Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Frustrated

Add Topic

How can I get my ex to pay the assessed child support amount?

My ex-husband is assessed to pay $126 per month in child support based on the income he has provided to the child support agency, I only receive $41 per month this clearly isn't enough, I'm a single parent and not working as my child is only 2. How can I get him to pay the assessed child support amount?
If you are with the CSA as a child support collect client they will collect (in due course)
Is he self employed or employed ?

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
 
As Secretary_SPCA says in normal circumstances simply apply to the CSA for CSA Collect. Due to the collection powers that the CSA have this should also work for the self-employed.

However, there could be a valid reason for the lower monthly amount if CSA collect is currently in force. That is that an employer has a legal duty, except in the case of an active section 72(a) notice, to adhere to a Protected Earnings Amount (PEA). This is 75% of the Newstart allowance and for 2011 is $318 for 2011. Thus it may be that other parent's actual income, less the PEA results in the figure.

Saying that it clearly isn't enough isn't actually true as you will be receiving a great deal in welfare benefits that is meant solely for the child. You should be on parenting payment single, this is greater than the newstart allowance and the difference of aproximately $327 per month is money intended for the child. You should also be receiving FTB part A ($4,179.25 pa or $347.28 per month) and FTB part B ($4,745 pa or $395.41 per month however after FTB clawback, based upon the $126 assessable amount this would be $332.42). You should also have a health care card that will reduce some costs for both the child and for yourself. If you aren't receiving such benefits, which, as a tax payer, the other parent is contributing towards, then you should head off to the FAO

Thus you should be in receipt of over $1,000 per month for the child. However, if PEA is the cause of the reduction, it would be financially better for yourself if you could negotiate with the other parent for the other parent to submit income estimates that would then lower the assessable amount and thus the FTB clawback. This would give you an extra $42.50 per month for the child.

You give a child of 2 as being a reason to not work, yet the Government also subsidises care so that mothers with young children can participate in the workforce and become more socially responsible persons. The are also the benefits to the child in that they are not brought up to expect to live on welfare and are therefore more likely to be socially responsible adults.

If you are having trouble managing this sizeable sum to the stage that it's clearly not enough then you could benefit from the CSA publication "Me and My Money".
  If you think he will continue to only pay $41 per month (which sounds like a centrelink deduction by the way) you could go to centrelink and get them to change your ftb rate on what you actually receive from CS not what you are supposed to for the year.
  And look forward to a lump sum one day if he does his tax after end of financial year.
sizeable sum? if your a single parent with the privilege of government housing then maybe this sum is manageable. but as a single parent back in 05-08 i was getting around $650 a month in FTB and $1150 in pension every 4 weeks. My rent was $280 a week. that was almost all of my pension and then i had to manage food, clothing and paying the bills on a measly just under $200 a week. for 3 years i had nothing, i had whatever clothes i started with and bought nothing for myself that wasnt 100% essential. I lived pay to pay and needed every cent of the $141 a month from my sons father, which he paid when he felt like it.

Mike, I get the impression from this and other posts that you are under the impression that the government benefits are more than adequate. You are entitled to your opinion whatever it may be, but maybe try living on $200 a week and then you might stop referring people to the "Me and my Money" publication.

I worked as much as i could when i could but as a single parent with no support its hard to hold down a job when there's no one to look after your sick children. When you need time off to take them to child health appointments, development checks and immunisations. When you have been up all night with an unsettled child, when your just plain tired from working all day and then coming home to work. it may not physically drain you but it will take from your mind, your soul and your self.

I was fired, asked to quit and treated as a second class citizen all because i tried to do the right thing.

In the end i decided my child deserved a mum instead of a mindless, tired, over worked woman who still had little more money that she started off with. By the time i paid for travel (there's no concession for fuel or tyres or servicing) and the childcare gap and parking and for all the extra nappys the child care centre use because they change the child every hour or so even if they don't need it. I ended up living on less than $400 a week. so for the sake of $120 a week I stayed at home too.
butterfly said
sizeable sum? if your a single parent with the privilege of government housing then maybe this sum is manageable. but as a single parent back in 05-08 i was getting around $650 a month in FTB and $1150 in pension every 4 weeks. My rent was $280 a week. that was almost all of my pension and then i had to manage food, clothing and paying the bills on a measly just under $200 a week. for 3 years i had nothing, i had whatever clothes i started with and bought nothing for myself that wasnt 100% essential. I lived pay to pay and needed every cent of the $141 a month from my sons father, which he paid when he felt like it. Mike, I get the impression from this and other posts that you are under the impression that the government benefits are more than adequate. Your entitled to your opinion whatever it may be but maybe try living on $200 a week and then you might stop referring people to the "Me and my Money" publication.
I worked as much as i could when i could but as a single parent with no support its hard to hold down a job when theres no one to look after your sick children. when you need time off to take them to child health appointments, development checks and immunisations, When you have been up all night with an unsettled child, when your just plain tired from working all day and then coming home to work. it may not physically drain you but it will take from your mind, your soul and your self.
I was fired, asked to quit and treated as a second class citizen all because i tried to do the right thing. In the end i decided my child deserved a mum instead of a mindless, tired, over worked woman who still had little more money that she started off with. By the time i paid for travel (there's no concession for fuel or tyres or servicing) and the childcare gap and parking and for all the extra nappys the  child care centre use because they change the child every hour or so even if they dont need it. I ended up living on less than $400 a week. so for the sake of $120 a week I stayed at home too.
 
Butterfly,you have some good points, but I think you've missed a couple. You have the ability to choose not to work - the father of your child does not even have the ability to change jobs. You have the enjoyment of your child's company - it sounds as though the father has very little of that. And if you think it's hard on $400 a week after paying rent and rcurrent bills, try having less than rent in your hand before you've even thought of spending any of your wage. Try going to the bank on Easter Thursday to find the CSA has stolen your wages yet again and you've got nothing to eat for the next week. Try going cap in hand to the CSA to ask them to relent and being told "don't you care about your child", in response to "please stop, I don't have enough money to feed myself or pay the rent after you take what you feel like".

However, most importantly you've illustrated the poverty trap that is created by the current system - often for both parents, but usually disproportionately borne by the father, as PIR showed very clearly

I put up a post to do with abolishing the CSA and the CS scheme altogether, which is seems to me could do with some input from people like yourself. It's not just Mums and not just Dads who are being let down at the moment; kids are missing out on so much and we, as a nation are wasting huge sums on nothing more than smoke,mirrors and huge bureaucracies. It has to change, surely?
My current partner works full time, is on call 24/7 and by the time CS, rent ect is taken out he only lives on less then 200pw. Out of that he also has the huge expense of visiting his children in a different state 4 times a year because his ex took off with them. He also has to pay legal fees to try and gain proper access to his kids ect. He also has to buy them clothes shoes ect as his ex who is single and earning 100k (plus FTB) a year apparently cannot afford to pay for that sort of stuff.

I was a single mum, worked full time and with the money I was allowed to keep from my pension, FTB & 30pm in child support, I was financially way better off then my current partner. Being a single working mum was hard but do-able, for alot of fathers out there life is alot harder, plus they often don't have the luxury of having their children to look after and comfort when they are sick in the middle of the night.

The system certainly isn't fair and balanced and having seen it from both sides, it's clear single mums are not always the ones worse off.

In regards to the OP only the child support agency can follow up the unpaid money. It's a wonder they are not hassling him.
Butterfly said
Mike, I get the impression from this and other posts that you are under the impression that the government benefits are more than adequate. Your entitled to your opinion whatever it may be but maybe try living on $200 a week and then you might stop referring people to the "Me and my Money" publication.

Government benefits are more than adequate, and perhaps the publication could have assisted you in managing what is quite a hefty amount. $200 week is more than ample to pay the few bills and have a healthy diet.

Renting means that many of your bills are reduced. You don't pay fixed charges. i.e. no rates; only gas/water/electricity usage and at a reduced rate due to the health card. With a health care card you can also get reduced phone rates, even a no line rental fee option. With a health care card you also get reduced annual registration fees (i.e. the registration fee is waived). Furthermore, even today, you can very easily get a rental in your area, for far less than the $280, so $280 was a "more than adequate" expense, so the facts you supply confirm exactly what I have said. It is certainly a far better position that actually having more money taken away from you than you earn, as is so often the case when it comes to liable parents who have been under the hammer of the bias of the CSA when it comes to COA.

I believe that legislation in regards to employment protects against discrimination based upon family needs, so it is likely that the reasons given were not due to the issues that you imply.

Of course you are assuming that I do have over $200 a week to live on. In fact my figures are that for a family of three are weekly spend on living is:- $227.35 (based upon figures from 2010 (01/01/2010-31/12/2010)).

This is for a non-rental situation and therefore includes fees as well as usage (although I excluded the approximately $1,210 rates as they would not apply, that would add another $23.26 and or $15.52 (when applying 2/3rds) ). So if I multiply 227.35 * .66666 (2/3rds) then the result is that effectively it costs $151.57 per week and that $200 per week leaves $48 per week for expenses. However, it should be noted that, this is not based upon a seriously conscientious effort to live on such an amount (i.e. there would definitely be scope for reductions); it also does not take into consideration the savings that a healthcare card would offer, yet another reduction). This amount also includes nearly $50.00 per week for cigarettes, as they go into the "Groceries" category (as do some meals out (e.g. breakfast when doing the weekly shop, an area where we could easily make savings)). In response I don't need to try I(we) already do what you ask and without really trying.

Butterfly said
By the time i paid for travel (there's no concession for fuel or tyres or servicing) and the childcare gap and parking and for all the extra nappys the  child care centre use because they change the child every hour or so even if they dont need it. I ended up living on less than $400 a week. so for the sake of $120 a week I stayed at home too.   
Again you actually show that you could make such a decision and thus that the real situation was that there was no need for that $120 a week and thus that the without work amount must have been adequate. If there was the need then you would not have been in a place to make that decision.

Last edit: by MikeT

Posts from this topic have been moved by members. 1 posts have been transferred to topicview.

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

Butterfly - I don't want to appear judgemental - but where was the children's father during this time?  I hope you afforded him the opportunity of helping care for the children so that you COULD go back to work.

Hear this sort of thing all the time.  "I can't work because I have to look after the children" etc etc.  But all too often mum is denying dad the opportunity to have more time with/care for their children because she wants to maximise her Centrelink and CSA payments - thus avoiding the need to have to work.

My ex is receiving CSA and Centrelink benefits.  She's educated with a professional qualification - but chooses not to work.  She's also just been on an overseas holiday.  So much for mum struggling on handouts….. O_o
Posts from this topic have been moved by members. 1 posts have been transferred to topicview.

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
 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets