Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Why should I pay any child support?

New partners being made financially responsible for step children by the government. Because I decided to have a relationship with this lovely lady the Government expects me to financially support her whilst she cares for her children due to not having th

I absolutely support your position. What you have highlighted is how little the governments knows about how its own systems work or how discriminatory they want to be towards certain groups. The whole fabric of relationships is confused and compromised by the money issues are there are many who would have previously lived apart so they could maximise government benefits and support. Until the government fixes the WHOLE SYSTEM the likelihood of successful relationships between men and women will continue to decline.

Key to improvement is recognition of the MALE WAGE AND SALARY EARNERS RIGHT to his OWN income and the choices he can make with that income. Some would see that as a basic human right dating back to freedom from slavery.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

Why should I pay any child support?

LIS why don't you stop playing the victim game?

You have 50/50 care, work alternate weeks to keep your income at levels to minimize child support, have three shelf companies, bleat about paying $300 a month CSA and spend your time bleating about the CSA and other Government departments.

And people wonder why Mens Groups get a bad name. Its because of the 1% like you rather than the 99% of the others that are trying to do the right thing.

Perhaps your job is as an advisor to Elspeth McInnes?

Last edit: by OneRingRules

We were in the same dilema and I actually ended up having a small discussion with Centrelink as to why they thought my new partner who is already supporting his own two kids was also supposed to provide for mine, her reply was you are now sharing the bills.
monster said
IM really angry this thread is allowed on this forum..its not representitive of what FLWG is about. Its very dodgy.

monster

This forum area is 'Devils Advocates' which means people can expect to receive as good as they give. Moderator rules are really relaxed in this forum so you are quite welcome to take an opposing viewpoint - and write about it.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

Monster, in my case Centrelink was not supporting me. I have a job but the little bit of family assistance I got was for the children's sporting events. I am one of those few who do not get CSA off the children's father as he just refuses to pay and gets away with it. When I re-partnered I lost that little bit of family assistance. My partner pays a huge amount of CSA as his ex does not work and the children already being 18 refuse to see him. At the end of the day the kids cannot play any sports as we are struggling. I think what was trying to be said is that maybe the parent of the children should be the only income taken into consideration as their are not that many men/women who are supporting their first families who have enough left over to support another family. We continue on as is and are happy to do so without family assistance. I think widows would also find this really hard as they are also mourning and still have the children to raise.
I would suggest to you that some single parents are like widowers, there is no financial insurance for having a relationship breakdown and having an ex who finds a million ways not to pay C$ and does not support the kids.
What I getting at is why should the gov suport you with ftb because you wife is a widower when most 2nd families have the ftb based on income. Sorry but thats a kick in the teeth for all the 2nd families who are disadvantaged allready. They should consider adjusting ftb for 2nd familes maybe to a higher rate!

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

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
LifeInsight said

The response you got from Centrelink about sharing bills is not really that valid as in our case the bills increased when we got together.

Like you my wife is trying to find extra dollars for those little extras for the kids. My wife was receiving a lot of support from her late husband's family as well as her friends before I came along. This all stopped as soon as they found out we were an item. This made her feel isolated and basically put more pressure on me to make up the difference. My wife and I encourage the kids to see their late father's family as much as possible. We even go to their father's grave every year and encourage them to remember their father whenever we can.

 

LIS and Annie, there are so many of us in your same situation. My three kids miss out on many things because of CS being paid out and not coming back into our home. It has at times been the strength of our relationship, it has also at times been an incredibly weak point of our relationship.

CSA tell us that I am soely responsible to care for my children financially (since their biological father refuses to pay) yet Centrelink tell us that partner pays for them - typical case of government having its cake and eating it too!!

Monster said
Well I might be missing the point but you all have a choice, and you choose that situation and you choose to have kids!! There comes a point where people cross the line from expecting resonable assistance and then expecting the government to pay for their kids.
  Monster, I did have a choice to have my children yes, however I did not have the choice that my ex husband does not financially help support them.

I, as well as so many other mothers, work to financially support my children and we have partners who are expected by one arm of the government to support their partners children and told from another arm of the government that what they are doing does not matter!

LIS - I am sure on many occasions it would have been easier for you to walk away from it all, as my partner and I have discussed. I give you and your wife great credit for hanging in there when at times it feels all you face are brick walls. So many of us know what that is like.
I think one of the key issues is that children who come from separated families have one of those parents being responsible for Child Support.

A widowed parent does not have this.

To argue that one parent refuses to pay simply means that you consider that penalties for evasion of child support should increase to force payment.

The support mechanism is there none the less.

One of the ideas of child support is so the children of those parents are being financially provided for to reduce the expenses for the other parent who is physically supporting the child. If that Parent re-partners child support is still paid for the children although a reduction in FTB may occur.

To follow a pattern of logic why should FTB be reduced to a widower when they re-partner when there is no CS allocated from their departed loved one.

It seems to be two differing subjects that are being interlaced through a knee jerk reaction.

I don't know why it's being suggested that the government should not be responsible to assist a limited number of hardship cases.

If as monster suggests that the conditions of the relationship are known and you advance with this responsibility then by this logic once re-partnered child support received by the parent should stop, even if this person supports children.

This may be devils advocate but I find conans response deplorable and find it hard to believe that none of those responsible for etiquette on this site have not spoken about such a condensed attack on someone's personal situation.

I hope that all the information conan stated is fact and not subject to private areas on this site.

Posts such as this could go a long way to promote pack mentality or simply put ' ganging up ' on the forum.

Rather than view the situation as " Well thats no different because my kids dad doesn't pay child support and I can't do nothing " view it on it's individual meritt.

Id also suggest that many mens groups have a bad reputation because they seek change, in most cases flaming on mens sites is not encouraged or am I totaly mistaken.

  
I've just been reading COA stuff and it says that if you have a legal duty to provide for your partner's children, and the children are resident with you, you have a case.

But that would entail disclosing financial information to CSA which, in the past, you have said, you don't wish to do.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 


My partner and I were just discussing this. Maybe FTB should only include a percentage of the new partners income rather then 100%.
LifeInsight said
Artemis - I have been down that track on here a number of times and step children must be adopted to be considered for C$A assessments.

In anycase Child Support is not the issue here if you take the advice of that little cherub Conan who seems to know so much about my situation.

The issue is FTB and a step parent being made responsible for their new partner's children.

debraesq - I have never considered walking away as I am very much in love with my wife.
 

We have been told by CSA countless times that my partner will have to adopt my children before they will take them into consideration for CS - Yet centrelink quite happily go Your supporting them!!

I agree with Annie's suggestion that FTB only take into consideration a percentage of the new partners income. Perhaps they can have a 'self support' limit set like the CSA have in place.

LIS - I meant my credit to both you and your wife, I know first hand that blending a family with 3 new kids and a biological child isn't always easy! But it is completely worth every bit of effort put in by all members of the family.
LifeInsight said
How would your idea of a 'self support' limit work?

 

LIS - As your aware the CSA give both parents a set income level that they can learn before CS comes into action (can't remember the technical term). Possibly with blended families this should also be the case, especially if one of the partners is paying child support for another child.

I guess you could really open a Pandora's Box with the suggestion of not using the complete income of the new partner to assess the 'family' income. Possibly there needs to be different circumstances for instance LIS and his wife's situation that due to the children's father being deceased there is no way possible that CS will be paid into the family. Why can't the same 'self supporting' amount that LIS is allowed to have under the CS laws be applied to centrelink as well therefore as a family they would not be disadvantaged.

I do not think it fair that one arm of the government considers the new partner as financially contributing to the children and another arm says no they are not. I do not also think that the government and tax payers should support other peoples children, but realise there are many situations that this is required to happen.  If my ex paid what he was supposed to pay then with the income I earn I realistically could support my children.
debraesq said
LIS - As your aware the CSA give both parents a set income level that they can learn before CS comes into action (can't remember the technical term). Possibly with blended families this should also be the case, especially if one of the partners is paying child support for another child.

This amount is the Self Support Amount, however it only fully applies if you are earning above that amount (it is $18252 for assessments starting in 2008 ($17358 for 2007), it is 1/3rd of the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings and is adjusted annually). If your assessment comes in at below the minimum payment then minimum payment applies. Using 2008 figures any taxable income up to $20243 is not fully covered by this self support amount for a payer, at 20424 (note these figures are for a single child under 13, the figures change according to number and age of the children, the figures are also based upon the care below 14%, with care above 14% the minimum payment doesn't apply).

Saying that however saying that the child has to be adopted is not correct. A step child can be recognised. Here's what the CSA website says:-

The CSA Website said
Step-children

Where a parent has a second family that includes step-children, the responsibility of financially supporting the step-child may rest with that parent if neither of the child's biological parents can pay for the costs of their child, for example due to illness, death or caring responsibilities.

In special circumstances, parents with child support children who also care for a step-child can apply for a change of assessment to have their child support payments reviewed. It doesn't matter whether the step-parent pays or receives child support, as long as they need to support the step-child, who is living with them, with their income.

To have this care recognised, the parent must be able to demonstrate:

    * they have lived with the parent of the step-child for a continuous period of two years or more
    * the parents of the step-child cannot support the child because of:
          o death
          o ill-health that prevents them from working
          o their caring responsibilities – for example, caring for a young child or an older child with disabilities
    * the step-child is aged under 18 and not married or in a de facto relationship.

Perhaps the two year period should be aligned with whatever period there is for Centrelink and FTB payments. That I guess would resolve the issue of a child's welfare and well-being not being considered as worthy as the saving of a minuscule payment, as the CS formula would then determine the cost of the child and reduce the taxable income of the parent considering the welfare and well-being of the child by adopting the child in all but the legal recognition of the fact. I see no need, for any change other than the tick to say such a child is if considered a relevant dependant child, or if not then single parenting benefits should apply.
LifeInsight said
This thread is about FTB and not C$A although it becomes relevant for debraesq as her ex does not pay child support, so she is in a similar situation to that of a widowed parent who has repartnered.
 

I am still physically and emotionally able to financially support my children so they have one parent who is financially supporting them and another who should be but refuses.

Mike as LIS pointed out for a partner to be financially responsible to care for his / her step children (inc defacto) neither of the child's biological parents are capable of financially caring for the child/ren. If i were to become financially dependant on my partner then they still have their biological father who can support them - it is irrelevant that he choses not to.

In LIS's situation as his step children's father is deceased as long as the children's mother has the means to financially support them then LIS is not responsible for supporting them.

LIS we were told, and I am not sure how accurate this is, that you can get an order through the court to be granted financially responsible for your step children. I don't know if this is a prospect that you may wish to explore.
This is a broader issue that is also being felt in retirement.  The best answer is to accept people's lives are complex and to regard each person as an individual when assessing their eligibility for any benefits.  I suggest that this is something for Macklin, not Ludwig (I have already made some noises on this).  
LifeInSight said
MikeT - Your reference refers to a situation where neither parents can pay for the costs of their children. This thread is about situations where only one parent pays for the children's costs. The official word from C$A on this topic is that the step children must be adopted to be considered a dependent of the step parent payer.

Sorry LifeInSight, I thought that you said the the husband had died just after the third child was born and as such there was only the one biological parent of the child and that as having such a young child that she would likely have caring responsibilities which would then mean that as the step-parent you would have been able to get a reduction according to what is undoubtedly official as it appears in on the CSA'a website, in their guidelines (reason 10 change of assessment) and also if I recall correctly in the legislation in Section 117.

I was also under the impression that you mentioned not getting CS relief for supporting the children.

I appear to have got things mixed up and will endeavour to find the post in which this was said and respond to that post.
When the comment from Centrelink was that we now share some of the expenses I was thinking, I suppose we do but in my case we do not share the children's expenses. I try to pay everything for them but we do share the rent and electricity so I thought that if a percentage was used then it maybe a comprimise rather then losing the entire amount would work. We still have separate bank accounts etc..
Do you also lose the opportunity to claim reduction in power charges, rent assist, healthcare card and such ?

I suppliant my daughter through my pension when the need is there, when I think about what my personal overheads would be if I live only on my pension they would be much less, to accommodate my daughters basic needs I have to incur extra expenses, those expenses would increase if I re-partnered but not to the extent of double this is reflected by partners who live on a pension, but they sleep in the same room, a child needs their own room and although I agree deduction may be a good way though not an excessively large deduction.

 :offtopic:
I still like my idea of the whole nation paying a % of tax for a child fund and call it child benefit, then everyone gets it equal with no child support payments from anyone. Get rid of the problem altogether then people can just move forward and hopefully share their children or play nicely.
 :offtopic:
Hi new here and am wondering about the Step Parent, the father was paying minimal and his new wife was working in a high paying job ( they now own several homes - in her name) as a step parent would her income also be included in the amount of child support
No step parents incomes are generally not included. Only time a step parents income might e looked at is when there is a business partnership, other then that CSA has no right to ask for info on step parents new partners.  
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets