Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Search – Forums

Your search gave 3 results:

Post #31374 by Betty1966 on August 20th 2010, 8:11 PM (in topic “SSAT setting aside a very high percentage of CSA Decisions”)

SSAT setting aside a very high percentage of CSA Decisions:

Mike  I dont really know where to start with you. Ill have a go I guess  just so that you realise that you are not a superior, all-knowing master. Most of what you say is self-serving drivel.
1)   I am not talking about NAPs at all. At all ! So stop referring to them when responding to my posts !
2)   If there is no legislative basis for refusing extension of time appeals then why have an EOT process at all ? In my OPINION, the SSAT are too lenient with granting EOTs  the timeframe is 28 days. Is my opinion wrong Mike ? ? ?
3)   You say that any CSA decision that is appealed and is changed is incorrect, ergo, any non-appealed decision is correct  by your own warped thinking.
4)   Just because a CSA decision is changed, it does not mean it was an error. Maybe the SSAT have erred in changing it ?
5)   I dont propose to engage in a full thesis on responding to every point in your posts. My initial point is that stats do not always tell the full story and are not always relevant. E.g. when Mike T uses NAP stats in relation to Bettys post regarding CoA objections.
6)   In some cases, believe it or not, regardless of the decision  one or other of the parents will go to the SSAT.   Thats just what they do.
7)   You seem to have no concept of how difficult it is to have a system to fit the circumstances of everyone. You never offer solutions to the myriad of problems you expose.  
My point is that the stats are not necessarily a fair indication of how good or bad CSA are. This is my opinion. It actually does have substance. A statistic on a NAP decision has nothing to do with what I am saying.
In my opinion you have made it abundantly clear that you expect people on this forum to believe whatever you say yet the available evidence only supports what you say because you manipulate stats in your favour.  
You refer to SSAT decisions as correct. I do not agree with this view.
Re: Fairgos comments :  Perhaps a court or more rigid tribunal should be making these decisions:
The CSA was set up so that the Courts were not cluttered up with thousands of CSA matters. If a SCO has 10% of their decisions objected to  and then 1 in 4 of those objections lead to a change, and then one in 4 of those is appealed to SSAT and then 66% of those were changed, this would mean that less than one in 200 CoA decisions are changed by the SSAT.
Valere - i think that approx 95% of Part 6A objections are finalised within 60 days.

Go to post

Post #31041 by Betty1966 on August 3rd 2010, 11:44 PM (in topic “SSAT setting aside a very high percentage of CSA Decisions”)

SSAT setting aside a very high percentage of CSA Decisions:

Hi MikeT, and interested parties,

To say that my comment has no substance whatsoever is a little naive. Your comments come across as arrogant and dismissive.
For a start - I am referring to the coa/objection decisions not every SSAT decision relating to CSA. So that knocks out 13 of your 26 examples, as these relate to levels of care, NAPs, extension of time requests etc…. and do not relate to COA at all. Must have been an inadvertent occurence on your part.
Changing an income from $64,855 to $69,111 is not significant. Ditto $68,095 to $63010. Changing an income from $31k to zero may also have zero impact on the assessment. This could be because of the "minimum annual rate" taking effect or if that income related to the receiving parent.
Where a receiving parent has greater than primary care of the children their income has little bearing on the assessment.
Reported cases are more likely to be noteworthy than unreported cases. I'm not saying that every COA decision is correct BUT not every change made by the SSAT is significant.
You then gloss over my comment regarding the SSAT having unlimited time and greater powers to gain information. A significant portion of SSAT changes are made due to new information. Of course there are changes - they have infinite time. The COA and Part 6A Objections are done administratively and relatively quickly compared to the SSAT decisions.
Just because the SSAT make a different decision - does that make it a better decision? It is just another opinion - made by a body with overruling powers - so what ?
This is illustrated by the extension of time objections. The SSAT will nearly always allow an extension of time request - it can be 12 months late and they'll still allow it. Is this correct and does this make the first decision wrong ? Not in my opinion. A 28 day timeframe to object and appeal is clear. If someone takes 365 days to object / appeal I think their extension of time request should generally be refused. However, by your rationale, if the SSAT make a different determination to previous decision makers, the SSAT correct and the previous decision-maker is wrong.

My point is that the stats are not necessarily a fair indication of how good or bad CSA are. This is my opinion. It actually does have substance. A statistic on a NAP decision has nothing to do with what I am saying.  
Further, your stats relate to the part 6A and general objections that are appealed. All those thousands of decisions that are not appealed to the SSAT are, by your own narrow-minded rationale, deemed correct.  

Go to post

Post #31031 by Betty1966 on August 3rd 2010, 6:27 PM (in topic “SSAT setting aside a very high percentage of CSA Decisions”)

SSAT setting aside a very high percentage of CSA Decisions:

Hi Guys,

I just have a comment regarding your analysis of the stats, specifically your reference to the number of coa/objection decisions changed by the SSAT. The stats don't take into account the large number of minor changes made by SSAT. e.g changing dad's income from $66,500 to $66,800. This counts as a change but is really insignificant.
Further, the SSAT appears to have an unlimited timeframe for making decisions and greater powers in obtaining documents/evidence - so of course they are going to change many decisions. This is more so due to the SSAT tendency to make a minor change seemingly just for the sake of it (to justify their existence?).

Go to post

Enter the words you wish your result to include, with spaces between them.

Advanced…

The template search will find all entries matching the criteria. For example, a search with a criteria of ‘Manhattan’ in the field named ‘Description’ (assuming there is one) would find any entries containing the substring ‘Manhattan’ in the ‘Description’ field.

If there are additional categories available underneath a category then there will be a clickable ‘plus’ icon shown to the left of it. Choose your selection by clicking the label (you will see it get highlighted). Hold the ctrl key to expand all child categories also.

Recent Tweets