Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Be a Goon? Or pehaps a Sinatra?

Your way

Harry Secombe was one of the Goons, he sang "If I ruled the world", Frank Sinatra, hey and even the Sex Pistols, sang "My Way".

Yep that's the theme of the topic, what you would do if you had the power to make changes? How and in what way would you change the Family Law and Child Support systems?

Many thanks to Jon Pearson for inspiring this topic.

My rules/my way, with regard to this topic anyway, no personal criticism, criticise ideas but with sound argument not derogatory adjectives.  

Any post breaking these simplistic yet I think highly flexible rules will be subject to removal of the entire post.
I would have a wide variety of options available for people to be able to choose solutions best suited to their situations.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
i would out some money into the courts so that people would have acess to a more speedy trail/resolution.

i fail to see the point of dramatically changing a law and not putting any support money into the system, so that it will be able to work because right now family court is getting about 150% usage.

I would give docs case workers more money.

child support i would possibly change it so that discounts or whatever are more than 5%.

i think csa as it is fine, unless you do the rationing, money cards that everyone sugeested.

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
I'd look at capping lawyers fees.

Introduce punishments for proven false declarations.

Slide scale time retrieval for those who have contact stopped with there children for illegitimate reasons.

Assumed 50/50, mediation could then be used to adjust backwards to achieve true mediation with both parents on equal footing rather than encourage an adversarial fight to achieve a fair contact scenario.

Create a base child support amount that is subsidized by the government for low income earners and reduced for high income earners.
All children will receive the same amount of support.

The above would then simplify C.S.A. to the point where conflict will be reduced.

Increase the responsibility of D.O.C.S. to establish their decision.

Re-establish a with increased funding for Magellan cases, with intent to recoup monies from accuser if allegations are proved to be unfounded.

Stop the children being moved more than 50km's from parents until orders are agreed upon, the parent that moves the child with out this done will be responsible for moving the child back to base area. The 50 K's will allow a child considered to be in danger away from the considered danger but close enough to re-establish contact if the claim is unfounded.

Provide a comparative amount of dollar support for mens welfare organizations and initiate comparative support such as mens refuge and such. Introducing commercials that deal with male medical problems etc etc. Whilst changing the content of campaigns such as " Australia says no " to include violated men and children that shows the reality that domestic violence includes male and females hitting children as well as each other. We should be saying no to all violence.

Just a few to start with.

    
oh have a wider net for the magellan cases, becuase a kid lives 30 minuts out of sydney doesnt maen they dont deserve the same fast trail, forensic investigation and good resources

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Actually I would like to see a completely different format of CS, much like the medicare system. It would be easier to collect through the taxation system, and then paid via increased centrelink benefits.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Jadzia, I think this is in a wrong arena, I agree your founding thought is good, maybe Sisyphus will make your post into a new topic that we can expand on.
Like; how notice to employers of each persons' required commitment would be given.
I hear I'm sounding cynical, but in truth I agree with you. The formula would need to be more simple. Unlike Medicare, the employer would need a level of honesty not granted by a lot of CS payers.
Were there is long term employment, CS collection from an employer is available, how I don't know. This is often obstructed by those not wanting to pay by constantly changing job and as you know working for cash.

Last edit: by MikeT

NJ, I believe that Jadzia's post fits fine in here, but if you like, create a specific topic.
I doubt you could ever stop those wroughting the system in the way you suggest but I think Jadzia may be well onto something here.

Make this a percentage deduction form everyones wage, male and female and have a base allowance for a child allowance, operating in much the same way as  an added tax.

From this the government disperses an allowance for each child that needs support, perhaps on a sliding scale and no parent pays child support and no FTB but rather a tax benefit per child again on a sliding scale.

When you think about this it's brilliant, new families will not be burden by maintenance but the condensed family would be the responsibility of the parents weather ( sorry got excited old habit should be whether ;) )defacto or step. They then would receive an allotted tax benefit that could be used as a weekly benefit or end of year tax credit.
The only families receiving benefits will be those on support incomes and this would be obtained via the government.

I'm not totally sure if thats what your saying Jazdia but if it's not I like my version better  :thumbs:  ;)  :thumbs:
The increasing laws, complexity, cost, processing, emotional and physical impact on normal people is getting worse and ever increasing. What used to be 'exceptions' are now becoming everyone's position.

A sign that a system is working is that it rarely gets used. eg family relationship counseling (because no-one needs it and it seems quaint and outdated).

I would do radical changes NOW rather than incremental build ups. I would remove WHOLE LAWS and allow PEOPLE to FIND THEIR OWN WAY.

And more.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
MikeT does what you say, Jadz post is in the right area mean you think her post is just letting off steam and not a valid idea of reform for CS collectin. Also that it's ok to make "no personal criticism" against me and like the Courts I should not have a right of reply to prove the "no personal criticism" contemptuous of what was said.

Looks to me like D4E agrees Jadz's post needs expanding on and when constructive enough put to parliament. Therefore would it be beter in the CS area as a main topic with a veiw of forming recomendations to pariliament by our elders(site admin team)
thats the problem with csa, when my father changed jobs she have to put in a coa based on cte but she would have to stalk him, ring employers, or just wait until every BAs was done so he would have a tax thingy done eg proof he was working. she had to chase all the time.

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
D4E maybe Jadz's idea could be an expansion of the FTB and may not be as hard to impement as first thought?
Briar Rose said
speachless Mike?

To explain that I'd have to break my own rules and censor myself, that's unless I just say I replied to a whisper rather than whispered to a whisper so deleted what I wrote. :)
I think the only thing wrong with leaving it as a FTB system would be the public assumption that the rules are the same, Jadzia's conception may be different to what I've posted so I'd have to agree that it may benefits Jazdia's idea to have it remain as part of the FTB.

But

With my idea the whole system will be changed with no integration of the old system, you would get your knockers but they would simply have to become accustom as there is nothing to fall back on.

Such a radical change would need concise planning and be meticulous in it's presentation as well as needing to be done while enough excess funding was available to cover all aspects.

Perhaps just a dream but I think it would take a lot of the conflict out of parenting.

 
D4E I like your version. It would be MUCH easier to implement and understand than the present system and fairer for all concerned.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
d4E I love your system, as it makes child support less personal, more acheivable, and it is something that could be implemented.

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
D4E said
Make this a percentage deduction form everyones wage, male and female and have a base allowance for a child allowance, operating in much the same way as  an added tax.

From this the government disperses an allowance for each child that needs support, perhaps on a sliding scale and no parent pays child support and no FTB but rather a tax benefit per child again on a sliding scale.

 

D4E, I tend to disagree. Is it not the primary responsibility of the parent who 'made' the child in the first place to then provide for the child?

I paid CS for my children because my children were my responsibility. I paid in accorance with my means and their needs, (ie I made sure they never went without even if I did.  I paid many extras on top of CS). If your scheme operates by way of a tax on my income I am supporting other parents' children as well as my own. This may then operate to the detriment of my own children with less money being available to support them.

Is it not each persons obligation to ensure the children they brought into the world are supported whether they are living together or apart?
T12 Never is a conception to everyones liking so I'd personally run for prime minister if people didn't object to some point or another.

What would be proposed would lend itself to the concept that all of us are responsible for our children. The suggested amount would be a base amount that is provided to all children that are in need and would allow families to concentrate on their current families to live with in their needs.

If you are single, like myself, then your percentage would be deducted out of your wage. You would still be at liberty to further support your children by spending money on them for what they need or paying directly to their mother.

But if you are re-partnered and they had children then your objective would be to support your new partner and your family unit, if you could afford to further support your own kids then you could do so but if times are hard then as many discovered there is no money to give.

If your X is re-partnered then he has the responsibility for the family but he would not have to pay child support for his children.

It goes down the line till their are children who have no father or mother figure in their family to which the government gives an allowance of x dollars a week.

The basic principal would mean instead of making a total personal responsibility there would be a communal responsibility.

Main aim would be to take money out of the equation and concentrate on quality time with the children, if mum has the government to complain at instead of dad and vise versa they can complain together and find common ground.

Only in recent years have we been told that it is an individuals responsibility to provide for his family, bring things forward a bit more and it becomes the money earners responsibility, but before this it was a social responsibility and back further the whole tribes responsibility.

We are ask to comply with what we are told and guilt is used against to comply, brainwashed and taught what they want us to believe until concepts like this fall away because of the fear of losing our individuality.

When you think about this simple idea it give our children back to the tribe that need our help, you can still give more help to yours but the children who need the most help will get it.

If this works the way I would think then there would be a surplus of funding through the tax and if this was so more funding could go towards schooling and higher education after all it's an investment in the future.

It really does go against the moral grain that we have been taught but it also has some spin off benefits for all concerned and remember you will also receive a tax benefit for the children you financially support.
D4E said
But if you are re-partnered and they had children then your objective would be to support your new partner and your family unit, if you could afford to further support your own kids then you could do so but if times are hard then as many discovered there is no money to give.

 

I understand the utilitarian benefit of what you propose, ie the greatest good for the greatest number, but the part quoted above also worries me. Why would the first children be inferior to the second family? Are some children more equal than others? Why do I support another man's children but not my own? etc etc are some points which spring to mind.

Having said that, I applaud you for looking for solutions. You have clearly given the model a lot of thought. It has been well supported here on FLWG, and I accept I may be in the minority on this topic.

BTW I love your opening pun. Very clever!!
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets