Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Provisions relating to income earned for the benefit of resident children

Somebody Else in another Forum said
We (hubby and I ) have 2 children and he pays child support for a son of a previous relationship. We just applied to have support reduced under reason 10. He earnt overtime to support second family as we had just had a baby. The CSA stated that our 2 kids are "resident children of the assessment". this reason 10 is for resident chidren that are not of the assessment. This is not fair as he worked overtime to allow me to stay home with our new baby… and now childsupport payment have more than doubled!! Any advice is appreciated.
The Legislation says said
117A Provisions relating to income earned for the benefit of resident children

(1) A child is a resident child of a liable parent for the purposes of subparagraph 117(2)(iii) if, and only if:

(a) the child normally lives with the liable parent; and

(b) the child is aged under 18; and

c) the child is not a member of a couple; and

(d) the liable parent:

(i) is a parent of the child; or

(ii) is, or was, a member of a couple of which the other member is, or was, a parent of the child; and

(e) the child is not a child of whom both the liable parent and the entitled carer are the parents.

(2) A child is a resident child of an entitled carer for the purposes of subparagraph 117(2)(iv) if, and only if:

(a) the child normally lives with the entitled carer; and

(b) the child is aged under 18; and

c) the child is not a member of a couple; and

(d) the entitled carer:

(i) is a parent of the child; or

(ii) is, or was, a member of a couple of which the other member is, or was, a parent of the child; and

(e) the child is not a child of whom both the entitled carer and the liable parent are the parents.

(3) For the purposes of subparagraphs 117(2)(iii) and (iv), an amount is taken not to be an additional amount in relation to a person in the following circumstances:

(a) the amount is earned, derived or received in accordance with a pattern of earnings, derivation or receipt that was established:

(i) before the resident child became a resident child of the liable parent or the entitled carer; or

(ii) if the child was a resident child of the liable parent or the entitled carer immediately after the child was born?before the liable parent or the entitled carer could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the pregnancy that resulted in the birth of the child;

(b) the amount is earned, derived or received other than in accordance with such a pattern, but the alterations to the pattern are of a kind that it is reasonable to expect would have occurred in the ordinary course of events.
My questions

a) Does the legislation exclude the children and if so why and is it because the children are part of the assessment.

I get to 1c and as the children are a member of a couple (I think), that excludes them.

b) If the child isn't excluded is this perhaps something that weight should be put behind protesting against?
Hi Mike, I believe that the children are already part of the child support calculation. The problem is that with Dad's extra work and Mum's reduced income, their joint income has stayed the same or gone down (even with Dad's extra $$s) - but CSA are not interested in household income, only Dad's. So yes, they take a big chunk out of the over time. What would have been a better option, was to have Dad reduce his income and stay home with the baby. That way the ex would have got a pay drop!

The child being a member of a couple, means that the child (may be a 15 year old) is not being supported by an 18 year old partner, even though claiming to live with Mum and Dad.

I hope this makes sense (it did in my head).

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. 
Thanks Artemis, but I'm still baffled although I understand now about the couple and obviously a new born isn't likely to be a member of a couple so I see how c) is passed. d) i) is passed as he's the dad and therefore passed the ii) as it's an or.

e) has me confused as to what an entitled carer is, entitled to CS, well he's a payer so liable and therefore not entitled, her I can't see how she's liable although perhaps this could be so, I would have thought his ex would be the entitled carer. So I think e) is passed.

So down to section 2), there again 2 appears to only be about a child of the entitled carer, which the baby isn't, assuming that my idea of an entitled carer is correct.

3 I assume doesn't apply because the amount is not of an existing pattern, i.e. it's extra overtime.

So my guess is that it's not s117a that's being used as the cop out, but it's elsewhere? (perhaps I'm now less baffled, perhaps more so).

Obviously propellors don't work that well with legislation, :)
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets