Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Why not just get rid of child support for good?

Add Topic

It causes way too many problems

I don't understand why we have child support in this day and age.

The kids are usually packing up the daycare centers, because most parents work these days.

We have welfare if they don't.

We pay enough taxes and most of Australian kids are fat anyway (child obesity is a BIG problem).

Why do we even have child support?

If we didn't have child support, I reckon everyone would be having shared care as there is NO incentive.

Let's face it, there is absolutely no reason to have child support expect as a way to keep hard working people on a leash and an excuse for governments to invade your privacy.  

It has absolutely nothing to with the child except for people to use your child as a means of controlling you.

Anyway, thanx to the ppl who made this forum - I need to say this.
Interesting viewpoint crackofdoom

I feel the need to poke a hole in it though….

You say "If we didn't have child support, I reckon everyone would be having shared care as there is NO incentive."

What about all the kids where one parent is not interested in being a part of their lives, or only has a small amount of contact? Keep in mind, I mean where the "stays with" (for want of a better term) parent has chosen this situation.

Anyhoo, I think you might start a bit of debate!

Have a great weekend

"Decide that you want it more than you are afraid of it."
Bill Cosby
 :thumbs:
I have thought for a long time that contribution to children's expenses should only be commensurate with the experience. You want 50% care then you buy 50% of the food/clothes.
It is fair.
Moderator Note
Read in the Getting Started forum 'topics' the Senior Moderators notes about one liner posts. These are forums not chat rooms. Two of your other 'abbreviated' posts have been deleted.
We should also take into account abusive parents who are unable to have their children on a shared care basis, My ex has an annual income of over 100k and has not paid a cent in the last 18mths, CSA have made many mistakes along the way including recieving his CSA debt from his tax return then deciding to return that money back to him, mean while I am not working as my youngest is very young and have a govenment income that is far less than my outgoings each week, so in answer to your question yes child support should never be stopped, I am sure one day I will start getting some sort of payment and his arrears will be paid. Parents (well most) choose to have children therefore should take responsibility for them. There are too many parents out there avoiding this responsibiliy and I find that very sad for the children.
Yes but, there's also a number of mothers who have children FOR the government benefits. Some have multiple kids, to various partners,  over a 15-20 year period to avoid WORK.

Often the fathers have no knowledge or say in the 'family planning'. Perhaps there should be a system where young men can register their unwillingness to father children until they advise otherwise. This might prevent a lot of "welfare" pregnancies and children.  Not to mention a s***load of grief for those involved.

Imagine growing up knowing you were merely a ticket to centrelink payments and a weapon of mindless acrimony & CSA 'procedures'.

Ajae
It is a sad fact that some people in our community would, if given the chance, not pay anything towards the upkeep or have anything to do with their offspring after the breakdown of the relationship with their former partner..

One of the main reason for the establishment of the CSA was to have a means of making those people pay a contribution for the maintenance of their offspring and also reduce the Burdon to the tax payer.
It is quite obvious that the original intent has been shoved to the wayside by over zealous public servants.

If there was no Child Support Agency, I believe in a lot of cases the situation for the children of broken marriages would be a lot worse.

If there were no agency there are people out there who would just abandon their children.  With the agency in place and with the changes to CS by the former Government it is advantageous to have more time with the children which I turn may  reduce the CS obligation.  This situation in the majority of cases is a positive step to having a meaningful relationship between the children and both of their parents.
If the act the child support agency works under were less grey and the people working there did not see there job as being debt collectors for mothers it may work, one must also question why there is no provision to return funds collected incorrectly whether by incorrect paternity or whether by straight out lies or staff loving the power they are given to make  peoples lives hell. The act only  provides for collection from non resident parents  and in no way safeguards them from severe financial hardship if they have been wronged. The child support agency and centrelink also encourage mothers to collect through the agency which in turn causes more matters to be taken to court. When someone can increase there  child support by withholding access and doing a change of assessment there is something wrong with the system. Thats some of my 2 cents with I could write reams about the child support agency behaviors, standards etc as I am sure almost everyone touched by this debt collection agency owned by the government and working exclusively for resident parents who make up there own rules as they go along can do.

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:)

Abolish Child Support Agency

I agree that the entire child support agency should be abolished as I actually had to prove in a the Family Court the real reasons why I wanted an increase in the meagre child support I was getting at the time (Separated Before 1988) which I was happy with, because ultimately, I chose to give birth to my the children, not my husband. Both adults have a child together, in times of equal wages and opportunities I do not understand why there is a spousal support included in the current CSA formula. If some women chose not to work and live a life of frugal existence, Centrelink should not be encouraged to support these people. There is plenty of work out there, day care is not that difficult or costly to obtain, especially when it is often paid on a pro-rata basis, dependent on your wage. I think I only paid about $20/day for my childrens' daycare facilities, while I worked part-time.

The system as it stands at the moment is very debilitating to second families, and even more so, to the children from these families who often have to live below the povery line. Far from improving the system since 1988, I think it has gone backwards, unless you have children from a first relationship (where you can almost retire for 18 years from the workforce on the CSA you get), life is a struggle. Since when did it cost a $1,000 per month (CSA) to support and feed a child on an a median wage of $55,000/yr. Even worse is that some payers pay astronomical amounts just to keep the system happy. Its just a blatant discrimination against payers constantly, and unfortunately there is no justice available to them as objections to CSA are a waste of time.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the pitfalls of the CSA but little in the way of what would make CSA work. It is a no brainer that there needs to be some style of CSA.

So I pose the question:

What are peoples thoughts on how the CSA could be better legislated and utilized within today's society?

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas
CSA should not be able to collect money if a person earns below a minimum wage. That would be a good start
The act CSA works under should have absolutely no grey areas at all, CSA should also be enabled to collect  monies  from payees when overpayed… I'm not  saying empty there bank accounts  etc.  but repaying by at least a few dollars a week should be a minimum after a thorough investigation of finances ie if they are going to account for payer's new partners income then do so also for payees new partner and no income should be exempt (eg FTB, baby bonus etc) . The system currently works on a basis of encouraging fathers to see there children by rewarding them for a higher percentage of care with a lower pay rate, May I suggest most non resident parents are complaining they do not see there children enough so how about a system that instead rewards resident parents for facilitating more contact.

CSA needs to act like less of a debt collection agency for single mothers with multiple children to multiple fathers and act in the best interests of the children.



There needs to be a far greater emphasis placed on actually listening to payers rather than speaking to recipient parents and playing right into the she said so i'm gunna make your life a complete misery for the next 25 yrs arguement.





System needs a complete overhaul not just csa I refer to the entire system including  dhs ,mediation ,family and federal court, report writers etc

there must be  clear rules and punishments not judges giving people there 18th warning for not complying with orders and threatening a fine for the 7th time

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:)

Equality within the CSA procedures would be nice start to overhaul.

A fairer system to both payer and payee which does not reward the payee. Accountability on both sides of the equation would go a long way to providing a fairer system. At the moment, for instance, payee can put in a COA citing "Capacity to Earn" reasons.This means that the CSA and the previous wife/husband can be controlling the type of life decisions one can make when in a new relationship such as changing jobs or going into business with another partner. Payee encouraged to enter the workforce part-time and become more productive to society. At the moment the Centrelink, Family Payments reward these people for not working by giving payees more money. The same can be said about the way the payee/CSA control the amount of care that is dished out to payer (often Dads), it's disgraceful that it has a dollar value on reduced contact!

 Can the payer do that to a payee with children, I think not! Child support also need to be in line with Centrelink guidelines ie if children a working fulltime after 16 years CSA should be reduced or stop altogether, this is very hard to prove as the payer cannot subpoena the Taxation Dept to get access to records so overpayment are likely to occur.I think CSA needs to be paid  to 18yrs, only if the child pursues further education. I agree with the previous statement, payee should be made to pay back overpayment, as the payer is made to pay monies back, regardless of their situation!

Recently, my partner (payer) applied to CSA to have his payments reduced (a) he is now earning a lot less due to working as a contract cleaner and (b) due to the tragic death of our adult son (his step-son who he has bought up for the past 16 years). They denied us any change in assessment and we had to scrape and borrow from my superannuation to pay the funeral costs. I see this as a callous disregard of our situation and we are still thinking about pursuing this although it is stressful having to go through this when we have already suffered so much in the past few months. The last 18 months he has worked intermittantly and not put in a taxation, so he is assessed on the the MTAWE and has no choice in the matter, even though he has submitted all bank account details and earnings for the past 6 months to CSA. A lot of what CSA is almost fraudulent and they need to be made more accountable for their decisions, maybe in a court of law. That is why I think the previous system (Pre 1988) contained more justice in it for both parties involved (payer, payee) as everything has to be proved to the Family Court before maintenance payments were set.
COA conferences are NOT recorded, yet most other conversations with CSA are.
This practice should either be changed where conferences ARE recorded, otherwise the participants should be advised that no recording will be carried out.
From our own experience, absolutely anything can be claimed as uttered by the participants (usually the payer) by the SCO, and the payer has no recourse because of no recording.  How freaking convenient.
If CSA can record just about any other conversation, then surely something as important as a COA conference justifies audio/transcript.
I've tried researching this on the net and cant seem to get a definitive answer.
I'm not currently getting any child support from my ex because I havent asked for any. I myself am on a very good wicket and frankly, I dont need or want his money.
Another part of the reason why I havent asked for any is because I have a good idea of what he earns and what his outgoings would be. Child Support would absolutely financially cripple him because of the amount of loan/credit card debt he has to repay (not to mention living expenses). Contrary to popular opinion of residential parents on here - I'm not out to do that despite the fact that financially, there is thousands that I am entitled to claim for the welfare of our child but
If our case goes to court, will the courts automatically sting him for child support?
Kazscorpio said
Recently, my partner (payer) applied to CSA to have his payments reduced (a) he is now earning a lot less due to working as a contract cleaner and (b) due to the tragic death of our adult son (his step-son who he has bought up for the past 16 years). They denied us any change in assessment and we had to scrape and borrow from my superannuation to pay the funeral costs. I see this as a callous disregard of our situation and we are still thinking about pursuing this although it is stressful having to go through this when we have already suffered so much in the past few months. The last 18 months he has worked intermittantly and not put in a taxation, so he is assessed on the the MTAWE and has no choice in the matter, even though he has submitted all bank account details and earnings for the past 6 months to CSA. A lot of what CSA is almost fraudulent and they need to be made more accountable for their decisions, maybe in a court of law. That is why I think the previous system (Pre 1988) contained more justice in it for both parties involved (payer, payee) as everything has to be proved to the Family Court before maintenance payments were set.
Below is a link to the CSA Guide makes for interesting reading.  There are avenues that people can follow if they believe that they have been wronged by CSA.  Proving those wrongs may be a challenge but if proven may make the journey worthwhile and if enough people start going down that road may force the powers to be to reconsider the way CSA operates.  Every complaint, application for defective administration etc is recorded for statiscal purposes and are published annually.



http://www.csa.gov.au/guidev2/TheGuideMaster.aspx?content=6_11_1
reallyconfused, bravo for you for not needing or wanting his money. Bravo for you for also acknowledging that CS would financially cripple him, and you are not out to do that.
Being entitled to thousands is probably moot considering you lived well without it, and he would be in a disadvantaged financial situtation if he had to pay it now.

The the acrimony that will ensue from any action on your behalf to recover entitlements may not be worth it in the end.

There is also a huge gap in processes between entitlement and COURT.  Court may well sting him to hell and back.  It will be a long hard road for both of you, so if you don't hate each other at this point, then leave it well enough alone.  Because the acrimony involved will surely be not in the best interest of the children.  They will pick up on it.


Thanks ajay,

I want to keep it out of court and he doesnt want to pay child support so we agree on that. Going forward though, it really depends on what he wants in terms of the future of our child and his level of involvement. I'm sure it will make him more co-operative if he knows that he'll have to pay Child Support if it makes it to court.

It was just interesting yesterday when I was updating my 2010/11 financial year information with the Family Assist people that they mentioned how much I stand to gain. As you said though, it would be more hassle then its worth. He's not my favourite person in the world but I still have to know which fights to pick so to speak.
To have child support equal if the paying parent has other children from a 2nd marriage.  What my husband pays in child support a fortnight he would not pay any  where close for our children  . :|
really confused said
I've tried researching this on the net and cant seem to get a definitive answer.
I'm not currently getting any child support from my ex because I havent asked for any. I myself am on a very good wicket and frankly, I dont need or want his money.
Another part of the reason why I havent asked for any is because I have a good idea of what he earns and what his outgoings would be. Child Support would absolutely financially cripple him because of the amount of loan/credit card debt he has to repay (not to mention living expenses). Contrary to popular opinion of residential parents on here - I'm not out to do that despite the fact that financially, there is thousands that I am entitled to claim for the welfare of our child but
If our case goes to court, will the courts automatically sting him for child support?

Really confused The court could make orders, however you and the ex can together stop the court making orders by consenting to basically whatever reasonable orders that you wish. So there's one way out. Assuming that for some reason you cannot agree and the court does make orders then you can use private collect and say that you collect the CS without actually collecting it. Another option is to agree to a binding CS agreement which has no restrictions in regard to the CS amount (as opposed to a limited agreement which has to be at least the assessed CS amount).

With regard to CS, unfortunately in the world of today it is a necessity, however even though Australia's is perhaps one of the least flawed systems throughout the world I believe that all CS systems throughout the world are fundamentally flawed and based upon practicably unfair monetary based ideologies (that is, there purpose is not to provide actual support to children but to theoretically reduce government costs [which I believe actually results in a increased government cost due to those taking unnecessary advantage of the flawed administrative aspect of the system]).
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets