Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Can the CSA take arrears directly from your wages before you receive them?

Add Topic

Husband pays but can't see his children and is placing some payments in childs bank account. How does the CSA deal with the lack of contact.

As a government agency, I think the CSA probably do a good job but as with family law procedures, they simply cannot resolve the problems of bitterness and acrimony after divorce.

My husband is a devoted father and looked after his child on his own for four years after his mother ran off. As soon as she heard he had married me, she demanded the child back. We fought for a while but my husband had already been cleared out of funds. He simply did not have the money to go through the legal procedure. I believe she got legal aid.

Her argument was basically a non legal issue. She was punishing my husband for finding happiness so we knew any legal procedures were going to be lengthy because they weren't about the child, they were about her bitterness.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, my husband decided to spare his son the difficult position of choosing who he wanted to live with or putting him through the family courts. He had already been seeing more of his mother and sister and had said he would like to try living with them. We assured him he could come back if it didn't work out and my husband let him go to his mother on a trial basis hoping things would resolve themselves without lawyers.

That was nearly a year ago. Despite paying child support, he hasn't been allowed to see his son since and again the ex wife 'wants to make him pay' so he either accepts the situation or starts the ball rolling through the courts.

He is angry and has deliberately withheld some CSA payments but made others. His ex wife lives with a new partner, no mortgage, she works and the children are looked after so they are not living hand to mouth.

My husband is upset that he pays a lot of money for children he doesn't see. He could get interim orders but again, it's enforcing the orders that's the problem. They live 200 kilometres away and make excuses for the children having no contact with their father.

Because he's a good dad, he's opened a bank account in his son's name and put the amount of CSA payments he should be paying into it for when he's older. He skips payments occasionally to do this. He owes around $2,000 in arrears. I was wondering if the CSA can take it directly from his salary, he doesn't own any assets, or if they will take it off his tax return?
Yes they will withhold his tax, until it is all payed, even if it takes 20 years, they will withhold the tax when the child turns 18 and until way after. NO matter how he feels about his ex he is obliged to pay the child support. It is the childs best interests to have his father pay for his needs. CSA is judged to be the best way to achieve this. He should pay the child support if he wishes to gain access in court, it is not looked upon favourably to refusing to pay CS and asking for more contact. Sorry if that is all bad news. I can see that your husband fells the at the mercy of his ex and this is the only way he can get to her. Going to court might be a better option for you to get acceptable contact.

And yes csa can take arrears from wages, but they usually get a person to commit to an agreement and see if they stick to it before they do this.Its sometimes difficult for csa to do this as people who aviod paying often change jobs one the csa are hassling them and then the whole process starts over.

Last edit: by monster


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

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Cricket said
My husband is upset that he pays a lot of money for children he doesn't see. He could get interim orders but again, it's enforcing the orders that's the problem. They live 200 kilometres away and make excuses for the children having no contact with their father.
200k, that's under half of the distance my son is away. I get monthly contact. He now flies, but we used to drive up there every other month, the mother would drive down here the other months. Contact was basically a weekend per month, plus half of the school holidays.

My take on it, go for contact, via mediation and then take it to court to get final orders (my guess is that you would need to get court orders so that you can then act if there are contraventions). Before doing this I'd suggest getting any arrears sorted. I'd also suggest joining the SRL-R group (click on community at the top, then on SRL-R on the left and then  on Join the SRL-R). They have the ability to be able to help you, help yourselves.
cricket said
As a government agency, I think the CSA probably do a good job but as with family law procedures, they simply cannot resolve the problems of bitterness and acrimony after divorce.
 

The CSA don't do a good job, they often demonstrate bias, contempt of legislation and poor performance. A perusal of these and many other forums confirms this. In fact I think you would be hard pressed to find any two parents who share a child totally satisfied. If the CSA was doing their job properly the numbers of parents reaching private agreements would be increasing, not the numbers of parents on their books.

The CSA doesn't want to resolve 'problems of bitterness and acrimony' prefering to encourage it. By doing so, they polarise the parents in order to have each dob the other in for financial indiscretions. Polarisation keeps them in a job.

" Perspective depends on which side of the barbed wire fence you sit, or indeed if you are sitting on it! "
Cricket my advice is:

  1. Fight CSA every step of the way - immediately
  2. If you put up with it they will use that as the starting point
  3. Don't expect that it will get better or all just go away - it wont - you cannot avoid it
  4. Manage the process and your health - you will be involved for decades

You may end up losing your house (many others have) if the laws change or the rate goes up or circumstances change. CSA , the government and the courts are simply ruthless (its all about the children don't you know).

So DON'T EVER EXPECT - justice, common sense , reasonableness,  accuracy, competence, consideration or care FROM CSA or ABOUT CSA matters.

It was set up to give non-working women money. That's why it exists.

Why would any woman getting CSA EVER argue that she should work harder or more hours or do with less and NOT GET FREE MONEY?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
ahem, Jon, it could be (as is my situation) that they want Dad to stick to the days that they 'say' they are having them.

My ex is only driven by how much he has to pay me. Otherwise, I become a defacto babysitting service as he is too embarrassed to ask friends or relatives to mind the kids when he wants holidays or days off, kids free. Sometimes the weather is perfect and he likes to go on the water.

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. 
Many women I know have taken great strength from NOT taking CSA or other money and assets they were 'entitled' to under the law because they chose to work, gain self sufficiency, self respect, strength, independence and serve as a good role model for their kids.

The SYSTEM however - CSA being all about money - does not help relationships post divorce, is highly invasive, administratively burdensome, damaging to payers (mainly) and now to payees (many payees are starting to withhold the children more so they can MAINTAIN their MONEY or INCREASE IT.

It has always been damaging to the children and has assisted with fathers being but under distress and withdrawing from raising their children (thinking that if they pay they don't have to be involved).

If 50/50 (or near enough ) meant NO CSA (no matter what each others income was) -THERE WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OUTCOMES FOR ALL

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon, I am moving to England so the problem will solve itself soon. BTW, my husband is ringing CS today because the 16 year old daughter he pays CS for is working almost full time, her mother works and her partner works. Nice life eh?



Meanwhile, CS want to know how much i earn (I am the second wife of the father) but they're not interested in how much the ex wife's partner earns???



Never mind, I have just employed my husband within my own business and am paying him nothing so I've told the wife and the daughter to go and get full time work as the hand outs will stop very soon.



Oh and Artemis, I did receive a reply from Anna Bligh about the other matter.
So your saying that you are defrauding the government and everyone else by minimising your husbands income.

Thats not something to brag about, thats very dodgey. I cant imagine doing that to my own flesh and blood or my step kid.

Jon I dont have a probelm with people choosing to take csa. When you choose to become a parent or just become on without choice their is responsiblity for both parents to provide as much as they can.

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

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Why would I defrauding anyone? My husband won't be receiving an income so how is that fraud?

Currently he pays CS for a 16 year old daughter who's mother has taught her that men are on the planet to be used and abused. As a result, she has no respect for her father. She thinks that it's his job to support her but she refuses to spend any time with him and treats him like a disease. I hope her father opting for early retirement and taking a part time voluntary position will teach her some valuable lessons. Such as there is no free lunch ticket.
You said he is doing work or "employed" and benifitting your buisness and he is not gettting paid. Its fraud because you are choosing to pay him nothing, instead of being honest about what your are gaining from his contribution to your buisness and paying him a wage. Its a scam. Your a crook.

He is employed and he should be getting a wage unless you are thinking he is a non taxable fringe benifit.

If a terminating event has occured like that the child is fully self supporting he shouldnt be paying cs. Thats the law.

How can you say that the child expects her daddy to pay for her life and in the same breath say that  the child is working full time. She doesnt sound like a bludger to me. Who cares what the childs attitude about men is, she has everyright to be supported by her father in this critical and expensive time for study and work including buying your first car and affording driving lessons if she isnt earning too much money.

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

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Nothing being done is illegal here I think?

As far as your opinion monster goes - I disagree.

There are far more complexities in relationships and history that we could probably see here. At the end of the day - if people act within the law - that's about the best anyone can hope for in this country anyway (no matter how bad the laws are)

As far as principles goes - I am not sure that all children should be supported by all parents (i.e. by giving the other parent money when the child is young). Life is longer than that period generally and there are circumstance where I think the women who choose to have a child without consent or fails to abort, etc, wants the baby for the baby bonus - should NOT GET MONEY.

Just an example of complexities of people's lives and stories.


 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Well said Jon.

There is nothing fraudulent about my husband taking early retirement on the grounds of ill health due to the stress caused by his ex wife and daughter forging his signature to obtain credit cards in his name. That's just one of the things they've done so far.

Both women need to learn something about the golden goose moral.
How can he be retired and employed at the same time? Your diliberatly minimising his income. You admit that you doing but you have whole boat load of escuses to go with it.

Apparantly the father has no responsiblity because they are bad people.

Jon person do you really think that people shouldnt have CS because the child might not have been a diliberate choice. SO the child should not have any financial support and so should not have the same rights as a loved and wanted child.

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

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
zoehasrights said
 The CSA don't do a good job, they often demonstrate bias, contempt of legislation and poor performance. A perusal of these and many other forums confirms this.
To be fair posts on a forum would only constitute a tiny percentage of all that the CSA deal with, and people do not usually post "good news" stories do they? I hear where you are coming from but without the emotion of it all the simple fact is that the CSA is manned by people, and people make mistakes….. I have been frustrated on a couple of "losses": in relation to the CSA, but i certainly did not perciecve any bias or contempt for anything you mention. They actually followed the law to the letter….
zoehasrights said
In fact I think you would be hard pressed to find any two parents who share a child totally satisfied. If the CSA was doing their job properly the numbers of parents reaching private agreements would be increasing, not the numbers of parents on their books.
I dont really see this argument. If the CSA was doing better, surely that would lead to MORE CSA cases as people would accept the job they are doing is……. a good one. I learnt yesterday that some people have no choice but to have the CSA involved….If this is the case, then only a change in legisltaion would change the figures….
zoehasrights said
The CSA doesn't want to resolve 'problems of bitterness and acrimony' prefering to encourage it. By doing so, they polarise the parents in order to have each dob the other in for financial indiscretions. Polarisation keeps them in a job.
I dont actualy think it is their goal to resolve 'problems of bitterness and acrimony' Their job is to assess payments and collect money based on the law. they are not counsollers. The CSA is only a middleman who enforces the (quite unfair in some cases) rules, just like centerlink or the RTA….. once again i add, this is only my opinion based on my experiences, on occasions the CSA staff have gone WELL out of their way to help me.. way beyond what they might have done. Of all the gov services i have to access, they have been the best.. Am i alone? thanks

They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority

Gooner, the CSA have always been very polite and reasonable to my husband when he has dealt with them. They have one role only and that is to do their job of collecting money. However, they have admitted that the system is unfair in many cases and in our case, we feel it is unfair for children that are paid for but are deprived from seeing their father by a greedy and bitter mother.



Yes, we could go through the legal route but on investigation, the costs are huge and there is no guaranteed outcome while the law cannot deal with the acrimonious nature and bitter emotions of ex spouses who say they will let us spend the money then the day before it goes to court, they will do the right thing.

Am I going to pay CS for this kind of behaviour to a mother and a daughter who agrees with her mothers attitude? No, I am not. And neither is the father soon because he will be retired legally and be working for me, again legally.
cricket said
Gooner, the CSA have always been very polite and reasonable to my husband when he has dealt with them. They have one role only and that is to do their job of collecting money. However, they have admitted that the system is unfair in many cases and in our case, we feel it is unfair for children that are paid for but are deprived from seeing their father by a greedy and bitter mother.
I feel for you, and im sure whoever deals with you at the CSA will too. You are correct in saying that the CSA, as individuals, DO admit aspects of the system is unfair. It has happened to me, but there is not a lot they can do about it… It's the empathy they have shown to me, that sets them apart from the other government departmens I encounter.

I also understand you feel it's unfair to pay in your circumstances, but… this is emotion and has to be removed when making rational decisions…  I've only just learnt this… and it has helped me have a major shift in thinking… lots and lots of laws are considered unfair by many different people and… for a whole range of reasons…

I really do understand how you feel…

They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority

Gooner, I don't think it's unfair to pay CS for children, that's entirely reasonable. I don't think it's fair to deprive a father of any form of shared parenting just so the ex wife can bargain for more money. I also do not think it's reasonable to support a 16 year old who is working and earning good money, not studying, and is therefore an independant.

The ex wife took 80% of the assets because she had the children, she also left a large amount of debt and forged my husbands signature to obtain credit cards and loans so no, any further financial assistance, I feel is extremely unfair.

My husband has worked 35 years and has nothing left. He deserves a break. I pity those men who cannot start their lives again or create any kind of financial security for themselves because of greedy ex wives and a biased government system.
cricket said
Gooner, I don't think it's unfair to pay CS for children, that's entirely reasonable.

I don't think it's fair to deprive a father of any form of shared parenting just so the ex wife can bargain for more money. I also do not think it's reasonable to support a 16 year old who is working and earning good money, not studying, and is therefore an independant.

The ex wife took 80% of the assets because she had the children, she also left a large amount of debt and forged my husbands signature to obtain credit cards and loans so no, any further financial assistance, I feel is extremely unfair.

My husband has worked 35 years and has nothing left. He deserves a break. I pity those men who cannot start their lives again or create any kind of financial security for themselves because of greedy ex wives and a biased government system.
Of course he deserves a break, there are women (and men) out there who will do all they can to ruin the other person and leech off them for life… but its not the staff at thew CSA who are to blame. It's:

1: The laws or

2: The misuse of the laws by the recieving parent

3: How society thinks

I really do understand the unfairness of the system, but it is only unfair to men more than women because of the way things often end up, and, thats with the mother looking after the child… I dont think the CSA laws are gender biased in any way, its more the collective thinking of society that MAKES them this way… THAT is the thinking that has to be changed… and (hopefully) all the rest will fall into place.

You could waste a lot of energy focusing on what you cant change… I know I have.

 :$

They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority

gooner said
 To be fair posts on a forum would only constitute a tiny percentage of all that the CSA deal with, and people do not usually post "good news" stories do they?

I dont really see this argument. If the CSA was doing better, surely that would lead to MORE CSA cases as people would accept the job they are doing is……. a good one. I learnt yesterday that some people have no choice but to have the CSA involved….If this is the case, then only a change in legisltaion would change the figures….

I dont actualy think it is their goal to resolve 'problems of bitterness and acrimony' Their job is to assess payments and collect money based on the law. they are not counsollers.
Gooner…

Posts on forums like these do only constitute a small percentage, there's a lot more evidence out there, like the complaint phone in some years back that created a telstra nightmare, PIR report, CSA/Ombudsman/MP statistics, parent groups, etc; In addition, from my experience the rhetoric the CSA use, the legislation and calculations are too difficult for most to comprehend, this lack of understanding creates a large silent majority that merely submits to do whatever they are told and grumble about it to anyone whom listens. Try walking into a place that employs a lot of people, ask how many pay or receive CS , ask how many are happy with the service. Ask the 30% of people whom receive the minimum amount of CS. Ask those whom pay the maximum, etc. I think you will find a tiny percentage of all whom are satisfied. Even less where both parents are.

"I learnt yesterday that some people have no choice" … definitely an understatement, the majority have no choice without affecting other benefits such as FTB. Reality of human nature is most people do not want a third party telling them how to organise their lives or finances.(If one was around when the CS legislation came about it was meant to be a fall back setup when either there was no CS forthcoming or where parents couldn't agree on the amount. Nowdays it is a scheme very much tied into other benefits such as FTB.)


Yes, the CSA are not counsellors, but the policies are not in line with helping people resolve their differences or move away from third party interference. I know for a fact that the old Dept of Social Security use to encourage recepients to dob ex's in. An office manager of the CSA confirmed with me they also do. The FLC now refer people to relationship centres before litigation…why don't the CSA do similar? Surely it would be in the childrens best interest that parents come to an agreement between themselves.

" Perspective depends on which side of the barbed wire fence you sit, or indeed if you are sitting on it! "
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets