# Mother or Beast (or Whatever) - Calculator that is!

### The Alpha testing version of the Advanced CS Calculator. Want to do some testing? ... then test away the new beta advanced version.

The Mother of All CS Calculators or should it the Beast of all Calculators is available for Alpha testing.

I've been a little silent with regard to the CS calculator recently, primarily because, I realised a few weeks or so ago, that the current method I was using was the wrong way. Anyway I been busy rewriting the advanced calculator and I've got to the stage where I think it can cope with all scenarios, with the exception of special circumstances which come under the wand of the registrar and unfortunately I'm at a loss as to how to determine how the quivering hand behind the wand moves (JP perhaps you can explain those wandlebroot(sic) formulas).

What I am asking for now is help in checking the calculator for accuracy and suggesting improvements with regard to usability/user friendliness.

It's not the easiest thing on earth to use, primarily because of what it has to do. So here's a scenario, perhaps ridiculous, that I can hopefully explain some of the options (primarily the relationship between an adult and a child, and what adults to include).

When the calculator is first started, it allows for the input of 2 adults. Error messages will also be displayed indicating that you need to specify data (2 sets of 3 messages, these will go after the data is input and the continue button clicked).

For this scenario we need to specify 4 adults;

John's ATI is $50000.

Mary's ATI is $26000.

To add the other adults, you need to click on the Add Another Adult? Checkbox (so a tick appears) and then click continue to add another adult.

Greg's ATI is 0 (if you input anything else it will be ignored by the calculations).

Emily's ATI is $43000.

When you have input at least two adults name and ATI and they pass the error checking, you will see that input for the children can be done. However initially concentrate on getting all the adults (adults can be added later but you then also have to amend the relationship between the child and the new adult for every child)

The Child's name should be easy, Trevor for the first. If the child is 13 or over then you tick the checkbox (like adding another adult above). In this scenario none of the children is 13 or over (I'm too lazy to click them).

For each adult there are two fields that need to be specified, the relationship to the child and the nights care. Note that the relationship is in regard to CS.

For Trevor :-

John is a parent and he has 66 nights care.

Mary is also a parent and has 299 nights care.

Greg is classed as an Other (not a parent or a non-parent carer)

Emily again is an Other.

If you enter the above and click continue, the calculator will work out the CS, however we don't want that (although if you're interested in how changes affect the CS, you can build the final case and review the results of the partially build case), we want to add another child, so as with the adults click on the Add Another Child? Checkbox.

For Emma :-

John is a parent with 33 nights care.

Mary is a parent with 33 nights care.

Greg (representing both Grandparents), has the remaining 299 nights care, and is a non-parent care so Carer is selected from the drop down list.

Emily like previously has no CS relationship and thus is Other.

For Lisa :-

John is a parent with 320 nights care.

Mary is a parent with the remaining 45 nights care.

Greg has no care so is again Other.

Emily, yet again, is Other.

For Larry :-

John is not a parent or carer and thus Other is used.

Mary is a parent and has 365 nights care.

Greg has no care so is Other.

Emily has no CS relationship so is Other.

As Mary is the only relevant parent, Larry is therefore classed as a relevant dependant child or Other child (Harold likewise).

For Harold :-

John is not a parent or carer and thus Other is used.

Mary is a parent and has 365 nights care.

Greg has no care so is Other.

Emily has no CS relationship so is Other.

For Henry :-

John is a parent with 128 nights care.

Mary has no CS relationship so is Other.

Greg has no CS relationship so is Other.

Emily finally comes into play and is a parent with 237 nights care.

For Zoe :-

John is a parent with 237 nights care.

Mary has no CS relationship so is Other.

Greg has no CS relationship so is Other.

Emily gets to bat again and is a parent with 128 nights care.

Note that the order of the adults or children should not matter at all.

When all is input correct and you click on continue you should get the results.

The above scenario yields the following (yep it's not at all well presented as yet, sorry but I'm going to start working on that):

The output above shows that 2 Cases have been processed. The first is for the children of the John/Mary relationship. The second is for the children of the John/Emily relationship.

You may notice the absence of any mention about Larry and Harold, that's because they are Relevant Dependant Children.

In the first Case, which is relatively complex as it includes a number of the more complex issues. It includes multiple recipients, non-parent carer (Greg), mixed care amounts, split care (John pays for Trevor, whilst Mary pays for Lisa), multi-case (due to John's case with Emily) and Relevant Dependant Children.

Try out your own scenario or any you are aware of. If it can be done using the CSA estimator, then compare results and say whether the results match. If you have received your new legislation assessment compare and say if the results match or not.

Make up your own scenarios and try to find bugs.

Make suggestions for improvements.

Here's the links:

The Alpha Testing Version of the new Advanced Calculator

CSA Estimator

Best Wishes, Mike.

I've been a little silent with regard to the CS calculator recently, primarily because, I realised a few weeks or so ago, that the current method I was using was the wrong way. Anyway I been busy rewriting the advanced calculator and I've got to the stage where I think it can cope with all scenarios, with the exception of special circumstances which come under the wand of the registrar and unfortunately I'm at a loss as to how to determine how the quivering hand behind the wand moves (JP perhaps you can explain those wandlebroot(sic) formulas).

What I am asking for now is help in checking the calculator for accuracy and suggesting improvements with regard to usability/user friendliness.

It's not the easiest thing on earth to use, primarily because of what it has to do. So here's a scenario, perhaps ridiculous, that I can hopefully explain some of the options (primarily the relationship between an adult and a child, and what adults to include).

## The Scenario said

The scenario is John and Mary have separated. John has an ATI of $50000, Mary has an ATI of $26000. They have three children from this relationship, Trevor, Emma and Lisa.

Trevor is in Johns care for 66 nights per year and lives with Mary for the other 299 nights.

Emma lives with her Grandparents, her grandfather is Greg, for 299 nights of the year and with her Dad, John for 33 nights and with her Mum Mary for the remaining 33 nights.

Lisa lives with her Dad, John, for 320 nights of the year and with her Mum, Mary for the remaining 45 nights per year

Mary is in another relationship since the separation and has two children from that relationship, Larry and Harold who live with her and her new partner all the time.

John. also entered into a new relationship with Emily, but they have also separated. There were two children from this relationship, Henry and Zoe.

Emily has an ATI of $43000.

Henry, lives with John for 128 nights of the year and with Emily for the remaining 237 nights.

Zoe lives with John for 237 nights and with Emily for the remaining 128 nights.

## Notes said

Notes

As John's relationship with Emily has ended and there are children John has multiple child support cases and as such multi-case allowances and mutli-case capping are relevant.

As Emma is in the care of her Grandparents, then non-parent carer calculations are introduced.

As John and Mary have primary care of at least one child each, the Split Care calculations are involved. The same applies to John and Emily.

As care levels differ then mixed care level calculations also come into play.

**Let's Get Started.**When the calculator is first started, it allows for the input of 2 adults. Error messages will also be displayed indicating that you need to specify data (2 sets of 3 messages, these will go after the data is input and the continue button clicked).

For this scenario we need to specify 4 adults;

**John**,**Mary**,**Greg**and**Emily**.John's ATI is $50000.

Mary's ATI is $26000.

To add the other adults, you need to click on the Add Another Adult? Checkbox (so a tick appears) and then click continue to add another adult.

Greg's ATI is 0 (if you input anything else it will be ignored by the calculations).

Emily's ATI is $43000.

When you have input at least two adults name and ATI and they pass the error checking, you will see that input for the children can be done. However initially concentrate on getting all the adults (adults can be added later but you then also have to amend the relationship between the child and the new adult for every child)

*That's the first bit over which was quite easy. Adding children is a little more complicated. So lets take them one at a time.*The Child's name should be easy, Trevor for the first. If the child is 13 or over then you tick the checkbox (like adding another adult above). In this scenario none of the children is 13 or over (I'm too lazy to click them).

For each adult there are two fields that need to be specified, the relationship to the child and the nights care. Note that the relationship is in regard to CS.

For Trevor :-

John is a parent and he has 66 nights care.

Mary is also a parent and has 299 nights care.

Greg is classed as an Other (not a parent or a non-parent carer)

Emily again is an Other.

If you enter the above and click continue, the calculator will work out the CS, however we don't want that (although if you're interested in how changes affect the CS, you can build the final case and review the results of the partially build case), we want to add another child, so as with the adults click on the Add Another Child? Checkbox.

For Emma :-

John is a parent with 33 nights care.

Mary is a parent with 33 nights care.

Greg (representing both Grandparents), has the remaining 299 nights care, and is a non-parent care so Carer is selected from the drop down list.

Emily like previously has no CS relationship and thus is Other.

For Lisa :-

John is a parent with 320 nights care.

Mary is a parent with the remaining 45 nights care.

Greg has no care so is again Other.

Emily, yet again, is Other.

For Larry :-

John is not a parent or carer and thus Other is used.

Mary is a parent and has 365 nights care.

Greg has no care so is Other.

Emily has no CS relationship so is Other.

As Mary is the only relevant parent, Larry is therefore classed as a relevant dependant child or Other child (Harold likewise).

For Harold :-

John is not a parent or carer and thus Other is used.

Mary is a parent and has 365 nights care.

Greg has no care so is Other.

Emily has no CS relationship so is Other.

For Henry :-

John is a parent with 128 nights care.

Mary has no CS relationship so is Other.

Greg has no CS relationship so is Other.

Emily finally comes into play and is a parent with 237 nights care.

For Zoe :-

John is a parent with 237 nights care.

Mary has no CS relationship so is Other.

Greg has no CS relationship so is Other.

Emily gets to bat again and is a parent with 128 nights care.

Note that the order of the adults or children should not matter at all.

When all is input correct and you click on continue you should get the results.

The above scenario yields the following (yep it's not at all well presented as yet, sorry but I'm going to start working on that):

There will also be a lot of gumpf below the continue button, this is for debugging, but if you wish to inspect it you'll see the results of various calculations and things.Case 1 of 2

Child=Trevor

For Trevor John pays a total of $1297

$1297 to Mary.

Child=Emma

For Emma John pays a total of $1706

$1706 to Greg.

For Emma Mary pays a total of $526

$526 to Greg.

Child=Lisa

For Lisa Mary pays a total of $526

$526 to John.

John pays a total of $771 to Mary.

John pays a total of $3003 and gets a total of $526 effective overall CS liability for this case=$2477

Mary pays a total of $1052 and gets a total of $1297 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-245

Greg pays a total of $0 and gets a total of $2232 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-2232

Case 2 of 2

Child=Henry

For Henry John pays a total of $1280

$1280 to Emily.

Child=Zoe

For Zoe Emily pays a total of $1401

$1401 to John.

Emily pays a total of $121 to John.

John pays a total of $1280 and gets a total of $1401 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-121

Emily pays a total of $1401 and gets a total of $1280 effective overall CS liability for this case=$121

The output above shows that 2 Cases have been processed. The first is for the children of the John/Mary relationship. The second is for the children of the John/Emily relationship.

You may notice the absence of any mention about Larry and Harold, that's because they are Relevant Dependant Children.

In the first Case, which is relatively complex as it includes a number of the more complex issues. It includes multiple recipients, non-parent carer (Greg), mixed care amounts, split care (John pays for Trevor, whilst Mary pays for Lisa), multi-case (due to John's case with Emily) and Relevant Dependant Children.

**So how can you help?**Try out your own scenario or any you are aware of. If it can be done using the CSA estimator, then compare results and say whether the results match. If you have received your new legislation assessment compare and say if the results match or not.

Make up your own scenarios and try to find bugs.

Make suggestions for improvements.

Here's the links:

The Alpha Testing Version of the new Advanced Calculator

CSA Estimator

Best Wishes, Mike.

Platinium Member

I have 4 children, aged 11, 14, 15 & 17. One child of the relationship (kid 3) lives with my ex, 1 child from a prior relationship (kid 1) also with my ex. Two children of the relationship live with me (aged 11 & 15). I have kid 1 0 days per year and kid 3 63 nights per year.

Assessment till June 2008 via your calculator means I pay $1188 per year for Kid 1 and $903 for Kid 2. CSA assessment is $696 for Kid 1 and doesn't take into account kid 3 due to being of the relationship.

Assessment after June 2008 is for me to pay my ex $2153 for kid 1 (big increase) and $0 for kid 3.

Taking the son out of the equation when he turns 18 (or now as he has left home) then changes the CSA assessment to the ex paying me $1528

Your assessor had the following (bear in mind kids 2 and 4 live with me)

Case 1 of 2

Child= kid 2

For kid 2 Jadzia pays a total of $1583

$1583 to Ex.

Jadzia pays a total of $1583 to ex.

Jadzia pays a total of $1583 and gets a total of $0 effective overall CS liability for this case=$1583

ex pays a total of $0 and gets a total of $1583 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-1583

Case 2 of 2

Child=kid 3

Child=kid 4

For kid 4 Jadzia pays a total of $1015

$1015 to ex.

Jadzia pays a total of $1015 to ex

Jadzia pays a total of $1015 and gets a total of $0 effective overall CS liability for this case=$1015

ex pays a total of $0 and gets a total of $1015 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-1015

Assessment till June 2008 via your calculator means I pay $1188 per year for Kid 1 and $903 for Kid 2. CSA assessment is $696 for Kid 1 and doesn't take into account kid 3 due to being of the relationship.

Assessment after June 2008 is for me to pay my ex $2153 for kid 1 (big increase) and $0 for kid 3.

Taking the son out of the equation when he turns 18 (or now as he has left home) then changes the CSA assessment to the ex paying me $1528

Your assessor had the following (bear in mind kids 2 and 4 live with me)

Case 1 of 2

Child= kid 2

For kid 2 Jadzia pays a total of $1583

$1583 to Ex.

Jadzia pays a total of $1583 to ex.

Jadzia pays a total of $1583 and gets a total of $0 effective overall CS liability for this case=$1583

ex pays a total of $0 and gets a total of $1583 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-1583

Case 2 of 2

Child=kid 3

Child=kid 4

For kid 4 Jadzia pays a total of $1015

$1015 to ex.

Jadzia pays a total of $1015 to ex

Jadzia pays a total of $1015 and gets a total of $0 effective overall CS liability for this case=$1015

ex pays a total of $0 and gets a total of $1015 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-1015

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.

I must say I'm a little confused. First thing the calculator won't work for pre July2008, it's only for the new legislation (the calculations are vastly different). I think by kids 1-4 you mean in birth order (C1=17, C2=15 and so on). It also appears that you have two ex's. I'll call them X1 and X2. My interpretation is that;X1 has full care of the 17 year old (who'll be 18, I can't remember the rule with regard to 18 year olds, but pretty sure that as he's left home there will be no liability to X1, so X1 can come out of the equation, unless a non-parent carer is claiming CS). So :-

I see that you have 2 cases. I don't think that should be. What I think is that you should have 2 adults. Yourself and X2.

For C2 (15 year old) you are a parent and have 365 nights care. X2 is a parent and has 0 nights care.

For C3 (14 year old) you are a parent and have 63 nights care. X2 is a parent and has 302 nights care.

For C4 (11 year old) you are a parent and have 365 nights care. X2 is a parent and has 0 nights care.

I can't guess the taxable incomes. Actually I don't think that it can be, i.e. you got 2 cases, also if you've got over 65% care of a child you will never pay CS for that child. Having a second case will make drastic changes, as you then get a multi-case allowance and a multi-case cap may also be applied.

Running with what I've proposed above with yourself with an ATI of $40000 and X2 with $15000 (I've assumed for some reason, perhaps other posts, that X2 doesn't work, doesn't matter what the actual amount is, if it's below 18252). I get :-

Case 1 of 1

Child=C1

Child=C2

For C2 J pays a total of $1626

$1626 to X2.

Child=C3

J pays a total of $1626 to X2.

J pays a total of $1626 and gets a total of $0 effective overall CS liability for this case=$1626

X2 pays a total of $0 and gets a total of $1626 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-1626

From this as nothing follows Child=C1 (same for Child=C3) there is no CS going either way for C1 or C3 (i.e. X2 would likely pay you due to care levels, however X2 has 0 child support income and thus will not pay (I've not done minimum payment stuff, I need to jot that down as a to do), you'd not pay as you have over 65% care). So only C2 comes into play with regard to CS payments.

Thanks for taking the time to run your scenario through. Did you find it easy/difficult to use? Did you play with things I didn't explain, like turning the section tips of. Oh the Show Details does nothing at present, but later on, if ticked it will do as it says and show more detail (intermediate calculations) (I toying on adding a few more to allow selection of different types of details).

Platinium Member

Actually the natural father of c1 has nothing to do with us, and it is x2 who had c1 live with him. That makes it case 1 - as he is not the natural father of c1. Case 2 involves the 3 children from the marriage, one lives with him and 2 with me.

CSA incomes are - $33k for me and $28k for him.

I had two adults and I put in 63 nights for C3 for me and 302 for C2 & C4. I then had 302 nights for him for C3 and 63 for C2 & C4.

I have an assessment post July 2008 that includes C1 as he hadn't left home at that stage which stated I pay $2153 for C1 but nothing for C3. After he turns 18 they also have assessed that X2 then pays me $1528

Yes it was very easy to run through. I'll give it another go tonight and play more with it - working today

CSA incomes are - $33k for me and $28k for him.

I had two adults and I put in 63 nights for C3 for me and 302 for C2 & C4. I then had 302 nights for him for C3 and 63 for C2 & C4.

I have an assessment post July 2008 that includes C1 as he hadn't left home at that stage which stated I pay $2153 for C1 but nothing for C3. After he turns 18 they also have assessed that X2 then pays me $1528

Yes it was very easy to run through. I'll give it another go tonight and play more with it - working today

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.

I think I understand better. You and X1 had 1 child (C1 17 year old 18 in June) and then separated, C1 has since left home and will be 18 by the time the new assessment take affect. You then had a relationship with X2 and had 3 children (C2-C4) and then separated. You have 302 nights care of C2 and C4, X2 having the remaining 63 nights. Whilst X2 has care of C3 for 302 nights and you have the remaining 63 nights. C2 and C3 are teens, whilst C4 is a minor (under 13).

I really don't see any need for C1 to be included (unless they implement the end of schooling thinggy, although I believe leaving home is/was a terminating event) and thus X1 to be included.

So I think it's a Split Care scenario. With two adults and three children.

I've input :-

J with $33000

X2 with $28000

C2 as a teen with J as a parent having 302 nights and X2 as a parent having 63 nights.

C3 as a teen with J as a parent having 63 nights and X2 as a parent having 302 nights.

C4 as a minor with J as a parent having 302 nights and X2 as a parent having 63 nights.

It comes up with :-

Case 1 of 1

Child=C2

For C2 X2 pays a total of $380

$380 to J.

Child=C3

For C3 J pays a total of $872

$872 to X2.

Child=C4

For C4 X2 pays a total of $380

$380 to J.

J pays a total of $112 to X2.

J pays a total of $872 and gets a total of $760 effective overall CS liability for this case=$112

X2 pays a total of $760 and gets a total of $872 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-112

Going through it manually.

J's ATI=33000. Less the MTAWE (18252)=$14748. No Relevant Dependant Children and just single case (no Multi-case alowance/cap), so Child support income=$14748.

X2's ATI=28000. Less MTAWE (18252) =$9748. No Relevant Dependant Children and just single case (no Multi-case alowance/cap), so Child support income=$9748.

This a combined CS income of $24496.

J's Cost percentage (i.e. percentage of the Child Support Income) is 60.21, whilst X2's Cost Percentage is 39.79.

3 children of mixed ages, thus cost of children = 29.5 cents for each $ of CS income =$7226

Cost of each child is $2408.

For C2 (C4 is the same) J has a Child Support percentage of 76% for the 302 nights care (X2 has 24%).

For J subtract 76 from 60.21 = -15.79, thus being negative J's Cost for this child is $0.

For X2 subtract 24 from 39.70 = 15.79. 15.79% of 2408=$308 (i.e for C2 and C4 X2 pays $308).

For C3 J has a Child support percentage of 24% (X2 has 76%).

For J subtract 24 from from 60.21 = 36.21. 36.21% of 2408=$872

For X2 subtract 76 from 39.70 = -36.30, which is negative thus X2's Cost is 0.

J has to pay X2 872, however X2 has to pay J 380 * 2 = $760, thus reducing the payment from J to X2 to $112 per annum.

*I might have the split care method wrong. I could be that the two sub cases are treated completely sepately. i.e work out J's payment based upon cost of 1 teen and X2's based upon a mix of 2. Another note to myself to check this out if I can.*

I would personally be getting the CSA to explain, in detail and in writing how they have come to the asessment(s) that they have for your situation.

Assuming that the two cases should be split (i.e. one case being that J has two children for which X2 pays one a minor the other a teen, and the other case being that X2 has the one teen for which J pays) then :-

We have 4 adults J and X2 and J-Case2 and X2-Case2

Still only 3 kids C2-C4

C2 a teen with J as Parent with 302 nights, X2 as parent with 63 nights (J-Case2 and X2-Case2 as other with 0 nights)

C3 a teen with J-Case2 as parent with 63 nights, X2-Case2 as parent with 302 nights (J and X2 as other with 0 nights)

Then :-

Case 1 of 2

Child=C2

For C2 X2 pays a total of $513

$513 to J.

Child=C4

For C4 X2 pays a total of $513

$513 to J.

X2 pays a total of $1026 to J.

J pays a total of $0 and gets a total of $1026 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-1026

X2 pays a total of $1026 and gets a total of $0 effective overall CS liability for this case=$1026

Case 2 of 2

Child=C3

For C3 J-Case2 pays a total of $2040

$2040 to X2-Case2.

J-Case2 pays a total of $2040 to X2-Case2.

J-Case2 pays a total of $2040 and gets a total of $0 effective overall CS liability for this case=$2040

X2-Case2 pays a total of $0 and gets a total of $2040 effective overall CS liability for this case=$-2040

Which would equate to J paying X2 $1014.

Platinium Member

Thanks MikeT.

Secretary_SPCA is looking at it for me however I figured that the actual figures from a recent assessment compared to your calculator would be invaluable to you so gave you the above figures.

When I rang CSA the first time about it they couldn't figure out how it was done and were going to escalate it to tech support however since then the ex has agreed to sign an agreement of no payments for either of us. We swap kids in a couple of weeks so I hope he is still happy to sign it then!

Secretary_SPCA is looking at it for me however I figured that the actual figures from a recent assessment compared to your calculator would be invaluable to you so gave you the above figures.

When I rang CSA the first time about it they couldn't figure out how it was done and were going to escalate it to tech support however since then the ex has agreed to sign an agreement of no payments for either of us. We swap kids in a couple of weeks so I hope he is still happy to sign it then!

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.

### Major Changes to the Advanced Child Support Calculator

I've been working on the output & display of the results for the advanced calculator and a new version is now available here The Advanced Calculator

I'd greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions on the look and content of the output. It may well appear a little squashed width wise, this is due to the restrictions when and if it's incorporated into the website. Due to the nature of the calculations possible, which is all types that I'm aware of, the output for simpler calculations may appear to be repetitive.

I've included a warning when it encounters a split-care scenario (both parents have primary care of a child), as I'm unsure how this should actually be done. It currently calculates split-care by determining the cost of all children, whilst I suspect that what should be done, is that the calculations should be done as if the two are separate cases. I suspect this because in the recommendations it has the following :-

Any comments, suggestions that could help resolve this would be welcome.

The calculator currently doesn't warn about, detect or calculate minimum payments at present. Nor does it currently provide the FTB notes/hints. That's on it's way.

There's no tooltip type help as that's something I've never done before, although I did try incorporating what I thought were the tooltips that Paul had added to the Simple calculator but that attempt failed dismally to do anything other than nothing.

I'll beg again, could every please consider trying it out and saying yuck or whatever.

Note to Mods, you may wish to add this to the end of the Mother/Beast post that I created a week or so ago, I currently can't reply to it.

I'd greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions on the look and content of the output. It may well appear a little squashed width wise, this is due to the restrictions when and if it's incorporated into the website. Due to the nature of the calculations possible, which is all types that I'm aware of, the output for simpler calculations may appear to be repetitive.

I've included a warning when it encounters a split-care scenario (both parents have primary care of a child), as I'm unsure how this should actually be done. It currently calculates split-care by determining the cost of all children, whilst I suspect that what should be done, is that the calculations should be done as if the two are separate cases. I suspect this because in the recommendations it has the following :-

Whilst in the new legislation the only thing that I can see is:## Every Picture tells a Story said

9.10.2 Split care

Another possible family arrangement in families with several children is where one parent takes responsibility for some of the children, and the other parent takes responsibility for the others. In these cases, it is not clear which parent will have the overall child support liability, as each is both a resident and non-resident parent (although to different children). Each may be assessed separately as liable for children in the care of the other parent. The liabilities of each parent may then be offset in order to find the overall payer parent. This is precisely what happens under the current formula.

Recommendation 1.20 Where parents each care for one or more of their children, each parent is assessed separately as liable to the other, and the liabilities offset.

The rest of the section that precedes this is:## The New Legislation said

67A Offsetting of child support liabilities

The annual rate of child support that would, apart from this section, be payable for a child or children in a child support case, for a day in a child support period, by one parent to the other parent is to be reduced (but not below nil) by the annual rate of child support that would, apart from this section, be payable to that parent in relation to that day by the other parent for the child or the children in the child support case.

However from how I interpret it, it doesn't state which method to use or back up the recommendation. Furthermore I can't see anything that describes what constitutes a case. That is, is the split-care one case or two?## The New Legislation Also said

67 Assessment to relate to all children for whom child support is payable by parent

(1) If child support is payable by a parent to a person for 2 or more children for a day in a child support period, any administrative assessment of the child support payable by the parent in relation to the day is to relate to all of the children and not to any of the children separately.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the child support is payable because of:

a) the acceptance by the Registrar of 2 or more separate applications for administrative assessment made otherwise than in the same form; or

b) the acceptance by the Registrar of 2 or more child support agreements made otherwise than in the same document; or

c) the acceptance by the Registrar of an application for administrative assessment and of an application for acceptance of a child support agreement.

(3) Subsection (1) does not require a single administrative assessment to be made of the child support payable by a parent to 2 or more other persons.

Any comments, suggestions that could help resolve this would be welcome.

The calculator currently doesn't warn about, detect or calculate minimum payments at present. Nor does it currently provide the FTB notes/hints. That's on it's way.

There's no tooltip type help as that's something I've never done before, although I did try incorporating what I thought were the tooltips that Paul had added to the Simple calculator but that attempt failed dismally to do anything other than nothing.

I'll beg again, could every please consider trying it out and saying yuck or whatever.

Note to Mods, you may wish to add this to the end of the Mother/Beast post that I created a week or so ago, I currently can't reply to it.

Member

Tried out the calculator with a few what ifs.

It's great and well done.

People with 50/50 seem pretty much the same as before especially if one person does not work.

Seems like there has maybe been a slight increase for some with 50/50 (with teenagers) but I think that was the intent of the changes.

It's great and well done.

People with 50/50 seem pretty much the same as before especially if one person does not work.

Seems like there has maybe been a slight increase for some with 50/50 (with teenagers) but I think that was the intent of the changes.

Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

Also thank's for replying as it also allows me to reply and post more.

I've been and done a fair bit since my last post and as such the calculator is revamped, primarily with plagiarism's from the many changes that Paul made to the simple calculator. I've introduced a more FWLG feel and added mouseover help/tips. So, hey there's a lot more scope for some constructive criticism now, especially the help, e.g. is it understandable and helpful. Can anyone suggest phrases/sentences that would be shorter and or easier to understand.

The link is the same as before, but I'll repost it anyway The Advanced CS Calculator

Member

Mike I had some thoughts about your interpretation on the law.

That is worth documenting a bit - like the sort of assumptions or decisions you had to make (the failures in the legislation) or the room to move and interpret things.

It would be worth pulling those issues together for when you calculator goes head to head with CSA. It would be interesting to see what assumptions they made and if they tended to favor one party over another.

As far as interface goes - I prefer a thing that works well at what it supposed to do. I mistrust stuff which is too done up - because sometimes the effort in doing that is not going insothe guts of the thing.

That is worth documenting a bit - like the sort of assumptions or decisions you had to make (the failures in the legislation) or the room to move and interpret things.

It would be worth pulling those issues together for when you calculator goes head to head with CSA. It would be interesting to see what assumptions they made and if they tended to favor one party over another.

As far as interface goes - I prefer a thing that works well at what it supposed to do. I mistrust stuff which is too done up - because sometimes the effort in doing that is not going insothe guts of the thing.

Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

uhhm documentation of my findings, it would be good but to be honest much of what I've done has been with the help of some of the CSA's material, that's why I'm unsure about the split care as I've seen nothing on this other than what I've posted above. The problem with seeing the CSA material, is that makes the legislation clearer to me so perhaps that material is twisting my mind a little. Perhaps when I've had a little bit of a rest. I've often been spending up to 10-15 hours per day getting this thing working. I've never written anything other than very simple stuff in PHP and that was just the odd routine. I've also not had much exposure to html before either. So it's been quite an exercise/learning experience.

Saying that I've just applied what are the final changes to the alpha version. It now has FTB, minimum payment, fixed assessment determination/warning/notification (determination to a fashion). I've also added the ability to select the year, this for subsequent years, although currently you can also select 2006-2008, although the underlying values for 2006 and 2007 mat not be accurate (pretty sure the MTAWE is, but not the parenting Payment Single, The minimum CS rate or the Fixed assessment rate) 2008 is as far as I'm aware spot on.

As for going head to head with the CSA's estimator, my understanding is that the simple one has and complied. I'm have little doubt that like for like, this new one will match the CSA estimator. I've tried quite a few scenarios on both, the only difference now appears to be that the CSA estimator rounds to the dollar for monthly payments, whilst the advanced includes the cents. It's the calculations that the Estimator doesn't do where I'm less sure, however it's matched up with the material that I have in this area as well, although the material tends to be pretty simple examples of the complex stuff.

Any ideas on how I can get more people to give it a go and provide feedback, or is this the J and M club

Member

I suppose I could give your brain a rest a bit and try to look at it from a legislation point of view and then I could answer my own question.

But I wont be working 10-15 hours a day!

Maybe if you could point to the specific bits of legislation which the calculator uses I could to a bit of a review - find the bits needing interpretation (what is a night anyway?).

I could try to do a word explanation of the calculation using the legislation - then might review CSA material to see how they chose to interpret the legislation. A lot of what they say is just what They think. It goes a bit like this:

- The law says this.

- The government says we have the power to write regulations and rules.

- We can write a guide and expect it to be followed.

- We are an government body acting on behalf of gov therefore how we interpret stuff (by default) is correct.

Unfortunately that gap between the words in the legislation and the method of interpretation gets bigger all the time - the also tend to add their own bits - like immediately garnisheeing people's salaries even though objections are in place and and COA is being processed (if we already know the result what's the point of objecting?)

So any help appreciated.

But I wont be working 10-15 hours a day!

Maybe if you could point to the specific bits of legislation which the calculator uses I could to a bit of a review - find the bits needing interpretation (what is a night anyway?).

I could try to do a word explanation of the calculation using the legislation - then might review CSA material to see how they chose to interpret the legislation. A lot of what they say is just what They think. It goes a bit like this:

- The law says this.

- The government says we have the power to write regulations and rules.

- We can write a guide and expect it to be followed.

- We are an government body acting on behalf of gov therefore how we interpret stuff (by default) is correct.

Unfortunately that gap between the words in the legislation and the method of interpretation gets bigger all the time - the also tend to add their own bits - like immediately garnisheeing people's salaries even though objections are in place and and COA is being processed (if we already know the result what's the point of objecting?)

So any help appreciated.

Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

I've also corrected the rounding of the Parent's Child Support percentage (only shown if you chose to show calculations).

I've also amended the help text for the year as my understanding is that the year used is the year in which the assessment starts (many having their assessment changed for the new legislation would likely need to use 2007 instead of 2008).

This is the link to the amended calculator Advanced Calculator

For any that haven't used this calculator, this one can do calculations that the CSA Estimator cannot do, such as multi-case.

As usual any comments or suggestions are welcome. If you need help inputting the data, try to describe your scenario, perhaps with fictitious amounts and names. Names or identifiers are required to clarify the output.

some feedback for you. I got my assessment today and hey the calculators were both spot on, well with the annual figure. However the monthly rate was out, but not the weekly or fornightly rate.

Oh MikeT, yes there's a little bug, which has been corrected for the Advanced calculator and the correction is under way for the simple calculator. The problem was that I was under the impression that the monthly rate was derived from the daily rate, by multiplying the daily rate (it derived from the annual rate by dividing it by 365.25) by 30.5. However according to your asessment, it's actually 1/12th of the annual rate.

Platinium Member

I just checked my case out using the calculator and according to it the ex should be paying ME $39 a month - CS have it that I am paying him. I have written a thread about it elsewhere.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.

**1**guest and

**0**members have just viewed this.