Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Proof of care

proof of care on specific days/nights

We (as the payer) spoke to a csa officer yesterday regarding days/nights in care.  From the 1st of July we are saying that we will have 84 nights/days in care (school holidays etc.). The payee has said to csa this will not be happening,- 'definitely not'.  The csa officer said it would be up to us to prove (by third party letters or dairy notes) that the child has in fact stayed with us.  If we can not prove this to the satisfaction of cs then the formula will remain the same.  Why should it be up to only us to prove the fact?  Why should the payee not have to prove the child was with them on the nights/days stated?  The csa officer made it clear that so long as the payee disputed the claim then proof was required.  Like she will tell the truth, yeah right!:lol:

When 'Life' is hard and things are tough,

and you feel like you've had enough.

Remember always this one thing true,

Someone else depends on YOU.
I had a similar thing happen regarding parenting payment.
Rather than pay to me the percentage amount of FTB to myself the X chose to tell me to get stuffed and that I had no right or entitlement as this was her money ( basically ).
When I rang and inquired they said yep you are entitled and fill out the forms, so I did this and included all prior dates.

I receive a letter back telling me she can't remember the dates but it wasn't that many.

If I couldn't show proof they would automatically believe her and I would be whistling Dixie, but as I could they back dated payments to the first date and recovered a considerable amount of FTB that she fraudulently obtained and she also got nailed for Social fraud as well.

It would be interesting to know the statistics of how many claim benefits they are not entitled to, or falsify information.
  
There was an earlier thread where Mike T set out all the new sections re "level of care"

Or you can look it up yourself on the CSA site, or take a look at the FAQ area of the this Portal site.
My partner in Feb this year needed to update level of care details with the CSA as we now have the child for 116 nights per year.. We had to give the CSA rep eveey date that the child would be in our care for the first 12 months of the 15 month assessment.

After this she then stated that nothing would change untill she contacted the childs mother to confirm. We asked what would happen if the mother denied this level of care to which we were instructed that the onus of proof would then be on us. For us this would be easy as we have Court orders and a signed letter from the mother outlining the majority of care during that 12 month period..

I was appauled that it was up to us to prove that this was the case.
overcsa said
If we can not prove this to the satisfaction of cs then the formula will remain the same.  Why should it be up to only us to prove the fact?  Why should the payee not have to prove the child was with them on the nights/days stated?  The csa officer made it clear that so long as the payee disputed the claim then proof was required.
I believe that to not also require the proof from the other parent of the care that they have, then the officer is in breach of the APS legislation that requires them to treat you with respect and to act with care and diligence.

I would write a letter stating this and requesting that they provide the proof that what you say is not correct, you could also add statutory declarations from yourself and others who may have witnessed your levels of care to provide such proof.

Obviously the CS officer would then be compelled by the legislation to expect the same level of proof from the other parent, to ensure that they again do not act outside of the legislation that they are bound by by not respecting you and not taking the care and diligence to ensure that you are treated with that respect.
its crazy do they want you to the court hous everyday when you have care of the child and get a bunch people to wittness you are with the child

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

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Oh overcsa, not that I need likely say, but from now on get evidence, sheesh even if it means taking your child to a JP/Doctor/Nurse/Policeman/Notary or something.
MikeT said
overcsa said
If we can not prove this to the satisfaction of cs then the formula will remain the same.  Why should it be up to only us to prove the fact?  Why should the payee not have to prove the child was with them on the nights/days stated?  The csa officer made it clear that so long as the payee disputed the claim then proof was required.
I believe that to not also require the proof from the other parent of the care that they have, then the officer is in breach of the APS legislation that requires them to treat you with respect and to act with care and diligence.

I would write a letter stating this and requesting that they provide the proof that what you say is not correct, you could also add statutory declarations from yourself and others who may have witnessed your levels of care to provide such proof.

Obviously the CS officer would then be compelled by the legislation to expect the same level of proof from the other parent, to ensure that they again do not act outside of the legislation that they are bound by by not respecting you and not taking the care and diligence to ensure that you are treated with that respect.
  Respect does not seem to be part of their "formula":dry: Yesterday we spoke with an officer as we need to back up our coa with proof.  My partner asked the cso if the documents (Home loan, bills, and wage info)we sent in went to the other person.  They replied yes.  We said fair enough but we will block out anything that we don't want them to know to which the officer replied 'if you do that then we can't process the claim and we will shred the stuff we already have'.  Mmm right:thumbs:  So after sorting that out with the supervisor we are still chasing our tails and jumping through hoops and for what.  A fair go!, that also seems to not be part of their formula.  After speaking to a cso a while ago my partner ended up in hospital as a direct result of that phone call.  It is frustrating that csa officers seem to think that if the payee/payer (ours has been both) is a female (sorry to those of us who do the right thing, I am not referring to you) she must be telling the truth.  Full stop. End of story.  What I'm wondering is what are they going to do when gay and lesbian families (no offense meant) break up and they are forced to decide which female or which male is telling the truth:thumbs:

When 'Life' is hard and things are tough,

and you feel like you've had enough.

Remember always this one thing true,

Someone else depends on YOU.
I recently went through he process of COA, attempting (naively) to bring some balance and equality to the assessment, and challenges I face in its servicing as well as a debt+ penalties together with a HELP debt.
The upshot of the phone conference was that my reasons did not fit in with the exact criteria stated in 1-10 and the Case Officer was not authorised to make judgments or give opinions. My information and documentation supplied was sent to the respondent, her phone conference after mine of course!  No documentation was required of her to prove  her verbal recanting of my written submission and no further discussion able to be entered into easily with CSA re the fabricated truths espoused to them by the mother in the summary decision letter which finally arrived.

A lot of effort and stress for no result. I concur with the earlier posts re turn the rules back on them (CSA)and make them accountable, wherever possible, for the onus of proof; as backflips through hoops of fire still leaves all control in their hands.

This remains a contentious Issue

The Acts enabling C$ and the C$A require parents to supply accurate information. The acts also specify penalties for providing inaccurate information or "Seeking to give the wrong impression" - The catch is the Act also says is totaly at the discretion of the C$ Registrar whether an investigation is conducted.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
monster said
its crazy do they want you to the court hous everyday when you have care of the child and get a bunch people to wittness you are with the child
 
MikeT said
Oh overcsa, not that I need likely say, but from now on get evidence, sheesh even if it means taking your child to a JP/Doctor/Nurse/Policeman/Notary or something.
 
Camera with a date and time stamp?

The question of who must provide proof is a recurring theme on these forums and is worth bringing up under SecretarySPCA's request for comments on the Change of Assessment Process.

 
Rossa512 said
I recently went through he process of COA, attempting (naively) to bring some balance and equality to the assessment, and challenges I face in its servicing as well as a debt+ penalties together with a HELP debt.
 The upshot of the phone conference was that my reasons did not fit in with the exact criteria stated in 1-10 and the Case Officer was not authorised to make judgments or give opinions. My information and documentation supplied was sent to the respondent, her phone conference after mine of course!
 Her phone conference was after yours as a matter of course because you were the applicant.  If she had been the applicant, she would have had the first conference.

However, if your application did not fit any of the criteria, it should have been rejected before the papers were sent to the other party.

That is worth a formal complaint.
Rossa512 said
No documentation was required of her to prove  her verbal recanting of my written submission and no further discussion able to be entered into easily with CSA re the fabricated truths espoused to them by the mother in the summary decision letter which finally arrived.
 
If the decision was based on information which you were not given, you are entitled to object or complain or both.

 
oneadadc said
The Acts enabling C$ and the C$A require parents to supply accurate information. The acts also specify penalties for providing inaccurate information or "Seeking to give the wrong impression" - The catch is the Act also says is totaly at the discretion of the C$ Registrar whether an investigation is conducted.
 
If only!!



BriarRose said
Camera with a date and time stamp?
Me being the suspicious/pedantic so and so that I am, would suspect that they may well not accept that as evidence as you can change the date/time on the camera.

As you suggested raising the issue of taking one person's word against another's for no valid reason other than to transfer more funds, needs to be settled, I just thought that it wouldn't meet the criteria for discussion on the COA process as it's a more general issue, but why not try to bring it up.

MikeT said
BriarRose said
Camera with a date and time stamp?
Me being the suspicious/pedantic so and so that I am, would suspect that they may well not accept that as evidence as you can change the date/time on the camera.
Daily newspaper casually in the frame, just not under the child's chin like a ransom photo?

MikeT said
As you suggested raising the issue of taking one person's word against another's for no valid reason other than to transfer more funds, needs to be settled,
  Ah, no, I didn't quite mean that.

I meant taking one person's word against another's, full stop.

I would never say just taking the word of one person against the other for no valid reason other than to transfer more funds.

I have personally seen the word of one party taken over the other's with no valid reason and no prior notice in order to transfer fewer funds.

That required the payee to provide proof that what was accepted with no evidence from the payer was in fact untrue. By the time it was proven that the claims that were made by the payer and accepted substantiated were in fact untrue an overpayment had arisen. The debt that arose from the payer's lies was considered too large for that party to pay, even though it was owed to the children. In another instance, the decision making was held up for very long periods (COA taking 18 months!), with no penalty to the payer who told what were proven to be lies, and in yet another the debt caused by the proven lies was collected.

I don't think either word should be taken unsubstantiated in preference to the other. I think all claims should be substantiated.

MikeT said
I just thought that it wouldn't meet the criteria for discussion on the COA process as it's a more general issue, but why not try to bring it up.
  I just meant to encourage some comments as this applies to the COA process.

I agree it it also a much more general topic.

I plan to start two more general topics on this in the next couple of days.

A favour if I may - I have more details to post for Cam on his topic regarding his daughter and granddaughter, but I cannot post again until someone else does.

Would you mind saying a little something?

Ta much.

katie



A little something for Briar Rose.

It's a hard issue. How do you get proof that a child is with you. They say you can keep diary notes and these are also admissable in court. Childcare records may be able to help as you sign the child in…. Tricky isn't it.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Katie, you could post, by editing your post, but now you can post what you have for Cam.

BriarRose said
I meant taking one persons word against another's, full stop.

I stand corrected, my only defence being that it is appearing to very common that only the person with the lower level of care has to prove anything ad that this is something that sort of happened to me. I was recorded as having 0 care when in fact I have 66 nights care.

I did all the stuff back in November to register care, care which was by then also registered with the FAO (Family Assistance Office) in regards to FTB. Yet come January, when I contacted the CSA to check the level of care (yep that suspicious old Mike again), the care level still hadn't been recorded. I was aware of others who also had 0 nights care recorded when in fact they didn't. I then went top down, i.e. sent an email to Matt Miller and a few Federal MP's, concerned that this recording of false information and lack of action to correct that falsely recorded information, was a contravention of APS legislation and would also lead to a large number of person's not being able to adequately support their children.

Mine was sorted pretty quickly. Anyway the false recording of care nights is something close to me. I contested the using of a default of 0 nights care and suggested that as the law sort of presumes 50/50 that they should have a default of 50% nights care. I still think they should and that should stay until proven otherwise. I also said that they should do a search on CUBA for all who have 0 nights care recorded and take special measures to ensure that the default has not been incorrectly recorded. The passed my comments onto the Customer Research Mailbox (I think that's called the Bin). I also got a letter that appears to contradict the facts, that is, the letter states that they changed my care level in 15 days.

Perhaps you can understand and forgive a little bit of tunnel thinking at times. :)
Artemis said
A little something for Briar Rose.
Thanks Artemis

Sorry, that was confusing.

I broke my post on another topic into two sections because it was way too long, then could not post the second part until someone else posted. When I asked for a little something I was asking Mike to check my post to Cam on another topic http://flwg.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topics&type=new_post&id=1955&quote=13147#and say whether I was on the right track or barking mad. :offtopic:

Sorry if that was confusing, but thanks for the little something.
Artemis said
It's a hard issue. How do you get proof that a child is with you. They say you can keep diary notes and these are also admissable in court. Childcare records may be able to help as you sign the child in… Tricky isn't it.
Very tricky and other than my tongue in cheek comments about daily newspapers, I frankly have no idea.

This is the only part of my case that has never been disputed - every minor detail down to the number of stitches after surgery,  but never that one issue that causes grief for so many.
MikeT said
I stand corrected, my only defence being that it is appearing to very common that only the person with the lower level of care has to prove anything ad that this is something that sort of happened to me. I was recorded as having 0 care when in fact I have 66 nights care.

Perhaps you can understand and forgive a little bit of tunnel thinking at times. :)
Is all good.

This is a very frustrating situation.



This is what the Q&A has to say on our site here under Child Support


The other parent's reported level of care is not the same as the one that I am reporting, what happens or what should I do?
There are various recognised care arrangements that the CSA should consider. They are; written parenting plans, agreed levels of care or court orders specifying the level of care.

If there is disagreement and a parenting plan or court orders exist, then the level of care specified in those should be used. If there is more than one of the preceding items, the most recent is used. An exception being is if a parent does not, of the parents own accord, follow the care level.

If there are no court orders or parenting plan and there is still disagreement then Centrelink and the CSA will reach a decision based upon consultation with both parents and is likely to be based upon actual care for which evidence exists.

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
 

speaking from experience

We recently went through the same situation, and I hope this provides some encouragement to others in the same situation.

on the original level of care forms, both parents truthfully wrote the same numbers(ie the number of nights matched for each parent) on the forms not knowing what the other wrote, only for the mother to change her mind after realising how it hit her hip pocket with the new legislation.

She then initiated a care dispute with CSA claiming half the time and a misunderstanding on completing the original form, to which we responded.  We supplied copies of original calenders where we had recorded nights of care (I had put the childs initials in top right hand corner of calender days.  I had also an excel spreadsheet with start & finish dates.  We also got our neighbours to write letters as well as close friends who are very aware of care arrangements and have regular contact with us and the child.

After CSA ruled the dispute in our favour, the mother then lodged an objection stating that their decision was incorrect since she had court orders (vague court orders) and that we had fabricated our information.   I was then told by a different CSA officer that the statements sought prior from people (on their advice) were largely meaningless and they only wanted information on the actual NIGHTS spent, ie dates for a specific period.  Since the mothers letter and copies of her calenders were then provided to us to respond to, we poked many holes in her argument, ie she missed calender months!  she also missed dates we had the child and added dates we did not have the child.  We also pointed out the vague court order did not specify how many nights the child spent with their father and didnt disprove our evidence.   We again provided our dates as well as information on what we did on those dates and people whocould verify our activities.

CSA could see clearly that the mother was manipulating the situation due to loss of income, and disallowed her objection, stating that the court order was not clear as to nights spent with each parent, the original care forms were complimentary in information, as well as we were able to demonstrate a pattern of visitation and clear concise information on the times we have the child.   CSA did in this case, look at the previous response to the dispute and found our case to be consistent and more believable I guess.

So , in short, keep diary entries!!  Try and make memories with your child when you do have them and record them in your diary!  most weekends when we had the child, we visisted the grandparents or aunties & uncles etc,.    Get clearer consent/court orders, as we are in the midst of attaining now.  that way if one parent tries to deny access,  CSA will fall back on the court orders anyway.   hope this helps! and encourages that CSA do not just take the primary carer's word as gospel.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets