Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

CSA, SSAT and "THE PROCESS"!

Add Topic

What is your opinion and what do you do now seeing no one wants to help to have a document corrected?

Guests cannot vote in polls

You must select between 1 and 2 options

Very interesting story. There seems to be CSA Legislation that obviously has a separate Legislation component and intention that is written for men who are "self employed" and "payers".

The honest story I am about to tell has all evidence to support my statements. I will fight until the day I die to have my husband's name cleared from a damning decision that the SSAT have made regarding his financial resources. I have been a support and representative throughout the whole period.

There seems to be Legislation that obviously has a separate Legislation component and intention that is written for men who are "self employed" and "payers".

This is a child support matter that my husband and I have been through. His ex applied for under so called Reason 8. Still until this day there has been no evidence from any of the Departments to support their reasoning to increase his income. He was self-employed however now due to a considerable amount of life threatening and health issues after a heart valve replacement he is no longer able to work.

FIRST CASE OFFICER AT THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
The Case Officer used a of a General Ledger the best quarter to support her decision.

My husband was forced to pay the mortgage on the Former Matrimonial home as the ex stopped paying. He had to take out a huge overdraft to make these obligations as he did not have to income to meet the obligations, use my funds as well as rent the property out to assist.
When the former wife made her application to the CSA she had begun paying the mortgage again and stated that it was my husband's choice to pay the mortgage in full and that she contributed to half. She also accused him of not providing her with half of the rent that we were trying to keep up the mortgage payments that were required.

Because he was paying the mortgage, the case officer based his income on expenditure. Guess what, when the decision was reached, the ex stopped paying the mortgage. He was living off of credit! and not one person could understand this was not a financial resource.

Some time through the course of all the mess that we were going through we found out the Case Officer had been provided with a General Ledger which demonstrated a Loss this information had been withheld at the interview and stuffed in the file. The case officer had also been provided with the exes bank ledger demonstrating clearly the minimal contribution towards the mortgage that she had only recently made. I wonder why this information was withheld. Probably because it demonstrated the truth.

Of course, my husband objected to the decision. They had increased his income by double.

SECOND CASE OFFICER AT THE CSA
He provided substantial business figures for year. He explained peaks and troughs. Responded to all the accusations that he had not had a previous chance to respond to. The Case Officer did not take anything into consideration after all the effort.  She made the decision based on him not supplying his Bank Statements and once again based his income on expenditure. He was never directed to provide this information. We had given up.

SSAT
They wrote that we will contact you for the hearing; not even providing us with an opportunity to attend in person.
My husband Became aware of Heart problems shortly after this decision. We pleaded that we didn't want to have to go the AAT for another hearing and to please re-consider. They informed us to send through another letter. We did.

Denied within five minutes.
AAT- We applied for a review of extension of time
In this time an apology letter came from CSA as information had been withheld from the original Case Officer. It was the General ledger of a loss prior to the the ex had provided and the Bank Ledger of her minimal mortgage contribution.

We thought the right thing to do was to withdraw the application from the AAT on the basis that the Child Support Agency were going to make a fresh decision. Yeah right!!

THIRD CASE OFFICER AT THE CSA
It Wasn't a fresh decision. Looked back at all the information referring to first Case Officers decision because he had been meeting the mortgage obligations.

As I had been assisting him, the CSA said because I didn't provide them with evidence of my contributions to assist financially that she wasn't going to take this into consideration. I was never asked for documentation to prove that I had paid his credit cards off or that I had assisted him financially. I complained about this and the response of the complaint and the outcome was the case officer had run out of time .. Rubbish. .. She had plenty of time! .. And surely, I thought that we should have been provided an opportunity to have it reconsidered.

She only referred to the financial figures and documentation to support her statements eg Total sales in a BAS never taking into consideration the expenses. The Profit & Loss info clearly showed he was not making any money. She wanted bank statements. These were provided for a period of time. We provided these unwillingly however to provide evidence it seemed that this was the only option. Her response to this information was that there was nothing in the bank statements that she could make comment on. Yes that is right. She refused to look at the evidence as it would have demonstrated that he was not making money.

She continued to refer that the credit facilities were a financial resource to my husband and that are not available to the ordinary wage earner. What a waste of time. So off to the SSAT we go.

SSAT Final Tribunal Hearing
The final decision by the SSAT still has no record of how they met their determinations. The evidence that they apparently had to support the decision was destroyed. I wonder why.

We were required to Provide all documents from the Directions including 18 months of Bank Statements, BAS, Profit & Loss. The SSAT misused all the Bank Statement information. When we requested the Calculations of his Financial Matter we were told they were not able to be provided because they were covered under the secrecy provisions. What A Lie?? They destroyed them!! It took several months after an application to the AAT to be told this.

As the law states we have an opportunity to apply to have the Bank Statements revoked as we had tirelessly and repeatedly provided information. We tried. No, disallowed.

WE confirmed that we were to be contacted if any were missing. We were contacted by the Case Manager and told that only 1 or 2 were missing which we immediately provided.

After we had supplied all the info, on receipt of the Folio from the SSAT I expressed my concern to my husband that the quantity of bank statements were missing.  Sure enough there were a considerable amount missing.

WE had to go back through all the documents to work out which ones were missing and it just happened to be the ones most relevant to support the case. We re-sent these and confirmed with a letter that my husband at no time rested on his rights and we knew that the information was imperative to be forwarded to the Panel Members.

Immediately when my husband received the decision, we knew that they had mis-used his financial information, accused him of not providing his all of his bank statements even though it was confirmed by us that they had been received, criticised him for deleting his personal descriptions of transactions still enabling them to have the ability to calculate total deposits/withdrawls, used incomplete information that had been printed from the internet in which they accused him of having 12 bank accounts, not the 8 that he actually had, (When they used his Bank information they did not refer to as ANZ Credit Card etc.., they used the last four digits of everything they could possibly find.

Which if you may be unaware of but when it is printed off for security reasons is different to the actual account number) added in transfers from one account to the other as income which resulted in calculating monies twice. The only knowledge of how they made their determinations and when we became aware of this was when the final decision had been made. At no time did they ask my husband about any of the information or their so-called discoveries. They accused him of being guilty and never was never provided with the ability to prove his innocence.

I argued with the SSAT and the only option that we were given was to take it to Court. So we did.

They also left my personal account details on a Bank Statement that I requested that once it was verified honest evidence that it be deleted so that it did not go to the other party. Refused to take into account that I had lent monies to support his expenses both orally and in the financial documentation, stating that they would not take it into consideration because I did not provide a loan agreement.

We were never requested this.

They compared 13 months of Bank figures to 12 months of trading. They used the Property Loss on the FMH that my Husband was paying to reduce the ex's income. This resulted in a Contrary decision that reduced her income which caused my husband arrears. Did not provide my husband with an opportunity to comment on contrary decision and added back in only half of the ex's salary sacrifice.

Even when the matter went to the FMC, the response was, in simple terms, that they didn't have to provide the evidence to support their decision. The most frustrating thing is the Federal Magistrate dismissed the case. Because the SSAT refused to provide us with a Folio of documents for the Federal Magistrates Court Hearing, I had to photocopy every piece of evidence that had already been supplied to the SSAT and Child Support Agency. Several affidavits were filed. The FM refused to take into consideration any of the Affidavits and Annexures that I tirelessly put together. The FM had all the evidence sitting in the SSAT Folio, how was I expected to refer to this in Court if I didn't have a copy.

We have complained to all agencies including the OAIC, Commonwealth Ombudsman, and every avenue to have this matter dealt with. Not one Department will allow for the damning decision of the SSAT to be corrected. As far as I am concerned, I have no hesitation in saying that the Decision was affected by fraud. The decision was ridiculously worded and even a simple business person I am did not have any difficulty working out that they exaggerated their deposits almost $100000 more than actual deposits. Don't worry about looking for the SSAT decision on the Austlii website, it hasn't been published. I wonder why???

Still, we are not happy that this document is in the Government records and want it corrected!! I have no hesitation in standing in a Court once again and proving my husbands innocence. Unfortunately though, the expense is out of the question.
You may think I am exaggerating, well, for two years we have been battling this, and each agency just makes up the Legislation as they go along. Each agency has done nothing but mis-use information to help come to their determinations. I am not making this up, I have all the evidence to provide so support these statements as well.

CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY - 2 days after the SSAT decision was received
Two days after we had received the SSAT decision we received another application from the CSA from the EX. We were fuming. Their reasons  The grounds that were that there were no grounds to refuse the application.
There was no supporting documentation, no payslip nothing.

So frustrated again.

We complained and went to interview.

At interview once again information packed away in the folder, the ex's payslip. What a surprise. Another apology letter that they were forced to write.

We refused to have another case officer that we had previously had. Ended up with a win. Finally. He had even backdated up to the date that the SSAT had made their decision up to. Just for a bit of added info my husband provided every piece of documentation he possibly could. The only info that the ex provided was false and misleading and a payslip over the whole period. Even though we continually stated this they completely ignored all the evidence that justified our accusations.

WE HAVE LOST TOTAL FAITH OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT HAS SO MANY RULES AND REGULATIONS BUT REFUSES TO LOOK AT THEM UNLESS IT IS FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT!!
Extension of time.
We applied for an extension of time based on new financial figures and felt that information had been withheld from our little investigation. It was disallowed.
From what I am aware of, it wasn't a Tribunal member that made the decision, it was a Staff member. Why do I say that? They didn't want us to attend the hearing.
 
Two days before the initial interview we received a whole heap of documents from the CSA. Could not believe it.

It was documentation that his ex had supplied to support her application. It included my husband's General Ledgers from his business, and his Business Bank Statements that had been recently downloaded from the internet. We attempted to make the information complete and explain however the Case Officer refused any comments or further documentation.

ORR said
I have made a number of page format changes to try and make this considerable post easier to read. The initial post has been copied and pasted from an editor into the WYSIWIG editor and all the core formatting characters were carried into the post making it hard to read. The best way to post large posts into the forums is to turn off the WYSIWIG on your FLWG post editor here and then post in your content as the editor will then strip out all superfluous editing and formatting characters.

The post does raise important issues that the site moderators are dealing with daily. It seems it is a long haul to make any meaningful change to the way some of these cases are dealt with. Please note that the author of this post has posted responses as a GUEST account.

Last edit: by OneRingRules

I can understand how you feel when you say you've lost faith in the Government, but remember it's been this way through governments of both political colours. It was a creation of the Labor Party, but the Liberals have been very silent on reforms, despite the enormous amount of damage done by this rogue elephant.

I must say you've been remarkably patient. The contractor lawyers who act as SCOs (I won't call them ambulance-chasers, their legal abilities don't extend so high) have part of their remuneration dependent on finding that payers owe more than they really do. This has also been part of the landscape through Governments from both sides. After Judith Williams, a contract "liar for hire" at the Brisbane CSA did something similar to me, I said "no more cooperation from me, you've proven you're incapable of understanding simple accounting." Each time I received a threatening letter, which was frequent, I reiterated my offer to pay a correct amount and refused any other cooperation.

I also told the ex that I was happy to pay her, but I would not do so as long as the CSA was involved. It took over 7 years, but she finally accepted she wasn't getting anything but what could be stolen from me unless she cooperated. We've been in a private arrangement for about 6 months now.

Just as a side line, I suspect they kept pursuing me in order to reduce my capacity to take Court action against them. During the last meeting they were very keen to suggest that the Statute of Limitations had extinguished my right to take such action in respect of the original Williams debacle. they're quite wrong, but it's an interesting aspect of their thinking.

CSA, SSAT AND THE PROCESS

ORR said
This post is from "Just Not On"
Sorry I should have clarified the case scenario in the beginning. My husband was the "housewife" in their marriage. His self-employment gave him an opportunity to take on the responsibility of being there for the children while the wife was the main breadwinner which enabled her to further her career with a Government Department. His small amount of income "helped out" a bit. The ex was aware of this and it was a team effort that made the family unit work.

It was when my husband made the application to the CSA That the ex started making all these accusations that his business was profitable. His business was never hugely profitable and their tax returns when together proved this. His tax returns after separation demonstrated minimal profit as well. Suddenly the CSA expected him to be making more income than what he was. How wrong!!

All the time he was going through the process they were still going through settlement in the Court. (At no fault of my husband's)

His credit was drained to the max, not just a few thousand, my credit was getting drained to the max yet all the Departments said he was making double. He was also apparently even generating an income (approx $23000 over the self support amount) when he became ill and couldn't make an income thanks to the misuse of his financial documentation.

The fact that the mortgage on the FMH was still subject to property settlement and I was assisting in meeting the obligation + the income being generated was a reportable benefit to the ATO, the ex was entitled to receive half the loss as the property was still in both names. The ex made minimal contribution and gained. It was the loss that the SSAT reduced her income and not my husbands. WHAT, you say!! Well it happened.

Patience, yes that is one thing that we have both had, however unfortunately there have been many other emotions that have been suffered but the Departments continue to treat you like idiots as if you don't have feelings and just expect you to cop their false accusations. Guilty and trying to prove your innocence, this is what we have both had to go through.

Frustration and anger, - because they have no idea when dealing with peoples emotions. Misuse of financial documentation, taking into consideration irrelevant material, never asking for info when they take it into consideration in their determination, Picking through the bits that they want to use and disregarding the most important fact

Humiliation, any ex that is bitter would love their former partner to be tried and tested and accused of being guilty.

My husband is not guilty. He is an honest man.

How dare the Government Departments try and sweep this under the carpet.

Last edit: by OneRingRules

More CSA Goss!!

Can anyone tell me how often the CSA assessments are updated.

Contacted CSA re children becoming teenagers, therefore asked what is the new support amount.

First customer service officer gave a verbal amount and mentioned that the assessment letter had been sent last year. I said that was last year this is now, should go to a different table.  Gee I love having a chat with this Department.

Anyway, verbally he told me the figure.  I requested to have it put in writing and sent through. (Make sure you always try and get everthing in writing) Nothing came through.

I thought I would give them another call a few days later.  I didn't go through to the area that I normally get put through, you know the special case officer that you are allocated that seems to be in support of the other parent, it was somewhere else that had no idea about the case.

The lovely lady that helped immediately had the New Assessment to us by the end of the day, taking into consideration the ages of the children on the new Assessment Table.  Makes a bit of a difference, but it isn't getting any cheaper raising children either as we all would know.

It seemed that  the CSA were trying to keep the payments set at the old rate.  Surely not.  I understand the cost rates go up annually, are the rates supposed to change  at the beginning of the year or the end of the financial year.  Beginning I thought, but maybe not??
Just not on said
Can anyone tell me how often the CSA assessments are updated.
The maximum period is 18 months. However there are many events that can shorten this (tax returns, new relevant information). Children turning 13 should automatically be applied. Note that the assessment for the year in which such a change takes place should be worked out so that the old CS rate applies until the day the child turns 13 and then the new rate that considers the 13+ child applies for the rest of the assessment period.

Just not on said
It seemed that  the CSA were trying to keep the payments set at the old rate.  Surely not.
I believe there are a few "pigeon holes" that CSA workers (most workers) can be slotted into in regards to they undertake their work. The CSA have backlogs and are pressed for time. As such some workers take short cuts in order to move the "In-Tray" on and thus meet their performance requirements. One such method is to just mark the "In-Tray" as complete. This happening is one of the reasons why you can't really trust speaking to 1 person from the CSA and that I'd always recommend getting advice/assistance from at least two and to always get everything in writing.
Thankyou Mike T.

From previous experience I thought it was to once again go in the other parties favour as has done in the past.  I suppose that is what happens when we lose faith in Government Departments.

It will take a lifetime for me to be ever able to trust any Department ever again!!
Just not on said
Thankyou Mike T.

From previous experience I thought it was to once again go in the other parties favour as has done in the past.  I suppose that is what happens when we lose faith in Government Departments.

It will take a lifetime for me to be ever able to trust any Department ever again!!
 
It'll take a lot longer than that for me!

Fuming absolutely fuming

Just got off the phone from someone in Parliament.



I AM FUMING.

There is still no way that my husband can correct the Damning Statements in the SSAT Decision.  FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD.  The SSAT misused my husband's financial documentation and they won't allow him to correct it.

I KNOW SOMEONE HAS TAMPERED AND RE-WRITTEN THE DECISION!!  BUT THE SSAT WON'T ADMIT IT. 

Why else would a Tribuanal of all Departments DESTROY DOCUMENTS that support their decision.

Breach of Privacy, the OAIC does not want to have anything to do with it.  They are all out to protect one another and I am sure they know what would happen if the case was opened.

What do we do???

HELP HELP Someone.

What do you do next.  Can't afford the Court cost again.

This Country should be ashamed.  The Government should be ashamed that this can happen!!

I think it is just about time to go to the media or does anyone have any suggestions.

The SSAT SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
You could try to appeal this through court (Federal Magistrates), but it has to be on a matter of law. A search (click on search in the navigation bar at the top) using +matter +of +law (+ before a word means that it must exist, so all three words must be found) may assist in understanding what a matter of law is.

Are these errors of law

The SSAT decided

*  that the property loss (that my partner had to pay for) would reduce the ex's income.This resulted in a contrary decision which caused him arrears.  The SSAT never provided my partner the opportunity to comment, the only time we became aware was on the receipt of the decision

*  the SSAT added on 6 months of salary sacrifice instead of 12 months back into the ex's ATI amount

*  The SSAT looked at turnover of my partners income, not the expenses etc never taking into consideration the costs he incurred.

*  The SSAT misused the financials, and used duplicate info from the previous CSA Folio.  The only time we became aware of this was when the SSAT had made their decision final.

* The SSAT accused my partner of not supplying all the Bank Statements. We did supply all of them and from all the poop we had been through before, we confirmed this with a letter to contact us as we did not want them to accuse my partner of resting on his rights.  They did contact us and apparently 2 were missing  I sent them through immediately.  It wasn't until the decision had been made that they accused him of not supplying them in completeness.

* The SSAT did not take into consideration I was assisting him financially.  Over and over we had been saying this.  On receiving the decision they had stated that they were not going to take this into consideration because I never supplied a loan agreement.  We were never directed to provide a loan agreement and the only time we were aware that they wanted this was when we received the decision.

* My partner was living off of credit. Not living an extravagent life, it was because the ex stopped paying the mortgage so he had to do something.  The SSAT considered that Credit is income and because he could afford to meet the mortgage obligations and with my assistance after the credit ran out, they concluded that he had financial resources not reflected in his taxable income.

* The SSAT calculated monies twice.  When your income goes into the Bank Account, and you pay off a credit card, the SSAT decided when making their calculations that the payment off the credit card was going to be counted as income.  The only time we were aware of this was when the decision was received.  This resulted in calculating monies twice.

So what are your thoughts on this.
Just not on said
that the property loss (that my partner had to pay for) would reduce the ex's income.This resulted in a contrary decision which caused him arrears.  The SSAT never provided my partner the opportunity to comment, the only time we became aware was on the receipt of the decision
Net investment losses, including property are, albeit it wrongly in my opinion, are included in the legislation. If the property is in your name then I very much doubt that you have a leg to stand on in this regard, irrespective of who covered the losses. I believe the reasoning behind this is that losses could be used to alienate income (i.e. reduce the taxable income).

Just not on said
the SSAT added on 6 months of salary sacrifice instead of 12 months back into the ex's ATI amount
If the SSAT decision or the CSA did this and it should have been 12 months then I believe that this is an error at law as Gylseman (as so often quoted in the CSA guide, but this  continues on to say that finances have to be reasonable.

Just not on said
The SSAT looked at turnover of my partners income, not the expenses etc never taking into consideration the costs he incurred.
This appears to be another very common distortion of the legislation by the CSA and now it appears that evidence is showing SSAT also (a very likely explanation is perhaps because ex CSA SCO's may have moved on and into SSAT, I personally believe that there should be a totally independent inquiry into COA decisions by both SSAT and the CSA).

Just not on said
The SSAT misused the financials, and used duplicate info from the previous CSA Folio.  The only time we became aware of this was when the SSAT had made their decision final.
I believe that SSAT are bound by the CS legislation which requires that any adverse information is to be made know to allow procedural fairness. As such I believe that SSAT have erred at law by not considering the required procedural fairness. Obviously if SSAT has applied duplication of data then this too is an error at law, again at least that it is unreasonable to do so.

Just not on said
The SSAT accused my partner of not supplying all the Bank Statements. We did supply all of them and from all the poop we had been through before, we confirmed this with a letter to contact us as we did not want them to accuse my partner of resting on his rights.  They did contact us and apparently 2 were missing  I sent them through immediately.  It wasn't until the decision had been made that they accused him of not supplying them in completeness.
I don't think in itself warrants an error at law, however SSAT should be accountable for such harassment of customers. It certainly appears to be a breach of SSAT's published Service Standards:-

SSAT website said
The SSATs Service Charter describes its commitment to providing high quality, timely and courteous service to applicants and other parties to reviews. It also lists rights and responsibilities of applicants and other parties in their dealings with the SSAT and the SSATs complaints handling process.
Here's a link to the complaints page
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
SSAT Complaints

Just not on said
The SSAT did not take into consideration I was assisting him financially.  Over and over we had been saying this.  On receiving the decision they had stated that they were not going to take this into consideration because I never supplied a loan agreement.  We were never directed to provide a loan agreement and the only time we were aware that they wanted this was when we received the decision.

My partner was living off of credit. Not living an extravagent life, it was because the ex stopped paying the mortgage so he had to do something.  The SSAT considered that Credit is income and because he could afford to meet the mortgage obligations and with my assistance after the credit ran out, they concluded that he had financial resources not reflected in his taxable income.

The SSAT calculated monies twice.  When your income goes into the Bank Account, and you pay off a credit card, the SSAT decided when making their calculations that the payment off the credit card was going to be counted as income.  The only time we were aware of this was when the decision was received.  This resulted in calculating monies twice.
I think this likely again comes into an error at law due to unreasonableness and thus not at equitable and just decision, it is also very likely not otherwise proper (which CSA only consider to be about FTB being reduced from the decisions (likely part of a template) that I have seen. (being "Otherwsise proper" is something that I'd like to see tested at law, e.g. one decision that I'm aware of must have considered it "Otherwise Proper" to put the safety of the general public at risk).
























I believe these are all points of fact so the court will not consider any of them in an appeal.

You need to read s117 of the child support (assessment) act to work out where you might be able to appeal on a point of law.

Off hand I can think of:
117  (1) Where: (a)   application is made to a court having jurisdiction under this Act for an order under this Division in relation to a child in the special circumstances of the case; and
   (b)   the court is satisfied: (i)   that one or more of the grounds for departure mentioned in subsection(2) exists or exist; and
   (ii)   that it would be:
   (A)   just and equitable as regards the child, the carer entitled to child support and the liable parent; and

But this point of law must have been considered by the SSAT in their decision for the court to reconsider.

Another option would be to tidy up your finances etc… as below and lodge a COA against the ex and when you get to the SSAT appeal be very careful what evidence you disclose so nothing can be misconstrued.

I am not sure about your financial situation but suggest the following might help in the future:

Make sure the property settlement with ex is complete.

Keep all yearly financials & tax returns up to date.

Separate your finances from your husband.

Close off any lines of credit that are not needed as these are seen as a resource whether you think so or not.

Lodge tax returns asap after June 30 each year and use this as the trigger for child support assessment rather than estimates unless his income will be significantly reduced for a long period of time.

Only talk to C$A over the phone for general enquiries and only deal with them in writing (snail mail) for all other communications.

Pay for professional financial advice to work out the most effective strategies to minimise tax payable.

Hope the above is helpful.








 

Last edit: by Fairgo

In Admin Law, which is what CSA and SSAT are (meant to be) subject to, the grounds for judicial review for a point of law includes those where the Decision Maker has a duty to:
- take into account relevant considerations and disregard irrelevant considerations',
- a duty to act reasonably and be unbiased;
- afford procedural fairness;
- afford parties the Hearing Rule i.e. let them know what matters are being considered
- etc, etc, but didn't do one or many of these things.

I would recommend that a Family Law Specialist or a solicitor that specialises in Admin Law be consulted to see if you have enough grounds to lodge an appeal.
By all means check this out but there is a reason why we are informed that a C$A SSAT decision can only be appealed on a point of law. To me to not allow other reasons for an appeal as you have listed seems grossly unfair.

Thank You for your comments

I appreciate all of the responses and so that you are aware of the outcome that has occurred please read back on the initial posting "SSAT final Tribunal Hearing" last paragraph.

This matter went to the FM but he refused to look at any of our affidavits on the basis that we should have supplied the info to the SSAT in the first place.

We would not have had to supply pages and pages of info for the Affidavits ( Im talking hundreds of pages) if we had been provided a copy of the Folio of documents that the SSAT provided to the FMC. We then would have had the ability to refer to the FM that the SSAT had been provided with all the info.  Something needs to change.  How can you have a fair Hearing if the SSAT aren't required to provide you a copy of the Documents that they provide to the Court, and the FM then refuse to look at the documents you supply them as this is the evidence that support your application.

It was even stated in one of the Affidavits that the SSAT refused to provide a copy of the Court Folio so we provided the evidence for reference of the FMC.

No, didn't look at one page of evidence.  DISMISSED.  Based on credibility. Because of the Damning appauling and critical comments made in the SSAT decision, the FMC obviously would not accept that something seriously wrong.  I did not realise credibility of a citizen is a finding of fact.  My partner was made a criminal by the SSAT (Far from the truth) and A FMC allows this to occur.  Not even the FM could support this in the decision apart from relying on their "so called experienced Panel Members"

We asked the FM that the SSAT provide my partner to have the decision corrected based on the information that had been provided to the SSAT.  NO  still to this day it sits on  file.

APPALLING!!  LET THIS DOCUMENT BE CORRECTED!! They won't let it be corrected.

We have no rights in this Country.

SHAME ON THE GOVERNMENT.!!

I have said before and I will say again.  Between all Departments the whole process has been one big cover up and disaster.  I am sure the SSAT knows what has happened but they completely ignore what has occured, hoping that it just gets swept under the carpet.

I will continue to fight until the day I die to have my partner's name cleared!!!
It does seem very unfair if a SSAT decision cannot be completely appealed. This right was removed when the SSAT was brought into the picture from 2007 for child support matters. The whole idea was to get child support matters out of the courts. I believe restricting appeals to points of law is very unfair. You could lobby for legislative change to allow courts more power to review SSAT decisions.
Have you tried going to your local member of parliament who deals with this kind of stuff. I know ours was very interested but I never got round to dealing with ours because I got pregnant and suffered Perinatal Depression.

Our biggest problem is the mother of my husband's child continues to not work because her husband (child's stepfather) earns in excess of $62,000 and does not trust her. Yet there is a rule through CSA whereby a parent has the capacity to earn they are expected to (yeah right).  Well it is going to be interesting for us next year because her youngest will be 5 years old and at school, so will they then insist she pay the standard amount of child maintenance or continue to allow her to pay the minimum amount (she can't reduce it to a nil assessment because of husbands earnings).

Unfortunately CSA is out there for the women only (and I am one). They hunt the men down like rabid dogs and the women literally get away with murder. This is the case for our situation and also a friends. Oh, and the CSA officers, especially the men, do not like it when they are told this.

I will be raising my children with open eyes to make sure they are aware that they do not get into a relationship, have children and then have to pay out such stupid amounts. Alternatively the agreement is in writing through the courts.

That is the only other way is to make an application through Family Law for an agreed amount of Child Maintenance and then the CSA has to comply with a court document.
Veteran said
Yet there is a rule through CSA whereby a parent has the capacity to earn they are expected to (yeah right).

Veteran this is a little simplistic. Capacity to earn can only be instigated through a change of assessment (reason 8, which can be initiated by the registrar (CSA) and therefore very likely rarely if it were to result in a decrease in the amount transferred or collected (i.e. the CS paid)). If Capacity to earn is then considered there are three conditions, all of which must be met.

The first is that the parent is not working despite ample opportunity, or has reduced their work hours to below full time work, or has changed their occupation, industry or working pattern.

The second is that the decision is not justified by the parent's health or caring responsibilities.

The third is that the parent has failed to show that the decision about the parent's work arrangements was not substantially motivated by the effect on the CS.

Combined, these three very much protect a parent who has a history of not working. The third especially so as it's basically impossible to prove and thus will result in an interpretation by a CSA employee who are, especially since the Richmond report (basically it says collect, collect, collect oh and also collect), pushed toward collecting as much as they can and thus chasing a recipient, although clearly part of the very object of the legislation, does not suit the collect at any cost attitude of the CSA (in general). I believe that SSAT (who did apply a capacity to earn to a recipient) have now been seriously affected by what I guess is the introduction of ex CSA workers, so it very much appears that an expectation of SSAT being more likely to be fairer (i.e. by interpreting the legislation rather than applying distortion of the legislation in order to collect high amounts) than the CSA, is now greatly reduced.

Borrowings as ATI

Just not on said

Because he was paying the mortgage, the case officer based his income on expenditure.


It has happened to me too.
The Adjusted Taxable Income (ATI) was derived from the expenditure via COA process. All evidence of very little income earned (resulting in zero formula assessment) has been provided (Tax returns, Loan agreements, BAS, etc). The Objection officer indicated that the borrowings/liabilities are seen by the CSA as financial recourse and can be treated as an income for CS purposes.
Of course, no accounting practice can agree on this.
Can anyone help me find a legislative reference to support/not to support the CSA approach? Apologies, if this has already been addressed somewhere in the forum.
Thank you

Guest
check Ladd & Child Support Registrar & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 23 and Farrens & Farrens (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 325 which can be found on AustLii.edu.au. Both of these cases deal with business debts.

'Ladd' is a contributer to these forums so may be able to help.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets