Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Child Support Changes

Add Topic
Unfair are these new csa laws to everyone in some way. everybody has different situations and should be treated as individuals. in my case i have residential care of the children in our parenting orders. in the orders the father can have his children for 88 days a year, but does not even come close to having them that often, in fact at the present time he has had them once in 9 months. but he had lodged those orders to csa as soon as the laws changed.

I have had many a conversation with the CSA in regards to this and how his being fraudulent. mind you this is a father who has never done the right thing, never payed maintence regularly and would do anything to get out of paying anymore than he would have too. so this has worked in his favour because it reduced the amount of maintence he has to pay.

The CSA told me that the only way it can be changed if i do mediation with the father again to change the orders.

The children are 12 and 14years old and with these current orders being the forth set, which he can never stick to, why would i go set myself up for more disappointment, and expense. at the ages my children are they can make the dicision if they want to goor not. that is the age they can refuse to go and i cant make them. mind you they would love to see there father but he fails to have contact. before these new laws came in even centrelink would reduce his shared care percentage. they knew the orders were in place but i had evidence to prove that he wasnt having them as often as the orders said.

I was told when i first consulted a solicitor to keep a diary for when he does not have them. i have done that for years but not even csa will look at that, but yet if i wanted to have the father for breaching these ordersthrough family law court they would take this as evidence.

I just think that if you can prove without a resoniable doubt that the parent who has access to see his or her children is not doing so it should be taken into consideration regardless of parenting orders. this is another reason why these new laws will never work coz everybodies case is different.
So what recommendations do you wish to put forward BigToes?
that csa need to have their laws inline with the family law act in the case of the childrens ages and that they should look at evidence and not just dismiss that because there are order that they are being followed. look at cases individually maybe even look at his track records. hes never done the right thing and they keep on letting him get away with everything. i am just a believer in what fare and just and defently not being a fraud.
bigtoes74 said
that csa need to have their laws inline with the family law act in the case of the childrens ages and that they should look at evidence and not just dismiss that because there are order that they are being followed. look at cases individually maybe even look at his track records. hes never done the right thing and they keep on letting him get away with everything. i am just a believer in what fare and just and definitely not being a fraud.
Could you please explain further as I'm not sure where you see the discrepancies betwen Family Law and the CSA legislation with regard to children's ages.

The problem with the CSA looking at evidence is likely the cost factor and also expertise, remembering that the Family Law System will look at evidence but not collect it. The expectation is that those acting on behalf of the applicants and respondents undertake this task and also present it in an easy to follow manner to the Family Law Courts or Federal Magistrates Court. If the CSA did the same then you would likely need to have costly representation involved very much along the lines of the Family Law system. In fact though, if you object to a decision made by the CSA you are able, in many circumstances, to take the matter to the Federal Magistrates Court, who also deal with many, I think most, Family Law issues. So really what you want in this respect already exists. Perhaps following that path would result in a fair outcome.

I think you may be mixing the blame. It is the representatives of the people i.e. MP's who decide upon the legislation, the CSA should simply follow that legislation. If they are restricted or legislated to take actions then the fault lays with the legislation. Perhaps you believe that the CSA are acting outside of the legislation, if this is the case then please elaborate.
When children reach the age of 12 they are able to make the decision whether they want to go or not that's family law but csa age where they believe a child has the right to stop going is 15 and will look at the case when the children reach that age.

I did object to the decision they made but they insisted that I go to a place like relationships australia to work it out with my ex but as I told them I've done that before and because they are parenting orders it has to be done legally and these places are only agreements which you can not inforce thats why I had parenting orders done.

I also had a conversation with CSA about the ages of my children and how it would be a rather expensive outlay as the children could turn around and say they dont want to go and I can't make them as from the age of 12 years they can make there own decision as far as family law goes. however my children would like to see there father but after four attempts of orders and him not sticking to any of them i think it would be a waste of my time.

I've agreed to everything he wanted or made out he wanted when the last orders were done four years ago as i wanted him to be an active part of his childrens life, but instead of him using those orders to have a great relationship with his children he has used them to reduce his amount he has to pay. its just unfair to his children on so many levels.

I dont know what the answer is i wouldnt have a problem if he was having them because I can understand why he would need to reduce the amount he pays as it would be costing him but instead my kids miss out all the way round because he doesn't see them reduces the amount he pays in helping raise the children which I am doing.
Bigtoes.

Thank you for the explanation. I think roughly what I have said previously applies, that is that you appear to be considering that the CSA's task is to do the job that Family Law is designed to do.

The CSA is all about Child Support. Perhaps that is the wrong term as really it is about enforcing financial responsibility of the paying parent, personally wish that it were about enforcing financial responsibility for both parents at the minimum, thus ensuring that monies paid under the guise of CS are used solely for the support of that child and or children.

Decisions in regard to actual contact are the realm of Family Law, the CSA have no legislated authority to enforce contact, they just have to abide by legislation in how they determine the contact. Unfortunately many parents lie about this and the result is that little heed is given to what parents say without evidence. The legislation has taken this into consideration and thus the evidence required by legislation is quite specific in that if there is no oral agreement then the latest of either a parenting plan or court order comes into play.

I believe I recall a similar recent series of events where a parent was being denied a change to the actual level of care. That parent apparently even took the child to a CSA office for a number of days, that is until the CSA acted, by threatening to report the parent for child abuse.

So again in reality your complaint is not really with the CSA, they are basically doing their job (although see section 53 below), it is the legislation that they follow. That legislation is decided upon by those who represent the citizens of the country and thus the buck finally stops at the citizens as they select their representatives. To get changes made you have to persuade the representatives to decide upon a change to the legislation. If this is done then the CSA could then follow that legislation.

In some ways you may be fortunate in coming to this portal as there is perhaps the largest collection of people in Australia who actively try to improve the legislation with regard to Family Law and Child Support.

Perhaps you'd like to put forward a proposal for a change to the legislation. To assist you in this here's the relevant sections of the Child Support Assessment Act 1989 (I think your issue is primarily with section 51):-

Child Support Assessment Act 1989 - Extract of sections 49-53 said

49  Agreements, parenting plans and court orders may determine percentage of care

      The percentage (if any) of care of a child that a parent or non parent carer is likely to have during a care period is determined in accordance with the following agreement, plan or order if the Registrar is satisfied that the agreement, plan or order allows such a percentage to be determined:
   (a)   if the relevant application for administrative assessment for child support for the child is made under subparagraphs 25A(b)(ii) to (iv) (application by non parent carer in relation to one parent):
   (i)   an oral or written agreement, or parenting plan, between the parent and a non parent carer of the child that the Registrar is satisfied has been made; or
   (ii)   a court order that relates to the parent and a non parent carer of the child, or that relates to the child;
   (b)   otherwise:
   (i)   an oral agreement between the parents of the child that the Registrar is satisfied has been made; or
   (ii)   a parenting plan for the child that has been entered into by the parents; or
   (iii)   a court order that relates to the parents, or that relates to the child.
50  Registrar determinations where no agreement, plan or order
   (1)   The Registrar must determine the percentage (if any) of care of a child that a parent or non parent carer of the child is likely to have during the relevant care period if there is no agreement, plan or order that allows such a percentage to be determined under section 49.
   (2)   In making the determination, the Registrar must take into account such period as is required in order for the Registrar to be satisfied that there is, has been, or will be, a pattern of care for the child.
   (3)   The Registrar may revoke or vary a determination made under this section.

Subdivision CChanges to percentages of care
51  Person no longer agrees with oral agreement

      If:
   (a)   an oral agreement determines, under section 49, a percentage of care of a child that a parent or non parent carer is likely to have during a care period; and
   (b)   the Registrar becomes aware that a parent or non parent carer of the child no longer agrees with that percentage of care; and
   ( c)   immediately before the oral agreement was made, a parenting plan or court order determined the percentage of care of the child that each parent or non parent carer would have during the care period;
the percentage of care of the child that a parent or non parent carer is likely to have during the care period is as determined in accordance with the parenting plan or court order.


52  Interim Registrar determinations where parent or non parent carer does not agree with percentages of care

   (1)   The Registrar may determine the percentage (if any) of care of a child that a parent or non parent carer of the child is likely to have during the relevant care period if:
   (a)   there is an agreement, plan or order that allows such a percentage to be determined under section 49; and
   (b)   a parent or non parent carer of the child does not agree that the care of the child that is actually taking place is in accordance with the percentage so determined; and
   ( c)   in the circumstances of the case, the percentage so determined would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by a parent for the child; and
   (d)   a parent or non parent carer of the child has taken reasonable action:
   (i)   to seek to reach agreement; or
   (ii)   to seek a court order; or
   (iii)   to enforce a court order;
      about the care of the child; and
   (e)   a parent or non parent carer of the child applies for the determination.
Note:   If the Registrar refuses to make a determination under this section, the Registrar must give the applicant a notice under section 54.
   (2)   In making the determination, the Registrar must take into account such period as is required in order for the Registrar to be satisfied that there is, has been, or will be, a pattern of care for the child.
   (3)   The Registrar may revoke or vary a determination made under this section.
   (4)   Before the end of 6 months after a determination is made under this section, the Registrar:
   (a)   must review the determination; and
   (b)   may make another determination under this section.
(5)    However, the Registrar is not required to review a determination as mentioned in subsection (4) if the Registrar is satisfied that there are special circumstances that justify the Registrar in not doing so.

53  Registrar determination where parents care falls below 14%
Making a determination
   (1)   The Registrar may determine the percentage (if any) of care of a child that a parent or non parent carer is likely to have during a care period if:
   (a)   a parent (the first parent) was to have at least regular care of the child during the relevant care period under an oral agreement, parenting plan or court order; and
   (b)   the first parent has no care, or has a pattern of care that is less than regular care, of the child despite the other parent or a non parent carer making the child available to the first parent; and
   ( c)   the other parent or a non parent carer of the child applies for the determination.
Note:   If the Registrar refuses to make a determination under this section, the Registrar must give the applicant a notice under section 54.
Day on which determination commences
   (2)   The determination must specify, in accordance with subsections (4) and (5), the first day in the child support period to which the determination is to apply.
   (3)   The determination applies to the day specified, and later days in the child support period.
   (4)   If the Registrar is satisfied that the other parent or the non parent carer who applied for the determination failed, within a reasonable period, to notify the Registrar that the first parent had no care, or less than regular care, of the child during the relevant care period, the day specified must be the day on which the determination is made.
   (5)   Otherwise, the day specified must be:
   (a)   if the first parent never established a pattern of care in accordance with the oral agreement, parenting plan or court orderthe day on which the plan or court order was entered into or made; or
   (b)   if the first parent established a pattern of care in accordance with the oral agreement, parenting plan or court order, but later ceased the established pattern of carethe day on which the parent ceased the previously established pattern.
   (6)   To avoid doubt, a parent never establishes a pattern of care if:
   (a)   the parent could not have established the pattern of care until a particular period that occurs later in the child support period; and
   (b)   the parent does not establish that pattern during that particular period.
   (7)   The Registrar may revoke or vary a determination made under this section.
Registrar to make determination under this section (and not interim determination)
   (8)   If the Registrar could make a determination under section 52 and this section in respect of the percentage of care for a child, the Registrar must make a determination under this section and not section 52.

I have one thing that I will ask, not that I like doing this. Could you please look toward improving the presentation of your posts. This will not only assist others reading your posts, but I'd suggest that you'd get more responses and thus more feedback  and or assistance.

Your posts are very hard to read because you place all sentences in a single paragraph, you do not use capitals at the beginning of sentences and there are many spelling errors.
Spellcheckers are available for most web browsers nowadays which will automatically highlight spelling errors. If you need assistance in regard to implementing one then I'm pretty sure that some on here can assist in a limited way.

(If not then I'll consider requesting that the admins on here change your userid to BigFingers74 :) )
Doe's not really help change the situation. More or less what Child Support Agency told me. I did not think that my spelling and post presentation was the real issue here. It's the least of my worrie's. Most of Child Support's law's are fairy tale and if the world was a perfect place perhap's they would work, but I live in reality! it's just not that straight forward.
bigtoes74 said
when children reach the age of 12 they are able to make the decision whether they want to go or not thats family law
Oops I missed that in the Family Law Act.  Where is it?

There are a few posts in other forums that deal with age issues and 'children voting with their feet'.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Agog said
bigtoes74 said
when children reach the age of 12 they are able to make the decision whether they want to go or not thats family law
Oops I missed that in the Family Law Act.  Where is it?

There are a few posts in other forums that deal with age issues and 'children voting with their feet'.
Yeah, I wonder where this came from as well. I spent about $700 to discover this was not mentioned anywhere. It depends on the kids. It depends on the situation. It depends on the person deciding the case. Unless the kids are routinely running away from one house to another, it's a very hard thing to argue. Well, thats what I got told by two different solicitors.
dm900 said
Agog said
bigtoes74 said
when children reach the age of 12 they are able to make the decision whether they want to go or not thats family law
 Oops I missed that in the Family Law Act.  Where is it?

There are a few posts in other forums that deal with age issues and 'children voting with their feet'.
Yeah, I wonder where this came from as well. I spent about $700 to discover this was not mentioned anywhere. It depends on the kids. It depends on the situation. It depends on the person deciding the case. Unless the kids are routinely running away from one house to another, it's a very hard thing to argue. Well, thats what I got told by two different solicitors.
What a waste of money.  If you had been reading some of the topics on this site that deal with age issues you would have saved $700.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I'd have done a lot of things differently if I'd known about this site earlier. I still think that if you don't have any clue you may as well pay somebody with half a clue if the outcome is important.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets