Is this agreement viable at all in terms of family court orders?
Why would you think it wouldn't be? It would be a legally established agreement only entered into after seeking independent legal advice and the legal advice should cover termination and suspension facets. e.g. the court can only terminate/suspend the agreement if there are changed and exceptional circumstances.
As for parental responsibility orders (parent's don't really have any rights, the child has the rights) any such order would have similar factors regarding changes e.g. Rice and Asplund (if the old grey matter still ticks).
Perhaps the agreement could include self-termination clauses. e.g. something like if parent x applies to court for a change to parental responsibility of the child then that parent agrees to termination of this agreement. Again, the legal advice, if well given, would consider such concerns.
This component of the Advice Line is available to any referred client who needs
assistance to identify and explore issues in dispute, develop options, consider
alternatives, reconcile conflict, and reach agreement.
Dispute resolution sessions will primarily focus on achieving workable parenting arrangements, including child
The TDRS can provide assistance to those who have both property and children's issues in dispute (subject to the practitioner having appropriate skills in both property and children's issues). However, the TDRS does not deal with property disputes
The TDRS may be particularly suitable where parties live in disparate locations within Australia, one party lives overseas, or the telephone medium would be more appropriate given the parties particular needs and issues.
Who can refer clients to TDRS?
A Parenting Adviser from the Family Relationship Advice line may warm transfer
clients directly to the TDRS.
Practitioners or Managers of any Family Dispute Resolution Service, Parenting
Orders Program or Family Relationship Centre, funded under the Family Support
Program (FSP), may warm transfer clients directly to the TDRS using a separate 1800
As the TDRS is a REFERRAL only service, this phone number is NOT
for clients' use.
Page 16/17 includes TDRS as Key performance factor for many of the outcomes.
These powers can only be exercised for the purposes of the CSRC Act.
The Registrar must not use the powers contained in the CSRC Act to obtain information to verify an estimate of income.
A person who is required to attend under section 120(1)(b) (other than a payer, payee, or their representative) is entitled to expenses (CSRC Act section 120(2) and CSRC Regs section 27).
A notice must also be properly served on the person (see 6.7).
A notice must give the person a reasonable time to comply. What is a reasonable time will depend on the type and extent of the information sought.
The Registrar will not collect information that is not necessary for its purposes or intrudes unreasonably on a person's privacy (see information about the Privacy Act 1988 in 6.3.1).
Whilst it can be appropriate for the Registrar to seek information from other departments via informal arrangements, a notice can be issued to another government department. However, there will be instances where secrecy provisions and/or privacy obligations will prevent other departments from disclosing information in the absence of legal authority to do so.
The Registrar may collect and use information from third parties (see 6.3.4).
For the purposes of subsection 120(2) of the Act, the prescribed scales of expenses to be allowed to a person (other than a person who is a payer, payee or a personal representative of a payer or payee) required to attend under section 120 of the Act are as follows:
(a) the amount provided for in the High Court Rules (as in force at the commencement of this section) for expenses of witnesses;
(b) if the person is required to be absent overnight from his or her usual place of residence–such amount as is reasonable for meals and accommodation.
How can I find out? Who do I need to talk to? I have no idea, perhaps you local Federal MP but odds on they will do nothing. Of course if any Government official at any level was ethical then they would ensure that those who they serve are served and would therefore be able to find out the specifics by asking any such official.
How does the CSA gain knowledge that you have funds in an account?
They have access to bank accounts.
How do they distinguish if an account is in a joint name?
Not sure but I guess that information would be available by accessing the account.
What is stopping them from just sending the notice out?
Theoretically, the requirement of any public servant to follow the law. However, in practice the CSA, the DHS and even the Attorney General can and have been proven to do nothing to prevent public servants from following the law. In fact they have even supported such anarchism.
That is I still believe that that Lisa Lambert is still used as an associate even though it has been brought to the attention of the above mentioned bodies, and others, that Lisa Lambert actually invented the existence legislation as part of her multiple abuses of power in an attempt to defraud a parent assessing that a sum of $200,000 should be treated as $260,00 by grossing up that amount as if it were a flexible benefit.
Extract taken from the notification sent :-
In a Change of Assessment decision letter, dated 20th November 2014, Senior Case officer Lisa Lambert, Delegate of the Child Support registrar, states:
Lisa Lambert said
"The Act requires the department to use the gross income when calculating the financial support that is to be provided by the parents. This being the case, net income must be "grossed up" using the relevant taxation scales"
The fact is that the legislation, the Child Support Assessment Act 1989, does not state this. In fact, the legislation does not contain any instance of the word gross nor does it contain any instance of any word that contains gross as part it. The statement above is a fabrication of legislation existing and an act of abuse of power of the highest magnitude by the Department of Human Services via the CSA.
The CSA, as an agency, act under legislation. To state that they can do otherwise under the guise of "invented" legislation is very obviously wrong and perhaps even contrary to the constitution of Australia. It is also a form of anarchy.
Considering that I have been involved and thus scrutinised just 2 departures from administrative assessment, the other itself also a complete travesty (the classic being an admittance that both parties contribute equally to the company but that the payer conveniently earns well over 10 times the other party as income). as per :-
. SSAT reached a conclusion that both the applicant and the applicant's spouse "genuinely work in the xxx equally", yet SSAT have apportioned $46,697 of the $50,058 profits, as the equal share of the applicant and that for the equal share, as per the SSAT finding, that the applicant's spouse should receive $3,551.
Then you can guarantee that the CSA pervert the cause of justice 100% of the time, or to use CSA methods of fair(sic) calculation, some 1300% of the time and of course being given the role of judging there has to be some application of grossing up that can be invented to be then applied.