Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Ex is having another child what happens to my C$A payments

Add Topic
What will happen.

I was advised by my ex today that she is going to have another baby.

Current situatuion is I have four children with her (I have been led to beleive that three are not mine), she has four additional children with her partner. I have 50-50 care of my four children with her.

She currently works 7 days per fortnight and I work 10 days per fortnight. My percentage financial contribution is about 93% and hers is 7%.

If she continues to work at the current rate. What effect will the fith additional child have to my CS payments ?

If she decided to give up work to care for the new child and my contributions become 100%. Can I argue capacity to work ? Or will I just be told that she has the right to quit her job.
She has 8 children, about to have her 9th?!

I don't think you could argue much in terms of capacity to work…

Why Work!?

If this lady keeps on having kids she can almost retire on the benefits she will get. My husbands ex partner kept having children as she told him she never wanted to work again, then promptly left him and took most of the money from the sale of the house, leaving him with virtually nothing and a large CSA bill of $12,000. This is why we have had to work (sometimes three jobs) to support her lifestyle. I calculated at one point a few years ago she was getting $50,000 in benefits, allowances etc. and her new husband was on Disability pension. What a rort! As far as CSA goes, spousal maintenance should be taken out of the equation when these people remarry on re-partner. The taxpayer and you have to fund all these children because the mother obviously takes no financial responsibilty for them.
I actually just spoke with a C$A person that was quite helpful for a change, I was told that the relevant dependant child amount is capped at three children, so the fourth child and the fifth child will make no difference to this amount.

However if she stops work, then I would have to do a COA under reason 8 capacity to work. I asked what the likely outcome was from this and she went silent.

Another thing that confuses me with the relevant dependant child was the way they calculate it. Is that they use my income and her income but not her partners income to determine how much the relevant dependant child amount is. I fail to see how this is fair as what has my income got to do with her other children ?

In relation to Family Allowances something I have put in claims for as I am catching up on tax returns trying to get things sorted out. It has come to light after I put in a claim that my ex was claiming 100% care of my four children with her,, so she now owes arround $30,000 in overpaid FA.
Oz Mick said
Another thing that confuses me with the relevant dependant child was the way they calculate it. Is that they use my income and her income but not her partners income to determine how much the relevant dependant child amount is. I fail to see how this is fair as what has my income got to do with her other children ?
OZ Mick,
            the cost of relevant dependant children is worked out based upon the income of just the one parent. That parent's ATI (Adjusted Taxable Income) has the Self Support Amount (SSA) taken off, currently $19618 which is then applied to the cost of children tables (same tables that are used for CS children and also multi-case children) and the resultant cost is then subtracted from the ATI less the SSA. If the ATI less the SSA is 0 or less, as it would be for someone on income support, then it is $0 the result is $0 cost of the child or children.

The increase, in the situation that you describe, is entirely due to the fact that the other parent has or will have given up work. Although the total cost of the child or children will likely reduce, as the income of both parent's will reduce, the percentage of that income will increase for yourself. This percentage, termed PIP (Parent's Income Percentage), is the proportion (less any care reduction) of the cost of the child that the parent pays (one parent, except for where a non-parent carer is involved or in some situations where there are multiple children with different levels of care, will pay whilst the other will always have a 0 or negative percentage as the care reduction for one parent is 100% less the other parent's care reduction).

I believe that a reason 8 change of assessment, based upon capacity to earn would be pretty hard to gain in the circumstances. However, if the other parent is running their own business or has investments (which are then really the investments of both), then you might have a chance under reason 8 with financial resources. However, a word of warning, the CSA have a record with change of assessments of looking to increase the amount collected or transferred and going by that record they would very likely look to applying bias against yourself resulting in an increase in your liability. The use of reason 8 has in the past been termed "Deem and Destroy" and their is evidence to support this terminology.

The sticking point with capacity to pay in this situation is two-fold. The first is that having another child would fit into the "being justified as a caring responsibility" category. Furthermore it would also likely be taken to be sufficient to not consider that the change in working arrangements wasn't made to substantially effect the CS.

Perhaps have a read of the CSA Guide - 2.6.14: reason 8 - a parents income, property, financial resources, or earning capacity. Here's a link CSA Guide - 2.6.14: reason 8 - a parents income, property, financial resources, or earning capacity
Mike T thanks for your detailed response, it filled in the holes what C$A did not want to tell me.

Basically it means because of her lifestyle change yet again,, I will have to pay more. Which is going to make things difficult.

Sigh,, when are they going to introduce a Child Support system that is fair, unbiased that takes into account that payers might want to have a life after separation. It is just so unfair.

I am starting to feel that I am no longer considered to be an Australian Citizen, I think criminals have more rights than me
Or maybe the payer is not accorded procedural fairness or natural justice by taking into consideration the X's new partners income when they are having a child together
My basic problem with the entire concept of child support  is quite simple  If you question anything the immediate response is "Deadbeat dad doesnt want to pay for his kids"

This attitude goes right through from parliamentarians and judges down to the street.

EG when attending a hearing in court due to mother wanting overpayments waived the first words from the federal magistrate was "so the father doesnt want to pay child support"

I found this to be a disgusting and biased attitude

Why oh why should my legal rep have to correct the judge and advise that I was overpayed by several thousands of dollars and that the mother was seeking to have her lies and the child $upport Agency's overzealousness to collect waived.

then for the judge to ask why i would not want to waive this as its for my kids.

is it any wonder most cases like this are waived in a consent order.

lets not even start on parliamentarians who pass legislation to allow the child support agency to act in the manner they do and do absolutely nothing to curtail it.

"i would bet my life that the bulk of public enquiries to there local parliamentarian would be about the child support agency and its discriminatory behavior against payers and yet still they pass legislation like the recent amendments to the child support act allowing C$A to override courts about care percentages.

watch 6.30 pm current affairs shows and see how many times they pursue deadbeat dads and how many times they chaseup C$A over there crazy decisions.

in the event of a breakdown of family if a father goes to centrelink he needs to show a court order to get benefits but a mother is granted emergency payments and offered numbers for refuge centres etc.

just what happens if a father takes his kids because the mother is violent etc?????

and finally everyone always says "in the best interest of the children" …. is it in the childrens best interest to have a father who is financially destitute and who gets punished by a govt agency everytime he tries to move on with his life financially, especially as the mother can do so with no issues whatsoever.

thats my rant for the day

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of  the time unless they work for CSA and youre a Payee:)
 I really think your not ranting just stating the plain facts.

I know what its like when I separated with my ex-wife after she moved her boyfriend into my house, I was devastated that there was no organisation to assist males, if I was wearing a skirt I could have had my pick of places. I am really getting fed up with Child Support, I am tierd of someone taking my hard earned dollars and passing them to the other side to be squandered, I am tierd of a system that cares nothing about my well being. Three of the kids are not even mine but previous advice indicates I would not win despite this. Besides I would not have the spare money to actually go file it in the court or do DNA testing. I have loved and cared for my kids by myself but, sadly getting close to the point of selling up everything and walking away,, because YOU CANNOT TAKE SOMETHING FROM NOTHING
 Even tonight got greeted by more C$A Junk Mail just like I did not need to be reminded of there existance.

Why are there not people listening to us!!
The  simple facts are the legislation is there to support correct procedure, however judges and some government agencies do not follow it but hide behind so called grey areas of the law and continually state "in the best interest of the children.

As far as Parliament goes one just has to look at who got the most out of the stimulus packages recently. Lives with parents got 2 of these bundles of joy.Statistic show the bulk of lives with parents are?????

The former howard government were returned at the 2004  on the strength of the baby bonus, Do you know any men who can have babies????

Recent legislation passed includes a provision for paid Parental leave, Do you know any men who can have babies????

There is no compulsory DNA testing before Child support collection. This relies on the Mother's advice.

If the mother is found to have lied there is no punishment and they are not required to Pay anything back, again the fallback is "in the best interest of the children"

I could go on and on but It would make it seem I am a woman hater which is far from the truth

I believe a number of women utilise the system to a better degree and have lobbied a biased but better outcome in the favour of women.

My primary goal is to be a father to my children and not just an extra wallet for my ex

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of  the time unless they work for CSA and youre a Payee:)
leroy said
My primary goal is to be a father to my children and not just an extra wallet for my ex
  :thumbs:

C$A system is all geared up to empty that wallet to the best of their ability.

Things that need to be changed.

1. Compulsory DNA Testing at Birth, Compulsory DNA Testing before C$A case can be established.



Add to this




Realistic cost of children basis.

Automated system where CSA are just data entry operatives and only factual evidence is used to make determinations.

Legislation changes that eradicate the anomalies, likely a fully graduated system rather than distinct thresholds such as the 14% and 35% thresholds that can result in totally ridiculous amounts.

Full protection of children from financial exploitation and adherence to the object of the legislation to ensure that recipient parent's meet their financial responsibility by the way of full accountability of all monies received in the name of child support. Perhaps via a card from which all such funds can only be spent; limiting what the money can be spent on and also checking how the CS money is spent (e.g. if food items purchased were indicative of spending greater than an amount that could be healthily consumed, then an alarm would be initiated).
The Government already has a scale of how much it takes to raise a child just have a look at what Foster Parents receive which takes into consideration, housing, clothing, food etc.  Why don't they use that scale as a basis for the payment of Child Support.

MikeT said
 limiting what the money can be spent on and also checking how the CS money is spent (e.g. if food items purchased were indicative of spending greater than an amount that could be healthily consumed, then an alarm would be initiated
The Government has /had a system which was almost identical to what MikeT suggested when they restricted some communities access to Welfare payments and what they could spend it on.

To hard basket, I don't think so.  If some of those politicians grew balls and did not bow to those groups who would appose such reforms I believe everyone would be better off
As your income goes up so does your child support amount .

Have they remotely considered that the person who you are no longer with was actually holding you back from achieving thereby earning and the new support network including or not including partner actually encourages you to achieve and earn more ?

The answer is No

your new partner or support network maybe even kids  are punished by paying more to the person considers you as an extra savings account and  hardly spends a cent on the kids anyway.

when one realises his child support is paying of the ex's new boyfriend's car and the kids are eating tinned homebrand baked bea ns for dinner but there is nothing  one can do as C$A says ex can do as she pleases with the money and Docs say there is no complaint to investigate as the kids are fed and you are paying 1/3 of youre  gross income this could certainly raise the level of dispute between  the parties involved.

this is of course just an example and not my situation.

I'm sure someone could come up with an even more extreme situation which is bad in itself but worse still most likely true.

I do think it should be mandatory for everyone to have counselling  when becoming a client of C$A as there are many women who have grave concerns about  the agency.

I personally believe the entire department should be disbanded and all these matters including FAO to be under the banner of centrelink as lets face it if you are a payee chances are youre getting money from all 3 if you are a payer and not working and have your kids for a significant amount of time youre getting money from all 3 why not have 1 department instead of 3…. oops that would mean less people on fat salaries deciding peoples lives

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of  the time unless they work for CSA and youre a Payee:)
Leroy said
when one realises his child support is paying of the ex's new boyfriend's car and the kids are eating tinned homebrand baked bea ns for dinner but there is nothing  one can do as C$A says ex can do as she pleases with the money and Docs say there is no complaint to investigate as the kids are fed and you are paying 1/3 of youre  gross income this could certainly raise the level of dispute between  the parties involved.

Again the accountability through a card, would indicate such a neglectful and abusive parent; although such a card would in itself, if properly implemented, prevent such irresponsible actions occurring in the first place (yep Fairgo, an expansion of the welfare scheme or something similar, contrary to Matt Miller, on behalf of the CSA, saying on radio that it would be impossible, when the matter of accountability of CS received was put to him).
So far

1. Compulsory DNA Testing at Birth, Compulsory DNA Testing before C$A case can be established.   >> Totally removes any doubt of biological responsibility (oz_mick)

2. Accountability of payments received through a card system,,,  Payer and Payee to both receive statements of what money was spent on.  ->>at least you could see what the money is spent on (mikeT)

3.Automated system where CSA are just data entry operatives and only factual evidence is used to make determinations. (mike T)


4.Legislation changes that eradicate the anomalies, likely a fully graduated system rather than distinct thresholds such as the 14% and 35% thresholds that can result in totally ridiculous amounts. (mike T)

5. FAO C$A disbanded come under one banner Centrelink,,   ->> could use the line here "In the best interests of the taxpayer" (Leroy)

6. Remove the $1.00 saves $0.50 in family allowances,, Remove bonuses for C$A Staff     >> Would remove the incentive to nail the payer to the wall (oz_mick)



Add more
so If we have a graduated system whereby 5 yr old  costs 5k per year etc

if we could also then have a 50/50 system

so if child is 6 cost is 5.5k dad puts in $2750 mum puts in $2750 Care percentages dont matter or count (wonder if that would have more fathers seeing there kids more often)

Both Mum and dad then have the opportunity to go out and make there own life less disputes and no1 can say its unfair.

if people want money to spend on nice things, parties, or drugs they'll have to go out and work for it like every CSA payer client has had to do .

ironically the unemployment rate would go down. The rate  of mental health cases  would probably go down as well due to fighting with CSA being negated

There would however be some drawbacks …. suicide and hospitalisation rates would go down meaning greater population and a need for more infrastucture

I'm pretty sure the federal govt could build a dam and a power station and a national highway with the savings from disbanding CSA & FAO, Now just what to do with all that single parent pension saved by all those  payee parents going out to work for there life luxuries, and even moreso what about the tax they would pay on there earnings…..what about the aged pension saved as they would have super also… the govt saving would be virtually endless.

any1 have any suggestions what govt could fund with this? perhaps stimulus packages for everyone instead of a select few ?

Maybe hospitals with No waiting lists

Maybe hospitals with beds available

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of  the time unless they work for CSA and youre a Payee:)
MikeT said
Legislation changes that eradicate the anomalies, likely a fully graduated system rather than distinct thresholds such as the 14% and 35% thresholds that can result in totally ridiculous amounts.
I have never been able to understand why a graduated incremental system was not introduced instead of the fixed battle lines of care bands. Barry Williams was on the panel perhaps he can advise why they rejected such a scheme. In fact I will shoot an email to Professor Parkinson.


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
 
Secretary_SPCA, I hope your email asks for an explanation as to how a up to $10,000 cost per child for one night, as per the two scenarios above, is sensible. I'm pretty sure that Professor Parkinson will just use the research that suggests that the percentage cost of a child reduces as the income increases. However, that is catered for in the income banding not the level of care. He will also probably say that Reason 1 caters for those who have care that is under 14%. However, as is very clear from the Ombudsman's report, the CSA do not apply change of assessments fairly and that they discriminate against the liable parent. Something that Professor Parkinson would have known at the time considering that it was clear that the CSA, back then, clearly discriminated against the liable parent.
MikeT said
Professor Parkinson


Whats this guys claim to fame,,, is he one of the people responsible for creating the debarcle thats called C$A ?
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets