Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Topic #2089 (no title)

Was under the impression that they would calculate care on hours too after June!

We lobby the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit on the implementation, including a look at the SSAT overturn rate.
Lifeinsight said
What do we do???

What I'd like to see is a group similar to the SRL's but dealing with CS issues on behalf of parents, perhaps for a small fee to create a fund that could perhaps then be used to push some issues to the court, so they can decide, if need be/appropriate.

Perhaps I've seen The Castle a few too many times. :)

Now that sounds like a great Idea

MikeT said
Lifeinsight said
What do we do???
What I'd like to see is a group similar to the SRL's but dealing with CS issues on behalf of parents, perhaps for a small fee to create a fund that could perhaps then be used to push some issues to the court, so they can decide, if need be/appropriate.

Perhaps I've seen The Castle a few too many times. :)
 

The concept of a support & information organisation dealing exclusively with C$ issues sounds great.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
There are a few issues here. I am not sure LifeInsight that we have said care is by the hour. I have stated that days are taken into account not just nights. If you go to the FAQ in our Child support area and track down the relevant FAQ it describes what is available in relation to day care. For Day care to count you need around 40% time to effectively have the CSA credit you days for nights.

In relation to the comment from BigRed about SSAT overturn rates. Did you know BR that a significant number relate to out of time objections. From memory it was above 30% near 40% I recall. (Don't quote me but).. I will see if I can get some more stats on what the core issues are.

I support a group CSR formation (Child Support Resources) or some other sub group to deal with a wide range of CSA issues. There is such a wide range of resources here to utilise it makes much sense. I nominate LFPOLAD and MikeT as founding executives.  :wub:

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Posts from this topic have been moved by members. 5 posts have been transferred to topicview.

Last edit: by OneRingRules


Site Director
LifeInsight said
Hey guys what happened to my topic?

You hi-jacked it!! Where's the man with the big stick when you need him the most???  ;)
The man with the big stick moved the threads but is having some technical issues with the redirect links.


Site Director
There are many Topics and posts about daytime care in the Child Support Forums

You probably saw in "the Guide" a section on CSA and went there to look at the FAQ's. Just to refresh your memory here is the link to one section of the FAQ area relating to care.

I am sure you have already checked out the Search Engine on the home page.. (Ahhh (sigh) the developers have done a great job there) and done a search for "day care". When you get the responses [Your search for "day care" found 230 documents.] go and look at a few of the forum threads about day care. It is very interesting. We are still in discussions with FaCSIA policy group about day care. There are a number of issues to resolve around day care. Firstly we were not lead to believe there was a 40% rider (condition) in the legislation. The fact is this 40% has come from some policy group and bears no relation to care bands. Some of our members have day care only but only 30% of the time so we see no reason they are not able to partake in the band of care 14% to 34% and thus receive credit for care. Also if these people have 35% they should fall into the SHARED band and this have advantage of the FTB part A credits.

Remember care now falls into BANDS of CARE or officially LEVELS of care and from memory there are 5… These are:

Below regular = 0% to 13%
Regular = 14% to 34%
Shared = 35% to 65%
Primary = 66 to 86%
Above Primary = 87% to 100%

As far as I can tell there is no calculation of hours. It is day and or night care. School care (that is care while in neither parent care) is counted as part of teh overall "who does the child spend time with" calculation of nights OR days where days are substantial. Let me know if there is some query still unresolved and I will take it up with the FaCSIA policy group.

There are some really good topics on this subject with some excellent contributions from MikeT.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
LifeInsight said
Family Assistance have assessed care at 42% - based on total hours. C$A say it's only 36% - based on total nights.
This is a really interesting note. What is supposed to happen is that Centerlink and CSA are supposed to be the same formula "Nights" from July 1. I will raise this on Monday. I just recieved a Centerlink advisory asking to show care for next year and I note it is the same old form. There is a communication issue here. 

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
LifeInsight

I can post all the technical stuff if you like, but the short version is that the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme - New Formula and Other Measures) Act 2006 (146 of 2006) makes no mention of nights in care at all when dealing with changes to Family Tax Benefit (Schedule 8), and only mentions nights in relation to Child Support in the form of a note which says
Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme - New Formula and Other Measures) Act 2006 (146 of 2006) said
Note: Generally, a person's percentage of care for a child is worked out based on the number of nights that the child is likely to be in the care of the person during the care period.
So, my take on that is that they are not obliged to use nights, but generally will.

That is supported by The Guide which says
The Guide said
Care will generally be worked out based on the number of nights that the child is likely to be in the care of the person during the care period.

The issue is who has responsibility for making arrangements for, and decisions about, the child's welfare and not the accommodation arrangements themselves.

In making a decision about percentage of care, CSA may take into account the amount of time during both day and night that each parent cares for the child as well as who is responsible for making arrangements for, and decisions about, the child's welfare. CSA will give weight to statements from both parents.
I would say anyone has the right to ask for days to be considered not just nights and you in particular have a strong case for an objection based on your own particular circumstances, especially since Family Tax Benefit agree with your interpretation of your orders.

If you decide to write up an objection, and if you would like to delete identifying details and whisper it to me, I would be more than happy to look it over.

Cheers, Katie



So Katie, there is no valid reason in the guide or legislation (both the Assessment Act and the Registration and Collection Act) to not use nights, hours seconds, milli-seconds (sorry many years ago in one job the Industrial Engineers timed things down to mill-seconds).

Perhaps the question that should be asked of the CSA is under what legislation and the sections therein, that they are denying a just and equitable implementation of the Child Support Assessment Act, by excluding hours and or days in cases when they make a marked difference to the monies transferred, thus depriving a parent of having the full funds due, according to the CS formula, to support that child or children for the time that they have the children.

However, they may be using the recommendations as in the "In the Best Interests of the Children", but then one has to ask why the other parts of the recommendations have not been implemented or have been implemented beyond the recommendations, such as the 7.1% change in care, which I am unable to dind in the recommendations.

Last edit: by MikeT

Yes, that is how I read it.

I like your idea of a sliding scale rather than bands of care because it might stop some of the posturing to get from one band to another.

I think the 7.1% change in care before any change in assessment is likely to be a way of ensuring that parents are not lodging endless requests for change based on very small changes to care.  The line needs to be drawn somewhere, but why they chose 7.1% (one day a fortnight) I do not know.



BriarRose said
I think the 7.1% change in care before any change in assessment is likely to be a way of ensuring that parents are not lodging endless requests for change based on very small changes to care.  The line needs to be drawn somewhere, but why they chose 7.1% (one day a fortnight) I do not know.

Why does the line need to be drawn? Administratively I guess would be the answer?

Why then, not a maximum of x number of changes a year per case?  

Why a figure that can disadvantage the support that a child should rightly get by the correct application of the formula?

Is administration more important than the child receiving the correct support?

Will 7.1% this stop endless lodging? Could it perhaps increase lodging attempts to get over the 7.1%?

Will it increase adversity?

Should the CSA look to themselves first when trying to fix wasted administration efforts; Jadzia's 16 letters per day, staff turnover which at the minimum costs 6 weeks wasted effort per person replaced, not including getting up to speed after training.

Are children suffering simply because the CSA has processes that are inefficient?

Orders are orders

BriarRose said
Yes, that is how I read it.

I like your idea of a sliding scale rather than bands of care because it might stop some of the posturing to get from one band to another.

I think the 7.1% change in care before any change in assessment is likely to be a way of ensuring that parents are not lodging endless requests for change based on very small changes to care.  The line needs to be drawn somewhere, but why they chose 7.1% (one day a fortnight) I do not know.
 

I think the reason for the one day per fortnight(7.1%) is that the old contact orders were based  mostly on a fortnight basis, and that one day per fortnight is a nice round number! It is also the minimum(over night) increase that can happen in a fortnight.

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. 
So Monti, that's a vote for "Is administration more important than the child receiving the correct support? "?  :)

speak

MikeT said
So Monti, that's a vote for "Is administration more important than the child receiving the correct support? "?  :)
 
In my best Canberraesque speak; most definably a possibility that transcends the policy of good policy guidance, by having a policy that is numerically rotund, simplistic, draconian and ethereal in its anti intellectual  approach - it is policy!

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. 
Don't ask a Vogon supporter to explain such things.

Administratively, bands make less work than a sliding scale. They'd have to have some way of automating the system to do that.

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. 
LifeInsight

I am writing a resonse for you and also for MikeT who asked me some questions in this topic a couple of days ago.View topic: PhP errors on site - flwg.com.au
:$

I don't quite understand your post - the bit in the box quotes CSA, but is the rest of the content in the box also a quote or is it yours?




So with the changes is it going to stop the situation were the major custodial parent decides to with hold contact of the children, then proclaims to CSA or c/link that there is a change of circumstance regardless of court documents and CSA and c/link then make changes to FTB, FTA and child support payments. I know this has happened in the past and I know you have a window of thirteen weeks to address the problem, but is their anything new to state that the person making this claim must have some sort of legal proof before making such claims in the first instance? 

If you don't talk about it, how can anyone help you move forward!
Imadad,
            in fact I think quite the contrary, what appears to be happening is that many parents with the greater care are actively taking measures to further reduce contact and thus deny their child or children the humane right of knowing and being cared for by both parents. The CSA appears to be supporting this child abuse with decisions that are contrary to the reasons for the recommendations and also I believe contrary to section 49 of the Child Assessment act. They appear to be ignoring court orders and parenting plans and taking the word, without any proof, of the parent with the primary care which is then disrespecting the other parent. The changes were meant to improve the lot of a child not subject that child to greater abuse and exploitation for monetary gain.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets