Warning: file_put_contents(): Only 0 of 92 bytes written, possibly out of free disk space in /home/flfl1154/git/flwg.com.au/sources/global.php on line 625

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/flfl1154/git/flwg.com.au/sources/global.php:625) in /home/flfl1154/git/flwg.com.au/sources/static_cache.php on line 230
Search results – Family Law Web Guide
Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Search – Forums

Your search gave 233 results:

Post #13213 by BriarRose on July 10th 2008, 12:55 PM (in topic “Brain malfunction and Delete malfunction on the same day!”)

Brain malfunction and Delete malfunction on the same day!

I have accidentally posted what was meant to be a whisper in the open forum.

The delete button is not working.

What next?

Go to post

Post #13196 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 10:11 PM (in topic “Personal and Political Commentary on Salary Sacrifice to Superannuation”)

Personal and Political Commentary on Salary Sacrifice to Superannuation:


I have posted earlier in this topic asking you to help me out before I comment.

I am totally confused.


Go to post

Post #13189 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 8:49 PM (in topic “Now that my daughter is a mother herself....”)

Now that my daughter is a mother herself....:

D4E said
 BriarRose I think you will find cam's post has been edited to include some information.
I can't see anything new in his post.

D4E said
Cam is subsidizing his daughter heavily not her mother..
I said the mother is subsidising the daughter heavily.  What I meant was that she appears to be using Cam's money and maybe some of her own to subsidise the new mother. Sorry if that was not clear.

D4E said
Truth is we can only answer questions in the way they have been ask with the information given and try to help the person with the support they need and in cam's case it is a way to reduce a questionable C.S.A. payment because he considers it unfair and wants others opinion as to if it is possible.

this is about cam not the mother.
That was my point exactly, so it looks like we agree.

This topic was about Cam, not the mother because, as you say, we do not have the information to assess exactly what the finances are in her house, so it seems unreasonable to me to do any more than answer Cam's questions, which is what I initially did.

We do not have enough information to make the assessment that the mother is charging for hand me downs or using the child support for her own benefit, so I don't believe those comments should have been  made.

That's all.

Go to post

Post #13178 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 7:00 PM (in topic “Personal and Political Commentary on Salary Sacrifice to Superannuation”)

Personal and Political Commentary on Salary Sacrifice to Superannuation:

Sorry Bigred, I have been very ill so perhaps that is why I am struggling to understand.

Please bear with me.

You know I agree with you about the content of the forms, but if Ludwig said they will pursue people avoiding CS through salary sacrifice but trhe agency won't process it without the form fully filled in, how is that bias rather than pigheaded stupidity?

If they would treat any applicant, male/female, payer/payee in the same way when they lodge an incomplete reason 8 application, isn't that pigheaded determination to stick to their own processes no matter what?

Go to post

Post #13176 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 6:45 PM (in topic “Now that my daughter is a mother herself....”)

Now that my daughter is a mother herself....:

Well found, Mike, but I don't think it will help.

As you highlighted, the key is whether the daughter pays a reasonable contribution to the household expenses.

Although she could make a reasonable contribution, she in fact does not.

Lisadonahue said that the board paid is impertinent.  I do not agree with that in the sense of the word which means irrelevant, I think it is very relevant.  I do however agree in the sense of impertinent which is cheeky, or lacking proper respect.  On the surface at least, this girl with a very good income is not paying her way and that would overcome any parallel which might have been drawn with the situation you have highlighted.

Also on the subject of the board paid,
D4E said
 It could be cheaper for you to set her up in her own place close to mum but independent, this may be the only way to reduce the extra income your X is utilizing for her own benefit.

Cam said
My daughter has to pay her mother back for any baby equipment my ex-wife has bought (about $1,500 bucks worth) and is now paying board ($50 a week) to my ex-wife.

So, Cam's ex-wife is not utilizing the extra income for her own benefit.

Since the daughter is only paying $50.00 a week for board, her mother is still heavily subsidising her, so it is not accurate to say that Cam's former partner is utilizing the child support as extra income for her own benefit. Whether she should still be subsidizing the teenage mother rather than asking her to pay her own way is another question. 

MikeT said
Sapphire, what is wrong here is not that the daughter is getting money for being a mother, but that the daughter's mother is getting CS for a child who as you say is an adult and that the mother is then also charging for rent and for hand me downs.
There is no evidence that the mother is charging for hand me downs.

Cam's comments could equally be read as meaning that his ex-wife bought new equipment for the baby and his daughter is paying her back.

Please note:  I spent many hours doing research to help Cam, the payer, so don't bother with the 'you are just sticking up for the payee' rants.  If some people are offended by reasonable requests for consideration for both sides of the question, that is their problem, not mine, and I don't need to hear about it.

Go to post

Post #13169 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 6:03 PM (in topic “Personal and Political Commentary on Salary Sacrifice to Superannuation”)

Personal and Political Commentary on Salary Sacrifice to Superannuation:


I really appreciate the balance you show in your letter and I admire you for getting it out there into the arena rather than just having a rant.

Balanced feedback such as yours can only make things better for all - men, women and children.  As a society, we still have a long way to go.  Thanks for doing something positive.


Roosters has written a really constructive letter.

Perhaps you could do the same, giving credit where it is due for the web site and suggesting some alternate posters.

Maybe you could even start a topic asking for constructive suggestions for you to put forward.

Go to post

Post #13166 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 5:54 PM (in topic “Legal Aid”)

Legal Aid:


The only problem I had with Legal Aid is that in Tasmania they only help fathers, not mothers, and yes I do have that in writing.

The reason they give is that the Community Legal Service help mothers.  (They also help fathers)

The problem with the Community Legal Service is that they are not sufficiently funded to help with anything other writing letters to the other party.  They do not take on cases which will go to court.

Go to post

Post #13156 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 3:13 PM (in topic “Complicated”)


Thanks overcsa

In my opinion, you are not so much getting the run around as getting the brush off.

It is not uncommon for the telephone staff to say the first seemingly reasonable thing that comes into their heads without listening to the details.

A Reason 8 change of assessment is generally used to change the current assessment and in rare circumstances may be backdated into a past period, but it is not generally used to alter the assessment for a period which has ended, especially where the payer/payee roles have now reversed.

Change of assessment is not usually used where an estimate is lodged - take a look at The Guide on the CSA website for details of the procedures for lodging and reconciling an estimate.

I suggest writing to them asking when they received the updated tax information and requesting a reconciliation of the assessment for the entire period that an estimate was used.

All the best.


Go to post

Post #13152 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 2:56 PM (in topic “Personal and Political Commentary on Salary Sacrifice to Superannuation”)

Personal and Political Commentary on Salary Sacrifice to Superannuation:


 I for one do not see you as lazy or stupid.

 This conversation is about personal and political responses to salary sacrifice for superannuation and there are several threads running through it which is why it is confusing.

 I separated it off from the discussion on the technical aspects to save any further confusion there.

I do not seriously think Artemis intended to criticize you or any other disability pensioner. I was just asking her to clarify her use of the word inability which she uses separately to laziness in a way that suggests disability, then distinguishes from disability in a way that suggests that inability equates to a lifestyle choice which makes no sense to me.


I do see the issue here.

I do know that payees also sacrifice salary, and I am usually the first to point out the balancing arguments.  The reason I only mentioned low income earners as payers was that I was talking about low income earners and their lifestyles.  Low income payers always pay relatively low child support, but they may receive anything from low to high child support depending on the other party's income, so comment on their lifestyles is not possible in the context I was exploring.

You are right that families where parents do not earn large incomes who could maximise FTB whilst putting extra money into super for their retirement will lose out here.

 I have found your previous post where you said

LifeInsight said
Salary sacrificing to super reduces taxable income so child support and tax is reduced and FTB is increased.

 In my situation if I was earning 50K and sacrificed 10k to bring income to 40k to get maximum FTB then I would get:

 An extra 2k in FTB
 Pay 3k less tax and get a good tax refund
 Pay 1k less child support

 My income would be at 46K

 People on low incomes or those that have little super (due to divorce settlement) need to put more into super as they won't have enough to retire on so I see this change from the Labour Government to be against low income earners.

  I don't entirely understand the figures, specifically how your income would add up to 46K.

Could you indulge me with an explanation?



This is the exchange I was talking about
LifeInsight said
BigRed - did you lodge a change of assessment based on "capacity to earn" basis?
Bigred said
Lifeinsight that was a "yes".  They told me they wouldn't consider it if I didn't provide a statement of financial circumstances.  I told them they had breached the Privacy Act and to reconsider.  They sent my application back.  I made a Privacy Complaint (they have 30 days to respond).  I also lodged a customer compliant citing Ludwig's announcement and demanding they institute a review under reason 8 without further delay - implying they were operating outside their minister's express direction.  This has all been done in writing.
So, basically, you lodged a change of assessment application which was returned to you because you did not provide a statement of financial circumstances.

So, what I thought was mischievous  was that you said that  'in my case the payee has salary sacrificed nearly 25% of their income yet CSA will NOT so much as pursue it' then gave another example and followed both with the comment 'Seems to me that there is significant bias against payers.', implying that the refusal to pursue it was based on bias against payers rather than your refusal to play by their rules.

Not to say their rules are reasonable, only that, in my opinion, this is not an example of bias.

Go to post

Post #13144 by BriarRose on July 9th 2008, 2:17 PM (in topic “Man and three children found dead”)

Man and three children found dead:

This post is written in defense of Beyond Blue, not as a discussion of post natal depression.

MikeT said
Katie, Ive taken your advice and had a look at BB

Thanks for taking the trouble to look before you commented - I would like to encourage more of that here.

MikeT said
 As I understand it, for a number of years PND in males has been recognised. Yet going through the PND section in BB there is no mention that I have found of it affecting men. The only section I saw fathers given some implied recognition was in the "Helping Others" section and then partners/ rathher than fathers come after friends and relatives.
It is there in the details, not the overview, but there is definite reference to males suffering post natal depression and the fact that it is supported by research.

There is also mention of men suffering depression in the introductory overview of postnatal depression, so the reference to fathers helping is no the only reference.

MikeT said
 You mention about the recent Male as being the only potential sufferer of PND.
 Take another look at what I wrote, Mike.

I did not say Thomas Beattie is the only potential male sufferer of PND, I said he is the only male I am aware of who has given birth.  If you look, I said that in the context of explaining why reference to post natal depression may on first glance seem specific to women.

Having said that, I then referred to 'men men who suffer depression after the birth of children' to show that even though this may look like a women's topic both BB and I recognize that it is in fact a parent's topic.

What I wrote clearly acknowledges the existence of postnatal depression in men.

Bear in mind that I was responding to Jon's post which was critical of BB as being biased towards women.

There is no evidence of that on their site and considerable evidence to the contrary.

My post was intended to be about that, not about post natal depression as such. I used postnatal depression as an example because it is the only part of their work which could be in any way construed as female biased and even then it is not.

MikeT said
 Perhaps the portion of funding given to Beyond Blue for post natal depression should be split between themselves and myself in a proportion similar to that of the proportion between females and males who get postnatal depression.Hey the CSA may back this as then it would mean more support for my son. " alt=":)" />" alt=":)" />" alt=":)" />
If that was meant to be a joke, I for one do not find it at all funny.

This post is written in defense of Beyond Blue, not as a discussion of post natal depression.

Go to post

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


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