View Full Version : Your Thoughts?
Ana Gram
28-02-2006, 15:05
What are your thoughts on this latest government plan?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/850m-child-support-overhaul/2006/02/28/1141095723806.html
Nickster
28-02-2006, 15:22
I don't know, Chelle, I'd have to look into it a bit more - what exactly do they mean by "considering both custodial and non-custodial parent's incomes"? Don't they do that already? How much will it change, realistically?:banghead:
It seems no matter what "changes" occur, both sides lose out in the end, as do the children....::(
(Upping the minimum payment from $5 to $6 surely has to be some sort of joke, though??!!!)
i think it has been a long time coming, i also agree with the both parents having to have their income or payments bought into it as it is not fairon the paying parent. i also believe they should do it as a net calculation not a gross calculation as there are 2 different rates and what you lose in tax you have to find for csa so therefore it should be based on the net income of the payer.
I also agree with the parents being given a discount (as such) as the paying parents who do have their child/children every now and then need some relief as it costs them money when they stay with them. especially if they have second families.
And I DEFINATELY agree with the overtime or second job situations as they should not be taken into account as they are obviously trying to provide for the second family.
i also think that they should have an equal rate for the children being supported by the paying parent and the second family children as one child cannot be worth more than another just because they dont live together.
no at the moment only the paying parents income is taken into account and teh non paying parent can earn up 39500 before it starts to reduce which is wrong.
and the children do miss out as they dont have the money spent on them as the parent who they live with does not spend it all on the child. we are paying 175 at the moment for a child my dh doesnt get to see she is not allowed to visit as she is not allowed on a plane by herself she is nearly 11 (her mother wont let her) but we are expected to drive 6 hours away to collect her then take her back as they live near sydney and will come half way. plus pay cs (i dont think so) so it is going to court very shortly if she wants to see any cs
sopolicha
28-02-2006, 15:38
(Upping the minimum payment from $5 to $6 surely has to be some sort of joke, though??!!!)
I will really look forward to that extra $4 a month.
It is always going to be an incredibly contentious issue because in nearly every case each party involved thinks they are being are wronged.
the_queen
28-02-2006, 15:43
I think each case needs to be looked at individually, and the legislation needs to be flexible to allow leeway (sp?) for each party.
Not every paying parent has a second family. I'm sure there are plenty of nice ex-husbands out there who pay money to b*tch ex-wives who spend the money on pokies and smokes. But there's also plenty of b*stardly ex-husbands who can't be bothered even calling their child once a week, can't be bothered having the child overnight at all, can't be bothered to do ANYTHING except b*tch about the amount of child support they are being forced to pay.
Mine used to call me up, telling me how he was going to kill himself - not because I'd left him and taken his daughter away, but because I was taking all his money. :banghead:
oh yes it needs a change!
and I also think each case needs to be looked at individually.
child support needs to be asseses after tax and not b4.. we dont get this money so why should we have to pay it to the other parent! arghhh!
im a blended family and this affects us dramitically.
we pay maintenance and i get maintenance. although we pay lots more for one child than my ex does for his 2!
His ex requests pay rises and assessments and even though we argue saying we cant afford it.. she always wins and we have to pay more!
we can tell them we wont be able to have our roof over our own head soon if they keep hiking it. and we told that its our problem! thats our "lifestyle choice"
so sell you house or do whatever because its not their problem. we pay a ridiculous amount of child support! and i garrentee no child need this amount of money a week.!!! arghh this topic always gets me rolled up!@!
oh yes it needs a change!
and I also think each case needs to be looked at individually.
child support needs to be asseses after tax and not b4.. we dont get this money so why should we have to pay it to the other parent! arghhh!
im a blended family and this affects us dramitically.
we pay maintenance and i get maintenance. although we pay lots more for one child than my ex does for his 2!
His ex requests pay rises and assessments and even though we argue saying we cant afford it.. she always wins and we have to pay more!
we can tell them we wont be able to have our roof over our own head soon if they keep hiking it. and we told that its our problem! thats our "lifestyle choice"
so sell you house or do whatever because its not their problem. we pay a ridiculous amount of child support! and i garrentee no child need this amount of money a week.!!! arghh this topic always gets me rolled up!@!
exactly what you said......
i agree that amount previously is per week so as far as im concerned our 4 children are worth the same so therefore there is not enough money left to pay her every week. with living expenses etc
they even tell you to take out a loan if you afford it ha if you cant afford it tehn how in hell are people supposed to pay a loan.
they need someone who is in the situation to be organising it.
bronny-jane
28-02-2006, 19:21
i was offended over the fact they think money matters will help reconcile couples, lol
isnt that the number one reas on we fight. also my brother pays his ex $200 aweek for his son, not because he has to but he wants him to be well looked after. his ex only lets him see him at her place or not at all. i keep telling him to take it through child support but he dont want to, she taking him for a ride. other than this i like her but come on. oh yeah he works 12 hour shifts then drives 45mins to her house watches his son while she goes to score. nice huh
how is she receiving ftb or the pension as centrelink want proof of exactly how much is being paid e.g child support agency etc. just curious as i thought they had toughened the system
bronny-jane
28-02-2006, 19:32
you can tell child support that you'll collect your money personally.
she works on the sly too, boss pays her properly just the amount that wont affect her benifits then the rest is cash
gee well they are good at dobbing the paying parents in to csa so he should dob her in to. and i would only pay her what they work out especially as he is legally allowed to see the kid but she wont allow it unless its at her house, i would take the matter further
this maintenance thing always pi$$es me off. as my ex never seems to earn enough money to pay yet always working so much!
the whole system needs an overhaul!
at times my ex has said he cant see them coz he works too much, yet my CS never changes. (except to go down!)
I have 2 children. and my partner pays his ex for 1.
Now i find it all a little unfair.. CSA is basically saying that my children are worth $8.75 each a week!
then turn around and tell us to pay $150+ to his 1 child.
i have 2 children and get $70 and yet we have to pay $600 to his ex!
good exchange :banghead:
bronny-jane
28-02-2006, 19:51
oh pumpkin, he still thinks he has a chance with her.
she really is nice, she was a witness at my wedding 3 months ago.
he dosnt want to push it, i think he's paranoid cause he was in jail when he was 18 for a lot of crap, than got done dui and was locked up for 3 months, just thinks they will see him as unfit i guess.
bronny-jane
28-02-2006, 19:54
that sucks danni, whats $8.75 a week going to cover milk?
if i was you i'd just kill him:laughing: just kidding
why do you guys pay $150 that is alot.
that sucks danni, whats $8.75 a week going to cover milk?
if i was you i'd just kill him:laughing: just kidding
why do you guys pay $150 that is alot.
because they go on the gross income of the paying parent not the net income as they would still recieve a bit after tax anyway as we earn quite a bit, but still we have to find what tax takes yet csa see it as what we get which we dont. i think there should be a flat rate for 1 child 2 children etc no matter how much you earn. as dh can quit tomorrow and me go to work and he pays sfa in csa as he isnt earning anything and they cant sting me for it as i am not a bio parent so why do we still have to pay a heap. when people are on the dole and pay $5 per week per 1 2 or 3 children they should all have the same rate e.g $40 per week for one $80 per week for two and so on but no stupid gov have no brains they neede someone who is in the situation to run it. properly:banghead:
bronny-jane
28-02-2006, 20:09
going off gross amount is stupid, my dh earns $1700 aweek before tax, than gets taxed like $650.
your right it should be a set amount for each child regardless of income, unless it puts you into fiancial hardship.
rockabye
28-02-2006, 20:22
I'm all for an overhaul of the system and each case being investigated individually.
A friend of mine has split with her partner and they have 2 kids, though they have maintained a great friendship. He works shift work (3days on 4days off, 4days on 3 days off 12 hour shifts) whenever he is not at work he has the kids and he still pays her cs. However, if someone stepped in and said "no, you are only going to get 1/2 the cs because he has them 1/2 the time", she could easily say well you don't get the kids anymore (not that my friend would but she could). Thats not fair on the kids or the dad. And how does that help reconcilliation????
I have posted a lot on this issue in the past and read the whole document when it first came out last year.
The biggest issue I've had with the child support system is that the 'worth' of my children is so much less than the 'worth' of my husband's two other children. The amount of the buffer is about $2000 per child (after an initial $11000 for the first child, and this doesn't change. In comparison, the other two children are 'worth' more money the more he earns. The joke of the system is that his ex gets more money in her hand than he does after tax and paying maintenance and the costs of work (train fares), yet we don't qualify for benefits. Thus my biggest issue with the whole system is the fact that I had to return to work when my son was 10weeks old (and will have to do the same when number 2 comes) while his ex has never had a job, yet still put my step son into full time child care before he got to preschool.
Therein lies the inequality of the system. What gets me also is the fact that they say that only 50% of parents pay the correct amount and on time - come on guys - I know my husband does (I put the money into her bank account every fortnight), so at least 1 in every two of you out there are being hard done by. The problem is that the system was originally brought into place with no research backing up the amount of money it costs to bring up a child. This new system is quite well researched (I'll post more on this later if anyone is interested) as to the fact that it cost less than the 27% of my husband's before tax salary to pay for the necessities of two children which he is currently paying. According to the research - over the last 9years he's been paying maintenance, he has singlehandedly paid for their upbringing up to 18 - and he is liable for at least another 5years. That seems harsh when it doesn't put any of the onus on his ex.
I know there are single mothers out there who do earn their way and fathers who shirk their responsibilities (as I said 50%), I'm just stating the inequalities of the system as I've experienced them. If the system was truly equal - I could earn up to $40k as well before any benefits I could qualify for would be affected (instead of $11k) and would therefore be able to be a SAHM if I choose (which is what I wanted to do for at least the first 2years of all of my children's lives).:banghead:
rockabye
28-02-2006, 21:35
Pegasus, I am totally with you!!
Can you run for government pleeeease. We need someone like you in there, someone with "life experience". Not just pushing pencils.
You know what? I almost think I will in a few years when my kids are grown. Particulary on this issue I figure I've dissected this paper many times.
:)
My hubby said to me tonight - "When you become a senior member of BH - do the Junior members come to you for advice?" He's a very rude man my husband to make fun of me getting on my soapbox here...
I just said to him - I guess I've had enough experience...I'm a step mum, I've had experience with the child support system, experience with childcare, a caesarian, pregnancy, breastfeeding, therapy working with young children's development and worked in the public health as well as the private health system. He turned to me then and said - you know I'm making fun of you - don't you?:p
Naughty DH:shame:
It's okay - you just can't afford to lose your sense of humour or take too many things too seriously...:D
rockabye
28-02-2006, 22:23
It's okay - you just can't afford to lose your sense of humour or take too many things too seriously...:D
oooh so true!!!
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 15:56
What are your thoughts on this latest government plan?
It scares the crap out of me, tbh. My ex chooses not to see our kids. He hasn't seen them in over 5 months, hasn't rung them, hasn't sent birthday cards, missed Christmas... He owes the kids over $13 000 in CS payments. The new Gov. plan will be enough to entivce peope like him to decide that they all of a sudden want to have a relationship with the kids, just to "save" money. he has no idea how much it costs to raise them as I have always bought everything they need, even when we were together.
This will stuff my children up so much. My 6 year old still isn't "back to normal" after he rocked up un-announced 5 months ago, after having had absolutely no contact for quite some time. She has been very emotional, teary, and senstive ever since and asks for daddy constantly. We are trying so hard to make sure life is stable for her. If her father decides to pop back into her life just to save himself a bit of cash, how will this affect her?
It makes me cry. People need to get the **** over themselves - CS isn't about revenge, it isn't about spite, it isn't about who should be financially responsible. it is about providing for innocent children who are already hurting over their parent's breakup. To imply that this new CS system will enable couples to reconcile is insulting.
Hmm, might step outside and breath for a bit, this topic is sooo emotive!
jarrahsmumma
02-03-2006, 16:05
Wow. That has out a whole new slant on things. What a sh!tty situation ******.
It scares the crap out of me, tbh. My ex chooses not to see our kids. He hasn't seen them in over 5 months, hasn't rung them, hasn't sent birthday cards, missed Christmas... He owes the kids over $13 000 in CS payments. The new Gov. plan will be enough to entivce peope like him to decide that they all of a sudden want to have a relationship with the kids, just to "save" money. he has no idea how much it costs to raise them as I have always bought everything they need, even when we were together.
This will stuff my children up so much. My 6 year old still isn't "back to normal" after he rocked up un-announced 5 months ago, after having had absolutely no contact for quite some time. She has been very emotional, teary, and senstive ever since and asks for daddy constantly. We are trying so hard to make sure life is stable for her. If her father decides to pop back into her life just to save himself a bit of cash, how will this affect her?
It makes me cry. People need to get the **** over themselves - CS isn't about revenge, it isn't about spite, it isn't about who should be financially responsible. it is about providing for innocent children who are already hurting over their parent's breakup. To imply that this new CS system will enable couples to reconcile is insulting.
Hmm, might step outside and breath for a bit, this topic is sooo emotive!
yes can see your side of things but what about the ones who cannot afford to pay it ?he may be one of those, where as we can afford to pay it but they work it out if you earn 30000 before tax its x amount but if you earn 120000 before tax its this amount im sorry but why the hell is there this sudden price jump when the kid costs the same as before to support anyway, and also for the ones that have joined up with someone else who may be earning a decent amount the poor fathers still have to get stuck paying even though they do not need the money. also tell me how on earth it costs 170 per week to look after a primary school child or any child for that matter where are they living the f###en white house.... if the child taht they are supporting is worth that each week then he has to pay that equally to our 4 children and therefore would be no money for the cs case. also what about the fathers who pay the rediculous amounts and live interstate and their kids cant visit as their mother will not let them fly on a plane, where the f### have they got to go they are in the air. and yes we will be getting ours on school holidays as she should be anyway her mother is just so stressed as she knows once shes here she doesnt want to go back which has happened before. so yes i agree that he should be discounted as it costs $$$$ when she is here but it will only save around $40 per week for us so from 170 it will be roughly 130 wow so they are more or less saying it will cost us 40 per week when she stays with us for everything so why the hell do they make you pay the 130 as thats way too much by what they work out... and as for smoking oh how do you afford to smoke as on the change of assessments the paying parent cannot claim smokes even though it is an addiction .. bit of the pot calling eh kettle black if you ask me.........and many in my situation where we are constantly being ripped and dont get to see the kid as far as im concerned if the payee (person who recieves the money) wont let the child visit then sorry but no csa is payable as youa re more or less saying you can look after tehnm yourself without the help.
also are you sure he owes you that much in support as when my dh had a debt ages ago due to being out of work she wanted the 7500 that they had on teh statement yet when you actually read the fine print on teh second page it breaks it down as to owing only 4500 in cs and teh rest was in late fees to csa you do not get teh late fee amount only the amount of actual cs debt . this topic really s###me and many others in the same predicament on this site.
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 16:39
Pumpkin, the rate of child support is worked out in relation to what a father earns rather than on what it costs to raise a child. this is because the idea is to try to maintain the same quality of life the child would have had were the parents still together.
I don't see why some fathers begrudge paying child support. I would give every cent and then some to make sure my kids have what they need.
If you truly cannot afford to pay the set amount, it is very easy to apply to have it reassessed. Just ring them up. If you can prove financial hardship, they will reduce the amount.
The bottom line is, if you cannot afford to raise the children you already have, why on earth would you go and have more with somebody else? Adults may seperate and marriages may dissolve, but you don't seperate from the child. Once they are yours, they are yours forever.
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 16:40
Oh, and as for this
but what about the ones who cannot afford to pay it ?he may be one of those
I can assure you, he is one of those. Drugs, cigarettes and alcohol are all very expensive donchaknow. There really isn't much cash left over after all of that! :rolleyes:
MumsieMel
02-03-2006, 17:08
Gee this is getting a bit nasty :(
In the end, if you were still together the child would benefit from both parents incomes, would they not.
So why should that change just because they separate?? :confused:
I think this new plan will be good but not for those who will just have the kids to "save" money, thats just down right wrong! :(
A child is a responsiblity for life, whether you see them or not is not really anything to do with the amount the CHILD is entitled to. The child should recieve the money no matter where they are. (IYKWIM? Based on time spent with each parent)
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 17:18
In the end, if you were still together the child would benefit from both parents incomes, would they not.
So why should that change just because they separate??
Exactly! It's not about how much the actual cost of raising the child/ren is, it is about reflecting the same lifestyle it would have had if the parents were still together.
And Pumpkin, I don't know how I missed the part in your post asking if I am sure how much money my ex owes me - I think I may have tuned out at some point. Um yes, I am sure. That is the reduced amount - they reduced it because he owed so much, they said that by lowering it, he may be more inclined to pay it off :rolleyes: . But it is really quite irrelevant - whether it is $13.00, $1300 or $13 000, he owes money to his children and they have had to do without because of it. How is that fair?
the_queen
02-03-2006, 17:37
The new Gov. plan will be enough to entice peope like him to decide that they all of a sudden want to have a relationship with the kids, just to "save" money.
That's exactly my feelings on the subject!!
A "hypothetical" situation: A man, who has enough time to go to his mates places 4 nights a week, has enough time to play on his computer every night, has enough money to buy himself new stereo equipment, a new computer, new $400 (each!) tyres for his V8 car, but for some mysterious reason can't afford to pay child support (ooh, maybe it's because he's spending it all on HIMSELF :banghead:) and can't be bothered to call his daughter, or even to visit her, let alone have her overnight. The mother would have to literally beg him to take her for one night a month. And then he would criticise the way their daughter is being raised. Then this legislation goes through, then he realises that if he has the child at his house one night a week, then his CS rate will go down. So for that reason alone, he requests a weekly overnight visit. How is that best for the child?? He doesn't want to spend time with her, he doesn't want to be involved in her life, he doesn't want to form a bond with her - he just wants to reduce how much money he pays his b*tch-of-an-ex-wife.
And what do they class as "overnight" anyway? Mine used to pick her up at 7:30pmish, after dinner, on a Saturday night, would yell at me if she wasn't already bathed and in her night-nappy and PJ's; then would drop her back to me at about 10am Sunday morning. Yes, technically, he'd have her overnight, but most times she would fall asleep on the way from my house to his, and then he'd bring her back in the morning still in her night-nappy and PJ's!!! :mad: So in that situation, he'd be entitled to a reduction of CS owed?? Ridiculous.
You're right, this is an emotive issue. And I am certainly not saying "all non-custodial parents are b*stards" (I'm just saying that mine was) but I think there are always going to be "good" and "bad" people/parents and it always seems to be the "good" ones who get sh*t all over.
sopolicha
02-03-2006, 17:45
I would gladly forego my $21.67 a month if the donor would go away. Him being in her life is nothing but a complete disruption to my daughter.
I can but dream :rolleyes:
Pumpkin, the rate of child support is worked out in relation to what a father earns rather than on what it costs to raise a child. this is because the idea is to try to maintain the same quality of life the child would have had were the parents still together.
I don't see why some fathers begrudge paying child support. I would give every cent and then some to make sure my kids have what they need.
If you truly cannot afford to pay the set amount, it is very easy to apply to have it reassessed. Just ring them up. If you can prove financial hardship, they will reduce the amount.
The bottom line is, if you cannot afford to raise the children you already have, why on earth would you go and have more with somebody else? Adults may seperate and marriages may dissolve, but you don't seperate from the child. Once they are yours, they are yours forever.
yes but what hea earnt was cockoroach s*** when he was with her and what he earns now with me for the last 9 years is way above any normal income amount and for your information we can afford our children and they have everthing they want and need so really the cs for teh first one should be worked out on the money that he earnt when he was with her, she was the one who slu### around all the time and got into everyones pants and even fell pregnant to another guy married him the got pregnant to another one she had an affair with and her hubby took her back (poor b******) and she used to leafve the kid in s***ty and p***** nappies all the time to the point they would soak through the cot sheets etc so as far as i m concerned the less money the mother gets the better as whatever isnt paid the gov make it up. DH has been in the situation where ***** wont let the kid visit and as far as im concerned no one should pay as they are paying they have legal rights to access to the child, whether they are paying or not.
and tell me this she is on a single parent pension with 4 kids she cant afford and they are always filthy and i dont mean normal kid filthy, he her partner is on a disability pension from the army and she doesnt get support from the twins father as she told him to foff so why is it all right for her to get money out of us as we earn more than she could ever imagine and this other father get off scott free. also how can they buy a house on a pension because they use the csa money as an income which legally you can do which is not right. we have to take it to court in june as this is the only way to get her to travel up here on plane so her mother will have no say as if she goes against the court order she will be in a lot of trouble, also we are getting the amount of csa changed as when his oncome goes up it is to support our family now not her who has never had a job in her life and is always on centrelink she should have been kicked off by now. and they should class each child equally why pay more to the child from a previuos relationship when he was earning crap if thats the case then our kids are worth way more because of what he has earnt while i have been with him. also if i were to leave he would have to pay me $459 per week in cs how does it cost 459 per week for 4 children under 9???????go figure. or i can go to work and he can quit so that csa and the mother get sfa which is what we are seriously thinking of and there is nothing they can do about it as i would pay him an allowance fro smokes and fuel each week. so stick it to them lazy b****** who dont want to work just live off everyone elses rewards and keep opening there legs up for more kids as that is what 80% of the csa are because of/.....
CandyJane
02-03-2006, 17:52
I am sick of men who say "well she doesn't let me see the kids, so why should I pay?" - the two are TOTALLY different things. I don't care if the mother is the scrag from hell and won't let him see his kids (which is sad, btw), he should still pay up. You are not paying to have access to your children, you are paying to raise them. They need that whether you see them or not.
CJ
CandyJane
02-03-2006, 17:54
so as far as i m concerned the less money the mother gets the better as whatever isnt paid the gov make it up.No, the Government does not. If the father does not pay, the mother doesn't get the money.
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 17:55
Oh that poor wee child. Good to see you are doing your best to make things better for her. oh wait.....
:banghead: :banghead:
Sorry, forgot to add that that post was directed at pumpkin.
CandyJane
02-03-2006, 17:56
and keep opening there legs up for more kids as that is what 80% of the csa are because of/.....That is a REALLY rude statement :mad:
seriously the child living with her mother has no furture who would be proud to say oh my father who makes the time to ring me has been paying cs since day dot but iam not allowed to see him as my mother knows i wont want to come home because of the stable environment and my mother has been on welfare since i was a baby then continued having children and shacked up with someone who is able to work but uses the pension as an outlet. why the hell would anyone feel proud or happy etc telling anyone that. and yes the government do make it up as when he wasnt able to pay they topped her payments up as long as they have proof that he was not able to pay.
and thats right he doesnt pay to have the right to see his child as whether he pays or not he has a legal right to see his child whenever he pleases cs just makes a stronger case in his favour.
and she was the type that sent her up with her cousin once and told us she didnt want the little b#### back and we could have her so tell me what sort of caring parent would do that. seperated or not.
tell me this are you working or recieving benefits while you are being paid cs.
as i know for a fact the money DH has paid has not gone on that kid at all it went on surveyors fees etc when their house was built and continuos other things.
not saying that everyone is like her but if they they should read this and get a few home truths
That is a REALLY rude statement :mad:
good because in most cases it is true thats all they are out to do make more money and what better way.
Oh that poor wee child. Good to see you are doing your best to make things better for her. oh wait.....
:banghead: :banghead:
Sorry, forgot to add that that post was directed at pumpkin.
we are over the whole making things better for her as the money is never spent on her so why not. when i work the government will have to pay her as no one else is going to and they cannot legally make me pay believe me we have looked into it and my uncle is a top brisbane barrister so ,.......
and also why cant the mother go out and get a job to make things better seeing as though this is her child to oh hang on you cant see taht where as this new system does and so do the courts/
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 18:08
Oh dear me. That poor poor child.
Oh dear me. That poor poor child.
ahh s*** happens if she cant pull her bit to look after the kid too then why should anyone else the gov is quite happy to make payments then again we could o for full custody then shed be stuck finding the money to pay us. and yes teh kid would end up getting all of the money to herself as we dont need her mothers scraps
i love conflict
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 18:14
Why should anyone else? Because she is an innocent child!!! She didn't choose to be here. She didn't cause the mess her parents (you included) have dumped her in. She deserves to have her needs met. She deserves her father to pay the maximum amount of child support he is possibly able to. She deserves her step mother to encourage her father to make sure she is being looked after. She deserves more than what she is getting.
I am so angry right now.
Why should anyone else? Because she is an innocent child!!! She didn't choose to be here. She didn't cause the mess her parents (you included) have dumped her in. She deserves to have her needs met. She deserves her father to pay the maximum amount of child support he is possibly able to. She deserves her step mother to encourage her father to make sure she is being looked after. She deserves more than what she is getting.
I am so angry right now.
like i care have a chill pill obviously you are in her situation and dont like to face a few home truths. shame shame her father didnt want her to start with and told the mother her mother didnt want her but her mothers father talked her into keeping the child so therefore he should really be the one who pays since she was 1 we have had visits with her and when we used to live down ther she visited more often now it is a call every 2 months as my DH shouldnot have to pay cs in that amount plus an std call each week or 2 weeks as she cannot even be bothered to let the kid ring as oh they have no money well excuse me where the FU## DID THE CS MONEY GO AS IT AINT GETTING SPENT ON THE KID WELL KNOWN FACT AROUND THE SMALL TOWN THEY ARE IN.
I am hesitant in entering this debate, but felt I HAD to say something.
I did NOT open my legs up just to get CS. In fact, the CS I do get is a really low amount because the father is lying about how much he earns and brags that he can claim it back on tax anyway. It is people like that you should be directing your anger at.
Meanwhile, I am in a situation where I would love to go out and work but have DD to raise and a uni degree which I am currently trying to finish. On top of that I have bills, and money stress, and I am grateful for both the CS payments and Centrelink payments, but in all honesty, it isn't enough. I see some mothers out there with even less than me and I wonder why people complain about where their tax money goes and paying CS etc.
I didn't plan for this situation to occur, it just did. I was under the assumption the father would be around, but he felt he had a choice and left. I don't sit around collecting "free" money off the govt. or the father. I feel I am always working. Raising a child alone is hard work. Add study to that and I am doubly busy. I feel I have earned the money I receive. I used to work full-time. I paid taxes. This option is in place for people like me.
Why does it have to be abused by some, and why do some people feel the need to trash those who do deserve it?
Afterall, it is about the kids, not us. I would starve to feed my baby. Hell, I sometimes do.
I am hesitant in entering this debate, but felt I HAD to say something.
I did NOT open my legs up just to get CS. In fact, the CS I do get is a really low amount because the father is lying about how much he earns and brags that he can claim it back on tax anyway. It is people like that you should be directing your anger at.
Meanwhile, I am in a situation where I would love to go out and work but have DD to raise and a uni degree which I am currently trying to finish. On top of that I have bills, and money stress, and I am grateful for both the CS payments and Centrelink payments, but in all honesty, it isn't enough. I see some mothers out there with even less than me and I wonder why people complain about where their tax money goes and paying CS etc.
I didn't plan for this situation to occur, it just did. I was under the assumption the father would be around, but he felt he had a choice and left. I don't sit around collecting "free" money off the govt. or the father. I feel I am always working. Raising a child alone is hard work. Add study to that and I am doubly busy. I feel I have earned the money I receive. I used to work full-time. I paid taxes. This option is in place for people like me.
Why does it have to be abused by some, and why do some people feel the need to trash those who do deserve it?
Afterall, it is about the kids, not us. I would starve to feed my baby. Hell, I sometimes do.
i wa saying that a percentage of the cases were due to that not all... also exactly about the thing you said the ones that need it and the ones that ruin it for the others. she is in a position where her partner can stay at home and she can return to work but the problem with her is that she wouldnt work in an iron lung so that is why we are the way we are with this case. i do not care if anyone thinks this is wrong as unless you are in an exact situation as ours then really noone can comment on our situation or the child in the situation. thanks
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 18:30
like i care have a chill pill obviously you are in her situation and dont like to face a few home truths.
Erm no, actually, I'm not. My children are very well cared for, and aways have been - without support from their father. If I had my babies for CS, I got seriously ripped off. And I surely would have picked a better man to breed with if it were all about $.
Pumpkin, never have I felt so angry at an anonymous internet person. Never have I felt so sad for a child I will never meet. Never have I been more disgusted at the selfishness of some people. :crying:
But what is the point of all this? People like you will never change. Children will continue to do with out while the people that should be caring for them continue to live the good life.
She is a child for heavens sake. You truly disgust me.
Erm no, actually, I'm not. My children are very well cared for, and aways have been - without support from their father. If I had my babies for CS, I got seriously ripped off. And I surely would have picked a better man to breed with if it were all about $.
Pumpkin, never have I felt so angry at an anonymous internet person. Never have I felt so sad for a child I will never meet. Never have I been more disgusted at the selfishness of some people. :crying:
But what is the point of all this? People like you will never change. Children will continue to do with out while the people that should be caring for them continue to live the good life.
She is a child for heavens sake. You truly disgust me.
not our problem if she goes without or not as she is never allowed to visit therfore to make it better for her and my DH pays 170 per week so i think if they cant look after her on that amount then tehy are terrible with money and remember this is just to support his kid not the other 3 to everyone else she has had so i think we are doing quite our share and its time she got off her lazy fat a### and helped in supporting the kid not relying on welfare as once her youngest are 8 she will be required to work15 hours per week which will then drop DH payments more so if she cant aford it now how is she able to cope later. not our problem we are doing everything required to support the child not our problem if it isnt being spent on her, it is however our choice to go to court so we do actually care for the child and want her to have a stable family environment not the unhealthy one she is in at the moment. i am gla ihave hit a a sore point as not enough people see it from our or many others points of view so a i am truley glad about that
Pippi Longstocking
02-03-2006, 18:41
not our problem
Nope, it's not. It's the child's problem. And that is the gist of it. As a parent, I make damn sure I do my very best to help my children overcome their problems. It is so sad that this wee one doesn't have a parent like that, eh.
Nope, it's not. It's the child's problem. And that is the gist of it. As a parent, I make damn sure I do my very best to help my children overcome their problems. It is so sad that this wee one doesn't have a parent like that, eh.
sorry but her father and i have tried to help previously then her mother moves and does not inform us where the hell they are so get off your high so called horse and worry about your own children and not anyone elses as i know full well our children are well and truely looked after as would teh csa case child if she lived with us/;:sleeping:
Good luck with fighting for that child Pumpkin. It really sounds like the child should not be in that situation with that mother. How does she get so much from your DH??
I think that ****** and pumpkin have gotten their wires crossed and don;t understand what each one is saying.
Do we need to be so rude about it though?
Maybe I should stop :ecomcity: and back right out of this....
*Beep beep beep* (reversing beep noises)
sorry Pumpkin, but never mind about the money, I feel awful sorry for that little girls emotional currency if you know what I mean. Neither her father or mother wanted her so her grandfather should pay as he was the one who convinced her mother to have her...........
lordy, it puts breast or bottle fed into perspective.
Good luck with fighting for that child Pumpkin. It really sounds like the child should not be in that situation with that mother. How does she get so much from your DH??
I think that ****** and pumpkin have gotten their wires crossed and don;t understand what each one is saying.
Do we need to be so rude about it though?
Maybe I should stop :ecomcity: and back right out of this....
*Beep beep beep* (reversing beep noises)
we have to pay so much as my DH earns a sh*t#### each year it doesnt dent our income but as we are paying that much i feel he should have contact during every school holidays they are in nsw so have diff hols to us in qld but she will be coming every single school holiday day from next year on whether her mother likes it or not it will be a legal court order saying so. and if she wanted to ever stay with us she could.
sorry Pumpkin, but never mind about the money, I feel awful sorry for that little girls emotional currency if you know what I mean. Neither her father or mother wanted her so her grandfather should pay as he was the one who convinced her mother to have her...........
lordy, it puts breast or bottle fed into perspective.
obviously the child has never known that though but her mother has twins to this totally diff guy she isnt with and gets DH daughter to look after them as they are in her room with her when they wake at night she has to look after them and change the nappies etc. i really dont see why an 11 year old should have to do it to keep peace at her house if she was here she wouldnt have to do anything like that as i do it totally all myself and our children dont lift a finger except to clean their rooms and toys.
Being someone who has experienced both sides, i think the reforms are a great idea. (I have a child to a previous relationship and a husband who has a child to a previous relationship) I think it will work out fairer to my ex, as my income (which im assuming also includes my DH's) will be taken into account and it will work out fairer for my DH as not only will his ex's sizable income be taken into account, but also the fact that we have his DD 5 nights a fortnight and half of every school hols and provide everything for her whilst she is in our care. So all in all I think it will be a fairer system, it cant go on just being on size fits all, every case has to be considered individually. :)
CandyJane
02-03-2006, 19:16
Yup, you have a good point.... if the mother doesn't care about the child, why the hell should you? :rolleyes:
CandyJane, if the mother does not care about the child, all the more reason for someone else to.
Yup, you have a good point.... if the mother doesn't care about the child, why the hell should you? :rolleyes:
i dont think it is a good point at all, it is a horrible, desperatly sad point, i dont know, maybe because it is a small innocent child!!! :rolleyes:
But anyway, I was not going to comment on the saga of someone elses life that they have decided to share with us here, but i have to comment on that, it is just wrong, now can we PLEASE get back to the topic as I was trying to do ?
Yup, you have a good point.... if the mother doesn't care about the child, why the hell should you? :rolleyes:
see you must be blind like the other lady we do careabout the child but no one in their right mind spends 170 per week on a child there is no need to especially on a primary school child who goes to a public school and pays only 30 per year in fees?go figure.
Erin,
You are probably right - I guess that there will be cases where it is fairer and cases where it is not. There will probably be the same fathers (and/or mothers) managing not to pay a cent and others being ripped off.
If I understand correctly, if the non-custodial/resident parent spends one day (and night?) with their child they get a 25% discount on the amount they pay.
I suppose it might encourage a relationship where there was not one previously in some cases. What do people think?
Ana Gram
02-03-2006, 19:24
Right, this is going nowhere except b**chtown. This section for current events is only here for a trial run and I suspect the trial is going to be over shortly if people can't behave. Perhaps the new members need to have a read of the posting rules and chill out for a bit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.