Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Self employed paying inadequate support

Add Topic

personal financial expenses - Sole Trader

My childs father is self employed and also a 50% shareholder of another company. He pays $ 6.82 a week in child support. His income 2010 is $ 21,495.

His personal financial expenses are  $ 1004.04 per week  ( over $ 50,000 a year ). He has a partner and her annual income is $ 628.00 per week. Her expenses are $510.00 a week.

How is this possible are there magical faries or perhaps a money tree in the backyard.

Over the years he has also aquirred a $ 420,000 sole home loan on income under $ 17,000.

 $ 6.82 a week child support what an absolute joke. What a great government department the CSA is.

self employed paying inadequate support

Self employed and 50% shareholder in another company paying $ 6.82 per week in child support.

His income for 2009/2010 is $ 21,495.

Of this income his personal expenses are $ 1004.04 per week ( over $ 50,000 a year ).

His parnters income is $ 628.00 per week after tax and her weekly expenses are $ 510.00 a week.

How on earth could his partner cover the shortfall. The shortfall is about $ 30,000 is there a magical fary out their ???

As well as his expenses of over $ 50,000 a year he has aquired a sole home loan of over $ 420,000.

Has other personal loans.

But can only pay $ 6.82 a week to help support his son. He has no other children and doesn't have any care.

What an absolute joke…
how much do you think he should pay to support his son ?
It would be nice if there was a way to create a "pool" where all CS could be paklced, and all expenses be removed from

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
I definatley think that if his personal expenses are $ 50,000 a year and his annual income is $ 21,495 his partner can not cover the shortfall of $ 30,000 given her income.

There is surely something dodgy going on.

How much does it cost to raise a teenager ?

Well 4 6.82 a week might buy a packet of sausages and a loaf of bread.
Gecko said
It would be nice if there was a way to create a "pool" where all CS could be palaced, and all expenses be removed from
That's what I've proposed for a while. I created a thread about it recently here on the Family Law Web Guide forums, but nobody seems very interested. Decouple the parents financially and you remove a largepart of the reason for conflict.

Apart from that the financial savings would be huge - in the billions.
What about the children. Why do a minority of parents not want to support their own children is beyond me.

This father was in paid employment and had an income of $ 28,000 in 2001.

From 2002 until current is self employed and his income has always been under $ 21,495.

No bank would give a $ 420,000 sole home loan to this person on such a low income. You would have to be earning a min. of $ 80,000 a year to repay such a loan.

How dumb are the CSA. Do they not know how to count ?

No offence But?

What I wonder is how do you know all the details of the child's father's partner?

Your concerns are justified but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what your ex partner's girlfriend/de-facto or wife earns. It doesn't mean they have a money tree.  There may have been financial resources that his new partner had and he did not have to take out a mortgage of that amount.  Sounds as though she could be a magical fairy!!  Have you see the loan documents as well?  Who knows?  But at the end of the day it does not matter.  Maybe he won lotto!! Yes both parents have to have their fair share of contributing to their children.  It is the income that the parents generate that is taken into consideration.

You have not mentioned what your capacity is and the % care, these are both important facts when calculating a Child Support Assessment.

Put in a Reason 8 if you are concerned and let the CSA work it out.
I have been through the COA process in 2009. I did not believe his 2008 income of $ 14,000.

First case officer set his income at $ 54,000.  He objected based on an illness and that his partner covers the shortfall of his expenses.

Objection Officer set his income at $ 28,000.

Then I went to SSAT. They replaced his 2008/2009 income and used 2010 income they set at $ 18,000. Based on the illness. So whatever income it was in 2008/2009 is totally dismissed. I know if I have an illness I still have to support my family at way more than $6.82 a week.

I have 100% care of my son.

His partner can not be a magical fairy to cover the shortfall of $ 30,000.

Their combined income is to low for a loan of $ 420,000 as it is a sole home loan in his name at 9% interest rate. A $50,000 car . Perhaps the ATO would be interested on how he obtained a sole home loan on such a low income.

At the end of the day it is his son who is being ripped off and totally neglected by this parent. Hopefully there is karma.
So now my lovely personal case officer CSA says I can go through the whole COA again if I believe his 2010 income is different or if I have new evidence.

To me the evidence is there. His financial information does not add up.

I have contacted the CSA online, no response. For a year i have requested everything in writing (which they don't like).

I have been to my local member with all the financial information. They made represtentations to Jenny Macklin. She was of no assitance her statement was her hands are tied and can not change an SSAT decision. But yet the personal case officer says I can challenge the 2010 income. The 2010 income they replaced 2008/2009.

To get evidence you would have to stalk someone. I was of the impression the CSA were there to ensure all parents are doing the correct thing for their children.
Hmm.  As someone who has been at the working end of the CSA machine, I can vouch for their processes.  They are watertight.  They have access to every available bit of financial information on each of their clients.  The database is linked to the ATO, CentreLink and even their clients' financial institution of choice.  You cannot escape their clutches - unless of course he is doing 'cashies' - but no government agency can ever get on top of that problem.

At any rate, his new partner's income and financial resources are not taken into account.  What you say may be true - she may be a money fairy - but your son is not her responsibility - and the CSA don't care about her financial contribution to their household.  The go solely on Mr Ex's fiscal details and can only base their assessment on what funds go through the government databases, especially the ATO.
best4thekids said
Hmm.  As someone who has been at the working end of the CSA machine, I can vouch for their processes.  They are watertight.

Sorry best4 the kids, I have to disagree. However, I suspect that what you may be saying is that the machine, especially in regards to change of assessment, is well oiled to look into obtaining the maximum it can from the liable parent and especially so when it comes down to the self-employed/small business. As such it is extremely likely that the other parent is genuinely on such a low income or if not on a lower income and that guest simply doesn't understand. This, misunderstanding (or as is so very often the case, deliberate denigration of the other parent by way of purposeful misrepresentation of the facts) is very clear from the statement that guest only has $6.82 per week for the child, the minimum rate for CS when a parent has under regular(14%) care. At the minimum guest would be in receipt of a far greater amount of money that is meant for the child, at least to the tune of $1000 per month (obviously it depends upon guest's own income situation which guest has not revealed).

guest said
His partner can not be a magical fairy to cover the shortfall of $ 30,000.
Assuming that your representation of the income of the other parent is true then it is feasible that a partner could cover such a shortfall. Certainly, there are stay at home partners who have nice cars which alone would cost a great deal more than such an amount. However, it is more than likely that guest yet again has either little understanding and has considered business expenses as personal expenses or that guest is deliberately misrepresenting the figures. As the CSA/SSAT combination are very unlikely to let the self-employed/small business owner get away with not having a decision that at the minimum is at least as high as the legislation sets out. In fact it is quite likely, from the available evidence, that both the CSA and SSAT would make a decision that if anything increases the income and thus CS payments beyond what the legislation sets out. It is also often that the CSA reduce the recipient's income by not applying the legislation to the recipient in the same way (the Late 2010 Ombudsman's report confirms this bias of the CSA toward increasing the amount that they collect or transfer). What guest has reported (SCO sets income high, objections officer lowers it (in order to try to placate the liable parent but to still get an unjust and inequitable artificially high assessment), SSAT more thoughtfully applies the law), is a frequently, and most frequent, reported "modus operandi" of the COA process.

If a magical fairy exists, then it's most likely one that is painting a false picture in guests mind.  
There seems still to be an unanswered question as a main point of the discussion and the more and more it goes on without knowing the absolute "full story" questions need to be asked to gain the truth and transparent scenario of the case.  I have now established the fact that:

The "Guest" has 100% care.  
"The father has no care", This is very sad.  It is important that both parents should contribute to the care of their children.

BUT
Is the father of the child allowed to have care of the child and if not is it actually possible?  
He must be very selfish not to take responsibility of his biological child if he has the ability.  

(For the purpose of the Child Support Assessment you may be assessed at 100% care, but from my understanding, that doesn't mean that the father has "no care" either.)  


Are there any other expenses that he may pay?  Some men/women although having an assessment in place may contribute in other ways.  There are many other expenses that a child has apart from food on the table.  If not, once again he is very selfish. Considering the low income he has, there are still some things that a partner that could contribute to such as school fees, school uniforms etc etc.  

If you are a single parent and on a low income, you would be in receipt of benefits (school card, health care card, rent assistance if you can't afford your own home) and an income.  

I understand the purpose of the New Regulations of the Child Support Agency is to take the burden off of the Country to reduce the amount of FTB that is paid when it should be the parent's contributing to the children.

On this note, to receive further advice and so that all interested readers can sympathise and make suggestions, it would be beneficial you thoroughly explain the whole situation.  What is your income bracket, I can not even work out if you are working, I just see you criticising your ex.

The public does not know the entire case and it is difficult for the public to criticise your ex.  

To make a threat about going to the ATO causes me some concern that you are a little bitter about your ex moving on.  Is that what you would really want to see, have you thought about the child. Not teaching good values!  
His father having to go through the stress of an unnecessary audit just because you seem a little bitter he is not paying enough Child Support especially if he is not doing anything wrong.

Were you partnered for some time and what was his income then, maybe you can apply under the reason that he tried to reduce his income.  That would be very selfish of the child's father!  

But correct me if I am wrong, there seems to be a few major points missing in the story.  

I am very critical at times when it comes to half truths as it has happened before in life experience and unfortunately I have to say unless I can hear the full story I do not make judgement on any person.  I don't know your ex or his partner but geez, I kind of feel sorry for them.  I would be pretty cross if all my income details were known by someone that shouldn't.  Do they know yours!  

Not all men are "**%%$$###^^&^%$%&"!!!Some are.  Before I waste too much more time on this area the "full story needs to be told"


Sprouting off about their lifestyle etc etc and not once have you mentioned yours.  

Maybe there was an agreement in the Court that he has to start again and you keep the house because of the situation.  I don't know, no one knows except you.

My thought and comment for now:  

"Not all men are nasty, until you get a good look at the picture, don't make judgement on the fellow that is being commented on".    

A different Guest replying

Just to take the thread on a tangent and to get away from the gender centric commentary…

I'd like to address some of the unrealistic and dangerous claims that best4kids is making (albeit probably with very good intentions).

My experience of CSA is that it very much depends on the subjective view of your case officer. Perhaps in basic, CSA generated changes of assessment
it is a well oiled machine as Miket suggests. However, when it comes to actually reviewing a client generated COA the results can be very different and not
in line with the legislation.

CSA do not have access to "every bit" of information about their clients. You can point them in the direction of information (like alternate bank accounts) and they
WILL NOT LOOK. You can point out that someone claiming that they do not have a credit card and living significantly beyond their means must have access to some alternate,
unstated financial resource - like a cash job or having their living provided for by parents.

CSA DO take into account partner's income but they do it in a round about way. They will make a determination that their costs of living are significantly lower as they are covered
by their partner. Even though the legislation states that they cannot take a partner's income into account, they do.

This was the first ruling we had in a recent case. We appealed through CSA and got a more rational ruling. The female payer took it to SSAT on appeal and had the original determination
upheld.

Of course a good way of sharing costs is by giving time, but you can never make assumptions about the suitability of it based on the scant information posted on a forum.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets