Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Partner's ex's income $0.....how?

Add Topic
Hi all,

My partner has 2 children, aged 9 an 12, with his ex. The children live with her interstate, and visit once a year for 4-6 weeks. Recently, he received an assessment from CSA advising him of his ex's taxable income for last year, and it was $0.00. Now, we know this is dodgy, but can only assume that she has found a very sneaky accountant. We know the following facts: She works FULL TIME as a Safety Officer for a MINING company. This means pretty decent $$. We also know she has recently managed to purchase a house. And go on an overseas trip. And buy a car. Also, when she send the girls to us for holidays, she then takes off on her own holidays interstate or overseas. Pretty amazing for someone with a $0 income and only receiving $1400 p/m from CS.

My questions are: Can anything be done to dispute this? If so, how do we dispute it? If she can get away with it, can someone point us in the direction of an accountant who can give partner an income assessment of $0?

If at the end of the day he is meant to pay the amount of over $1400 a month, then so be it. I just know that with myself being a full time University student and mother of 2 on Centrelink, things can get pretty tight. We certainly can't afford overseas holidays and new houses. I also know that after his mortgage and car payments are made, and power, water etc are paid, there is very little left over. And the house/car aren't extravagant, either.

I would really appreciate any advice.

Thank you
You first call should be to the CSA to question the taxable income by the way of objecting to the decision based upon the fact that you are aware that the other parent does not have a $0 taxable income. It may simply be an error (although this should not be the case as lodged tax returns should be automatically handled).

If this fails to correct the matter then the remedy (through the CSA) would have to be by way of a change of assessment (COA) under reason 8 (a parent's income, property, financial resources, or earning capacity). However, the CSA have been shown to be biased against the liable parent and virtually routinely distort the facts and information to increase the amount that they collect or transfer which is basically the CSA's only concern. COA is very intrusive process and as such you will be expected to provide very detailed information.

If the COA decision is not as it should be then you can object to that decision and an objections officer will look at the decision. Should the objection decision not correct the matter then you can appeal to SSAT (Social Security Appeals Tribunal). It appears from the available decisions that SSAT are as bad or even worse than the CSA for the bias against the liable parent (I strongly suspect that ex CSA SCO's have moved into SSAT, perhaps even as part of an initiative to provide an even greater likelihood that the abuse of power and thus the over collection/transfer is more likely to remain ongoing).

The final potential remedy is to appeal to the SSAT decision in court. This has to be on a matter of law. All these routes are free to apply for. However for court you really have to know what you are doing to even get over the "matter of law" hurdle.

You have a very low chance of the CSA accurately and correctly acting on information given over the phone, as such it is suggested that you also put your objection (including facts that you are aware of) in writing (CSA Online can be used but the CSA do appear to also be unable to act upon information given in this way at times).  It is also advisable to never rely upon an individual officer when phoning. Some people have been told some of the most absurd things (e.g. a parent being told that they cannot claim CS because the other parent was under 17 at the time of conception, people being told that they cannot have a copy of the screen notes (notes taken during and after the call) due to FOI).

Another tack would be to report the other parent to Centrelink and perhaps the ATO for potential fraud.

It may be that the other parent is now not working. This can be dealt with under a reason 8 COA as the other parent may still have a capacity to earn. However a capacity to earn ruling against a recipient is a rare occurrence.

You may wish to have a look at the CSA's Guide in regards to Reason 8 COA. Here's a link The CSA Guide - 2.6.14: Reason 8 - a parent's income, property, financial resources, or earning capacity

csa policy, low income earner who does not access welfare is minimising income. after my seperation, i resided at my mothers place, suffering chronic depression, no income, no welfare, 100%supported by my mother, csa decision… i am hiding income, assessmentr based on previous tax at $60,000= $400 per month maintenance. as i reject welfare, even though i am om low income, csa refuse to reassess because there personal opinion is i am lying. after 5 years my assessment remains the same
Oscar66,
            the legislation changed on 1st July 2006. To base your income on the $60,000 income the CSA would, if they adhere to the legislation, have to apply a reason 8 change of assessment under a "Capacity to Earn". This requires that all 3 of 3 criteria are met. That; a) you are not working despite ample opportunity to work, or have reduced the number of hours worked to under the "normal" hours that constitute full time work for respective the occupation/industry, or you have changed the industry/occupation or the working pattern; b) your decision (i.e. it must have been your decision) to do whatever has been done in a) is not justified on the basis of your health or your caring responsibilities; and c) that you have not demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of the decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support.


Here's a link to the The CSA Guide - 2.6.14: Reason 8 - a parent's income, property, financial resources, or earning capacity

The CSA also must reassess at east every 18 months as that is the longest period for which an assessment can exist without redoing the assessment. However, I do understand that the CSA will distort the legislation, contrary to the very object of the act, that parent's provide the proper financial responsibility for their children, in order to improperly exploit children for the financial gain of the government by way of FTB-Clawback (i.e. 50% of child support is claw-back of FTB payments) via the "Separated Parents Tax" wrongly called Child Support.

You should have remedy through the correct enactment of the legislation as having a disability, such as chronic depression, should (and it's virtually guaranteed that it would for a CS recipient) satisfy the health basis of the second mandatory criteria. Here's what the guide says about the Parent's health:
The CSA Guide - 2.6.14: Reason 8 - a parent's income, property, financial resources, or earning capacity said
Parent's state of health

(section 117(7B)(b)(ii))

As with a parent's caring responsibilities, if a parent has health problems, this may mean that he or she does not have an earning capacity that makes the assessment 'unjust and inequitable'. If the Registrar is satisfied that the parent's state of health is such that he or she does not have an unexercised earning capacity that makes the assessment 'unjust and inequitable', it will not be necessary to consider whether the parent's circumstances satisfy the criteria in section 117(7B).

CSA will take into account any evidence that the parent presents about his or her state of physical and mental heath. It would usually be expected that a parent who claims to have made a decision to change his or her work arrangements because of his or her health will have been diagnosed by a qualified medical practitioner; treated for the condition and have made that decision based on medical advice. Therefore, the parent would usually be able to provide medical certificates or reports from his or her treating doctor, and/or reports from any specialist to whom the parent was referred.

The following factors are relevant in considering whether the parent's decision about his or her working arrangements is justified on the basis of the parent's state of health:

    the fact that the parent is suffering from a medical condition and the effect that this has upon his or her capacity to work;
    the expected duration of the condition;
    any recommended treatment, and the impact that this has on the parents capacity to work;
    the availability of light duties, if the parent could work in a restricted capacity.

CSA will weigh up the evidence about these and any other relevant matters in order to decide whether it is satisfied that the parent's state of health is such that it justifies his or her changed work arrangements. If the parent's state of health does justify his or her decision about his or her working arrangements, then CSA must not make a decision to base the child support assessment on the parent's earning capacity. However, if the parent's state of health would not preclude work, or additional work, CSA must proceed to consider the third criterion below, namely, the parent's purpose in making the decision about his or her working arrangements.

However, it is unlikely that you will have the legislation fairly applied, simply because you are the liable parent. You should have recourse to SSAT, who should ensure that the legislation is applied fairly, justly and equitably. Unfortunately SSAT appears to have the same motivation as the CSA and it is quite clear that they to now act very much with a bias towards increasing the "Separated Parents Tax". Your hands are then very much tied as appealing an SSAT decision has to be on a matter of law.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory, MikeT.  CSA is biased.  SSAT is biased.  Do you have any evidence to support your 'understanding' that the CSA or the SSAT operate with FTB clawback in mind?

The legislation provides for 15 month maximum child support periods, not 18.

I suspect there is more to oscar66's story than is being revealed here.  It would seem to be unlikely that the CSA would assess oscar66 as having capacity to earn at $60,000 if he(?) had medical evidence to support his claim.  

oscar66 said
…after my seperation, i resided at my mothers place, suffering chronic depression, no income, no welfare, 100% supported by my mother
So can I assume that you are still in that position? AND that you are saying five years after having been stood down from employment or resigned due to suffering chronic depression (Which you have been having treatment for under medical supervision for five years) that you are still being assessed at the previous employee earnings?

When you say you reject welfare may I respectfully ask how you get by financially without any job? I may be wrong because you say that you have a "low income" so assume you have some sort of paid remuneration and thus a tax return?

When was the last time you filed a tax return?


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
 
Eclipse said
Sounds like a conspiracy theory, MikeT.  CSA is biased.  SSAT is biased.  Do you have any evidence to support your 'understanding' that the CSA or the SSAT operate with FTB clawback in mind?

I don't actually have the evidence, rather the evidence exists, much of which has been revealed and explained throughout posts on this site.

Perhaps the prime evidence is the vastly inflated basis of the so called "Child Support". That is that the average cost of a child is based upon a child costing over $500,000 to support at a time when the average wage was under $50,000. Basically it would be virtually impossible for the average household to have such an amount available after solely considering the needs of the parents. Such an amount was based upon selective research that basically accumulated costs rather than considering actual costs of raising children. Research using actual costs of raising children by comparing the disposable income of families with and without children found that the cost of children is under 1/10th of the cost used for child support calculation purposes. This inflated cost of children as the most fundamental flaw in combination with the factual claw-back of FTB at the rate of 50c for $1 is evidence of the taxation aspect (this very much akin to safety cameras being for safety purposes when many people clearly understand that they are revenue earning tools).

The fact that the CSA and now SSAT are biased against the liable parent can very easily be seen through published court decisions and ombudsman reports. The obvious question then is why would the CSA and SSAT apply bias.

Perhaps they apply bias because they are unprofessional and apply the legislation with bias to assist their friends or a personal cause. However, the consistency that can be seen in decisions would rule this out unless the higher echelons of both the CSA and SSAT are themselves running some conspiracy (perhaps you could explain what such a conspiracy would be, if this is the case).

Perhaps another reason is that all CSA employees who make such decisions are themselves acting unprofessionally and acting out their own conspiracy against liable parents; I think this is as ridiculous as the previous potential reason, unless the 6 week initial training is an indoctrination process (however I do have personal evidence that this is not the case).

Perhaps you could put forward other reasons why for many years Change of Assessment has been termed "Deem and Destroy" by many.

However, if you consider other facts; such as the Richmond report, which is basically collect, collect, collect, which itself is in contradiction of the very object of the legislation that clearly states that parents should meet their proper financial responsibility; such as the collections guide (aka tips on how to get more out of the liable parent); and such as some Procedural Instructions (PI's) that are basically the CSA's interpretation of how the legislation should be administered, e.g. to request that the object of the legislation is discarded, in order to not reduce what has been collected or transferred, by trying to persuade (i.e. harassing) the liable parent to gift overpayments; then there is clearly an emphasis not on providing children with support but with collecting as much as can be collected. Further evidence is the annual reports, none as far as I am aware, specify anything about children actually being provided support. Rather the top line is how much has been collected or transferred.

The link/evidence is very obvious and very simple. The CSA and SSAT are frequently making decisions that are biased toward collecting or transferring more that should be collected or transferred. The CSA and SSAT are basically in the same portfolio (if that's the correct way of saying it) of the DHS. The DHS like most departments nowadays will be very much concerned with juggling their department's/portfolio's finances which for the CSA will be amount of revenue (which is 50% of the amount of CS collected or transferred and basically the same for SSAT for CS related matters) less the running costs of the entity. If they spend too much or don't raise enough then the DHS will not be happy, as such there is pressure on the CSA and SSAT to perform (this also rolls down to the decision makers through bonus/performance reward schemes in place (at least with the CSA); some of these have been reported on the forums here). Perhaps no so obvious is that so many countries/states/governments around the world have their equivalent systems, if one sees a money spinner (e.g. GST or VAT as it's called in the UK), then it's often replicated by other countries/states/governments (carbon tax/carbon trading scheme is likely the next to be rolled out throughout much of the world).

I'd suggest that there is far more evidence of this conspiracy not being a conspiracy but a fact than your conspiracy of saying that what I have said is a conspiracy. However, you can obviously provide the evidence that the evidence that I have provided or pointed to doesn't exist. Alternately you could perhaps provide the evidence that what I have said is a conspiracy.

Eclipse said
The legislation provides for 15 month maximum child support periods, not 18.
:$ Ooops, I should have looked this up rather than just said what I thought it was. Thanks for pointing this error out.

Eclipse said
I suspect there is more to oscar66's story than is being revealed here.  It would seem to be unlikely that the CSA would assess oscar66 as having capacity to earn at $60,000 if he(?) had medical evidence to support his claim.
Oh another conspiracy, so where's your evidence that supports your suspicions? :) As for the last sentence; from my experience, which I believe is very likely above average in regards to the CSA and CS legislation, and the available evidence, it is very likely that the CSA would try to, in fact they do, distort the legislation in order to increase the amounts that they collect or transfer. I'd even go as far as to say that it's their signature MO. However, even if they didn't, the advice would be to not accept that an assessment is ongoing but an assessment is limited and to provide the facts and information and to then use the objections and complaints processes. It would appear that your help/advice could be to do nothing and accept it. Perhaps you work for the CSA or SSAT and are kindly providing further evidence of the lengths that these bodies will go to to increase the tax on separated parents via the claw-back of FTB through distortion, by hook or by crook, of the CS legislation.
yes eclipse, there is a lot more to this.i am trying to get advice on 1 point at a time. however i will try to expand.
csa have used my 2006 tax, this work became obsalete may 2006 and i returned to my usual trade of 20 yrs. my csa account apparently started jan 2007. my work is in remote areas and is based on production. more produce, more income, but have suffered many poor seasons. however i do not maintain any residence , no car, electricity etc, i can save most of my income. i generally work 3 months 6 weeks off, depending on the time of year, during my time off, i will fly to brisbane, collect my 2 boy and fly them to tasmania to holiday with family for 2 or 4 weeks. i have cosistently bought them clothing etc, and thjey will often ask me during regular phone calls for things that i willinglypurchase or send them money to make their own choices. for the last 5 years, i have struggled with my heath and work, i have done the best i can for my childrenwhile some days are better than others, it is my children that keep my feet on the ground rather than in the air.
4 months ago csa contacted me, informing me i have a bill for $16,000. why??? i thought csa persued  parents who neglected their responsability. i was unaware that csa was forced upon us, even if both parents are happy with the current situationyes i was ignorant to csa intrusion, but that does not mean i have not tended to my responsabilities. csa current formula, with my income, i already pay 10x what is required
Thanks for the detailed response, MikeT.  I have looked through the site previously as a guest, and have seen many of the posts you refer to.  I certainly do not want to argue, nor do I intend to provide any support or defence for the CSA (DHS seems to have created a team to answer online forums for themselves).  What I will say is that CSA probably makes millions of decisions in hundreds of thouands of cases.  Any statistician will tell you that there will be errors, the issue is what % of decisions are in error.  Systemic bias, which is what you say exists, would mean a significantly high percentage of decisions would be in error and they would be in error in a particular respect.  I have never seen any statistical evidence to show that the error rate (I'll use that term) is significant in proportion to the total amount of decisions made.  From what I can tell, from Ombudsman and Parliamentary enquiries and the like, the percentage of errors is low in comparison to the total of decisions made, and that many of the decisions in error are different types of decisions.

In relation to collection, that is one of the main reasons CSA is there.  I am not sure why CSA collecting amounts that it is supposed to collect is a sign of some sort of wrong doing.

Can't say much about Change of Assessment, other than it is something that requires analysis of circumstances and is highly discretionary.  Those types of processes can be difficult to manage if the person making decisions is not given all the information they need or the parties do not fully participate.  
Eclipse said
Any statistician will tell you that there will be errors, the issue is what % of decisions are in error.
Sorry, I hate to say it you're wrong. I just phoned one and that statistician refused to say anything of the sort. :)

However I guess in the same vein, any Ombudsman would tell you that they look into and only report on what they consider to be significant matters that require systemic change according to the findings. I'd suggest that you arrange to have the Statisticians and the Ombudsman's fight it out rather than contradict yourself and argue when you say you don't want to.

As for you going on about the CSA making millions of decisions, most of those are made not by the CSA employees but by CUBA which is a mainframe (large computer) based DB2 database based system. Computers, are not biased, unless programmed to be so. As such you can ignore every decision made by CUBA, assuming that the systemic biased distortion of the legislation has not been extended to be embedded in CUBA.

Eclipse said
In relation to collection, that is one of the main reasons CSA is there.  I am not sure why CSA collecting amounts that it is supposed to collect is a sign of some sort of wrong doing.
Collection for the purpose of collecting the right amount according to the legislation, if excluding the fact that the legislation is based upon a very flawed cost of children, is fine. However, collecting the wrong amount is wrong, as is collecting the right amount in the wrong way. Purposefully collecting the wrong amount or collecting in the wrong way is a betrayal of the public who the CSA exists to serve. I am confident that most people would see that. I  am also confident that many would see your statement as one from a person who lacks the knowledge to even comprehend that there could ever be a error in the amount or method of collection or alternately from a person trying to deceive the general public on behalf of the CSA.

I agree about collecting the wrong amounts.  Not sure how there can be a wrong way to collect the right amounts, though.  If the amounts are payable, surely they should be paid.  From what I can tell, the 'right' or 'wrong' amount seems to be personal view rather than a legal view.  Anyway, not here to argue.  

I do think, though, that if there were major systemic failures, they would not be able to be hidden from the various auditors or overseers of government (Ombudsman included).  This would indicate that the highlighted instances may not be systemic failures, but are failures in instances.  The fact that only the 'bad' cases are reported or blogged about is not evidence that every case is bad.  I was only suggesting that there does not seem to be any statistics to show that a significantly large percentage of the total decisions made (including those made by automated decision making systems) to show any systematic failure.  
my opinion on the flaws in csa is their total focus on money and the other parent rather than the welfare and support of the child.
their interference in a seperated family when they already have an ammiccable agreeementof a satisfactory standard.
their total disregard of the for the emotional trauma and hardships that often follow seperation.
and a high rate of suicide, murder and assualts as a result of their tactics
Eclipse said
Not sure how there can be a wrong way to collect the right amounts, though. If the amounts are payable, surely they should be paid.
I find your lack of knowledge rather disturbing for one who tries to express such a high level of knowledge.

One common occurrence is to not properly consider the full circumstances of the payer and thus contravene the legislation that clearly places the need for a parent to support them-self above the need to provide child-support; sometimes to the extent that people take their own life or seriously consider doing so.
Another common occurrence is where the CSA try to persuade, even as is evidenced on some posts on here appearing to order, a parent to take out a loan to pay. Another too common occurrence, again found and reported by the Ombudsman, is the abuse of power by the CSA to collect through DPO's. In one case I recall, that I believe is detailed on here, the DPO prevented the parent from starting employment, which would have greatly increased the CS. The parent lost his employment chance here and was then deemed to the capacity to earn and thus collection was set accordingly way beyond the means of an unemployed person.

Another very common tactic that I am aware of being used is to issue section72(a) notices to override PEA in order to collect in the wrong way. Often through the abuse of power by ignoring the full wording of the PI's and making the 3 attempts at communication within minutes rather than over the course of a far greater period of time.

All three of the above are discussed/raised on here, which again appears to indicates a high likelihood that you are either being deceptive in regards to your statement about reading posts or that you have some inability that only permits you to selectively retain information.
Eclipse said
I do think, though, that if there were major systemic failures, they would not be able to be hidden from the various auditors or overseers of government (Ombudsman included).  This would indicate that the highlighted instances may not be systemic failures, but are failures in instances.  The fact that only the 'bad' cases are reported or blogged about is not evidence that every case is bad.  I was only suggesting that there does not seem to be any statistics to show that a significantly large percentage of the total decisions made (including those made by automated decision making systems) to show any systematic failure.

You appear to have chosen your user name wisely, as you most certainly appear to be trying to eclipse, as in obscure. For example you are now trying to obscure what I have said, by including terms that I have not used. Not that I will discount that the the bias in the COA process is of a majorily(sic perhaps) systemic nature. However, the term I used was systemic bias not major systemic failures.

I'd suggest that if you aren't already employed by the CSA or SSAT, then they would very likely welcome your trait of distorting matters to support your(their) stance. I'd even suggest that you could be elevated to the upper ranks, who I and others have witnessed making such distortions, such a state director, denying, in front of over a score of people, that staff are given two minutes after a call, irrespective of the duration of the call, some of which can be very lengthy, to write up their notes otherwise a superior is informed. You certainly appear to arguing your case, by "not arguing" (another distortion), using similar distortions to protect the CSA's and or SSAT's abuse of liable parent's (not that I'm saying that they don't also abuse recipients; that is not currently the issues being argued).

To sum up, I'd ask you to express exactly, in your opinion, how many lives wrongly harmed (which obviously from the above includes lives taken), constitutes your interpretation of what constitutes the boundary between a significant/major amount and a insignificant/minor amount.

Eclipse said
The fact that only the 'bad' cases are reported or blogged about is not evidence that every case is bad.
Now who's doing the "conspiracy" thing. I believe that there are good cases reported on here. So I believe that this statement is an outright unfounded statement of distortion and considering your arguments a hypocritical statement and thus actually is you defeating one of your major arguments. Of course, that is unless you consider yourself a superior being who should be allowed to be a hypocrite.

Eclipse said
I was only suggesting that there does not seem to be any statistics to show that a significantly large percentage of the total decisions made (including those made by automated decision making systems) to show any systematic failure.
I'll not argue significantly large yet again that is your misrepresentation. However, actually you were originally suggesting that I am running some sort of conspiracy. So the quoted statement is a lie; as it is clearl that you were making more than just one suggestion or a different suggestion. However, there are statistics, or at least the basis of the statistics, you can count the posts on here that relate to the statistics and then extrapolate them according to how statisticians extrapolate such data to come up with a population percentage (if that's the correct terminology, again I phoned a statistician and they wouldn't answer :)), obviously noting the standard deviation. I and I guess others, would be grateful if you undertook such a task of correctly extrapolating the data available from this website/portal, so please feel free to do this, I for one would thank you; assuming that you undertook the task without bias.

Furthermore, if you do work for the CSA and are in the higher echelons then I'd suggest that you arrange for a project to ascertain accurate statistics regarding the bias against the liable parent within the COA process. I'd suggest that such a project should involve neutral persons. Some to run the project. Some to scrutinise the COA decisions, including objections to SSAT which if directly extrapolated, based upon the publicly available data, and if I recall correctly, is at least a rate of 60% of failures. Some to perform the statistical analysis. Perhaps a company such as PIR could be called upon to do this.
Oscar:  If you have an amicable agreement, you should not have a case with the CSA.  Why not have your ex close the case with the CSA, or have your agreement formally recognised?  

MikeT:  I am not sure I said I have read every post on this site, nor professed to have 100% recall of all of them.  I haven't accused you of conspiracy theories - I have simply asked you some questions about the views you put so strongly, as I am interested about the basis for those views.  

Statistics must be based on a properly representative sample, not a small sample, to be reasonably reliable.  All I asked was what percentage of total decisions are you using as a basis for your assertions.  I do not think that qualifies me as being argumentative or distorting the discussion in any way.

Whether you have directly claimed it or only inferred it, you have provided a clear postion that there is systemic bias in the CSA.  I have only suggested to you that your position may be based on a too small sample of the total of CSA cases to be able to support that conclusion.  
Eclipse said
Oscar:  If you have an amicable agreement, you should not have a case with the CSA.

Actually, there could be advantages to having an amicable agreement and having a case with the CSA. One such hypothetical argument is to use the CSA assessment as the basis of claiming the greater amount of FTB than if there is no case due to FTB part A being reduced in normal circumstances if there is no CSA assessment, or agreement. The latter being a disadvantage due to the cost of obtaining the agreement to conform to the legislative requirements of an agreement.

Eclipse said
I haven't accused you of conspiracy theories
I obviously misread this that was in your first post in this topic:
Eclipse said
Sounds like a conspiracy theory, MikeT.
This certainly appears to imply that I may be (an accusation) running a conspiracy theory  as what I have done, according to you, sounds like one. Perhaps you are trying to hide behind your use of the plural when you have made only the one accusation that what I have posted sounds like a conspiracy theory. If so then I quite specially said a theory, not theories.

Eclipse said
Statistics must be based on a properly representative sample, not a small sample, to be reasonably reliable.
Could it be that someone said that it rains every 10 days without making a sample or using statistical data and then that after that statement was made and a sufficiently representative sample of data taken which then actually shows that it does in fact rain every 10 days and is thus reliable? I'd say that your statement is fundamentally flawed as it does not consider the possibility of chance being reliable.

When it boils down to it, you are basically being on Ostrich. There is evidence on here and elsewhere that the public can see that the CSA through COA do act with bias. I personally also have evidence that I cannot make publicly available. What I can say is that I have not seen one instance in the 7 years that I have been a separated parent and been concerned about the methods and tactics the CSA employ that indicates that there is no bias against the liable parent in the COA process. Due to various reasons I believe that I cannot reveal how many but I'd suggest that outside of the CSA I'm in a pretty small group who have the knowledge about the CSA that I have. However I have absolutely no issue in the advice that I give on here and that is that that a liable parent is very likely to be subject to an unfair and biased decision because they are the liable parent. Now if you provide the evidence that you say you are interested in and that soundly shows that there is no common(systemic) bias then I'd advise otherwise and I'd love to be able to say that the CSA will not act with bias. In fact I've put forward ideas that could ensure that there is no bias and would additionally make the CSA far less costly and more efficient. However, I strongly suspect that such ideas will be or have been rejected primarily because it would restrict the amount that could be collected and or transferred and thus provide the Government with a greater amount to spend by the way of the FTB-clawback.

Eclipse said
I have only suggested to you that your position may be based on a too small sample of the total of CSA cases to be able to support that conclusion.  
Let's say it's certainly a greater sample than what has led to many restrictive security practices being put in place in Australia and throughout the world. It's certainly more reliable data than was used as the reason to invade/free Iraq (or was it Iran i.e. the WMD scaremongering). I'm confident that the list could be expanded upon greatly. When it boils down to it, the lives, welfare and well being of people could well be at stake and I care about them not being subjected to such inhumane treatment. Not to say that if the shoe were on the other foot, that I wouldn't care about recipients being treated badly or with bias. In fact back in 2008/2009 I went to some lengths to assist in a matter when a potential recipient was told by the CSA in Queensland (I strongly suspect that it was basically "*@#$ it's time to go home so I'll get rid of this customer" attitude, that can happen when it's close to the time to leave) that they couldn't apply because the other parent was under 17 at the time of conception.
To be clear MikeT, I did not accuse you of conspiracy theories (singular or plural).  I wrote that what you wrote sounds like a conspiracy theory, then asked you some questions about the bases for your views.

Given that every answer you gave didn't answer the question and cast aspersions upon my motives for asking, I assume you do not really have any bases to support those views other than your opinion.  Asking me to prove you wrong when you have nothing reasonable to indicate that you are right pretty much says everything.

I agree that guesswork or extrapolating anecdotal information to make a general argument can be accurate, but that is only by luck, not good management, and my experience is that the more complex the issue, the less likely one case (or a small sample) will be an accurate reflection of the big picture.

I suggest to you that you should rethink advising people that the CSA will likely be biased against them.  It is probably more likely that they will have no problems with the CSA at all - which I suspect is the case in more instances than it isn't.  It would seem more helpful to people to explain the process, rather than your opinion of the process.
Eclipse said
To be clear MikeT, I did not accuse you of conspiracy theories (singular or plural).  I wrote that what you wrote sounds like a conspiracy theory, then asked you some questions about the bases for your views.

Given that every answer you gave didn't answer the question and cast aspersions upon my motives for asking, I assume you do not really have any bases to support those views other than your opinion.  Asking me to prove you wrong when you have nothing reasonable to indicate that you are right pretty much says everything.

How do you know that? Have you been there to see? And if you had been there to see, and had seen none, that would not prove that there were none? - Charles Kingsley

Of course not every answer I have given casts aspersion upon you so you yet again show yourself as a hypocite to your argument about demands for the provision of reliable substantiation of claims.

Actually all YOU have to do to gain the knowledge regarding the argument(s) that YOU chose to raise and start, is to look where YOU have been informed that YOU can look. I believe that I have patiently answered all of your questions/provocations/arguments. YOU have in an extremely selfish way wasted the time of myself and others trying to force me to do something on YOUR behalf. Basically you are lazy, although I suspect that you would, as you have, reject anything anyway, yet another reason why I'm not going to run around doing your errands for you.

uhhm what everything does it say? Does it say I am male. Does it say I also am female. Does it say I'm up and also that I'm down. Does it say I'm left and also right and also centre? Does it say I'm dead and alive at the same time. Obviously it must be an agreement that I'm right but also wrong about everything overall and each individual thing on it's own. What a crackpot cowardly attempt at an insult. :lol:

Eclipse said
I agree that guesswork or extrapolating anecdotal information to make a general argument can be accurate, but that is only by luck, not good management, and my experience is that the more complex the issue, the less likely one case (or a small sample) will be an accurate reflection of the big picture.

So how does your experience count? You have shown us that you are lazy an expect others to be your servant, you have shown that you are a hypocrite, you have shown that you are objectionable, you have shown that you are rather lacking in knowledge of matters you imply that you have knowledge in and you have shown that you are disrespectful of others. Virtually everything you have written on this forum indicates that you lack any qualifications to make any sound judgement regarding the CS and the CSA and SSAT. There is the one exception and that is that you pointed out my error in regards to the maximum assessment period, but that's hardly much of a qualification. In fact the indication is that you are one who posting on here simply to provoke, perhaps myself, perhaps simply because your original post was shown to have been lacking. There again that post was already provocative/destructive as opposed to being constructive or requesting advice:

If you look at what a departure does, it substitutes something in place of what is in the basic formula.  Section 35C then provides that the assessment should be made taking into account that substituted piece of information when making an assessment.
Eclipse said
What you end up with is an assessment that is different to the assessment that was in place before the departure.  I think most people would recognise that as a change to the assessment.

Eclipse said
I suggest to you that you should rethink advising people that the CSA will likely be biased against them.  It is probably more likely that they will have no problems with the CSA at all - which I suspect is the case in more instances than it isn't.  It would seem more helpful to people to explain the process, rather than your opinion of the process.
So prove that you can go beyond the hypocrite and provide the sound statistical reasonable evidence that supports this crock advice. I must warn that following Eclipse's advice could lead to one taking such advice to suffer seriously, perhaps even to the extent of provoking suicide. At least, to quote part of a recent contributor's personal message "you told us BEFORE we started the appeal that it was highly unlikely that we would win.", I can show that some of advice has been sound. I don't think that I recall any post actually complaining that my advice was not sound.

Your suggestion is duly ignored due to the numerous failings in all of your arguments (provocations). However, provide arguments with as sound a backing as you expect then I would change the advice that I give. Somehow, Eclipse, I doubt that you have the ability to change your views.

Anyway Eclipse, due to the failings that you have shown, I will scrutinise your posts from now on. If they are not constructive or purely requesting assistance then the likelihood is that they will be edited or deleted.
There seem to be a lot of "motherhood" statements and little fact in a number of posts in this topic. I don't believe it is enough to list "as you can see from the forums"

MikeT you have listed FOUR specific grievances that I can see and these are:
  • CSA do not properly consider the full circumstances of the payer and thus contravene the legislation that clearly places the need for a parent to support them-self above the need to provide child-support;
    AND
  • Another common occurrence is where the CSA try to persuade, even as is evidenced on some posts on here appearing to order, a parent to take out a loan to pay.
    AND
  • Another too common occurrence, again found and reported by the Ombudsman, is the abuse of power by the CSA to collect through DPO's. In one case I recall, that I believe is detailed on here, the DPO prevented the parent from starting employment, which would have greatly increased the CS. The parent lost his employment chance here and was then deemed to the capacity to earn and thus collection was set accordingly way beyond the means of an unemployed person.
    AND
  • Another very common tactic that I am aware of being used is to issue section72(a) notices to override PEA in order to collect in the wrong way. Often through the abuse of power by ignoring the full wording of the PI's and making the 3 attempts at communication within minutes rather than over the course of a far greater period of time.
I am waiting for an answer to the fundamental issues I raised in my earlier post regarding the initiating poster issues and will take that up to the CSA because I simply find it quite inexplicable that this person is still paying at the rate detailed.

As an aside we are about to start collating the top 10 Child Support issues raised here so can I assume MikeT that the four listed above are in that list.

We have now completed the submission work on "Self Employed" persons and a number of initiatives are being worked through arising from that extensive work we did from the site here.

Another piece of extensive piece of work from the executive and site members was the COA review / reform work and that is progressing, albeit at snails pace. I will be getting an update on that next week.

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
 
oscar66 said
i thought csa persued  parents who neglected their responsability. i was unaware that csa was forced upon us, even if both parents are happy with the current situationyes
IF the other parent is happy with what you pay and you pay 10x the amount directly to the payee, why are you in a child support collect agency arrangement at all? Why are you getting Government Agencies involved in your life? You don't HAVE to be in the child support system if you both agree you don't need to be. The Child Support Agency would welcome a decision to decouple from the scheme. It indicates the parents can adequately manage their financial arrangements.

CSA pursue child support liability AS DETERMINED by the formula. If you pay money to the Payee in goods and service and other contributions these are not part of the formula unless they are NAP's (Non Agency Payments) and then there are very specific items that you can use for NAPS providing only that you are in the bottom band of care. So if you think you are paying 10x the amount that you should be AND you are in the bottom band of care you need to declare what NAPs are being provided and have those deducted.

The CSA wants MONEY or NAPS that's all it requires. It doesn't look at services or assets in kind unless declared by the other party specifically and declared as to offset child support. That is how the system works. There is no flexibility. It is not set up as a warm fuzzy place to wander and say well I brought the kids ice creams last week so that is my contribution.. It is set up as a place to collect money and pay money, cold hard cash. (I am not sure why the Commonwealth Bank and a debt collection agency can't do it) but basically that is what is going on.

The CSA have some flexibility to make "Arrangements" to cover arrears and or wipe off penalties and have some amnesties from time to time.




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
 
Eclipse said
I suggest to you that you should rethink advising people that the CSA will likely be biased against them.  It is probably more likely that they will have no problems with the CSA at all - which I suspect is the case in more instances than it isn't.  It would seem more helpful to people to explain the process, rather than your opinion of the process.
 
Can I just say that I personally would have benefited greatly if I had found this site and known about the CSA bias BEFORE I had to deal with them. In addition and from personal experience, they ARE MOST CERTAINLY bias against the payer. They have high KPI's to achieve every month and strive for their bonus! As personally witnessed, not much interest is shown in being fair and equitable when the focus is on the payer and the money. Not my opinion, but my experience!
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets