Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Paying parents and credit checks

Hi all , I recently approached my menber of parliment in regards to the fact that paying parents of child support are not held accountable for their debts in relation to credit checks! Why is it that a paying parents legal and moral obligation to help support the child/children that they have brought into this world, not equivallent to the obligation they have for paying a T.V, car or home? I have written a letter to my local member asking for this to be given to the appropriate minister for concideration. I believe this would be an incentive for many paying parents to live up to their obligations in regards to the paying of child support. I would encourage anyone that agrees with my sugestion to write to their local member and seek the same question and lobby for this to be apart of credit checks.
Seabreeze,
               I believe that the obligations imposed upon liable parents is far greater than what you portray. Liable parents can have numerous measures implemented against them, such as withholding from their employer and also departure prohibition orders. However, where the legislation is very lacking, especially considering the object of the legislation is to ensure that parents, that is both liable parents and recipient parents, meet their financial responsibility toward their children, is that there is no enforcement placed upon recipients to actually ensure that the monies received are spent on the child for which the monies are intended. As such the real need is a curb on those parents who irresponsibly misspend such monies. The fact is also that the vast majority of liable parents, well over 60%, do pay. The 60% comes from the CSA's, "parents who pay and pay on time". The 40% that represents those who don't pay or pay on time includes those subject to a system that inherently places many liable parents into a position of not paying upon time it also does not take into account the proven finding that the CSA act contrary to the legislation and generate amounts that are in excess of what the legislation intends to be collected, basically amounts that are often impossible to be collected and even if not are according to the legislation unfair amounts. Considering that the basis of the cost of children is also vastly exaggerated, shown to be about 10 times what it should be, then again the amounts collected are vastly inflated in comparison to what intact families use to support a child. Thus also introducing a factor that makes such amounts grossly inflated.

Another area of great need is a curb to be placed upon those parents, again primarily recipients, who deny the CS children their humane right to know and be cared for by their parents not one parent very often for greed and for support of their irresponsibility. If anything my signature would go toward stopping such child abuse by the way of exploitation of CS children for monetary gain. I have little doubt that such measures would then result in a greater level of satisfaction with liable parents and thus a likely reduction in those few who do not pay, paying.

I believe your call will only result in more not being able to pay as the CSA will, according to their record, simply abuse any such measures to increase their reporting line; that is to show that they have collected or transferred more and thus reduced the FTB paid out. As such, I do not support your call and in my opinion nobody who cares for the whole spectrum of support that children need would either, as your call is purely a monetary measure which would without doubt be abused and thus result in destroying the other facets of child support that children need and thus creating further systemic abuse of CS children.
I can see it from both angles - my ex wouldn't pay child support when he was to pay $5 a child yet has only last year got a $10,000 credit card and his income he now claims is only $8,000. we struggle and he lies and gets away with it.
I know another friend who's partner owed thousands in child support and then brought a house which was ridiculous when he claimed he could not afford the child support debt.

Yet on giving those examples I have male friends who are struggling to get on with there lives because of money hungry mothers who do stop contact just to get more money, one who struggles to pay his rent monthly because the 2 she devils he met keep filing COA's because he's self employed and he gets deemed to be earning higher than he is. yet they both have houses -one paid in full and hide it in the family members names and claim they are paying rent.

although credit checks seem good on the surface, there is no perfect one size fits all system.

one thing to also note is that already if you are a paying parent you are meant to declare any child support you pay as a liability if applying for a loan and that is taken into account but if you are a receiving parent and you apply for a loan child support is not counted as money you receive. if it is not counted for a receiver then why is a payer penalized for it?

Children are not Assests in the Financial world of banking!

You have a point Seabreeze, but the way I see it is that children are not tangible assests like a car or a boat that can be returned to the owner when there is non payment. Although, some mothers behave like they are and the children never see their biological father due to the extra monies involved in stopping contact. You are only seeing one side of the story. My husband has never seen his kids in 15years and has continuely tried….now it is too late….they never want to speak to him, along with the Mother's massive lies and bitterness, I guess they feel he has deserted them altogether. CSA need more accountability (like Centrelink) for both payer and payee and something needs to be included to ensure that removing contact with one parent is detrimental to receiving benefits with the exception of areas where violence has been proven to exist.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets