ACT Child Support - Change of Assessment Queries

[hassall]

Sammy01 - your situation sounds terrible. At least in my instance, the only thing that is of issue is that the other party is avoiding working full-time in paid employment and that CSA is not seeking payslips to calculate a true earning capacity. Other than that, we communicate about the kids and drop offs etc.

The other party basically relies on silence and the administrative assessment. And why wouldn't they?! It obviously just worked in a CoA application as well. FFS.

The Decision Maker was signing off on the paperwork, that was why they called about the figure I used on my salary on the application form. And then was going to input gross income rather than what gets lodged at the ATO.

So that is where, again, I get shafted and sent a message that I assume they will input the other party's gross income from last year. Otherwise it is discriminatory behaviour on many fronts. No, I am not surprised.

But I think the CoA decision will be handed in soon.

 

[AllForHer]

Mum doesn't have to work full time. Heck, she doesn't have to work at all, if she doesn't want. Child Support has no power at all to force her to get a better job, and honestly, I don't really see how you can argue she has a higher earning capacity than she's currently getting when her employment history consists of low to middle-income jobs at best and a business venture in the past. Sounds like her current circumstances are exactly in line with the pattern of her employment history, no? Earning capacity is used for assessments where a civil engineer quits a $350k role to take on a waitressing gig, not those where a parent goes from being basically self-employed to again being self-employed, and to be clear, Child Support doesn't see you as funding her business venture. It sees you as supporting your kids.

I doubt they're going to be particularly sympathetic about your mortgage either. The Court has often commented that child-rearing is a necessary expense for a parent, whereas home ownership is optional, so of course, child support should take priority. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's just the way it is.

 

[hassall]

Fair call AllForHer

My concerns are also longer term, like who is supposed to pay for the kids as their needs become greater? I have no extra capacity, when interest rates go up, I will struggle even more.

I have no problem paying some child support, but not when the other party could work full-time, use their double diploma for paid work instead of making hand-made makeup for goodness sake. I hear what you are saying though.

Plus CSA is going to increase my child support because of the CoA. I have not lodged my tax return yet, so I may just not object and wait things out, lodge my tax return (or input a lower salary) and go back to "normal". No point wasting my time and energy.

I will wait for the details in the decision, they mentioned something about giving 12 months for the business to turn a profit (6 months to go). This comes down to where in the hell they got that from the legislation or the Act. I asked for details on what this meant.

CSA were also happy to talk to my employer and get gross salary but not look into all of the special circumstances raised.

And you are right. The system is screwed. It is targeted against the payer, not pushing the payee into working.

I do also have concerns that the money is NOT being spent on my children. I asked the Decision Maker who takes an interest in that, and they said they don't know...seriously? Who does? Why should I have to ask for a $10 top up of my son's mobile phone, new school bags falling apart etc etc. Does Human Services look into that?

Very very sad.

The most important thing I can do is be a good father and not demean the mother in front of or with the kids.

The love and relationships I get back - they are priceless.

 

[Lennon]

I asked you earlier hassall, how much money is at stake here? As AllForHer notes, your ex does not seem to have ever demonstrated much of an earning capacity. In my experience with my ex, even when she has (accidentally) earned over the self-support amount, it has made very little difference in the assessment of child support. I would understand the angst if she could be earning $150k plus, but if she's only a low income earner at the best of times I fail to understand your pursuit of the issue.

My concerns are also longer term, like who is supposed to pay for the kids as their needs become greater? I have no extra capacity, when interest rates go up, I will struggle even more.

The parent whose care the children is in at the time, is responsible for the children's needs at that time. That is not a concern that can or will be addressed in a CoA.

I do also have concerns that the money is NOT being spent on my children. I asked the Decision Maker who takes an interest in that, and they said they don't know...seriously? Who does? Why should I have to ask for a $10 top up of my son's mobile phone, new school bags falling apart etc etc. Does Human Services look into that?

Do you mean that you ask your ex to pay for your son's mobile phone?

 

[AllForHer]

Mate, I am as bitter as you are about child support, mortgage rates and the cost of raising kids. Imagine the frustration we felt about having to pay my husband's ex while she racked up a $25,000 debt trying to relegate him to an every-other-weekend parent. We we're basically servicing the debt that was stopping him from seeing his kid!

But Child Support doesn't care what the actual dollars are going to. What it sees is a parent who is paying for food on the table, a roof over the kids' heads and beds to keep them warm at night, all of which she is funding in one way or another, all of which are in support of the kids, so that's what you're contributing to.

 

[Lennon]

Mate, I am as bitter as you are about child support, mortgage rates and the cost of raising kids. Imagine the frustration we felt about having to pay my husband's ex while she racked up a $25,000 debt trying to relegate him to an every-other-weekend parent. We we're basically servicing the debt that was stopping him from seeing his kid!

I am paying over $26k per year to my ex, while she is paying a lawyer to try to relegate me to a TWICE A YEAR parent (literally). Oh that burns, but it wouldn't provide a foundation for a CoA.

 

[hassall]

Lennon - every case is unique and raising the blood pressure. As I have said, the other party could be working as they have in the past. They could have completed a degree years ago but decided to stop, they could be on 50-60k a year, more if they entered the workforce after separation and studied their diploma to increase their quals. The wage gap would be much less and I would have no problem with this. I am not on a big salary, I have a $315k mortgage that I cannot pay off. The other party was ruthless in settlement and got 70% and the house which is now worth over half a million and a minimal mortgage. They got the car, all house and contents (because I did not include them because of the kids).

My life decisions have been financially hamstrung by someone else since separation seven years ago. This is not acceptable when I am a middle income earner as well.

The case is about so much more than topping a pay as you go account with $10, which the other party started and which I got my son a Samsung phone for because the phone he had was from the early 2000s.

I am paying for all the costs associated with having my kids 50/50 and paying around 15% of my salary to the other party to be on welfare, sell makeup and work a few hours in a bookshop. They are 50 years old, 8 years older than me, with 8 years more experience.

Life is about choices. They are choosing not to work to their true earning capacity. Simple as that.

I also approached the other party about a private arrangement, on many occasions. They will not discuss it. They rely on CSA. In fact, after a period of unemployment they asked whether I was going to put my new salary in (I paid child support while unemployed a couple of times to "do the right thing"). Yet the other party was fine leaving the kids aged 11 and 9 at home to do extra shifts before Xmas because they "needed the money".

I hear what everyone is saying. But the other party did not have a welfare manipulation history when I met them, or for the 10 years together. The "system" has facilitated this attitude.

 

[hassall]

Child support is the only "flexible" part of my budget - everything else is committed to the mortgage etc. So like last year when the other party's salary went DOWN - my flexibility went with it.

I also have other things in life that impact on the way I view the world, like my partner's son (no I do not live with her) of 5 years dying in his sleep last year aged 16.

Her ex runs his business using cash and she gets nothing.

What a pair we make. CSA is disgusting when one party is doing the wrong thing, or when settlement absolutely obliterates you.