Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Ex now refusing to pay Child Support

Add Topic

Child Support Arrears

Hi.

My sitauation is that my ex has now told Child Support that he is not able to pay till Febuary 2009. He hasn't paid any support since October. He has also taken out a COA against me, then an appeal to the decison and now onto a SSAT. The child support amount due by Febuary 2009 will be approximately $7000.

I have written out all the SSAT forms and spoken to them along with the CSA and they have told me that the case is in hand and. I always thought that if a debt becomes to large they will not let it get that way.

This case is complicated as he has also assaulted our eldest daughter and was up on charges of Common Assault, (the charges came from when my daughter went to school after the weekend visit and told the principal and he reported it to DOCS and Child Protection)the case has now gone to what is called Alternate Dispute Resolution and we still haven't heard what that means?

I have a letter from his lawyer stating that because he had this court case that didn't proceed he will not be payingchild support till Febuary and that normal access of the younger 2 children is to go ahead.

I do understand that child support and Final Orders are not connected but how is it fair that he doesn't have to pay child support, I have to drive the kids to him and he is not being made accountable for his actions.

My daughter is in therapy and my younger children,one who witnessed the assault and the other who hid inthe bedroom but could hear it are still having to go to their Dad's while they are afraid too.

I have always wanted him to have a good relationship with the children, however the last few months have been terrible. I know as a Mum I need to alleviate any fears ofthe kids and still abide by the Final Orders, which I seem to be doing all the time, keeping a positive outlook to the kids about them going to see their dad,but I am beginning tofeel so hopeless as a Mum as this is causing a lot of stress on our family unit. I don't like seeing my kids so distressed that they have to go to his home without their big sister and frightened that something may happent to them next.

I also feel that I have had to spend alot of money with lawyers writing letters back and forth and he seems to always deny everything and never agree to any amicable aggreement.

I am sorry if this is come out all muddled but I really am wits end about this ongoing situation.

I am taking the high road at all times. However it feels like he is able to do what he likes and its always OK.
I think this is a very complex situation that you are in.

You need to pull apart child support issues from basic contact issues.

I would recommend seeing Women's Legal Services in your state. Once family violence has entered the equation, mediation is no longer advised. You should be able to progress to court to get orders. These will resolve, inadvertently perhaps, a lot of the issues you mention with CSA.

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. 
The Child Support Agency called this morning and said that negotiations with my ex-husband did not work and thet have issued a garnishee to his employer.

As a contractor he just has to change jobs and that may not be enforced!

I asked how much will they be collecting and they told me due to privacy issues they are not allowed to say how much.

I am also not expected to get any of these payments till Feb next year, as Christmas time there is always a hold up.

And then the final words, that end every conversation with the CSA, "please do not expect payment and if you receive any payments look at it as a bonus".
CeeCee said
I have a letter from his lawyer stating that because he had this court case that didn't proceed he will not be payingchild support till Febuary and that normal access of the younger 2 children is to go ahead.

I do understand that child support and Final Orders are not connected but how is it fair that he doesn't have to pay child support, I have to drive the kids to him and he is not being made accountable for his actions
I am not sure I follow this as you say "he had his court case that didn't proceed". Did it proceed or did it not proceed but that is of no real concern anyway as Child Support is payable regardless. From your brief notes I did not see that you are under either court orders OR a Parenting Plan or any sort of agreement. Have you just started working with CSA and were you on a private collect arrangement previously?

If he is on contract and the CSA are the collecting agency, then the contracting company he is engaged with is obliged to withhold and pass on CSA collectibles. If he is self employed and the contracting company is himself then he is obliged to pass the funds to CSA but only if it is a CSA collect case. It sounds like he is working for a contracting company and in today's job climate may not change contracts to quickly. In any event the CSA just advise the new company what to take as long as you can advise the CSA who he is contracting to. I assume you have used our payment calculators located in the CSA section of the site here to get a guide as to amounts. Not sure why CSA wont tell you what they are planing to collect as that is easily available as both parents get statements and the formula is easily worked out using the calculators.

There is much we do not know about the circumstances here but if violence (Not just an allegation) is genuinely involved then protection of the children is the first priority and contact would be suspended at that point and a court order could be required for it to resume unless guarantees are made and able to be confirmed and adhered to by all parties through legal agreements. Contact cannot be effected when there is any sort of physical abuse. The Law is very clear on this point. My own view is that both parents have an obligation to pay child support which is clearly calculated through any of the estimators on either our site or the CSA site. The other obligation is the children must be safe at all times. You have a responsibility to ensure their safety and the CSA has an obligation to collect payments if you are not in a private arrangement. The solicitor acting for the dad should know clearly what the responsibilities are. He cannot use the fact there was or wasn't a court hearing to withdraw obligation for paying child support.

Debt can build up over a  long time period to large amounts (There is no set amount) and remember that the CSA are a collection agency firstly and can provide a range of other advisory assistance measures. This means they may not be able to collect immediately and when they do the transfer is effected usually within three weeks or less. Contact and payments are two slightly but not directly related issues as far as the CSA are concerned. The new CSA formula now takes into account discounts relating to credit for care (days/nights). The CSA collect money and the courts (Federal Magistrates and Family) deal with contact arrangements (At the moment anyway).

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
 
An article published in "Feature Articles" under the news section may be of interest in this thread. It is penned by Andrew Cornish who is a prominent Family Law Practitioner and specialist .Click here to select Child Abuse allegations in Family Law Proceedings

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
 

Child support, assessable income, access

My ex owes me $11,000 in back child support. Get a free ombudsman; not sure of the website but the govt offers it for all govt agencies.

I got them to look into the way CSA handled my case and YES problems were identified and now we have a game plan including litigation.

Best wishes, horrible situation but the best revenge is success be strong in everything !

P.S. there is a thing in CSA called 'capable income' or something, bascially if your hus was a rocket scientist and then becomes a woolies worker to spite you into low support you can acutally request a reassessment based on previous potential and capability, TRUE, ie my ex used to earn $150 000 per annum and now he has been an at home bum for a year, so tough luck to him, he is accruing amounts according to his potential.

Also I'm looking into : if he doesn't pay child support as he is legally suposed to? : is he LEGALLY allowed access to the child?
Guest said
Also I'm looking into : if he doesn't pay child support as he is legally suposed to? : is he LEGALLY allowed access to the child?
Of course he is. Contact with children and child support are supposedly different issues.

If payment was based on contact there would be an awfully large number of Fathers that would no longer be paying the CSA.
Guest said
my ex owes me $11 000 in back child support. get a free ombudsman, not sure of the website but the gov offers it for all gov agencies.
I got them to look into the way CSA handled my case and YES problems were identified and now we have a game plan including litigation.
best wishes, horrible situation but the best revenge is success
be strong in everything !

also i'm looking into : if he doesn't pay child support as he is legally suposed to : is he LEGALLY allowed access to the child?
  If you believe that you have a complaint and wish to take it to the ombudsman then you can do this online from here
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
Ombudsman Complaints. This link takes you to the page that also contains other useful information.

Here's some snippets of decisions from the Ombudsman's website :-

Ombudsman's Website said
Mr F, the payer, complained that in the course of assessing his child support income under the 'change of assessment' process, the CSA included the value of the depreciation expenses claimed against his business income. This decision resulted in Mr F's child support income being tripled and, in turn, his child support liability being increased significantly. After unsuccessfully objecting to the CSA's decision, Mr F appealed successfully to the Federal Magistrates Court and his child support assessment was reduced.

Mr F lodged a claim with the CSA for reimbursement for his legal costs. He complained to the Ombudsman when the CSA refused the claim. In examining the CSA's compensation decision we formed the view that, in completely disregarding the payer's depreciation deduction as an expense and adding the full amount back as income, the CSA's 'change of assessment' and objection decisions demonstrated a lack of understanding of general accounting principles. They also created a situation such that Mr F had little choice but to appeal the outcome.

The CSA accepted our view and offered compensation to Mr F.
Ombudsman's Website said
As CSA has a well-developed complaint-handling system, we often refer such complaints back to CSA in the first instance. In one case we investigated, a CSA customer complained about the CSA's failure to respond to his freedom of information (FOI) request after more than three months and several written requests for an update. When our office contacted the CSA, they acknowledged that one of their FOI units was experiencing difficulty in processing requests within the statutory timeframe as a result of a staffing shortage.

In response to our investigation the CSA apologised to the complainant and gave an undertaking that his FOI request would be prioritised for completion. We understand that the area involved has subsequently been allocated additional staff in an effort to ensure similar delays do not recur.
Ombudsman's Website said
In one complaint, a payee claimed he was contacted by CSA staff who asked if he would be willing to 'discharge' the child support arrears owing to him. This suggestion appeared to have been framed as a gesture of goodwill that would increase the likelihood of the payer meeting her future responsibilities. The payee agreed to discharge the arrears amount, reducing the payer's balance to nil.

'The Child Support Scheme is a complex and often daunting system for its customers …'

The payee was subsequently advised that, as a result of new information about the payer's circumstances, his past child support assessments had been significantly reduced. This retrospective adjustment meant the payee was not only no longer entitled to the arrears amount he had discharged, but that he was also found to have been overpaid. The overpayment situation would not have occurred if the arrears amount had not been discharged, because the two amounts could have been offset against one another.

Our investigation led us to conclude that the CSA had not provided the payee with sufficient information about the possible ramifications of discharging the arrears to enable him to make a fully informed decision. At the conclusion of our investigation the payee advised he intended to pursue compensation from the CSA for his lost entitlement to child support.
Guest said
p.s. there is a thing in CSA called 'capable income' or something, bascially if your hus was a rocket scientist and then becomes a woolies worker to spite you into low support you can actually request a reassessment based on previous potential and capability, TRUE, ie my ex used to earn $150 000 per annum and now he has been an at home bum for a year, so tough luck to him, he is accruing amounts according to his potential.
What I think guest is trying to mention is "Capacity to Earn", it's not as simple as just because a parent has changed jobs or is not working, especially with the changes to the legislation. There are 3 criteria that the CSA must be able to show that have been met.

Here's the section from the CSA's guide that deals with capacity to earn :-

CSA Guide - Section 2.6.1 (extract) said
Earning capacity

If the assessment is affected by a parent's reduced income, there may be special circumstances to justify changing the assessment to take into account the parent's earning capacity.

When can CSA take into account a parent's earning capacity?

From 1 July 2006, CSA can only determine that a parent's earning capacity is greater than is reflected in his or her income used in the child support formula if it is satisfied about all of the following three matters:

1. The parent is either:

    * not working despite ample opportunity to do so (section 117(7B)(a)(i)); or
    * has reduced his or her weekly hours of work to below full time work (section 117(7B)(a)(ii)); or
    * has changed his or her occupation, industry or working pattern (section 117(7B)(a)(iii));

AND

2. The parent?s decision about his or her work arrangements is not justified by either:

    * his or her caring responsibilities (section 117(7B)(b)(i)); or
    * his or her state of health (section 117(7B)(b)(ii));

AND

3. The parent has failed to show that the decision about his or her work arrangements was not substantially motivated by the effect this would have on the child support assessment (section 117(7B).

CSA must be satisfied that all three compulsory criteria are satisfied before it can change an assessment to take into account a parent's earning capacity, rather than his or her actual income.

If the parent's circumstances satisfy only one or two of the criteria, CSA cannot make a decision based on the parent's earning capacity.

CSA must also be satisfied it would be possible for the parent to increase his or her income by changing his or her work arrangements. That is, work must be available for the parent in his or her area and the parent must have the necessary qualifications and experience to perform that work.

Not working; working reduced hours; or has changed industry, occupation, or working pattern

This is the first of the three compulsory criteria for an earning capacity decision.

When considering the first criterion CSA must be satisfied that the parent:

    * does not work despite ample opportunity to do so (section 117(7B)(a)(i)); or
    * has reduced their weekly hours of work below the usual full-time standard in the occupation or industry in which he or she is involved (section 117(7B)(a)(ii)); or
    * has changed his or her occupation, industry or working pattern (section 117(7B)(a)(iii)).

It is possible that a parent will meet more than one of these sub-criteria.

Except where the parent does not work, a parent who has not reduced his or her income cannot be found to have a higher earning capacity.

Example

A parent who refuses a promotion at work, maintaining his or her income at the same level, will generally not be found to have a higher capacity to earn.

Some reductions in income will not satisfy this criterion.

Example

A reduction from regular overtime to a standard working hours week or loss of bonuses which required additional effort beyond that required of a standard employee, cannot be considered as founding a parent's additional earning capacity.

Does not work despite ample opportunity

(section 117(7B)(a)(i))

A parent who is not working is one who is not engaged in work for remuneration, or in self-employment for profit.

A person can be said to be not working despite 'ample opportunity' to work if he or she has had offers of employment and refused them without adequate reason. Alternatively, if the person is not seeking work but there are job vacancies for which he or she is suitably qualified in their local area, this could also constitute ample opportunity to work.

Weekly hours of work reduced below the full-time standard for that occupation or industry

(section 117(7B)(a)(ii))

This sub-criterion may apply when a parent is still employed and has remained in the same occupation or industry. The relevant factor is that the parent now works less hours than they did previously. The fact that his or her hours have reduced is not in itself sufficient, the reduction must put those hours below the usual full time standard for the occupation.

The parent should be able to provide information about the usual full-time standard hours for their particular industry or occupation. Alternatively, CSA could obtain information from the person?s employer.

Changed industry, occupation, or working pattern

(section 117(7B)(a)(ii))

This sub-criterion may apply when the parent is still employed, but has changed jobs, or rearranged his or her hours of work, or pattern of work. It is implicit that this change in industry, occupation or working arrangements has resulted in a lower income.

For a parent to change his or her occupation or industry requires a greater change than simply moving between employers or jobs. There needs be something in the nature of a change in career, or of working in the same type of job but in an entirely different field.

A parent who has changed his or her working pattern may still be in the same job, or employed in the same occupation or industry. What is relevant is whether the person has changed his or her hours of work, for example, by choosing not to work nights or weekends.

A parent may change his or her working arrangements, for example, to being a consultant or sub-contractor rather than an employee. In these situations CSA is satisfied that there has been a change in their working pattern.

If the CSA is satisfied that the parent meets the first criterion (i.e. because he or she meets one or more of the three sub-criteria discuss above) it may be appropriate to make a decision to base the assessment on that parent?s earning capacity. However, CSA may only make a decision of that type if the parent?s circumstances also meet the remaining two compulsory criteria discussed below.

Decision not justified by the parent?s caring responsibilities or state of health

This is the second of the three compulsory criteria for an earning capacity decision.

When considering this criterion CSA must be satisfied that the parent?s decision not to work, to reduce the number of hours, or to change his or her working pattern is not justified on the basis of:

    * the parent?s caring responsibilities (section 117(7B)(b)(i));or
    * the parent?s state of health (section 117(7B)(b)(ii)).

This is an objective test. The CSA must consider whether an ordinary, reasonable person would consider the parent's decision to be justified, rather than whether the parent who made the decision considers that their decision was justified. It is also important to note that if the parent's caring responsibilities or state of health do not adequately justify the parent's decision about his or her work arrangements, then CSA must then consider the third criterion below, relating to the parent's purpose in making that decision.

Parent?s caring responsibilities

(section 117(7B)(b)(i))

The type of caring responsibilities that might justify a parent?s decision to change his or her working hours will only be a personal responsibility to care for another person. Caring responsibilities include responsibilities to persons other than the parent?s own children, such as their own parent, a new partner or step-children, elderly relatives or friends.

CSA will take into account the following factors when considering whether the parent?s decision to change their working arrangements because of their caring responsibilities is justifiable.

    * the relationship between the person being cared for and the parent providing care;
    * whether the parent has a legal duty to maintain the person for whom he or she is providing care;
    * if the parent has does not have a legal duty, whether they have a moral duty and the extent of that moral duty;
    * the degree and type of care provided;
    * whether the parent has some capacity for part time or casual work in conjunction with his or her caring responsibilities;
    * the availability of alternate care (personal and institutional);
    * whether that alternate care is suitable and/or affordable; and
    * the previous and proposed duration of the period of care.

CSA will weigh up the evidence about these and any other relevant matters in order to decide whether it is satisfied that the parent?s caring responsibilities are such that they justify his or her decision to change his or her working arrangements.

The parent who is primarily responsible for care of the children for whom child support is payable may not be employed, or may be working part-time in order to accommodate his or her child care responsibilities. Where this is a longstanding arrangement (e.g. one that existed prior to separation, or since the children were born) the parent primarily responsible for care of the children may not have an additional earning capacity, because his or her ability and opportunity to undertake paid employment is diminished by their child care responsibilities and their absence from the workforce.

A parent who has been in the workforce may cease work, or reduce his or her work commitments to accommodate their responsibilities to care for a child. The child for whom the parent provides direct care could be the child from a former relationship (for whom child support is payable), or a child of a new relationship. In such cases, the parent (whether he or she is the payer or payee in the case) may still have an unexercised earning capacity that makes the assessment unfair. CSA may consider the following relevant facts over and above those considered in other earning capacity cases:

    * the age, health and number of children being cared for;
    * the practical availability of child-care;
    * the economic cost of child-care compared with income available to be earned;
    * the proposed period of the parent?s absence from the work force; and
    * whether the parent has appropriately balanced his or her obligation to support all of his or her children.

If the parent's caring responsibilities do justify his or her decision about his or her working arrangements, then CSA must not make a decision to base the child support assessment on the parent's earning capacity. However, if the parent's caring responsibilities would not preclude work, or additional work, CSA must proceed to consider the third criterion below, namely, the parent's purpose in making the decision about his or her working arrangements.

Parent's state of health

(section 117(7B)(b)(ii))

As with a parent's caring responsibilities, if a parent has health problems, this may mean that he or she does not have an earning capacity that makes the assessment 'unjust and inequitable'. If the Registrar is satisfied that the parent's state of health is such that he or she does not have an unexercised earning capacity that makes the assessment 'unjust and inequitable', it will not be necessary to consider whether the parent's circumstances satisfy the criteria in section 117(7B).

CSA will take into account any evidence that the parent presents about his or her state of physical and mental heath. It would usually be expected that a parent who claims to have made a decision to change his or her work arrangements because of his or her health will have been diagnosed by a qualified medical practitioner; treated for the condition and have made that decision based on medical advice. Therefore, the parent would usually be able to provide medical certificates or reports from his or her treating doctor, and/or reports from any specialist to whom the parent was referred.

The following factors are relevant in considering whether the parent's decision about his or her working arrangements is justified on the basis of the parent's state of health:

    * the parent's condition, and the effect that this has upon his or her capacity to work;
    * the expected duration of the condition;
    * any recommended treatment, and the impact that this has on the parent's capacity to work;
    * the availability of light duties, if the parent could work in a restricted capacity.

CSA will weigh up the evidence about these and any other relevant matters in order to decide whether it is satisfied that the parent's state of health is such that it justifies his or her changed work arrangements. If the parent's state of health does justify his or her decision about his or her working arrangements, then CSA must not make a decision to base the child support assessment on the parent's earning capacity. However, if the parent's state of health would not preclude work, or additional work, CSA must proceed to consider the third criterion below, namely, the parent's purpose in making the decision about his or her working arrangements.

Purpose of the parent's decision about working arrangements

This is the third of the three compulsory criteria for an earning capacity decision.

When considering this criterion CSA must be satisfied that the parent has failed to demonstrate that affecting the assessment of child support was not a major purpose of his or her decision to not work, to reduce hours or change his or her occupation, industry or working pattern (section 117(7B).

The test is framed as a "rebuttable presumption". The starting point is that affecting the child support assessment is presumed to be a major purpose of the parent's decision about his or her working arrangements. The parent can rebut this presumption by demonstrating, to CSA's satisfaction, that affecting the child support assessment was not a major purpose of his or her decision.

This is a subjective test. The CSA must consider what the parent?s purposes were in making the decision about his or her working arrangements and whether a major purpose was to affect the child support assessment. It is not necessary that CSA is satisfied that the parent's decision was objectively reasonable, but the reasonableness of the decision is a factor for CSA to consider in deciding whether it is satisfied that the parent has demonstrated that affecting the child support assessment was not a major purpose in his or her decision.

In considering the reasonableness of the decision, it needs to be kept in mind that this policy on earning capacity is intended to be flexible enough to allow parents to make decisions about their work and life, for example, choosing to pursue a different career. It is not the intention to micro-manage a parent's life on the basis he or she may have made a better decision about employment than he or she did in fact make.

The provision refers to 'a major purpose' not 'the major purpose'. This means that the parent can have more than one major purpose in making the decision. A major purpose does not have to be the dominant purpose. It is more than a 'significant purpose'. A suitable test would be whether affecting the child support assessment was one of the most important factors in the parent's mind at the time of making the decision about his or her working arrangements.

The usual way for a parent to rebut the presumption would be to show that there were other factors that he or she considered which were the major purpose and that affecting the child support assessment was not a major purpose. CSA will ask the parent to explain:

    * the factors they took into account in making their decision to reduce their earnings or not to work;
    * what financial arrangements exist to enable them to support themselves; and
    * the consideration they have given to the arrangements to support the children for whom child support is payable after they changed their work arrangements.

CSA will also take into account any other relevant information that is already available in CSA's records, including:

    * statements the parent may have made when advising CSA about their change in work arrangements;
    * statements he or she may have made when CSA was discussing collection activities; and
    * comments made by the other parent in the course of the change of assessment proceedings.

In particular cases, CSA may also contact the parent?s employer or former employer to establish what reason the parent gave when he or she notified the employer of his or her decision.

If the parent cannot demonstrate that affecting the child support assessment was not one of the major purposes in the decision, he or she will fail to rebut the presumption and it may be appropriate for CSA to make a decision to base the assessment on that parent's earning capacity.

It is more likely that a parent will be found to have a higher capacity to earn where he or she has voluntarily made a change resulting in a reduction in his or her income. Where a parent has made a change involuntarily, such as being made redundant, he or she will be unlikely to be found to have a higher capacity to earn where he or she has made reasonable efforts to resume income earning activities. Documentation which should be available to CSA to substantiate claims relating to unemployment includes:

    * separation certificates and termination statements;
    * a 'job diary', as required by Centrelink for some 'Newstart' beneficiaries; or
    * copies of job applications and responses.

Study

A parent might decide to leave their employment (or reduce their hours of employment) in order to undertake a course of study. If the parent cannot demonstrate to CSA's satisfaction that affecting the assessment of child support was not a major purpose of his or decision to undertake study, it maybe appropriate to base the child support assessment on the parent's earning capacity, rather than the parent's reduced income.

CSA can consider the following relevant factors:

    * the parent's reasons for undertaking the course of study;
    * the length of the course of study;
    * whether the parent took into account his or her obligation to provide financial support for the children during the period of study;
    * the needs and situation of the children at the time of the application and during the period of study;
    * the manner in which the parent will support himself or herself during the period of study;
    * whether part-time work or part-time study was available;
    * the length of time the parent had been planning to undertake the course of study;
    * the likelihood of securing employment, and of deriving increased income, after the course of study; and
    * the qualification that would be awarded on completion of the course of study.

Even if CSA is satisfied that affecting the child support assessment was not a major factor in the parent's decision, failure to resume work following the anticipated course of study may leave the parent open to a further consideration of his or her earning capacity.

Change of occupation or industry

A parent's decision to change occupation or industry while maintaining full-time employment, resulting in a reduction in income, is not likely to lead to a finding of an increased earning capacity, especially if the parent's previous employment was dangerous or required significant travel and time away from home.

What is a parent's earning capacity

In respect of the earning capacity of the unemployed or under-employed parent, CSA may enquire as to the 'ability of' and 'opportunity for' that person to seek and gain employment (DJM and JLM (1998) FLC 92-816). CSA will consider the parent's qualifications, skills, age and employment history.

Examples

A parent who has been caring for children and has not been in the paid workforce for many years may have difficulty entering the workforce.

A parent who has been in the same job for 20 years, and is made redundant, may have similar difficulty.

On the other hand, a parent who is qualified in an occupation in high demand would be expected to enjoy considerable flexibility in their choice of employment.

The other relevant consideration is whether or not there are any special, local or other factors that affect a parent's capacity to secure employment. Opportunities for employment vary from place to place and between occupational groups.

In determining the extent of the parent's earning capacity, CSA may consider the following (Scott and Scott (1994) FLC 92-457):

    * the circumstances in which the parent became unemployed or without income;
    * the reasons for the unemployment or loss of income;
    * the nature of the parent's previous employment;
    * the efforts which they have subsequently made to obtain employment; and
    * the property or financial resources that are, or should reasonably be, available to the parent.

CSA must weigh up the individual factors of each case in deciding whether a parent who has ceased work, or reduced his or her hours, has the ability and opportunity to earn a greater amount, and whether that additional earning capacity makes the child support assessment unfair.
Guest said
also i'm looking into : if he doesn't pay child support as he is legally suposed to : is he LEGALLY allowed access to the child?
My understanding is that not paying CS is not a reason for denying a child the humane right they have to know and be cared for by a parent. In fact there are a number of situations whereby caring for a child results in a no payment situation.

Guest, you speak of revenge, and of spiting your child for the sake of money. I personally, and I believe others on here have similar opinions, that a parent that cares properly and morally for their child would not seek revenge through a child, especially a child to whom they are a parent, nor would such a parent resort to the abuse of willful denial  of the child's humane right to know and be cared for by their parents as a weapon to extract payments from the other parent. There are alternative avenues such as the CSA or courts that would seek to collect from a parent not meeting their legislated financial responsibility.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets