossible to do without another COA being submitted!
townie said
No we do not have any orders in place.

I'm in the process of responding to the fourth COA submitted by my ex in the last 2 years…

Does CSA note this constant COA submission cycle and somehow address it? As changing my income details whilst under a COA is impossible to do without another COA being submitted!
  Good on you townie!

I do that as well, just to keep her on her toes.

I puts in lots of change applications and object to everthing even when I know she is telling the truth like the school fees but she just gets copies of the forms I signed from the school.

At least it keeps her having to respond and one day she will just give up and let me off. Keep it up mate.

Moderator Monteverdi said
These are childish comments, and are not acceptable on this site. This site is for serious advice/opinions etc.

Three other site moderators including myself consider this post as 'juvenile' and BAD advice
Sisyphus

Last edit: by Sisyphus

 I don't even get to talk to my children let alone see them. However ( no ear bashing please) I do feel morally obligated to pay for their upbringing. It is a lot yes and I know that most of it may go elsewhere. The bottom line is I was a party to bringing them into this world and as such will continue to pay what I have to. When the day comes and they say " We went without" I can prove that I contributed a large amount of money to their upkeep. What their Mother does with the money is unfortunately beyond my control.

I do understand the frustration of being a NCP and paying not to see the kids (for now). Believe me I do. Could that be considered an oxymoron? Paying not to see the kids?:)

Actions should have Consequences

This is something that has been getting at my claw for a while.

My ex used all the big guns of family law on me from VRO - Sexual abuse of my boys - aliened the boys to her etc…

When she left she decided to move 4 hours away thus eliminating me having any shared care of the boys. She will not even let me see them but that is another issue.

I opposed the move and after nearly 16000 dollars in legal fees I had to drop the case. The only outcome is that I got to see my boys for a sum total of 21 hours. I'm still paying off loans for the benefits of a lawyer's lifestyle.

Actions should have Consequences it this case it should be a reduction in CS. It was her decision to move to an area with little or no prospects for employment, thus she is on welfare by her choice. Now for the consequences by her action by default I should get a reduction in the child support. I know in this day an age no one wants to be held accountable for their actions. But I should be asset at a minimum of 52 nights and receive a reduction. I would love to have them 50/50 but know that will never happen - After all the best interest of the mother is "the best for the child" I know CS has nothing to do with contact so for now I will pay and know I am paying for something I can't see.
I think you are trying to make the wrong department responsible for the actions.

It could be easily argued that the majority of C.S.A. customers are reasonable and most the payee's are content. Perhaps not in the high conflict end but on average.

It also could be easily argued that this in itself is not the responsibility of C.S.A. as Court should stop this scenario from happening as it is the authoritative body that is responsible for breaches of the law.

To point C.S.A. should not be responsible for affecting monetary penalties and encouragement the court should order C.S.A.

The whole system relies on the court doing it's job and effectively penalizing parents who do not hold the law in esteem.

I do not disagree with whats trying to be achieved but the court should use it's power more constructively either through ensuring time or reasonable penalty.   
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets