Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Having my Child support increased for another mans child

Add Topic

Can anyone Help?

Was wondering if anyone can help?

I currently have 2 boys aged 4 & 7 seven who I pay child support for.
Obvioulsy as I work and their mother works fulltime, the amount I pay is based on the standard CSA formula which I have no problems with. The children's mother got married last year to a man that works fulltime also.

She has just informed me that she is pregnant with his child and due to this, has had to take a desk job with her organisation resulting in her 7 day/24 hr rotating shifts being cut back to an Monday-Friday 8am-4pm shifts which has resulted in her having to take a pay cut, then once she gives up work for the birth, I assume she will have no income coming in (other than goverment benefits if she's eligible) and whatever her husband earns.

Now my issue is……. Her new life has nothing to do with me, her new husband has nothing to do with me, her new child is not mine, she taken a desk job and took a pay cut, which has nothing to do with me, yet by doing this, I am forced to pay the price for her pregnancy by having my maintence payments increased due to her pay decrease (since her husband's wage, even if it was a million dollars a year, has no impact on the amount I pay according to CSA) .

So by proxi I am funding and helping to support her pregnancy, when I firmly believe that her husband should support her, as it's his child, not mine. They together chose to have a child, full well knowing it would mean loss of income, so why should I pay for something that has absolutely nothing to do with me, knowing that the extra income I give her will not go towards my kids but her new child.

I have no problems with maintaining my existing CSA payments or paying Child support for that matter, as I firmly believe I should support her to raise our children, but I find it absurd that I could be asked to help pay for her and another man to have a child together.

Now while this attitude might come across as cold, I hope you can understand the crux of my motive?..

Does anyone know if this would be a valid reason to appeal a change of assesment, or how I could make it come across as a valid reason?

What about general opinions about whether I'm wrong in what I say?

Is there any case law/ point of law/legal precedents that I could use to validate my arguement as I'm determined to see this thru to the end, after I go thru the correct processes, thats how strongly I disagree with this.

I did see this one part of the legislation they may be applicable:

Section 117 (7A)(b)(i) Provides that:

(7A) In having regard to the income, property and financial resources of a parent of the child, the court must:

(b) disregard:
  (i) the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of any person who does not have a duty to maintain the child

Now could I be considered as someone that does not have a duty to maintain a child?
JWB4273 said
Section 117 (7A)(b)(i) Provides that:

(7A) In having regard to the income, property and financial resources of a parent of the child, the court must:

(b) disregard:
  (i) the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of any person who does not have a duty to maintain the child

Now could I be considered as someone that does not have a duty to maintain a child?
  No - that is for when your partner's income is not considered when calculating what you pay for your children.

There a few parts of the legislation that have unfortunate consequences - this is one of them.

Perhaps you could try a Change of Assessment under Reason 8 - Earning Capacity - not sure how it would go though…
if it were the other way around and you were having another child then your CSA amount would decrease due to the new dependant.
Its not a case of your paying towards her new child.. yes there will be another child in their house but YOUR children will still need to eat, be clothed, have a roof over their heads, be run around in the car, extracurricular activities fees  paid etc…. so you are NOT paying to her for someone elses child but you are financially supporting YOUR children

If something happened to you and you were unable to work therefore needing to pay the minimum amount of CS then she would need to pick up the tab of financially supporting your children.

if you were to try the capacity to earn appeal approach you may find her need to change roles in her company is due to her not being able to continue to complete her previous role so therefore her capacity to earn is now less than it previously was, or she has a DRs certificate stating she was not able to continue on in her prior job position.
It sucks but its simply the way things are.
It might be easier if you see it this way. You do not pay your ex-wife child support. You provide money to raise your children. Your children are seen to be accustomed to a level of care based your combined incomes. Should that combined income drop for any reason (in this case your ex wife's pregnancy) then it is the other parent's responsibility to pick up the slack (so to speak). That way, your children dont suffer a drop in standard of living. The law is applied fairly in the sense if you have another child, your CSA liability would reduce.

jamalu - you make it sound all rosy but it is not.

For starters it's not realistic for the child support children to have the same level of living standard when parent break up. The payer is usually struggling to maintain two households.

Also when a family has a new addition it is inevitable that the older siblings will have access to less financial resources of the parents as a result.

The ex-wife has chosen to have a baby with a new partner. She has chosen have a lower income as a result. Her existing children and their father had little input into the decision yet the children will receive less attention as a result of the mother's decision, and the father will have to pay more child support as a result.

If the law was to be applied fairly then the mother should still be required to maintain the financial support that her existing children are used to if she wishes to have another baby to another man, or give the father the choice to provide greater care of the children.
jamalu,you are kidding here?  Aren't you?  If you start with the assumption that the objective of child support is to minimise the impact of separated families on the Commonwealth purse you will start to see that this scenario being discussed is entirely inequitable.  

In fact, once the amount of child support payable exceeds the FTB income thresholds the child support system has gone past its objectives.  The only reason it has gone so far is it is a politically yucky topic and the payee lobby groups are incredibly loud and aggressive.


Thank you Seriously,

I came across that on another post and wasn't quite sure if it was applicable or not, I will research your suggestion on reason 8.

Jayden & Jamalu, I don't disagree with anything you have said but I have to deal with my current circumstances, not what could happen in the future or "what if's", it is more that I am a single man with a limited income who pays what he's asked to by CSA, as they have deemed it enough to cover the cost of my children's care. Before she became pregnant, betwen her income, husband's income and what I contributed, they are on double what I earn and live very comfortably.

I guess Fairgo has sensed something of what I'm trying to get at, my ex has chosen to have a baby with her new husband and she knew that decision would cause her to have a lower income as a result, so since my Ex and her husband made this voluntary decision to financially earn less, hence meaning less money to contribute to the raising of my 2 boys, why shouldn't they then have to wear the cost? Our children and I had no input into the decision, yet I'm now being asked to pick up the tab financially.

Don't get me wrong, as I stated in my first post, I firmly believe I should pay child support, as raising children these days is no cheap task but putting aside the issue of making sure my children don't suffer financially due to her decision, should CSA put the burden of this on me?

Maybe this is just one of those instances were maybe morally I might be right but legally I don't have a leg to stand on?
Morally you are wright, but the government does not have morals.
I think one has to look to what happens in the real-world of an intact family. Another child invariably results in a decreased standard of living within that family in the similar circumstance where the carer of the new-born was formerly working. The CS legislation simply does not reflect this real-life scenario. CS legislation also does not readily reflect other changes that happen in the real-world of the intact family that result in a reduction of the standard of living, it only readily considers an increase in the standard of living and then primarily only for the recipient.

It is likely without doubt that the child in the case of JWB4273 will suffer a reduction in the standard of living available when spending time with JWB4273, which is contrary to the published intent of the legislation.

All simply to facilitate the true obfuscated intent of the legislation and that is to to act, in all but name, as a tax in order to clawback FTB and divert the FTB monies from children to other areas of Government expenditure.

JWB4273 I would suggest that you and Fairgo, who I believe along with Big Red is one of the most experienced with taking on the CSA, consider your options using a personal topic.
Thanks MikeT,

Can I ask what you meant by considering my options by using a personal topic?

I have read the guidelines for reason 9 and I think I might be able to use it and I'm look at working an angle in reason 10 too. Worth a crack!

On a side note, I have been reading these forums for the last 4 hours and most of yesterday and I'm starting glean some useful information that might help my appeal of my COA but I'm also starting to think I am probably pushing S**T up hill as every part of the legislation I find that I might be able to twist to aid my cause, I find a bit that counteracts my arguement, very frustrating!!..haha….Not to mention the horror stories and actions of the CSA and their random and sporatic judgements and interpretations of the legislation and their own guidelines.

Its very scarey to think these people control the system!!….
JWB4273 said
Can I ask what you meant by considering my options by using a personal topic?

A personal Topic can be initiated by a whisper to the person (e.g. Fairgo) or by going to My Account and then clicking on Personal Topics and then Add Topic (note that you'd have to input the person). I suggest this as the CSA still likely view what's made public and for them to see the advice could lead them to make your path (and the path of others) more difficult. Using a personal topic will mean that the conversations are private and not available to the CSA.

JWB4273 said
I'm also starting to think I am probably pushing S**T up hill
I think that analogy is perhaps far too much of an understatement. I'd suggest perhaps having a look at ACEP74's posts where the CSA have basically trodden two (now a third I believe) children with special needs into the ground, along with their mother and father, as they refuse to accept that the children with special needs have those special needs contrary to the vast amount of evidence that exists that shows that the children do have special needs and thus costs associated with those special needs. This simply to exploit the situation in order to report a greater amount collected or transferred. This example may open your eyes to the sort of fight that could well confront you.
I think that if the mother and her new husband can afford to have another child (by her reducing her work hours), then it's obvious that her husband has decided to support her in her decision and has the capacity to provide the short-fall in financial support. Therefore I believe he should be made responsible for the shortfall in financial support as he in partnership with his wife has decided to have the baby. So the wife in effect has access to his greater capacity to support the children. This would be a reason 8 change of assessment application. Otherwise the mother could give greater care to the father of the children.
Well, if it's any comfort to you, for the past six and a half years since separation I have received NO child support from my ex because he has children from two other relationships and I earn too much. Nor do I receive ANY FBT. But then, I see it as a privilege to work and pay for my child's needs. I do, however, have a real problem with men who have the attitude that women leave relationships and sponge off their ex's. Sure, some women do. Just like some men are deadbeat dads and are so bitter about their ex-wives getting on with their lives that they worry more about avoiding child support than building a relationship with their children. Gross generalisations are easy to make.  
I am the husband of a mother who has 2 children from a previous marriage and we have had a new child.  When it comes to child support my wife's ex does not want to have a bar of it adn fights tooth and nail with his usual arguement is I earn enough to pay for all the kids.  I think most of the posts have elements of emotion to them but the reality is the law as prescribed cant deal with all circumstances broken family units adn new family units fidn themselves in.  Depending on how reasonable JBW4273 your ex partner is your best option is to enter into a child support agreement with her.  A child support agreement provides the flexibility you may need and if you ex is reasonable then this is worth a try to negoatiate such an agreement.  Going into COA's I think you will find it hard to provide a strong case.
I agree with TReeves1 - The Change of assessment process is not really designed to help the payer. However if more people use the appeals process to state their case, this will eventually contribute to more fairer legislative changes like what we have seen in the last three years.

Yes a child support agreement (if possible) or a more balanced care arrangement (50/50) between the parents would be the best possible solutions.
JWB4273 said
 I am probably pushing S**T up hill

Sadly for most of us PAYERS this is the truth.

You are not alone mate, welcome to the pushing S**T uphill club.

My ex-wife and her partner chose to have four more kids on top of the four I support and share care 50-50, not too mention all the other issues with paternity. This was not my choice but I have to pay.

I am not against child support where its due (paternity), but I am against a system that is run by incompetent staff, consistently makes errors and blames there computer system, that claims to be all about the children but is intent of driving the payer into the ground to save the Taxpayers the expense of family assistance.
Hey JWB427, I am going through the same thing at the moment, my ex has just had a kid with her new husband and as a result my CS has gone up by a ridiculous amount.

Like you I don't have a problem paying CS which is fair and reasonable but that is not the case with the CSA and how they see it as they are only using the other parents income and nothing else.

I'm wondering if anybody with more experience such, fairgo & bigred, will be able to advise anything on CSA being able to initiate a COA which appears in 2.6.6 of The Guide which states the following:
"CSA can initiate a change of assessment without an application from a payer or payee if it is satisfied that the child support assessment is unfair because of a parent's income, earning capacity, property or financial resources."

My thinking is that if they haven't already done so then they probably won't.

Under Reason 8 you would have to satisfy all 3 tests and in my experience the CSA make it hard to prove and pass these.

I have left a post on your thread and you are right with what you say about reason 8, its nearly impossible to meet with the way they have worded the 3rd requirement but I guess if you research enough, there maybe some legal argument you maybe able to use to counter act it but you need to do your research throughly.

You are spot on with what you said regarding 2.6.6. CSA would've changed it if they were so inclined but they never would, it doesn't benefit them to do so..
JWB4273 said
You are spot on with what you said regarding 2.6.6. CSA would've changed it if they were so inclined but they never would, it doesn't benefit them to do so.

I'd love to see the actual stats in regards to how many RICOA's have been made on behalf of payers. My guess 0%.
JWB - what is your current care of the children?

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets