HubbyPays….. yes there are times that extenuating circumstances must be taken into account - but please remember that there are by far more out there that dont get to see their kids because of fabricated "mental/physical/sexual abuse" and legal organsiations used this and coached this in the past as the first part of the "separation process" in order to establish a perceived "victim" - and in most cases not the child.
We all know of the situation under 109 nights where contact was removed to under 109 nights in order to not effect CS…. these have all been changed under the reforms - for good or bad - is yet to be established.
But those on the other side of the reform fence are coming up with new ways of removing contact and maintaining CS, regardless of evidence.. They won't ever let go of contact/CS separation as it is one of their biggest bombs in the arsenal….. and CSA dont have the time to fight for contact v's payment.
But i do see a need to penalise those who maliciously flaunt the system and stop contact when the money changes.
Again I take the premise that those on this site, complaining are not the ones that were "mental/physical/sexual abuse" their kids…..
I too after 7 years of trying to get the alignment back have decided to stop the fight… I feel better for it (i still feel bad about not seeing my kids) but my health has improved and my outlook on life has improved….
GaryMegan - there will come a time in your kids life that they will need "Dad" and it will be this day that the memories of what they put you through will come flooding back to them… the best you can do (if you give up) is let the negative aspects go…. build on who you are… make yourself someone they can be proud of and move forward.
When they do come back, show them understanding, show them that you know why it happened that way and show them who you are. Explain why you gave up… explain how it felt… if they have any remorse for their actions then this will make them more compassionate people and will help them grow….. which is part of your role as a father - sometimes the best mistakes our kids make are those which we let them make ALL on their own.
Agreed…. But I guess it falls into that case of "eye off the beholder" or "everyone story is different".
But I still think it by fair more unfair to "weild a big stick" to everyone who runs their own business hoping to whack out the "wrong doers" while there are by far more payees who live in new relationships "provided with benefit" that seem to get away scott-free.
Again as I stated - your friend situation is different as everyones is. I do understand where you are coming from though, but then again i dont. I run my own business - and i really struggle and in part its due to my ex's intervention with clients by email, phone calls etc. etc.. but every year i get the standard "trawling" by CSA previously under a client initiated COA now under a "compliance" RI COA……….
So its best for me to go back and get a "normal" job - under a normal salary - slide into the "normal" mould…. but hang on i can't - because that would be voluntarily leaving employment and the dreaded CTE would be there to chew me up n spit me out.
But Sec SPCA - lets be honest…. and as you have pointed out "A cumbersome system to negotiate " the means by which you have to go through to "prove" additional income are not yet tested by CSA let alone by any payer…. Have you encountered anyone who has rightfully proven that (unless it is "constant" overtime) that an additional payment is protected?
I have heard of a situation like Question! where a guy did a 4 week job outside his normal "work" that no one else would do - and CSA claimed it as additional skills under a COA and the ex slugged him for CTE…. regardless of whether he takes on that temporary role ever again - he now has a CSA "determined income" for 3 years.
Monti - I have to agree with JP on the issue of 50/50…. even if there is a 150K - 50K split in income.. 50/50 indicates a level of understanding on the part of both parents.
What the child recieves on one side should make up for what is lost on the other…. swings and roundabouts. How many posts have we seen of late that reflect the need for one parent to sit on rumpus, not owrk (or work little), and place all the emphasis on "pay me to look after MY kids" - well here we sit talking about a 50/50 so the "pay me to look after MY kids" is now removed… and your still not happy?
"no CS, no share of the asset pool, no career, no job, and you are expected to 'get a life'"… well maybe one should be looking at bettering ones self in order to get a better life - at least with 50/50 one should have the time to get educated, get a job and get some form of life…..
But some how I don't think Monti that you are talking about the male being the 50K earner are you?
If it 50/50 indicates the best "shared parenting" arrangement then the only thing that I can see in relation to the greater income still paying CS is that it forms part of spousal support - which we fought hard to remove in the reforms…
If both parents are doing their utter best to provide for that child under a shared arrangement then it may be better for the 50K salary earner to get a better income rather than expect CS from the higher income party….
Unless of course your premise for getting CS while under a 50/50 arrangement is based on the need to look after "other children" from a new relationship/marriage - then that is a whole different "can o worms".
I want to move 2 hours away with my son from his father:
"my ex is constantly behind in his child support and im finding it hard financilly hard living" - question I have is this… is your ex living on the borderline as well - is he finding it "honestly" hard to make the payments - if so then how would an extra $100 a week in travel affect him. On the basis he has to continue living with his father I can't see him sitting in the lap of luxury.
The main question here is what is in the best interest of the child?
May be a point would be to give your ex another couple of nights visit that enable you to get a parttime job during the evenings. This should enable you to afford a bit more in the way of rent.
I am reading that you dont work and your premise for moving is to move to your parents where the cost to you are less….???? But the increase in fuel bills and decrease in contact falls directly onto your ex (and your child).. You dont have a car so meeting you ex at 100km (in the middle of the 200km gap ) is not in the equation.
I can't understand why you can't survive where you are?
Is there no work in your current town? Is there no medical facility in your current town?
To me legally you may be able to move… but morally should you? - or should you try and work things out a bit better for the sake of your child and his relationship with the father?
If your ex fights this move in court this is the way the court will look at it… "what is the driving factor for the move - and what are the impacts". The childs medical needs may a factor but I think the court viewing a move away from the current support network (the childs) may not be in the best interest.. Especially if the move is away from appropriate care/services.
This is making the assumption that your parents "retirement" is a coastal area and you are more metropolitan currently…
I am gathering that he has objection to the move and rightfully so if he cant see any reason for it and can only see impacts on his situationa nd his relationship/contact with the child.
His option isvalid, that if you can't find a job, earn enough or cope with the current situation, then a possibility would be to role reverse and give him the care of the child and you travel the 200Kms to visit….. He seems to be willing to take on the responsibility, care and medical needs of the child in lieu of your current situation - have you considered this option?
Whatwould be the basis ofyour objections? I would gather that one would be limitations placed on your contact, removal of income (CS) as a form of supporting you, increased costs due to travel, car,communcations etc - if you can see all these (write them down) go over them, really delve into why you would object….. then maybe you can start to see the situation from ex's perspective and try to work it out so everyone wins - especially your child.
Apologies for being a devils advocate on this one - but I still read a little bit of "what he has v's what I have" in the posts, family around Him, His 4wd - and my Child support…. Until it reverts to "what the child has" then the situation is always going to be tense. But I have to advocate that if the "best living conditions for the child" are with the father - then maybe the child should be placed there and the contact orders reversed so the father takes the child to the mother 200km away every Thursday through Sunday every second week…. Placing the emphasis on "the mothers support mechanisms" removes the entire "fathers support mechanism" and as I have read the topic of this is getting help for Red in the form of decreased costs and closer to her parents….. when the emphasis should be on the "support mechanism for the child" which is primarily both the mother and the father….
Have Red's parents considered moving to her current town as a means of greater support…. Red there are a couple of things to remember here - there is the ex's family, there is your family and there is the childs family…. which still includes you the ex and the Child…… and it should be this family that is considered first and foremost….. its tough and a struggle, but I dont think you have explored all options in relation to making it work where you currently are…. just the ones that are easiest to execute and that save you money and effort.
Unnecessary capitals (Shouting) have been removed by a Moderator
The problem that I have, as I have stated before… is the CSA basis for requesting new powers which is to obtain justification for greater action under "see how well it worked with these liitle cases".
I would be interested to know if any "surveillance" was carried out on people prior to them getting the new legislative powers…. and how much was carried out in order for them to base their justification to make it a formal part of the CSA arsenal.
I get sick of CSA blabbing out "standard rhetoric" then doing whatever they like in things such as conversations and COA interviews… they either do everything as "standard" or everything as "way out there". This is what I think JP may be getting at… the "public face" of CSA and the "not so public face" and the GREAT DIVISION between the 2.
As I have quoted on in other posts, a government or section of government that persecutes a section of society, not on the basis of their all member of that society being guilty - but only on the basis of their being associated with people who have committed an offence then this forms the basis for totalatarianism - and when government identifies that that form of "control" works in its favour then the next step is communism/dictatorship.
I think it can be safely said that CSA does "hunt" (for lack of a better word) those of us who do not fit the perfect CSA mould…. and at present (as I am finding) they want you to conform or face further "investigation" (again for lack of a better word). The scale may be different, the overall outcome may be different but looking at it interms of the plight of the Russian and Siberian peasants in 1910 -1930's Russia - or infact the Jewish community during the war .. i see some similarities..
Remember the Nazi party did not start as the power in Germany it started as a Socialist reform society acting out covert operations (then denying them), telling the government of the day "look at what these people are doing", then telling the average German "look at what these people are doing" - gaining support and public opinion about a section of society until they gain total power through "democratic/legal" elections. Once power was gained - the tables turned and democracy turned to fear for those who did not fit the mould, regardless of whether they committed and offence of not and regardless of their contribution to society…..