Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Options to have unregistered children recognised in registered agreements

The CSA will not recognise child No2 unless she is registered and assessed by them (which both parents object to). As such, I am considered liable for only one child and assessed on this basis.

zoehasrights said
I am one of these 'fathers' whom alledgedly owe child support. I have two children to two mothers both whom I am separated from. Child No 1 goes through the CSA and child No2 is by private agreement. The CSA will not recognise child No2 unless she is registered and assessed by them (which both parents object to). As such, I am considered liable for only one child and assessed on this basis. As the assessment is imbalanced I calculate my payments accordingly i.e. for two children. So in the eyes of the CSA / Legislation I shortchange child No1 around 5% of my income. This has added up over time and I also incur penalties, which no doubt is included in this $1billion dollars.

I have tried to remedy this failure to recognise child No2 by Objection, Change of Assessment, tribunal and various other ways to no avail. Basically it seems the only way my child No2 can be formally recognised is if the Legislation changes..I can see myself in prison (for unpaid CS) or her turning 18 before that happens.
Options to have unregistered children recognised in registered agreements

The intent of the Child Support Scheme is that parents provide financially for all of their biological children.

The options to have an unregistered private child support arrangement recognised in a registered assessment are:


  • Apply to the CSA for a child support assessment for an unregistered child (the child support can be collected privately)
  • Apply for acceptance of a Child Support Agreement with the unregistered child's mother (agreements must satisfy certain criteria)
  • Make a Child Support Agreement with the registered child's mother to have your registered liability amended to take account of the unregistered liability (again, the agreement must satisfy certain criteria)
  • Apply to have an assessment changed through the Change of Assessment process (Reason 9 - The duty to maintain another child or person)


    If care is provided for an unregistered child at least 35% of the time, they may be able to be recognised as a relevant dependent child, which may reduce the child support paid for a registered child.

    To discuss any of these options in further detail, please call the CSA on 131 272.

    Customers can also visit the
    Your payment options page on www.csa.gov.au for more information about different payment types including CSA collect and Private collect child support arrangements.


    A note about CSA involvement in the forum:
  • CSA posts on the forum are intended to supply general information to all forum users about topics and issues raised in other posts.
  • All CSA communications with the forum will be in the form of public posts.
  • The CSA will not be responding to private posts or emails.
  • To discuss an individual child support case, or for further information, please contact the CSA directly on 131 272, as specific cases or circumstances will not be discussed in a public forum.

Last edit: by CSA


The Child Support Agency (CSA) has provided this general information to support a better understanding of the Child Support Scheme. To discuss an individual child support case, or for further information, please contact the CSA directly, as specific cases or circumstances will not be discussed in a public forum.
All CSA communications with the forum will be in the form of public posts- the CSA will not be responding to private posts or emails.
Additional information on the Child Support Agency, and details on their participation in this site can be found here
Reply to Post transferred from;   Article: Parents owe $1bn in child support

CSA

If you bothered to read my posts, the following would have been obvious;

* To apply for a CS assessment means registering the child..something both parents object to and have a right not to.

* The only accepted CS agreement is between the parents…third party interference, having to meet 'certain criteria' or a need to, is totally unacceptable and inappropriate.

* If an agreement was possible with the registered childs mother, there would be no need for CSA involvement. The CSA is involved because agreement cannot and probably never will be reached.

* I mentioned a COA had no effect, as too a SSAT hearing.

* It's the legislation that's amiss and the CSA lacking balls to act with discretionary powers.

* The options the CSA offer is in opposition to what the parents believe is in the childs best interest.

* These options demonstrate that a person related to anothers child through a half sibling, has been given power to determine how the financial welfare of that child is to be managed. A situation of insolent despotism.

I challenge you, the CSA, to provide a solution where the right to determine the best interests of ones own child can be undertaken without interference, penalty and harrassment. Where permission of a third party is not needed or the need to meet 'certain criteria'. Where the expense of taking the matter to the High Court of Australia, just to achieve the rights of many (ie; 99.8% of other separated parents) is not required.

" Perspective depends on which side of the barbed wire fence you sit, or indeed if you are sitting on it! "
Zoehasrights,
                  it does appear that the first sentence,
CSA said
"The intent of the Child Support Scheme is that parents provide financially for all of their biological children."
does not correlate with the fact of the matter as you report, in that your biological children are not being provided for financially as they should and that one/some are being ignored this intent by what I see as legislation that is lacking or more correctly I think, over restrictive according to the intent of the CSA. Perhaps it is simply the CSA's intent that has been expressed with error.

I've had a look at the legislation and I think your children are being financially disadvantaged and thus being treated unfairly simply by the definition of "Child Support Case". That is for a multi-case child to be considered, it has to be a child of another "Child Support Case". A "Child Support Case", is defined in the legislation by :-

Child Support Assessment Act 1989 said
child support case, in relation to a child, is the administrative assessments for child support for all children who are children of both of the parents of the child.

More specifically as your children should be the subject of a multi-case allowance and perhaps a multi-case cap, I think this is what applies (same :-
Child Support Assessment Act 1989 said
41 (3(b)) and also (4(b) the parent is also to be assessed in respect of the costs of another child in another child support case; and …

However, looking at the definition of administrative assessment, I can't see anything that says that has to be done by the CSA, so perhaps simply saying that you have done the assessment then meets the legislated criteria for an administrative assessment :-

Child Support Assessment Act 1989 said
administrative assessment means assessment (other than assessment for the purposes of a notional assessment) under Part 5.
:)

I would love to understand what difference the assessment of the child makes to that child needing to be supported or not. One could also wonder whether this would be contrary to the rights of a child.

I would suggest that this is a matter not for the CSA, but for a higher body that can perhaps adjust the legislation to ensure that the CSA's intent can be met by the CSA. I'd suggest perhaps involving your local Federal MP, Joe Ludwig, perhaps Alby Schultz. Although you would have thought that the CSA themselves would do this so as to ensure that their intent can be met in full, that or more clearly specify it's intent, which it now knows cannot be met.

Perhaps Secretary_SPCA would consider this as something that should be progressed.
Mike T .

The intent of the legislation is quiet clear in my eyes. It's just the corruption that comes after is the problem. The CSA and SSAT view the objectives as merely intent that doesn't necessarily translate into legislation.

"children who are children of both of the parents of the child"  Both the CSA and SSAT determined this means of the same parents, not children divided between 3 parents. I also argued sibling, Acts interpretation Act and of course, intent.

"I would suggest that this is a matter not for the CSA" As I mentioned in Post: Parents owe $1bn in child support , it's either the slow lobbying process or High Court. The former would take longer than my CS case, the latter unaffordable. I did take to local MP who took it to the Minister who passed on to FaCSIA who passed back to CSA, " 'cause the CSA knows best" Haven't stopped laughing at this one!


"parent is also to be assessed in respect of the costs of another child in another child support case" Evidence presented at a COA but ignored due to my having child No 2 less than 34% and the fact that 'child support case' means a 'registered case'.


"Although you would have thought that the CSA themselves would do this" On this occassion they claim it's not their job, they "just administer the legislation". This attitude could be due to the fact I have upset them numerous times with wins over legislation interpretation or other reason unknown. Nonetheless, they refuse to discuss it with me and continue to ignore the rights of a child.

" Perspective depends on which side of the barbed wire fence you sit, or indeed if you are sitting on it! "
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets