Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

How can I force the CSA to investigate my ex's stated income.

Add Topic
My ex doesn't work (according to her tax returns that is!) and is supposedly living on child support payments (I have my kids aged 4 and 7 for 6 nights a fortnight so she only gets $450 p/m) and the sole parent pension however her lifestyle is that of a person who has unlimited funds.

Since July 2009, my ex has taken the kids (2) to New Zealand for 2 weeks, flown to the Gold Coast for 5 days to party with her friends, purchased a $16,000 car for her 18yr old son (from a previous marriage), spent close to $8000 on home improvements (such as air-conditioning, security screens, electric window shades, furniture), spent at least 2-3 days in Sydney or Batemans Bay each school holidays, brought an Xbox360 Elite and WII for the kids as well as other expensive toys and presents.  She is going to the Gold Coast again in October for 5 nights and on a 7 day cruise to Brisbane in March 2011.  on top of this she is paying off a mortgage (around $150,000 over 30yrs on variable rate) on a new house worth $469,000 and providing food and living essentials for her and the kids.  There are also a ton of other things she has done and bought that I can't be bothered detailing at the moment!

I have asked the CSA to look into this and all they said is that according to her tax returns she is not earning any other income and they cannot see anything in her returns that would indicate that she has not declared her income correctly (I'm no Einstein but that sounds like a cop-out to me!)

Is it just me or do things not add up?  Can I force the CSA to look into her standard of living? 

I don't know how the hell she can afford all these things when I work fulltime and struggle to survive! 
CSA will not look into her income as this may reduce the amount they collect from you. They  prefer to collect  more from you as they receive a bonus for increased collection.  For every extra dollar CSA collects from you is 50 cents less the government pays out  in Family Tax Benefit, hence it is in the government's best interest  to pay the bonus to CSA staff  for saving FTB monies to be payed out. Also important to understand is that CSA is a debt collection service  for your ex , they may be payed by the Government but their position requires them to collect  money from you as such they receive direction from youre  ex. This is why  its sometimes hard to understand why they do what they do.

Hope this helps with understanding how you come to be at this point.

As for correcting it Go to SSAT then Federal Court.

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 don't think C$A can help you with this but I'm sure Centrelink would be interested in your claims since she is on parenting payment and the this would flow onto ATO and C$A.

CSA, actual income and SSAT

I have never written a word on any of these sites but will start gingerly as this conversation has familiar elements. So many do of course when one has been through the whole ghastly business of divorce, Family Court and CSA.  I will not presume to bore you with my full story, I could type all night and still not relate it. Suffice to say that I am a very senior professional, very private person and have had my life ruined unexpectedly by family breakdown and the institutions that prey upon men in such circumstances. I am a centre-Left intellectual and only say this to make the point that I have always worked and functioned in a world of equality for all, regardless of gender or creed and do not harbour deep prejudices that lead to my current views. To my own case, I fought for two years in the Family Court against an unfaithful and predatory partner and won about 46% of my child's time. I lost $140k in legal fees and a seven-digit sum in settlement - my life savings. I have been relentlessly accused of concealing resources and fraud even though I am a government employee with a scrupulous history of financial documentation. Rule 1 of the Family Court: Never feel confident that accurate paperwork, evidence & documentation will save your bacon. My wife, who out-earned me significantly for years, immediately ceased work to begin studying as a mature-age student on settlement and has spent the years since that time milking me through the CSA. Key points: (1) the CSA aids and abets this behaviour and forces me to pay her out of my above-average but not stellar salary on the grounds that she is penniless; (2) my former wife has developed a vibrant business in the past year from which she claims there is no income whatever even though it demonstrably makes a substantial income; (3) the SSAT is not competent or willing to investigate such cases and should not be engaged if there is a slightest reliance on evidence or ethics. This is, contrary to all my beliefs and instincts before my case, a culture systematically rigged to make men lose - lose time with their beloved kids, lose money and then lose their dignity through belittling, contrariness and arbitrary decisions. The edict that one must 'move on' is so cynical when the system drags one back into the mire at every opportunity. I have engaged every aspect of this cynical industry, institutions, politicians, advocates, but never made the slightest progress. This sounds like a generic whinge but my complaints have been forensically argued - all to no avail. I wish I could offer more hope.  One's love for one's children is the only refuge from the hell on earth that we call family law. I am happy to offer more specific comments (without identities of course) but am very busy and will log on only periodically. 

Fromwhat you have written, surely it is within your abilities at some stage in the future (once your obvious conflict of interest is over) to have a red hot go at challenging the system from within.     

CSA, actual income and SSAT

Indeed it is. I am only prevented now by: (1) lack of funds to engage any legal help; (2) my parenting duties, as my wife's presence is pretty patchy and (3) my busy career. Point 1 illustrates the irony that any change involves legal help (i.e. court challenge). In other words, arguments in writing and lobbying by members of the public are ignored: the legal systems (whether administrative like the Family Court) or the courts themselves only entertain appeal on their own (expensive) terms. I firmly believe that this is aimed at stopping people objecting - anyone rich enough to bring a case is presumably comfortable enough not to need to appeal. Furthermore, a successful case would hinge on lawyers squealing on each other and this they will never do: it is all too cosy as it stands. As for Point 2, it is equally ironic. The mother is regarded as the rock of reliability no matter how erratic and inappropriate their behaviour. The depth of this cultural prejuduce is beyond belief. And as for career, I would love to have the time to pursue this now but must wait until I retire because I have such crippling payments to make until that time. I hypothesised to the CSA that I, like my wife, could retire and expect support payments. They told me that they would simply use my previous salary and demand payments anyway. This is a rort of spectacular proportions.

By the way, the Family Court, of all these instrumentalities, plays the deadest bat of all - they consider themselves responsible for nothing beyond keeping a diary of court hearings and certainly above reproach because judges 'are not public servants' (by the way, check out their website and mission statements, business plans etc etc) Attorneys-General have had this debate about the status of judges - are they public servants? They are paid by the public and answerable to public mores but insist (without any properly argued basis) that they should not have to endure the debate or comment arising from the public. Recall here some of the past pronouncements of judges that have outraged the public. This is the nub of the problem, simply because judges act so arbitrarily in family disputes and have such scant regard for fairness, justice and father's rights.  All this is clothed in the language of children's rights, which they are equally uninterested in.
Important  Point to remember is that judges are former Lawyers and therefore have no interest in diminishing the possible incomes of there proffession.

Eg  if a mother denies court ordered contact  one must apply for a contravention order. so you go to a solicitor and pay for him/her to tell you judge wont look at it unless there is numerous contraventions. so then you get all youre dates and times and go again, then you go to court and the judge gives the mother a warning even though you cite 20+ contraventions this process costs money  and all for a warning

you go through this process many times  and continual warnings  every now and then a fine …. perhaps…. then back to warnings.

I'm guessing judges must not be aware that the  family law act and there website states First contravention = warning, second contravention = fine third contravention = jailtime

of course its not in the best interests of the children for the mother to go to jail …. funnily enough it is in the best interests of the solicitors to keep going back to court on both sides, remember whether either or both parties have legal aid the solicitors  still get paid.

so is this not a conflict of interest for a former solicitor to make a judgement where current solicitors gain financial benefit from the inaction?

another example

when appearing in court the other party has not prepared an affidavit…. does the judge say  to the solicitor  you knew the date it was your responsibility to have  an affidavit prepared I'm finding against you?


 the judge merely sets another date so both sets of solicitors can rake in a few more bucks.

It is well acknowledged that the family law industry is worth squillions… and these  judges making up there own rules as they please  simply adds to the linings of the law firms and solicitors pockets  and I remind you again these judges more often than not owned or were principals of  large law firms before being appointed as judges.

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:)
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets