Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Frustration of recent guest posts and why

Add Topic
Unfortunately I become very frustrated when half truths are told.  Some self-employed people should be paying more towards their children, I totally agree.  BUT, from experience, the CSA and SSAT have this tunnel vision that  self-employed people are avoiding/and or minimising CS payments  by intentionally trying to reduce their taxable income.  It is not always the case.

I have explained in my initial posting what occured with my partner who is self-employed.  (CSA, SSAT and "THE PROCESS") Under the open exchange of information everything was laid on the table, this was going to be the only way he could prove his innocence that he was doing the right thing and not making as much money as the ex made it out to be.

IT seemed that because the ex was on a set yearly salary working in a Government Dept that she would not lie.  No she probably didn't lie, (not much) she continually told half truths which are just as bad as lies.  And what she did not know she would make up.  This included photocopying a regional town article in the country paper and sending it to the CSA.  Because my partner had contributed to some of the work on a project that the Council had got a grant for, she felt that was evidence to try and increase his taxable income taking into consideration a large portion of the grant.  She also went to the extent of contacting some of his past customers trying to obtain the amount of income he was paid.  As this was refused, she then provided the details to the CSA In her letters saying that she had contacted them and it was ok for the CSA to contact them.  What the ex didn't tell them was she was told that she should know better not to be asking for that information.


That is why I became so frustrated with "Guest".  It can be these type of comments that can drag the blokes through the wringer.  Her ex has not been on a huge wage since from memory, 2001. Even when he was employed he was earning $28000.  This is not a huge amount.  So why all of a sudden should he be earning a huge income when he becomes self-employed.  Her assumptions of his assets are probably only that, this is what causes people trouble with the CSA.  VERY FRUSTRATING.  So just because of these assumptions, the CSA  start the process. Sounds to me that the CSA have worked her out if they don't want to hear anymore unless she has any new info.

An added thought: It makes property settlement a very difficult time when going through the court process and CSA when all your financial documents are going to the other party. There was nothing to hide, but your life story is in your financials.  Why should your ex be able to see this information. No wonder people give up at that point, not because they want to hide anything, they are trying to protect their privacy from the ex.  I understand the legislation but maybe something needs to be done to protect the Privacy of individuals.

There is always two sides to a story but it seems that it is ok when you are married to someone that is self-employed, it is all good and financiallly rewarding, but the minute you separate, the self-employed are criminals apparently defrauding the system.
They are not assumptions, all this information was revealed COA and SSAT.

I'm sure not all self employed people are like this person. The CSA have passed this information on to the correct authorities.

We all know that the self employed to have ways to reduce their taxable income and yes its not illegal.
It sounds as though you have some "inside departmental information".  One minute you are expressing your disatisfaction with the CSA and SSAT and now you are posting remarks that I assume are a little threatening towards your ex.  Once again, NASTY.

Have you actually read the Rules and Requests of this site.    They do prefer people to be registered so that the person can be accountable for their postings.  If what you are saying is honest and can be accounted for then you wouldn't have a problem with doing so.

I thought this site was for discussion with experiences in different Departments, assistance in Family Law Matters and advice etc.  So far I can only see you trying to cause grief for your ex.  You have not accepted any advice given from your initial posting and I don't see the full picture of your "honest experience".  I am not the person to be discussing personally about your personal situation, maybe contact the relevant authorities.

I have given you the advice according to how I would be going through the process.  I don't see eye to eye with your criticism of self-employed people.

If you have any future comments, you should probably be posting them seperately to mine.

ONCE AGAIN, I do not know your fully story so I make no further comment on your personal bitterness towards your ex. I am sure there are other sites that you can do that on.

I do enjoy reading the info and discussions on this site, and I believe that experience, knowledge and understanding of the Legislation can be beneficial for those just starting out or needing advice.  Trust me, two years + of trying to support your partner through the gruelling process, you learn a considerable amount.  I know why men give up!!!  It has a lot do with gender I am sure.  I may be wrong but that is my own personal opinion and everyone is entitled to that.

Thought for the day:  When it comes to accusations, whether true or false, be prepared to justify your comments.  If you can't, then don't say it!!
Hypothetically (Added by moderator) If you (Guest does not mean you personally but in the royal and general use of the word I believe -Mod…) were supporting your child 100 % and the father of your child has 0 % perhaps you would understand.

What kind of parent has nothing to do with their child after the child has even reached out for communication and been ignored by him and his family.

This person spends $ 200 a month on entertainment, has pets whom he spends more on than his own child.

Again Just Not On the costs of raising children should be equal, not one sided. obviously the parent who pays $ 6.82 a week in support is so hardly done by.
Really, I think you should get a real concept on the cost of raising and educating children.
They have done studies on this matter and the average cost of a teenager is $ 16,000 a year.

Moderator said
I think this thread should be somewhere else so if someone wants to let any moderator know what topic it should be appended to we will make it so.
guest said
Hypothetically (Added by moderator) If you (Guest does not mean you personally but in the royal and general use of the word I believe -Mod…) were supporting your child 100 % and the father of your child has 0 % perhaps you would understand.

However, this is not the situation at all. The other parent is supporting the child to a degree and as later and previously discussed, very likely supporting the child to the degree as required by research(sic) that considers the cost of children, on average to be well over $23,000 per year (i.e. based upon the cost of raising a child being over $500,000 divided by 21 years (i.e. 500,000 / 21 = 23809). Far greater than the $16,000 guest has quoted (especially considering that the cost of child basis is figures that were presented a number of years ago). However, this research, likely like the research that gust is quoting, sums costs and thus never really looks at actualities. More recent research looked at actualities, the difference between the "disposable" income of families with and without children. This, more recent, research found that the cost of children was in fact substantially less, by a factor of more than 10. Thus the average child would cost around 50,000 or $2,3810 per year.

Additionally it is clear that guest is not providing 100% of the financial support that either the welfare system. i.e. taxpayers, or a partner (guest hasn't said a partner that causes the welfare payments to be reduced is involved) are providing a very large proportion of the support. As has been evidenced throughout the guest(s) posts guest is yet again distorting the facts to suit their position of playing a victim and thus a position that shows disrespect and contempt for those who are providing a major amount of the support for the child. This appears to be a very common approach of the "expectant welfare supported generation". The CSA, with a clear bias against the paying parent, have very obviously investigated the case and found that the other parent is contributing what the legislation requires and is therefore meeting societies expectations according to the other parent's position.

Guest said
This person spends $ 200 a month on entertainment, has pets whom he spends more on than his own child.
How does guest know this from someone who doesn't communicate? What does this really tell us about what sort of stalker and thus abuser that guest likely is?  Surely that time spent stalking is time that could be better put towards providing for the child as is the time guest spends posting their distortions/fabrications of the truth. The other parent, according to guest, has a partner, the pets and entertainment will very likely by for both and very likely (according to guests own evidence e.g. CSA's COA investigations finding that the other parents income is highly unlikely to not be genuine) be funded by the other parent's partner.

Guest the advice you need is to move on, stop disrespecting society by consistently distorting the truth, stop whining, and stop abusing all those that you so freely abuse.

Just not on said
Unfortunately I become very frustrated when half truths are told.
Your are most certainly not alone in being frustrated at such distortions nor is guest alone in providing the distortions as they are quite frequent. Really we should ban such posts as they are an abuse of those who provide genuine information and genuinely seek advice and want discussion on genuine matters. However, unfortunately perhaps the most significant factor in the area of Family Law, is that distortion of the facts reigns which seriously and adversely affects many hundreds of thousands of children here in Australia alone. It is therefore perhaps better to warn people, by leaving examples of what they can expect, and thus not ban/delete such posts.

Moderator said
I think this thread should be somewhere else so if someone wants to let any moderator know what topic it should be appended to we will make it so.

uhhm, I'm not sure, I can understand that it could fit into Hyde Park. However, I can also see how it still fits here as it is primarily about CS and is providing factuality and advice on core CS matters. As such I have no issues with it being moved, other than being asked to decide where it should be moved.
Thank you for your comments and thoughts to the "Guest" posting.  I was going crazy trying to help the "Guest" and felt like I was wasting time.  There is a lot of underlying bitterness and it is obvious by the critical comments regarding her ex's lifestyle.  I feel sorry for the ex, no one knows his circumstances.  He may be in a position that  he can not work but we do not know the "full story" because the "Guest" continually makes remarks that to me seem like assumptions.  How does she know all of his personal information?? Very scary, she must have unauthorised use of his bank statements and financial records.  Very FRIGHTENING!!

As far as I am concerned "Guest " is nothing but trouble.

I am thoroughly aware of what people such as "Guest" is doing, been there done that.  It is not nice having to refute false and misleading statements and trying to prove your honesty when you have done nothing wrong.

The amount of genuine and supporting evidence in my partner's case was never taken into consideration.  My partner's ex continually told half truths which was damning and false.  This caused us anger, frustration and stress, just because of the behaviour I see what the "Guest" is also doing.

"Guest" does not want advice, she is using this discussion to try and expose her damning assumptions  to (I am not sure who to, but I have an idea) expose her ex, and for him to be investigated.  I told "Guest" there is a process, Reason 8, and that is the process you should go through.  "Guest" should stop wasting time posting half-told truths and sit down in front of a COA form and put pen to paper.  Whether it will get her anywhere, probably won't from what I have read at the beginning.  Sounds as though the CSA and SSAT have informed her that "her comments and assumptions" won't change the assessment.

Also, instead of typing the "poop" that she is, spend her time looking at the Legislation.  She can not change the Legislation, and I am glad that "Guest" can't because she has no idea!!

I note also, she continues to be referred to as "Guest".  Not taking responsibilty for your comments says to me you know what you are saying could get you into trouble.  I kind of enjoy reading some of your comments "Guest".  Not because they make any sense or add value to the conversation.  I find "Guest" quite rediculously humorous.

Before "Guest" posts any more about her ex, she should register.

Now where to send the Garbage that she continually sends.

Suggestion:  Have a recycle bin that the "ongoing nonsense" postings go to then if there some postings add value to the site and have relevant and interesting comment they can be put into the appropriate Forum.  Although, the "Guest" comments are "%&^$" the response and suggestions may help out others when they have a legitimate concern about the "ex's" financial affairs. 

Alternatively, have an area called "Continue this discussion if you have time to waste"

I have previously refused to continue in her petty and pathetic trouble-making discussions. You can not give advice to someone who tells little porky pies.

She needs to get a life.
Perhaps my income goes directly on my childs upbringing.

I have a husband and we also share a child together.

Perhaps my husband supports me and his child.

Your comments suggest nothing other than the fact you support self employed paying $ 6.82 a week in support.

Your comments lack anything about children and their rights to be supported equally by both parents.

In fact in most of your posts I hear no mention about your children.
I did previously talk about my children, I then started a new topic and you followed me over and left your posting site.  Does peanut butter instead of sausages ring a bell.

Maybe go back and have a read and start again!! only this time, join as a member and tell the whole honest truth and nothing but. This might generate some interest from others, but I feel you are having an attack at me personally and taking no interest in what I have said.  You have tunnel vision and all you can see is $6.82/self employed doing the wrong thing.  No point whinging to me anymore, I do not trust you!! Half truths! Half truths! Half truths!  I can't stand them.  Hopefully you may have something different to add next time!!

Equally has many definitions and reasons when calculating CS payments. Your story has been unclear throughout the discussion.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets