Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Separated mothers complaining about fairer 'child support' system

Of those paying support, mainly men, about one-third are worse off under the system.

Note that a third of fathers paying 'support' are worse of but that is not the lead for the article.

Concern for mothers, but tough luck for all the children and fathers previously ripped off, and the fathers now having their access/contact/visitation time limited and controlled by mothers determined to cut back on the children's time with Dad so that the mothers are eligible for the same/more money under the new scheme (and don't actually have to go out and work for a living, like everyone else).

At least the article is a little more honest, than other reports, in mentioning that mothers are the recipients of the 'child support' monies, rather than peddle the fabriction that the money goes to the children.  The money does not go to the children - it goes to the mothers and they are not accountable for how it is spent; so there is no guarantee the money benefits the children … and in more than a few cases is spent on the mother (for clothes, shoes, jewellery, cigarettes, alcohol, holidays, dining out, online and other dating, boyfriends, etc, etc, etc…).

Recipients of child support lose out under new formula

The Age (Melbourne)
8 August 2008

Recipients of child support lose out under new formula
By Carol Nader

Separated parents who care for children at home - mainly women - are the biggest losers as a result of changes to child and family support benefits.

Figures released yesterday by the Federal Government show that about half the 600,000 parents who receive child support lost money under the changes announced by the Howard government in 2005 and introduced last month with the support of the new Government.

Of those paying support, mainly men, about one-third are worse off under the system.

Under the changes, the formula used to calculate child support payments was changed to take into account both parents' income, the actual cost of raising children and the time non-resident parents spend with their children. Non-resident parents who spend less than 35% of time with their children no longer receive family tax benefits. The net gain or loss takes into account both child support and family tax benefits.

According to the Government analysis, most people are no more than $20 a week better or worse off.

But about 16,000 resident parents and 7600 non-resident parents stand to lose more than $60 a week. Conversely, 29,000 non-resident parents will gain at least $60 a week, compared with 8300 resident parents.

Overall, about half of resident parents lost some income, 37% gained and 13% had no change. For parents paying child support, half gained financially from the changes, 33% lost income and 16% had no change.

Paul Le Moing-Ross, a family law specialist at Westminster Lawyers, said the figures confirmed concerns that resident parents stood to lose the most. He said clients were applying for spousal maintenance to make up the shortfall.

"The Government talks about the struggle that working families are having making ends meet," he said. "Single-parent families tend to struggle even more than dual-parent families."

Last financial year, $2.9 billion was paid in child support to benefit 1.1 million children. The changes reduced the amount due this year by $210 million, but the Government says this is offset by an extra $140 million in family tax benefits.

The Government said it would monitor the impact of the changes to protect children's interests.

Jane Stanley, from the Council of Single Mothers and their Children, said even $20 a week was a significant sum. "I think it's a real concern there are that many receiving parents that are going to be at least $60 a week worse off, particularly with the higher cost of living," she said.

Lone Fathers Association president Barry Williams said the new system was much fairer. He said most parents receiving family tax benefits were resident parents.


Feminists and mothers' rights activists believe in and have a sense of matriarchal entitlement (as of right because they are female and mothers).  A large part of that entitlement is the view that others owe them a living.  Anyone who has spent even a short amount of time on a separated/single mothers' rights forum will quickly observe that a lot of time and energy is spent on the topic of money and how to get it for free from others, without having to work.  Groups like the one below are typical of the many that lobby governments for a free ride for separated mothers.

Feminist / Mothers' Rights Activists Media Release Child Support

—– Original message —–
From: Elspeth McInnes
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008
Subject: media release child support

fyi

Elspeth McInnes

P 08 8302 40xx

Subject: media release child support

ERROR: A link was posted here (img) but it appears to be a broken link.
Solomums Australia for Family Equity
Solomums Australia for Family Equity

SAFE - support, information, referral, research & policy by and for
Solomums Australia for Family Equity

Email: Elspeth.mcinnes@unisa.edu.au
Steering Committee Convenor: ph 0421 787 xxx

Media release 7th August 2008

$210 MILLION CUT FROM CHILD SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN OF SEPARATED PARENTS

Solomums  Australia for Family Equity today called on the federal government to review the combined financial impact of child support formula changes and Welfare to Work income support cuts on single parent families.

Single parent  families with dependent children comprise around one in four households with dependent children and experience much higher rates of poverty than couple parent families with dependent children, yet they have been relentlessly targeted for financial losses under policies introduced by the Howard government.

The Federal Government today confirmed that the child support formula changes introduced on July 1 this year will cut millions of dollars of financial support from children of separated parents in the household where they primarily reside.

According to the summary report on the effects of the changes, children of separated parents stand to lose an aggregate of $210 million.  Whilst this loss will be offset for some payees by an aggregate $140 million top-up in Family Tax Benefits, around half of all payees raising children will be left with less to live on in a time of rising housing, food and fuel costs.

The summary report notes that payer parents will keep more money in their pockets which could be spent on their children, however payers who don't even see their children still gain from the formula cuts.

SAFE Convenor Dr Elspeth McInnes said the financial pain of child support and income support cuts impacted adversely on the quality of life available to children of separated parents, with many parents reporting that they are cutting back on food, clothing, sport and recreation, and moving to cheaper  areas to cope with the losses.

'The government needs to urgently re-view the effective marginal tax rates imposed on single parents through the income support, child support and family support system, because these families are losing out badly.'

Dr McInnes said social research had conclusively demonstrated that economic hardship in childhood was a predictor of later hardships and reduced opportunities impacting on health, education and earning capacity across the lifespan.  'Children of separated parents deserve the same opportunities as any other Australian child, yet these families have been singled out by the Howard government for increased economic hardship,' said Dr McInnes.

ENDS Ph 0421 787 xxx for further comment.

Elspeth McInnes AM BA Hons 1 PhD
Senior Lecturer and Director
de Lissa Institute of Early Childhood and Family Studies Research Group

P 61 8 8302 40xx
F 61 8 8302 43xx

School of Education, Magill Campus
University of South Australia
GPO Box 24xx
Adelaide SA 5001

Attachment
954 views (3 KB)

Last edit: by dad4life

Mothers complaining about small moves to child support equality

Three more articles on this topic…
Jenny Macklin said
Ms Macklin said the reforms recognised that society had changed, and parenting - and the costs of parenting - was increasingly shared. "The child support changes aim to create a more balanced approach to calculating child support, taking into account both parents' income and the actual cost of raising children," Ms Macklin said. "The changes respond to trends towards increased shared parenting and recognise that when care of a child is shared, the costs are also shared." She said tough new enforcement measures had come into effect to make sure parents paid their child support, in full and on time.

The Australian
8 August 2008

Child support changes hit single mums the hardest
By Patricia Karvelas, Political correspondent

Single mothers have been the hardest hit by the dramatic overhaul of the child support system, with half suffering financial loses of about $20 a week.

The Rudd Government yesterday released the first analysis of how families have been affected by the changes.

It reveals that about 49 per cent of payees (usually mothers) and 33 per cent of payers (usually fathers) have experienced cuts to their income as a result of the changes.

Fathers who spend just one day a week with their children have received the most dramatic reductions in what they are expected to pay in child support.

About 77 per cent of the 50,000 fathers who spend one day a week with their children experienced decreases in their child-support obligations.

Based on the analysis of 691,000 cases, about 37 per cent of parents who receive payments saw their incomes rise. Fifty-one per cent of parents who paid child support saw their obligations decrease.

About 13 per cent of payees and 16 per cent of payers had no net change as a result of the reforms. The changes were $20 a week or less in the majority of cases, but 32,000 single mothers lost $40 or more a week.

Parents who are being forced to pay their ex-partners more are generally those who have low-middle taxable incomes and a new family.

Around 66 per cent of these men are now assessed to pay more to the child support children, who previously received very little.

Families Minister Jenny Macklin and Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig yesterday defended the new system, which has been attacked by welfare groups and single mothers for reducing the income of children's primary care-givers.

But in a joint statement, the ministers said these reforms ensured that payments within the child support system were based on "evidence about the cost of raising children".

"We understand that the changes will concern some people," they said.

"The Government will continue to monitor the ongoing impact of the reforms to ensure the best interests of children are protected."

They said the Government was backing up the reforms to child support with tough new enforcement measures, which came into effect from July 1, to make sure parents who have child-support obligations pay in full and on time.

In 2005, John Howard commissioned Sydney University law professor Patrick Parkinson to design a new system to balance the interests of men and women.

Under his plan, custodial parents, mostly women, keep their family tax benefits, which are shared between both parents under the old scheme. But the parent with custody receives less in maintenance payments.

The new data also shows that about 60 per cent (350,000) of all paying parents in the child-support system have a taxable income of $30,000 per annum or less.


The Courier-Mail
8 August 2008

Paying parents to cough up less child support
By Renee Viellaris

Taxpayers will foot the bill for the dramatic overhaul of the child support system which has left more money in the pockets of paying parents.

The Government yesterday released a report revealing 49 per cent of parents would receive less money in child support from paying parents.

But the majority of parents who receive less money will have a boost in income under the Family Tax Benefit.

Under the reforms, which began last month, most paying parents will save $10 to $20 a week and some will be totally stripped of FTB payments.

Overall, 192,600 parents, or 33 per cent, will have to pay more in child support.

 And in the most extreme changes, 8300 parents will have to fork out an extra $60 a week, while 16,000 lose that amount.

Although it has been heralded by Families Minister Jenny Macklin as "a more balanced approach to calculating child support", she stressed the reforms were introduced by the former Howard government.

And under the new scheme, separated parents who start new families will retain more of their income and pay less in support for their first children.

The analysis of more than 691,000 child-support cases revealed the system had less impact on parents who were owed money than previously estimated.

Patrick Parkinson, who was the chairman of the former government's ministerial taskforce on child support and whose report sparked the reforms, in 2005 estimated that about 60 per cent of parents would pay less.

At the time, Professor Parkinson's report was attacked by single mothers, who argued the model favoured fathers.

Men's rights groups described the outcome of the eight-month inquiry as a "big win" for children and fathers.

The Child Support Agency said it had received only 166 formal complaints since the new assessments were mailed out in March.

Of these, 107 were from paying parents and 59 from receiving parents.

The report said it was still waiting for some parents to update their incomes and the time spent looking after children.


The Canberra Times
8 August 2008

Poorest parents lose in new child-support plan
By Stephanie Peatling

More than half of the poorest parents will receive up to $20 a week less in child-support payments because of changes to the scheme.

Federal Government estimates on the numbers of parents affected by the changes show that 37 per cent of all those who receive payments will get more under the new scheme but 49 per cent will get less.

Nearly half of parents who pay child support - 51 per cent - will pay more but 33 per cent will pay less.

The Government argues that parents whose payments are reduced are unlikely to be worse off because they could receive higher family benefits payments.

"The changes respond to trends towards increased shared parenting and recognise that when care of a child is shared, the costs are also shared,"the Minister for Human Services, Joe Ludwig, and the Minister for Families and Community Services, Jenny Macklin, said.

But the changes hit people receiving income support payments the hardest. The estimates show that 51 per cent of single parents receiving income support will get lower child support payments and 33 per cent will receive more.

Most of those who lose money will be getting up to $20 a week less.

The first payments under the new scheme were due to be paid yesterday and the Government has promised to monitor the effect of the changes, which were introduced by the previous government and supported by Labor in opposition.

The changes - the first since 1988 - were prompted by a parliamentary review that found the scheme was inequitable and had failed to keep pace with increased government payments to families.

As a result of the changes, payments are no longer based on a percentage of the taxable income of the payer. Instead, they are based on the parents' combined income and will recognise the time each parent spends caring for a child.

Assessments will include children from other relationships.

The changes are also designed to help the Government recover the child support debt which grew by 5.6 per cent last financial year to $1 billion.


The Sydney Morning Herald
8 August 2008

New formula begins for child support

AAP - The formula by which child support payments are calculated has been changed - leading to a small net gain to those parents who must pay.

Families Minister Jenny Macklin has released an analysis of the third stage of child support reforms, which were introduced after laws passed parliament in 2006.

The new formula starts now.

The government's analysis found the total amount of child support paid will decrease by seven per cent.

Of those who receive payments, 49 per cent will receive less money than before. For most, the difference is $10-$20 a week.

Among recipients, 37 per cent will receive more money.

For those who must pay, 51 per cent will pay less money than before.

Ms Macklin said the reforms recognised that society had changed, and parenting - and the costs of parenting - was increasingly shared.

"The child support changes aim to create a more balanced approach to calculating child support, taking into account both parents' income and the actual cost of raising children," Ms Macklin said.

"The changes respond to trends towards increased shared parenting and recognise that when care of a child is shared, the costs are also shared."

She said tough new enforcement measures had come into effect to make sure parents paid their child support, in full and on time.

hear hear!!  we fall smack bang in the 2nd paragraph of your post!  Why dont we see articles and reports on non residential/custodial parents being deprived of their children by a shameless, selfish & greedy parent  who would rather scar their childrens mental and emotional wellbeing than allow the other parent to actively participate in their life because of the new CSA care rules! How many new mediations or court cases have been created providing the lawyers etc with more income from people who cant afford it but cant afford not to fight for a just cause!

reply to Dad4life

Dad4life - well well well, I must say what a fantasy land you must live in if you imagine that any pittance of Child Support received is NOT spent on the children, but spent on the range of luxuries you described.  I would love you to take a look in my wardrobe from the 1990's and my hairstyle with 2 years regrowth and remark again on how "pittance" received is spent on me…and as for dating - well men take one look at the hair and clothes and the two toddlers attached to my leg so there is no chance of me spending my money on a new boyfriend…which of course I am SO likely to do if I had a few pennies anyway (what a pathetic statement)

I think it's been 3 years now since I had a night out (what about you?? - enjoying your every second weekend off of week nights off??)  Don't you DARE buy a beer on your night out when that money could be spent on your children!!!  Gee would love the luxury but unfortunately I am completely on my own as children's daddy has not even MET his second child - HIS CHOICE…what a luxury that men GET the choice just to take no responsibility, except the few dollars a week some weak minded Government decided was enough for raising two children under 3 alone.

I suppose you will tell me to get a job and leave the child rearing to some teenager, perhaps I should also stop breastfeeding my child at 6 weeks old too so that they can go without their RIGHT to breastfeeding so that I can make ends meet enough and not really see my children until they are grown.  What a wonderful fantasy life the men lead imagining us women spending all Child Support on so many luxuries while our children run around in brown paper bags.

I am back to reality - hope you can find your way there too.
solemother said
Dad4life - well well well, I must say what a fantasy land you must live in if you imagine that any pittance of Child Support received is NOT spent on the children, but spent on the range of luxuries you described.  I would love you to take a look in my wardrobe from the 1990's and my hairstyle with 2 years regrowth and remark again on how "pittance" received is spent on me…and as for dating - well men take one look at the hair and clothes and the two toddlers attached to my leg so there is no chance of me spending my money on a new boyfriend…which of course I am SO likely to do if I had a few pennies anyway (what a pathetic statement)

I think it's been 3 years now since I had a night out (what about you?? - enjoying your every second weekend off of week nights off??)  Don't you DARE buy a beer on your night out when that money could be spent on your children!!!  Gee would love the luxury but unfortunately I am completely on my own as children's daddy has not even MET his second child - HIS CHOICE…what a luxury that men GET the choice just to take no responsibility, except the few dollars a week some weak minded Government decided was enough for raising two children under 3 alone.

I suppose you will tell me to get a job and leave the child rearing to some teenager, perhaps I should also stop breastfeeding my child at 6 weeks old too so that they can go without their RIGHT to breastfeeding so that I can make ends meet enough and not really see my children until they are grown.  What a wonderful fantasy life the men lead imagining us women spending all Child Support on so many luxuries while our children run around in brown paper bags.

I am back to reality - hope you can find your way there too.
  Perhaps SoleMother I and others can offer you some help. Let us know all the benefits and payments you are receiving, how many children etc and we can then likely come up with a budget that would circumvent the abuse your children suffer having to run around in brown paper bags. However I dare say a computer and internet connection would likely be on the list of items not needed.

I also believe, as you are so sure that your situation is the only situation and as such the only reality, that your extensive knowledge and experience could be of significant use to so many on here, as obviously many of us have this same fantasy, that we all too often see the single parents line up for their Centrelink payments to then get them and head of to buy their clothes, go to the loacl or off to the park to do their deals and so on. I believe there has been a very bad case of suffering this fantasy that has been brought to life on this poratl recently, one where a botique worker, has had the fantasy of seeing single parents virtually fighting to buy their clothes, hitting the children of the other parents to jump the queue when the parent is distracted into ascertaining why the children are crying, others topping up baby bottles with alcohol to continue the ongoing placatation of the babies, so they don't interfere with the task underway.

With your vast experience of life SoleMother, perhaps you'd care to inform us how we can be diverted from these fantasies, that we so frequently suffer, into the real world that you have been so kind to inform us about. I personally would also appreciate any personal assistance with regard to having my eyes corrected as I have this impairement that has obviously affected me for many years, as I fail to see these children in brown paper bags running around, or would you conclude that the fault is not with my eyes but with this fantasy that I suffer?

Decisions, Choices, Responsibility and Consequences

solemother said
Dad4life - well well well, I must say what a fantasy land you must live in if you imagine that any pittance of Child Support received is NOT spent on the children, but spent on the range of luxuries you described.  I would love you to take a look in my wardrobe from the 1990's and my hairstyle with 2 years regrowth and remark again on how "pittance" received is spent on me…and as for dating - well men take one look at the hair and clothes and the two toddlers attached to my leg so there is no chance of me spending my money on a new boyfriend…which of course I am SO likely to do if I had a few pennies anyway (what a pathetic statement)

I think it's been 3 years now since I had a night out (what about you?? - enjoying your every second weekend off of week nights off??)  Don't you DARE buy a beer on your night out when that money could be spent on your children!!!  Gee would love the luxury but unfortunately I am completely on my own as children's daddy has not even MET his second child - HIS CHOICE…what a luxury that men GET the choice just to take no responsibility, except the few dollars a week some weak minded Government decided was enough for raising two children under 3 alone.

I suppose you will tell me to get a job and leave the child rearing to some teenager, perhaps I should also stop breastfeeding my child at 6 weeks old too so that they can go without their RIGHT to breastfeeding so that I can make ends meet enough and not really see my children until they are grown.  What a wonderful fantasy life the men lead imagining us women spending all Child Support on so many luxuries while our children run around in brown paper bags.

I am back to reality - hope you can find your way there too.
Your disagreement with, and hostility towards, me are noted.

'Child support' is bigger and broader than you or I and you need to expand your horizons, considerations and understandings and see the big picture.

I won't be looking in your wardrobe love.  And I don't dye my hair; it is a vanity and extravagance that only leads to regrowth.

There are many men who see beyond the shallowness of fading beauty and children, so perhaps your problem is attitudinal and that may be what is keeping men away.

As it happens I do get out whenever I chose.  After many years of caring for my now adult child I have more freedom.  You will too, if you are patient and not so self-focussed.

If it was your choice to end your family and take the children away from their father then yes, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions and get a job and support yourself and the children.  That is the honest, decent and fair thing to do …  Don't you think? … For people to accept responsibility for their actions.  (Allegations of abuse will not be taken seriously until we hear his side of the story.)

If you are in the minority of separated women who didn't chose to end their families then you have my commiserations and understanding.  I recognise that both men and women can do wrong.  I do not support unfaithful men abandoning their families and I believe they should provide support as a consequence of their choice and actions.  (I do note that some men are chased away by neglect and abuse and that that is different to desertion.)

As to reality, the child support, Centrelink and 'disablity' allowances, etc. 'income' of many separated and single mothers equals or exceeds that of the separated or single father.  And few women with children are homeless.  The State sees to that.  No one wants to see homeless children - and women leverage that to their advantage.
I worked as a single mum, stressed out like nothing, badly in debt. I bought my clothes from lifeline and when on sale. What I got in the hand, less daycare, less rent (no rent assist when you work), less tax was less than parenting payment.

Of course, I could have stayed home, gone through CSA rather than a private agreement and focussed on my children and my new vocation as martyr.

Instead, I chose to work and now have a much higher paid job than I did then.

I knocked back lots of jobs, because I could not work the hours required with young children.

These are the sacrifices you make when you are a mum.

Had I stayed with my ex, I would be a VERY wealthy woman now. Extremely high double income. Lavish house. We would probably have gone on some very nice overseas holidays with the children.

But I stand by the choices I have made. I am still happier now, than I was then and am happy most of the time. My health is good and I feel appreciated and loved.

There's not much more you can ask for.

As for dating. There is a definite 2 year lull when you separate/divorce. It doesn't matter how many children are clinging to your heels. I think it takes you that long to get your head clear and hold a conversation that does not centre on the ex and what a jerk he was.

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. 
Dad4life - I do not need your "commiserations or understanding" because having my partner leave our toddler and me pregnant never to be seen again turned out to be a blessing… and as for dating, I don't recall stating that I wanted to date there is much more to life than finding a new man.

WHY do you assume men leaving women are a minority????  I would love you to pull the stats for me on how many men leave pregnant women or don't take responsibility for their children.  Don't assume I am ignorant on the subject either, will be facinating to see which totally biased and wrong "Men's right's" group you pull your information from.

I would also love for you to introduce me to all the single father's who's incomes are less than the single mother's.. when men are not hiding their income or getting cash in hand to claim they get less.  When you do that I will show you all the women I know who get $6 a week and under for their children while their ex's drive around in sports cars, then we can stand out the front of "DIDs", CRC or equal parenting and you can apologise to me, and the scores of women in person for your complete ignorance.

What on earth makes you think I am "self focused"… my whole life is dedicated to raising my children and helping single mother's, I do it all on my own with no support and I love being a full time mum, which should be a RIGHT for our children to be able to be raised by their mother and should be supported by society.   Why should I lose my right to be a fulltime mother because HE decided to leave?

I'm afraid the "self focus" is dedicated to the selfish men who do not want to support their children and think more about their own needs and wants than their children's right to be raised by their actual family and to be financially supported.

70-80% of families are terminated by women

Not dancing to your tune solemother and wasting my time on you.  Been there done that.  You have the details so you produce.

Various government agencies and academics over the years have reported that 70-80% of families are terminated by women.

Says much about which sex has committment problems, depite all the women's magazine and television propaganda that men cannot commit.
I can relate to your point of view Solemum, BUT, I too am one of the minority that was 'left', but I choose to do the best I can for my children, regardless of what the ex has done in the past.

I was receiving a 'pittance' (under $40 a week for 2 kids), in child support and decided to do something about it.  When my baby was aged 12 months, I went and got a job.  I had to, and I wanted to teach my children not to be a victim.  Yes, the ex was avoiding his obligations and responsibilities, but I also wanted to show my children that I needed to work to make our life better, and not just eke out an existence.

Nearly 12 months on, we are thriving, toddler loves daycare, we are doing better financially, and the ex is still trying to avoid his responsibilities, but he cannot cripple me financially anymore.

I think it is wrong for parents to avoid or not pay child support, but I'll be damned if I let it ruin our lives.  If the ex can sleep at night, good for him.

ready2giveup
Dad4life - Terminated yes and lets look at the reasons women leave men. Physical, mental and emotional abuse, violence, unfaithfullness, controlling behaviour, inability to manage money and protecting children from violence and abuse - the list goes on.  Why men leave women - found someone younger, no longer finds wife attractive, lack of committment.

This is not about who can or cannot commit it is about the old Government's (consisiting of mostly men) who sided with the men's groups (NOT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN) and decided that the best interests of the children is that they receive less financial support and single mothered families are placed into poverty or stress and financial hardship so that many men can continue to not support their children adequately.

Best interests of the children NOT MEN - so hide in here and promote your propoganda till the cows come home  - enjoy your win while it lasts.

Explain to me how it is fair that my ex who never sees his children, who is very wealthy now pays less to support his children.  How is that in the best interests of his children???

Ex's pay - $110,000 per year minus $1000.00 a month child support (you do the math)  - Only needs housing and food for one person - never sees children so incurs no costs

My family plus 2 children - $18,000 (includes child support and centrelink payments) - Needs housing for 3 people plus food, clothing, toys plus taking to preschool and preschool fees, petrol, ETC ETC

EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS FAIR AND IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN?
solemother said
Dad4life - I do not need your "commiserations or understanding" because having my partner leave our toddler and me pregnant never to be seen again turned out to be a blessing… and as for dating, I don't recall stating that I wanted to date there is much more to life than finding a new man.

WHY do you assume men leaving women are a minority???? I would love you to pull the stats for me on how many men leave pregnant women or don't take responsibility for their children. Don't assume I am ignorant on the subject either, will be facinating to see which totally biased and wrong "Men's right's" group you pull your information from.

I would also love for you to introduce me to all the single father's who's incomes are less than the single mother's.. when men are not hiding their income or getting cash in hand to claim they get less. When you do that I will show you all the women I know who get $6 a week and under for their children while their ex's drive around in sports cars, then we can stand out the front of "DIDs", CRC or equal parenting and you can apologise to me, and the scores of women in person for your complete ignorance.

What on earth makes you think I am "self focused"… my whole life is dedicated to raising my children and helping single mother's, I do it all on my own with no support and I love being a full time mum, which should be a RIGHT for our children to be able to be raised by their mother and should be supported by society. Why should I lose my right to be a fulltime mother because HE decided to leave?

I'm afraid the "self focus" is dedicated to the selfish men who do not want to support their children and think more about their own needs and wants than their children's right to be raised by their actual family and to be financially supported.
 
Hi Solemother, Most divorces are instigated by women, there are government stats to back this up. The key word is divorce, that implies that they are talking about marriage only and not de facto. I do not know what the figures are for de facto. In family law we get to see the very worse in people, that can some times colour our opinions. Some people, like your self, have had very bad personal experiences.

I have seen very good single mothers and very bad single mothers. I have seen very good single fathers and very bad single fathers. No one sex has a monopoly on good or bad behaviour. I have seen single mothers put children through private schools, with no help from the father. I have seen fathers totally change their life to fit around the kids.

As for the 'right to be a full time mum; what exactly do you mean by this? You are a full time mum, regardless if you go to paid work or not, you do not stop being a full time mum, or dad for that matter. If you mean that you would like to stay at home with the children full time and not go in to paid work, well that is a different matter. Depending on the age of your children, you are expected to do some paid work. Both parents are obliged to provide for their children, in the real word.
As with all other matters in family law, there are fathers who will try and pay nothing, there are mothers who try and deny contact to protect their income, and there are parents who are not above using the children to mess with the other parent.

"I love being a full time mum, which should be a RIGHT for our children to be able to be raised by their mother and should be supported by society"  Should be a right, that children are supported by both parents.

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. 
Solemother said
What on earth makes you think I am "self focused"… my whole life is dedicated to raising my children and helping single mother's, I do it all on my own with no support and I love being a full time mum, which should be a RIGHT for our children to be able to be raised by their mother and should be supported by society.   Why should I lose my right to be a fulltime mother because HE decided to leave?

I think you are wrong, my understanding of the convention of human rights is that it says that children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents, or words to that effect, not that they have the right to a mother only. Society does support those children, taxes are put toward those children, as such every tax payer is supporting such children.

I'm not aware of any right to be a full-time mother, where is this right documented and signed etc? I do understand that here in Australia there is the right to assistance for being a single a parent on low income, by way of the parenting payment single as an example, however I believe that applies to father's as well as mothers. Furthermore this right has limitations as to when the children reach a certain age. As I understand it, that the right to the pension is reduced unless some of that "Full-Time" is relinquished, as society here in Australia deems it not the right of the parent to have this support in total for children over that age, without contributing to society.

If this right you speak of exists and is enshrined in Australian Law, perhaps you should seek legal action, as by paying any male/father such a pension would a contravention of the right that you speak of. Perhaps you should also seek legal action in regard to the payments not being ongoing for the entire time a child is a child, as that would also be against the right that you speak of.

You say you love being a full-time mother, but, with few exceptions, you appear to have primarily complained about the situation you are in. Which am I to believe the list of complaints or the statement you make to the contrary?

You mention focus, yet you mention YOUR right, when, as I understand, the right is that of the child and or children. Thus by saying that you have the right to be a fulltime-mother, when the right is that the children have the right to be supported by society, it is their right. In that sense then what you say is taking the focus from the children to yourself (i.e. self-focused), theft of the focus being on the children in other words.

Of course if this right you speak of does exist and is applicable here in Australia, then please accept my apologies for my ignorance on this matter and also accept my gratitude for you being the catalyst to my learning something.
MikeT - Please reread all my comments and try to get your head around my comments.  Just letting you know I have read and not bothered to reply to your incoherent thoughts or suggestions.  When you choose to read my comments properly and understand the words like they are implied, I will bother with further comment.
Nxus is unable to reply but has asked me to post this on his behalf.
 
Nxus said
Just completed the math… ex pays $12,000 a year for CS. You get in $18,000 inc Centrelink: So by doing the maths this equates to you earning less than $1000.00 per year outside $12,000 CS and $5,000 Centrelink (total $17,000)…. unlike the "avoiders" on $6 a month that you identify it appears your ex is paying CS at a proportioned rate.
 
Taking into consideration that CS if for your children… at ABS figures of around $5000.00 per year then I would state that your ex is meeting his commitment to the kids and in fact your argument on here is that he is not supporting your financial needs.
 
I note that you have a car, your kids are in preschool (9-3pm) and that you don't seem to indicate that you have any work either part-time or full-time… Yes you may be a full time mother but can you explain what you do between 9-3pm. You freely admit that your ex pays $1000 a month CS - Can you explain what the $1000 a month paid by your ex goes toward? Because everything that I am reading seems to state what YOU are missing out on… Clothes, hair, nights out etc.. etc…
 
Based on the figures you have provided I would hazard a guess that your rent is subsidised, you child care is subsidised and your health care is subsidised and unfortunately this is not because your ex pays minimal CS it is because you DO NOT work.
 
I also note that you seem to attribute the total bills that YOU incur to your ex. CS should be providing for your children's PROPORTION (%) of the rent, food, travel, school, health, entertainment and clothing and if you are trying to state that this costs you in excess of $12000 a year one might suggest a "budget".
 
If one takes into consideration the fact that your Capacity to Earn… being based on the minimum wage (based on a 25 hr/week casual job - to enable you to still pick up the kids etc. etc.) would be around the figure of $25,000 per annum. this would increase your household budget to near $42,000 per annum.
 
Would this alleviate your financial stress? In some small way I would guess that it would and like Artemis has stated you would feel better for the effort you put in.
 
We all understand that you are new to this site and possibly new to the situation, but based on your posts on here I have gathered from the tone, that as you have stated " Physical, mental and emotional abuse, violence, unfaithfulness, controlling behaviour, inability to manage money  "  may have been in fact the reason for your breakup - but it may not have been the ex that perpetrated the offence that led to the breakup.
 
Go back and read your posts and see the anger, we understand you are hurt and we understand that you are venting - but people don't deserve to be attacked because your view of your ex now encompasses ALL men.
 
Yes mens groups have received a voice and some wins in the fight for fairness, prior to that it was all favoured toward women's groups and in a lot of cases groups that thought child support SHOULD include a component that included spousal support.
 
But from what I read you were not here prior to 3 years ago when it was ALL operating in the other direction. I would suggest you talk to the families of some of the men who have taken their own lives, some of the men who fight daily to see their kids, some of the grandparents who have been totally removed from a child life due to bitterness and hostility - every one has a song to sing, and the songs are all different.

Mike would like to add the following

I have run the CS calculations and I see an anomaly in that if the formula is being applied a taxable income of $110,000 does not equate to $1000 per month child support for two under 13 children with 0 nights contact.

Using 2007 figures the taxable income to achieve this comes in at $68,400.

If he did have a taxable income of $110,000 he would be paying $1671.67 per month ($20000 p.a.).

However if you have an income then your taxable income would have to be $115,650, when his is $110,000, for his payments to drop down to $1000 per month.

Solemother I've done the maths as asked and the conclusion is quite obvious either my calculations and also the csa's calculations are wrong (I've double checked mine with the CSA's estimator) or the full truth is not being told by yourself.

(p.s. if anyone is cross checking these figures using the CSA's estimator, it doesn't appear to allow you to specify the year so the calculations will be out by a little e.g. the $111000 & $115650 comes in at $1052 per month (1051.50 using the calculators on here)).

Last edit: by MikeT

Blaming the victims

solemother said
Terminated yes and lets look at the reasons women leave men. Physical, mental and emotional abuse, violence, unfaithfullness, controlling behaviour, inability to manage money and protecting children from violence and abuse - the list goes on.  Why men leave women - found someone younger, no longer finds wife attractive, lack of committment.
You have very biased views solemother.

And you are blaming the victims (the deserted and evicted innocent and loving fathers).
All the men commenting in here have "selective reading" and obviously see what they want to see.. so my comments will end at this.

Taking money away from our family (I should have said we are now $400.00 less a month that original figure quoted) is not fair on my children.

Father chooses to not be in their life at all and takes no responsibility and is not held accountable by anyone, yet supported to now pay less for his chidlren

I NEVER said fathers did not have the right to be cared for by both parents (please reread all my comments as this was NEVER stated) I would in fact love father to take responsibility and be in their lives, but he chooses to move and never be in contact HIS CHOICE.

This is about the Government and the selfish men who decided that my children should now do with less for no reason at all and now my baby has to go without her mummy part time so I can support her better which is unfair on my baby who deserves the RIGHT to be raised by the only parent that is in her life!  and I deserve the right to be at home with my child and raise her, just as she deserves the right to have me at home with her if that is what I chose and I will fight you all till the end to have that right respected.

You view points are selfish and biased and all about you and NONE of you mention the children other than when you blab about your right to be in their lives which is not even an argument I am bringing up.

Hope you all sleep well at night knowing children now go with less, sole mothers who live without the fathers in their lives (BY THE "FATHERS" CHOICE) are no under more stress, which of course children pick up on..

But I don't expect men to see the sense yet pick through what I have said and drag out what they want, just as I suspected you all would.

I look forward to voicing my opinions more and more.

Do you need help?

How old are your children? I am not too sure of what age they are from your posts. You should qualify for very low cost child care(daycare), if you so feel inclined to take advantage of it. Day care is now seen as an advantage for children, and helps them develop their play and social skills.

From your posts so far, you come across as very angry and bitter about your situation. I have had a mental nurse (female & single mother) look at your posts, she is very worried about you. She asks if you have been to your doctor about depression? If not please go and speak to  them. There is no shame in seeking help from the doctor. My friend also said that calling lifeline for a chat might be beneficial. You do NOT have to be suicidal to call lifeline, many people just call to talk with some one.

Also try a web site called PRISMS, it is for single mums - it is trying to be more than a venting site, and is trying to offer help to single mums. There is another single mums site run by Fairfax Media; I think you can find it via the SMH web site.

Above all seek help, my nurse friend is very concerned about your health.





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. 
Nxus has again asked that I post on his behalf :-

Nxus said
"All the men commenting in here have "selective reading" and obviously see what they want to see"  Nooooo!! - No one is misreading your comments have a read through this and take note of all the quotes you have made….  

You are stating your case very plainly and simply… BUT on this site no one is stating that your right to complain should be diminished, but people are stating that you anger will consume you and  your grasp of the situation is tainted by "your situation" and "what YOU are going through".

I like others have read your comments and understand them very well……. Been there done that, had ex's with exactly the same view point as you have (or worse)……….But I can probably assure you that there is no one on this site that fits the model you paint of your ex…. Most of the men on here have been removed from their kids lives, restricted in contact, driven to the wall by ex's who have in some way the same viewpoint as you…..

But we understand that if we calm down, speak a little nicer and respect others point of view before launching into a tirade of gender/government bashing, then we get to see all sides of the coin and we can accept the help of other more openly…

My only fear is that some of your previous comments have come from the latest meeting of the "sisterhood" which has told you that it's the best way to get noticed - or you are on a slam campaign to destabilize efforts such as the FLWG - because it represents both sides of "great divide" and the numbers on your side are dwindling (or the other side is getting stronger) - I strongly assume that you belong to some form or women's lobby/support/networking group…or maybe its a more select "group" - have you joined the 'inner sanctum' yet?

The ideology that society should support you because of your decision to have children and not work or your decision NOT TO CONTRIBUTE is laughable. So you actually think that you sitting on your rumpus between 9-3 should be your right!!!!!!

And you seriously believe that you should be supported by society to sit and do nothing? Talk about the world owing you a favour! Somehow I think that it is you that is living in fantasy land.

Well I think it is my right too based on the fact that I am male and I have ummm nice hair - there! that'll do….as do 21,389,814 other Australians…. Ok so where are we now, no one works, no one pays tax we all sit and watch TV, except there is no TV cause the actors don't work, the cameramen don't work… there's no electricity, no water….. get the picture. Everyone working in unison for the betterment of the populous = SOCIETY.. Except for you of course - because you are "special"….

I don't know if you have taken any notice over the past few years, but society not overly proud of the "stay at home single mum" and isn't really willing to support them either… and you can thank your "have a kid coz' I'll get 5 grand from the baby bonus" sisters for that one.  Welcome to the new millennium where cost of living is outstripping earning capacity and (as it has been for the past 20 odd years) both parents need to earn money to live…

The song you are singing - "I am a single mum, and I got dumped and I have kids and  I should be able to pop the kids into free government sponsored day care, sit on my but all day, smoke, go to club and play the pokies (see we can all stereotype) - is getting old. You get by far more respect if you were singing…. "I am a mother, and I get up every day to enhance the lives of my children and I do everything I can to ensure that ALL their needs are met, they are healthy, happy, warm and loved. And I am doing it by myself"

In part I can understand why your ex may have issue paying YOU child support. So far all you have identified that :

you don't work (because you have not actually mentioned any paid work you do),
you don't want to work,
you are bitter and angry,
you are self focused,
you want more so you can do less,
its all about what YOU are missing out on - go back and read your posts you yourself make very little reference to your kids - and you accuse others of being all about them
when you do make comment, you exaggerate "the impact" on your kids - paper bags etc. etc. but you don't focus on it, you always head back to you and your needs….
and its all about ME ME ME! —- you talk about standing in front of DIDS and expecting an apology…..for what!!!!
 
I for one will happily apologise to all those mothers who have kids (especially those with sick kids) who struggle to cope  with 2 or 3 jobs, get no support from the ex who can clearly pay to help more, fight for every cent of FTB A and FTB, run a household with the 2 or 3 spare hours they have in a day - do all this and still have time to smile (even if only briefly - because they know its all for the kids) …. Then I am proud to say SORRY!….. But you don't want my apology do you? Because I am male - you want MY HEAD/Other bits!!!

But to someone who gets CS, expects more government handouts, more from the ex who clearly pays, someone who sits around all day, does nothing, doesn't even attempt to work especially with the kids at school (as you have stated 'preschool') - I WILL NEVER APOLOGISE…

Start contributing to society and EARN the respect of society… If you feel so bad for the quote: "the scores of women….and all the women I know who get $6 a week and under for their children while their ex's drive around in sports cars" - then how about this… get a job and support your kids, take the $1000 a month you get from the ex….and find 20 women who get very little and give them $50 each a month….

Would you do this… heck No! Because it's YOUR money!!!

quote "Why should I lose my right to be a fulltime mother because HE decided to leave" —- umm because you have a duty to contribute, better yourself, give your kids a role model to look up to, your kids deserve better than "paper bags" and a mother that is not angry all the time - maybe your focus on assisting single mothers is deviating you from your duty to care for your kids? (and don't go into the normal - "don't you tell me how to care for my kids" act - because you have clearly identified that you have no intention of financially contributing to their well being through personal exertion)

I don't see anything about what you are doing to better yourself (with the exception of improving your typing skills on this site) that contributes to the best interest of your children… it all seems to be about what your ex needs to do, or society needs to do to FIX YOUR problems…. quote:"he left me in this situation" ***tear, sob***… maybe your anger left you in this situation - where you will sit until you step outside yourself and really visualize this from your kids perspective.

You talk about quote: "why men leave" well there is a large contingent that have gotten sick and tired of FIXING your problems while you sit on the couch - or possibly their new girlfriends actually had higher aspirations other than to make deeper dents in the sofa cushions and go on the game shows as Blacktown's expert on the "The Bold and the Beautiful" ….

I think you need to take a serious look at the "humorous" page on this site and see what such a high level of bitterness can lead to, when you look at them do you sit there screaming " you go girl! " and contemplating what you can do to your ex's car/boat/house/relationship.. to make him PAY!!!!!

quote: "I NEVER said fathers did not have the right to be cared for by both parents (please reread all my comments as this was NEVER stated) I would in fact love father to take responsibility and be in their lives, but he chooses to move and never be in contact HIS CHOICE." —–reread over and over——— Well in fact - you sort of did, people on this site have heard it from their own ex's etc - "raised by their actual family" - its comes across that you believe that your ex is not a real father and therefore not a part of their REAL "family" - so what support do you expect to get from him….??

 From the quoted statement I would gather that EVEN if he DID want to be part of their lives and contribute/assist that you would accuse him of not being in the kids "family" and you would make it hard for him to play an active part in their lives….. so again I ask why should he put any effort into placating your anger?

Using words like actual family  or "My family plus 2 children" does not support any claim that you want the father to "be in their lives"….. this is not selective reading - this is interpretation of your comments and all one can interpret is that you want rid of him, but you still want the money…..and ALL MEN are to blame for it.

Is this statement quote: "raised by their actual family" what you are going to tell your kids when they are old enough to understand?

quote: "You view points are selfish and biased and all about you and NONE of you mention the children" - the forum is about CS issues…. Family and childrens issues are well documented in other forums on the site.

I do feel sorry for the fact that you were alone when you were pregnant, but my beef here is about your attitude toward society paying for you to stay at home, and the fact that despite receiving CS, you seem to advocate some alliance with mothers who get nothing, but still do everything they can to give their kids a life and better themselves despite all the odds and adversities…

You talk about the mothers getting $6 a week while the ex drives sports cars - but don't you DARE for a second think you have the right to place yourself in the same barrel as mothers who are actually doing it tough, working, contributing and making it happen  ….

"my whole life is dedicated to raising my children and helping single mother's" - Rubbish! Your whole life is dedicated to YOU, your anger and the God of Bitterness and Revenge… - quote: "under more stress, which of course children pick up on" somehow I think your kids might pick up on YOUR "anger" before they see any "stress". How you choose to release the stress is what the kids will pick up on first…Stress is an internal emotion - anger is a release mechanism.

There are 5 stages to this process… fear, denial, anger, revenge and acceptance…. You will reach the 5th stage one day, but when is up to you - how long you spend at each stage is also up to you… Monti is right you should seek help to move through the stages.

And now you will come back with the standard rhetoric and slam my post, and bag men out more and rant about how I not understanding your posts and how everyone's against you and how you are downtrodden and how you are oppressed because you're a single mum doing it tough…yada, yada, yada.

Prove that you are a single mother…..go look after your kids… quote: "I look forward to voicing my opinions more and more." Somehow I think you live for it….Get over your anger and give them a reason to be proud of you.  

Artemis tag line sums it up nicely for you…
 **Happiness comes when your work and words are of benefit to yourself and others. - Buddha

End of the line

Gentlemen and ladies, I think it is best, that this topic comes to an end. No more posts please; it is turning in to a polemic.



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. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets