Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Non-agency payments

Add Topic
My payee refuses to pay half school fees. I have my daughter 50/50. School fees fall under NAP's i believe. CSA won't attempt to ensure the mother makes equal contributes to school fees because I have the children more than 14 per cent of the time. The school fees are public school fees?

Why does CSA sanction the payer for having greater child care responsbilities?


The legislation also provides for prescribed payments under section 71C. If the payment was of a kind specified in regulation 5D (known as a prescribed payment) CSA can credit the payment up to a maximum amount that is equal to 30% of the amount payable under the payers liability for the period only if:

 
  • the payer of an enforceable maintenance liability in relation to a payment period or initial period has made one or more payments to the payee of the liability, or to another person; and
  • the payment is a payment of the kind specified in Regulation 5D; and
  • the sum of those payments exceeds the sum of all such payments previously credited under this section against the liability for all past periods; and
  • at the time the payment was made the payer has less than 14% care of all of the children to whom the relevant administrative assessment relates; and
  • at the time the payment was made the child support liability was not being fully or partially met by a lump sum credit (sections 69A and 71C(5)(b)); and
  • the liability is not a registrable overseas maintenance liability (section 71C(6)).
Theodor said
My payee refuses to pay half school fees. I have my daughter 50/50. School fees fall under NAP's i believe. CSA won't attempt to ensure the mother makes equal contributes to school fees because I have the children more than 14 per cent of the time. The school fees are public school fees?

Why does CSA sanction the payer for having greater child care responsbilities?

The very simple answer is that it suits the FTB claw-back that is without doubt

The very core of the formula is based on costs of children. The basis of those costs is research that very much sums the various costs that can be associated with raising a child. The findings, or more correctively the manipulation, resulted in the cost of raising a child being greater than $500,000. This at a time when the average income was below $50,000. These costs are effectively indexed as income(child support income) percentages are used. Basically CS includes all normal costs at the very minimum and this includes school fees. There is other research that takes a more at arm's length (arm's length from the obvious desire for CS to be used as yet another form of taxation). This research looked at the disposable income of families with and without children. This found that the cost of the child was 1/10th (based upon the figures it is actually and even smaller fraction, but a 1/10th is sufficient to put the point across. This 1/10th also doesn't take into consideration the impact of inflation so the reality is that the cost of children is reduced yet further).

I mentioned that the legislation assumes that a recipient will be responsible. This is a very fundamental flaw in the legislation. It is common knowledge that many recipients do not take on this responsibility and that they abuse their child or children in doing so. I believe that the legislation should enforce this spending responsibility at least as vigorously as it enforces the payment responsibility. The very object of the child support acts would then be better met. Furthermore an outcome could very easily be the extrapolation of very accurate cost of CS children data.

You should simply refuse to pay saying that you pay the fees, via CS to the other parent and that the legislation assumes that the recipient will be responsible and not abuse the child by exploiting them for financial gain by the way of diverting monies to other uses . If the school quibbles then simply refer them to "The Best Interest of the Children" and the underlying research. However, you have to be very aware that you would very likely be reducing what the other parent can divert from the child to them-self. The affect is very often a retaliation by such a parent. This often involves acts of further child abuse by denying the child or children the humane right to know and be cared for by the child's or children's parents. Obviously such abuse of the child or children results in passive abuse of all of those who actually care for the child or children. Often along which such abuse is yet further abuse; this frequently by the way of other acts such as the very common act of making false allegations of violence or sexual abuse. As such you would be well advised to prepare for such an onslaught.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets