Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Where do I appeal a SSAT decision

The SSAT descions can be appealed and new rules apply from July 1 2008

A decision in the Federal Magistrates Court on an appeal against a decision made by the SSAT on a C$ matter.

FM Halligan presided.

The appeal was upheld and the matter remitted to be reheard by the SSAT.

Attachment

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!

CSA publishes "Know your Rights"

Latest information in from CSA relating to SSAT :thumbs:

Attachment
Know Your Rights publication


CSA is required by law to collect certain information about you for child support purposes and the child support legislation gives CSA specific powers to do this. When you lodge an objection, CSA is required to pass on all information relevant to the objection (except your address and phone number) to the other parent. This is so they understand how CSA makes its decisions.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Halligans points are worth noting - SSAT is required to be fair and it was set up avoid the complexities of court - thus leniency and room to move should be allowed BUT.

Typically SSAT tend to verge on the legalistic interpretation because it protects them.

SSAT was introduced apparently to reduce court processes for CSA cases.

Its now the case that its almost legally impossible to go to court for a CSA case as such. This means that clients are suck between a rock and a hard place.

The government invented a process which essentially elevated SSAT to a much higher legal level - requiring a "error of Law" to overcome their decisions. This is almost the same as the level required to got to the high court.

It did this encourage people to stop fighting in the courts and stamp down of cases or in other words - JUST ACCEPT WHAT CSA DO TO YOU.

But CSA as we know don't know what special circumstances are - especially regarding the PAYER and PAYER'S IMPACT and really only care about "The child" - meaning immediate money to the child every fortnight.

It's a mess and the SSAT process denies people right to a fair trial in a court of law - a fundamental denial of human rights. Criminals spend less time in court with less financial impact or fines than CSA payers do.

Still we have an expedient government only too keen to intervene and deny rights so we can all be hero's protecting the victims.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon Pearson said
and really only care about "The child" - meaning immediate money to the child every fortnight.
In my opinion and from what I have seen/experienced, I have to disagree Jon. I see that the CSA's only interest is their job, which is the collection of money. Look through any of the annual reports and try finding how they have supported any children. All they say is that $x dollars have been transferred between parents for x children.

No stats on how or even if this has been used to support children, they'll tell you how they investigate the collection but not anything about the distribution to the actual children and as all know to well, this distirbution of money, is too often used to fund drugs, holidays, cigarettes… If there was care for any interest of the child the abuse of the distributed money would be investigated.
Take your point Miket and agree.

Like most employees they care first about their job, their lunchtime, how much work you create for them, how difficult or stupid the client is, whether you may them think after lunch or late in the day, whether they have to do something - like think, write, investigate, talk to the boss etc.

Then they care about their reason for doing the job - which for CSA is all about "The children" "The victims" "The payees"

Any moral or social twinge or conscience they develop as part of their activity is ameliorated by the following concepts:

1) I was only doing my job (and getting paid for it) - I need money to live too you know

2) It's the law - its just a formula

3) I must be helping someone or making a difference

4) Well am am no worse than the person ext to me (relativism)

5) It's someone else's fault for any damage caused

6) It's no-one fault - its just the system

7) It's your fault - you shouldn't have got involved with this parent in the first place

8) Well "You wanted children"

One issue for me is whether government really think that creating these sort of powerful personally invasive agencies is a good idea. BUT I NO LONGER think they have a problem with that. Both Labour and Liberal members have supported more invasive laws associated with CSA and extra funds to target payers - it has more to do with their own feelings of "doing something to make a difference to victims" than any rational intelligent or supported discussion.

So appealing to anyone - whether it be SSAT, CSA, the High Court or even anyone who has no idea of what happens - is not a very satisfactory experience but highly educational and enlightening as it exposes the various groups and their mindsets.Welcome to Australia.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

SSAT appeals will be dealt with by the AAT and other news

Jon Pearson said
One issue for me is whether government really think that creating these sort of powerful personally invasive agencies is a good idea.
The SSAT was created because it was such an onerous and expensive exercise to appeal a CSA decision at the Federal Magistrates Court. The SSAT was set up to enable a prompt efficient low cost means of appeal. It freed up valuble resources at Federal Magistrates level to allow them to deal with more pressing matters around contact and related issues. As to good idea or not Jon only time will tell. I do know of a couple of very good outcomes in two cases one of which the payee was without any means and the payer hiding income through many shelf and subsidary companies and interwoven bank accounts. The children have been clear winners in that case.

Further news is that from July 1, SSAT appeals will be dealt with by the AAT. This is new information.

There is significant dissatisfaction and concern about the fact the SSAT appeals are not published. All other tribunals have their decisions made public. It is expected that SSAT will be making decisions public in some shape or form. FaCSIA are currently working through this particular issue in some detail because there are a lot of difficulties in ensuring details in the review remain private but information is made public.

A study is currently underway by Belinda Fehlberg at Melbourne University into the matters that have been through SSAT.

Additionally I can report that from the 1/1/2007 through to 31/12/2007 there were 1632 cases through SSAT. In approximately 1/3 of cases the CSA determination was set aside. CSA have investigated all of these determinations with a view to making any changes to process and procedure to try to get better decision making. They have found that the majority of cases where the decsion has been set aside has resulted from "new" facts and information being presneted to SSAT that was not presented to CSA.

A significant number of decisions have also been allowed due to the inflexibility of the 28 day response time allowed for objections to CSA determinations. The CSA are looking at what can be done to allow objections to be received in a timely manner.

We are expecting a complete SSAT annual report shortly.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets