Parents not paying child support. [Archive] - Bub Hub Pregnancy & Parenting Forum

Starlet

14-08-2006, 19:56

Yep, my ex is one of these men and then has the nerve to have a go at me because our boys are getting too 'close' to my DF, yet it is me DF that works hard and doesn't mind paying for my kids!

My ex purposely will not get a job because then he will have to pay more more than $20 a month! And he won't even pay me that. In fact he even has the nerve to ask to borrow money from me! When the kids do stay with him(which is pretty rare), I have to give him nappies, formula, etc for them when they are there.

And what really gets me is he has gone and had another baby(I don't care what he does but the fact that he will go and have more kids when he won't even look after the ones that he's got!!)

KarniF00l

14-08-2006, 20:05

My ex is also one of them 'dead beat' dads. He has 3 kids, working cash-in-hand and claiming the dole just so that he pays the minimal rate of child support. He doesn't even see his kids (loooooooooong story) and thats his excuse as to not paying me anything except the minimum rate. DH loves all four kids like his own and doesn't favour Dakota in any shape or form.. and as he told me all the kids are his blood related or not, there's no difference.

♥My Innocent Angel♥

14-08-2006, 20:11

My ex pays nothing i dont even get the miniumum he just flat out refuses and when he was seeing her i had to supply him with everything like the formula and nappy's etc which isnt fair for us mums when they arent even paying enuf to cover one of these items a week let alone a month
what a joke it is

but there is good dad's out there i know that do look after ther kids

Mum&bubs

14-08-2006, 20:25

I dont see how $20 is much help either. I just feel for the single mums & dads out there who do it alone. I applaud you all :yelclap:

lippintyna

14-08-2006, 21:01

I think it all gets nasty when the paying parent only sees that they are paying money to another adult. Maybe they aren't looking at it as contributing to the children, but paying for the adult. This is whether it be a male or female that is receiving payment.

It has taken 9.5 yrs for my ex to pay more that $10.85 per month for DS and I never got that every month either. Now that he has a new girlfriend, he's paying regularly and his assessed amount has increase substantially.

When I asked him after 9.5 yrs about paying regularly and added that after all it is not for me it is for his son and that I felt his son deserved the money for his own, he stated "if you needed money, all you had to do was ask". :eek: To this I responsed "I don't want or need your money, but as you so clearly state HE IS YOUR SON and yet you are quite happy for my DH to pay for him and not bat an eye about it. GROW UP"

In my case I think it is more of a control thing...ya know the old....if you want money you have to ask me for it. HA! NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

Lunar

14-08-2006, 21:05

I had one of those 'extra little worries'.... aka... dead beat dad

I know how that feels.... lets just leave it at that, I don't want to get nasty right now....;)

Little Gorilla

14-08-2006, 21:08

well, there are good ex's out there - my DP is one of them.

he actually overpaid his ex by nearly $3000 - the CSA was going to get her to pay him back and he said no, its for his daughter anyway - so she can keep it.

SamanthaJane

14-08-2006, 22:59

All my auntie's ex has to give her is $20 a month.

Shes so p*ssed off... $20 gets u nowhere :mad:

He wanted the child too, but now all of a sudden wants to be "free" so she is paying the price for that! So unfair if you ask me.

Pippi Longstocking

15-08-2006, 08:13

he actually overpaid his ex by nearly $3000 - the CSA was going to get her to pay him back and he said no, its for his daughter anyway - so she can keep it.

That's lovely, he sounds like a good man. My brother is also a good dad - he always pays his child support and then on top of that, he buys alll te things his daughter needs. He pays her school fees, buys her shoes and clothes etc. And he has 50% shared care of her. He is a lovely dad and it makes me proud. He loves his daughter, and while he has every right to be angry and bitter at this ex wife (she had an affair that resulted in him thinking for two years that the youngest child was his but isn't) he doesn't see that withholding child support would be punishing her - it'd be punishing his daughter.

Butttt....for those couple of good dads, there are far more out there who don't give a cr@p. My own ex doesn't pay a cent for his kids. He was paying for a while (CSA started docking his wages) but then he quit - again. He resents paying as in his mind, he is giving money to me rather than paying to support his children. He has no shame - he doesn't care that my husband pays for everything the kids need.

The CSA can't do anything - the debt is now at around $12-$13000 but all they keep suggesting is seizing his assets and selling them - which would be great if he actually owned anything. I doubt they'd get much for an old pushbike and a playstation 2 :p

Sholmes

15-08-2006, 08:46

These stories are unbelievable! There are alot of dads who don't pay child support and that sucks. I can't imagine how hard it is to try and raise a child on your own, pay for childcare so you can work, work so you can pay for everything. Something needs to be done about bringing up the minimum payment to something substantial. Don't statistics show that raising a child from birth to 18 is in the hundreds of thousands, even when a child is sent to public schools?

It is just plain vindictive that a 'parent' would deliberately not work so they aren't able to pay child support. More of these situations need to be exposed to the media in the hope of something being done about it. Name and shame I reckon.

For those of you with partners who assist in supporting you and your kids from a prior relationship, I take my hat off to you - there are good men out there and I'm glad you found one!!

For those of you struggling on your own :hugs: you are alot stronger than you probably think and good on you for doing what needs to be done.

I hope you know that those of us who aren't doing what you have to do, think about you and hope that things work out.:kiss:

subaruforestermum

15-08-2006, 08:56

My father is one of these dead beats you're all talking about, but he has 7 kids that we know about to pay for.....but always claimed he wasn't working....he racked up a $65,000+ bills for my sister and I but only paid a few grand, and that was years after he left.....

On the other side, I think it sad when there are women out there who wont let the fathers see the kids, and the only time they do, is cos the kid needs something new.........There are alot of good dads out there that are missing out, my sisters partners ex is working and living with her fiance, and he was without a job due to cyclone larry, but still had to pay the max. amount..and because he couldn't afford it at the time now has a huge debt to pay off.....and he's only allowed to his son when she has plans......

Not defending the dead beats only the goods dads out there who arent given a fair go by the mothers......

Little Gorilla

15-08-2006, 09:05

Not defending the dead beats only the goods dads out there who arent given a fair go by the mothers......

:yes: that's right subaruforestersmum:yes:

there are 2 sides to every story - and each person's case is so different to the next.

i'm not going to go into detail of my partner's saga with his ex - it was long, drawn out and upsetting for all parties.

jessgray

15-08-2006, 09:09

its not always a mother who is the custodial parent either.i know a single father who constantly has to chase up his son's mum just so she can have access and so she pays child support and the son is only 18 months old :(

KarniF00l

15-08-2006, 09:10

On the other side, I think it sad when there are women out there who wont let the fathers see the kids, and the only time they do, is cos the kid needs something new.........There are alot of good dads out there that are missing out, my sisters partners ex is working and living with her fiance, and he was without a job due to cyclone larry, but still had to pay the max. amount..and because he couldn't afford it at the time now has a huge debt to pay off.....and he's only allowed to his son when she has plans......

Not defending the dead beats only the goods dads out there who arent given a fair go by the mothers......

Some people really need stop and think, why some mothers don't allow the father to see their children. Maybe it's for a good reason. Many good reasons. I do agree.. there are some vindictive (sp?) mothers out there that do make the father suffer for no good reason but to be spiteful. We aren't all like that.

Okay here's a very brief intake to my story and tell me what you would do.

My ex left me with 3 kids ( 3, 1.5 and a two month old) and took all the funiture (my belongings that i paid for) without me knowing, i obviously wasn't home. He takes off to queensland (im in melbourne) with another woman. I don't hear a word from him for almost two years. He marries this lady and has a child with her which sadly died from SIDS at 5 weeks old. He contacts me stateing he wants to see the kids. Mind you the two younger one's don't know him from a bar of soap. I said i would think about it. He calls back threatening to come to my house and kidnapping the kids. Mind you this guy is full of abuse and violence.

So no we aren't all spiteful we do have good reasons.

subaruforestermum

15-08-2006, 09:16

I'm sorry about your situation, but there are women out there who just dont want the ex to see the child, and the father has done nothing wrong.....it happens, and that's all I was saying....

There are some really good dads out there, whose relationship didn't work out but still want to be a part of their childs life and the mums make it hard for them....

No-one said that all women are SPITEFUL, just saying that there are two sides to the situation.......and it's not always the dads who are the bad guys....some mother do have good reasons and I've been a child in that type of situation....but as I said, there are good dads out there and they aren't always the bad guys.....

Pippi Longstocking

15-08-2006, 09:20

On the other side, I think it sad when there are women out there who wont let the fathers see the kids, and the only time they do, is cos the kid needs something new.........

Sorry, but I really think that it is a bit of a cop out when Dads claim they cannot see the children. The family court has policies in place that make it near impossible to prevent the other parent from having access to the children. Domestic violence, drug abuse, past sexual offences are all not enough reasons to prevent fathers from seeing their children. The rights are there, it's just that a lot of men are too apathetic to chase them up.

KarniF00l

15-08-2006, 09:24

subaruforestermum

15-08-2006, 09:35

Sorry, but I really think that it is a bit of a cop out when Dads claim they cannot see the children.

As I said there are TWO sides to every story, and not all fathers are the same......

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is inappropriate that ALL men are being placed into the same catergory, there are alot of different situations and a lot of dead beat dads, but not ALL of them are......and that is the point I was trying to get across.

I had a dead beat dad....so I know that there are DB Dads out there, and I'm not denying that there are dads that are too lazy to get off their arses, BUT it's not always as simple as black and white, there is a lot of grey area....

jessgray

15-08-2006, 09:40

why does everyone presume the parent paying child support is male? isnt that a generalisation in itself? there are DB mothers out there too.

has anyone read the story in the hearld sun about a girl called bella? her father is abusive and bashed her mother and another woman infrount of bella and her mum took bella to vic from tassie and now the tassie court is ordering bella be returned to tassie because her father should be aloud to see her yet the court wont acknowledge the fact the father is a drug addict and has mental problems and he refuses to accept the offer of bella's mum and her partner to pay for him to fly to vic to see bella. he wants bella to be in foster care.

subaruforestermum

15-08-2006, 09:40

subaruforestermum - It wasn't an attack. I did agree with you and i'm simply pointing out that some mothers do have a good reason for stopping fathers seeing the children and doing whats best for them. Parents (like myself) do make bad choices in life but saying that i do not regret having my children. So putting it lightly i guess it's a learning curve and a catch 22.

Sorry if it seemed that i was attacking you. Wasn't my intention at all. :hugs:

It's ok.... I know there are ALOT of women who have really good reasons for stopping the dads seeings their kids, I just wanted to make the point that...yes I have been a child in the situation you are all talking about, but I do know loving dads out there that aren't given a fair go...... I learnt alot from my mums experiences, and she had the best reason in the world for stopping him from seeing us.....she saved our lives......

:hugs: Karnifool

Mum&bubs

15-08-2006, 09:42

Pippi Longstocking

15-08-2006, 09:54

Actually suberuforestermum, the law is pretty black and white. I realise that every situation is different and that there are two sides to every story.
And jessgray, i think most people presume that the dad is the paying parent qand the mother is the custodial parent, because generally, this is the case. There are of course exceptions but in the majority of cases, the mother has custody. I myself was an exception - my dad had custody of myself and my sister. My mother didn't pay a cent in child supoort ever. Nor did we ever get a birthday card, christma card....But just because that has been my personal experience doesn't mean that this is the case in evry situation and I should pretend that there aren't thousands of dead beat dads out there :rolleyes:

subaruforestermum

15-08-2006, 09:54

As I said there is also dead beat mums out there that dont pay either. I actually know one of them. Its not just the dads but also mums that is why i labelled this thread 'parents' not paying child support.

Unfortunately I have met quiet a few of these.....I lived up the road from a woman who was 20 in a relationship to the father of her 2 kids, and was having an affair with a 15 yo, who was also raping her 4yo daughter, she knew about this, but still allowed him to do it, and defended him...... She would leave drug parafenalia where the kids could reach it, one day her 3yo came out into the yard chewing on a bud of MJ......we called the polce, and children services, but to no avail........

Her partner left her, but because he assaulted the guy who raped his daughter, and she denied that it had happened "the little girl was lying to get attention".....the father was only allowed to see her under supervised visits, and the children remain in the home with the mother.....:crying:

It's a tough world out there for both sides.......but the ones affected the most are the children.......

SamanthaJane

15-08-2006, 09:59

:eek: That is disgusting :barf:

subaruforestermum

15-08-2006, 10:07

Actually suberuforestermum, the law is pretty black and white. :rolleyes:

Firstly I thought this was a forum where people could have there opinions without being attacked for them......

Secondly if the law in general is so black and white, why is there so many people on the streets who really shouldn't be, let alone being parents.......it is easy for people to lie to manipulate the situation.....

I had my opinion, I didn't attack anyone for what they said until now when I fell like I am being targeted just for having my say that there are good and bad dads out there, the same as mothers....

It is quiet ridiculous that people cant take into account someone elses views on life....not everyone thinks the same, but we shouldn't be slammed for having a different or broader view than others..we should accept each others view and move on........

Pippi Longstocking

15-08-2006, 10:22

I'm sorry that you felt I was attacking you, SFM. I actually wasn't attacking you - I was just disagreeing with you.

I'm not sure what you meant by this? Could you explain what you are asking?

Secondly if the law in general is so black and white, why is there so many people on the streets who really shouldn't be, let alone being parents

Yasmeena

15-08-2006, 10:24

90% of payers are male so it is quite reasonable to suspect that the majority on non-paying 'parents' are actually fathers.
CSA is here for a very good reason
Prior to the Child Support Act of 1998 less than 30% or non-custodial parents (mainly fathers) were actually paying child support.
Currently about 40% of non-custodial parents (90% are male) are paying the minimum amount of child support or less :thumbsdown: ($260 a year, recently increased to $320)
This certainly does not correlate with our current unemployment figures and share care (in which each parent cares for the child for equal amounts of time therefore rendering child support unecessary) counts for less than 6% of cases.
91% of custodial parents (of which 90% are women) have the sole care of their child/children.

It is very easy to concoct a story of a 'friend of a friend' or 'someone I know' however I find facts and statistics to be a stronger argument than anecdotal *insert unsubstantiable agenda here* :thumbsup:

This is not 'having a different view' it's not being able to form a valid argument.

Yasmeena

15-08-2006, 10:32

Of course not ALL fathers are deadbeat dads who don't pay child support and not ALL mothers are vindictive cows who use their children as pawns to hurt their ex.
I don't think anyone whould seriously posit that is the case, as it is quite absurd. So I don't think there is any need to argue over these gross generalisations.
However there is a significant problem concerning non-custodial parents financially supporting their children, the majority of these parents are fathers, that is a statistical fact.

KarniF00l

15-08-2006, 10:37

Well said Yasmeena :D

It's really disturbing how some non-custodial parents go out of their way not to pay child support. It's not so much the parent that suffers, it's the child/ren. :thumbsdown:

subaruforestermum

15-08-2006, 10:38

It is very easy to concoct a story of a 'friend of a friend' or 'someone I know' however I find facts and statistics to be a stronger argument than anecdotal *insert unsubstantiable agenda here* :thumbsup:

This is not 'having a different view' it's not being able to form a valid argument.

Once again, the rudeness is unbelievable......lots of people have had different experiences and they use this to explain, as to why they have the opinion they have........

It is suppose to be a friendly forum, where people can share thoughts, feelings, experiences, I wasn't aware that we had to have statistics for everything discussed....

I personally think you have been quiet rude and think that no one has to form a "Valid Argument", they just have to share their thoughts, and views, whether conflicting or not........ but it is your opinion, and if you wish to live your life following statistics, that's your prerogative....

Yasmeena

15-08-2006, 10:52

I apoligise if you found me to be rude, carmum :hugs:
In my opinion I was sharing my thoughts and opinions, I just prefer using facts to form my opinion :yes:
anecdotes have their place as analogies, and at dinner parties perhaps, but I do think it's a bit silly for people to present their subjective experiences as reasoning.
If you don't wish produce evidence for your opinions, no problem:thumbsup: you're right, you can just share your thoughts if you want to.
Once more I will apologise for seeming rude, this is obviously a sensitive subject for you, and I have no desire to upset anyone, just discuss the issue in a friendly manner :)

jessgray

15-08-2006, 10:57

:eek: omg what sort of person would defend a person who raped their child???
if someone did that to my DD i would hunt them down with a shotgun lol

Pippi Longstocking

15-08-2006, 10:59

Yasmeena, I found those statisitcs really interesting. I especially liked that they happened to back up my anecdotes:detective: .

KarniF00l

15-08-2006, 11:00

:eek: omg what sort of person would defend a person who raped their child???
if someone did that to my DD i would hunt them down with a shotgun lol

Is that all, just a shotgun ? :p

It's quiet sad really.. people can easily pull the wool over the courts eyes :mad:

Yasmeena

15-08-2006, 11:04

Yasmeena, I found those statisitcs really interesting. I especially liked that they happened to back up my anecdotes:detective: .

:p LOL
well....... sometimes anecdotal evidence can be inadvertantly correct

*continues to live life by statistics*:D

NZMama

15-08-2006, 11:09

I also have been in this position, a solo mum working long hours just to make ends meet because daddy-o didnt meet his obligations.
Interestingly enough I was watching a current affair show also and in this story it was the father struggling with 3 kids and the mother not paying....he made a valid point (or so I thought)
How come the parent who bunks out on paying child support has no consequences when as the custodial parent you would have your children stripped from you and possibly face time inside if you did the same thing....*pondering*

pegasus

15-08-2006, 23:43

Just an interesting thing on the "the law is black and white" thing. We have a custody agreement in place to see DH's 2 kids from a previous relationship, however if the mother says we can't see the kids, or they're not available or whatever, then our recourse could be more harmful to the kids.

My DH pays the maintenance every fortnight (I know - I do the internet transfer), but when I get the abusive phone calls from his ex it highlights how custody agreements are more grey than black and white. I had a call last Friday night to abuse me (us?) for the fact that the children haven't seen our new baby yet and therefore what DB we must be. I then reminded the ex that my MIL was supposed to bring the kids into the hospital to see me and bubs, but mysteriously they had moved house (100km away) while I was in hospital. We have difficulties contacting them as the phones get disconnected and their mobiles change all the time (ex and DSD). This was the first call I had received since I'd had bubba.

The reason for posting this is to point out that while the money is transferred every fortnight into ex's bank account, the only sure fire way for us to actually hear from her when we don't know a phone number or address is to be late in putting the maintenance into her bank account. I didn't do this this time as we've been fed up with trying to chase her, so have continued to transfer the money while having only a vague idea where the kids are, no contact and calling without getting a response.

Yes, you can have court orders, but we're dealing with children and their emotions here, that's why we've never enforced them when they've been breached.

grubindi

16-08-2006, 00:05

my DH has a child from a previous relationship and he has paid cs since she was 2 months old they split properly when she was a couple of weeks old. He has tried and i have tried continuosly for more contact. she lives interstate, and the only time we see her is at xmas for 1 day, and calls occasionally. the child is 11 years by the way we said we would pay to have her come up her for all of the school holidays (airfare) but her mother and hubby said no we have to travel 6 hours (with 4 small kids) to pick her up then have her for 1 week then drive her back 6 hours(they will drive only 3 hours) yet my DH has to pay the earth in child support for child he doesnt see and who he isnt able to see more often becuase her mother is only using him as a portable atm machine. i spoke to her the other night about the child coming up for all of the school hols by plane and she said no you can pick her up from here yet she wont drop child support payments to reflect our travel expenses when it costs us up to 150 to fill our fuel tank depending on price at the time. and i advised her that he would seek joint custody or at least all of the school holidays due to him not being able to have her eow etc and she flat out said she would kill him before he had contact. twice she threatend him to me over the phone, her hubby now has been called dad from when the kid was 18 months old.and she has the cheek to turn aqround and say my hubby's first name to the kid instead of dad. so here they her and her hubby are sitting back on the dole and collecting heaps in csa each month, yet she wont let the kid see us as she knows the kid wont want to stay with her, so the point i am trying to make is Why should someone whether it be the mother or father pay csa for a child they cannot get access to etc, and then when the mother turns around and says oh he doesnt pay for her school stuff etc, medical etc(hello she is on a health care card) and that is what csa is to cover half of the expenses to bring up the child he doesnt have to pay any extra then cs work out as that is what it is supposed to be used for.... (there are many cases out there like this ):banghead:

cmd'smum

16-08-2006, 02:28

Hi grubindi....I understand your frustration. I was a family lawyer before having my DD. The reasoning behind CS is, (and this applies to no matter how much contact there is), is that the non resident parent contribute financially to the upbringing of their child. The Family court basically is not concerned about how much contact there is or how the resident parent spends the money (in most cases anyway) they are concerned about the "best interests of the child" and that to them, is that in this case, your DH contribute financially for his DD .Their view is that the child should not have to be disadvantaged financially by the non resident parent, regardless of how much contact or lack thereof there is by the non resident parent...even if your husband's DD did not want any contact at all, he would still be required to pay CS because he is her father and that is his responsibility. Pretty much the Family Court's view is...well the child did not ask to be brought into this relationship or for their parents to separate...so why should'nt the non resident parent assist the resident parent financially in raising the child...IYKWIM???

Thats why non resident parents are required to pay the amount of CS that they have been assesed to pay......

hope this helped a little :D

Pippi Longstocking

16-08-2006, 07:02

Pegasus, it seems to me as though your situation is the grey area, rather than the law, iykwim. The law is still the same - your husband has access to the children. It is great that he wants to and pays child support willingly, they are lucky kids.

I am not in any way defending the law - I think in a lot of cases it fails children by allowing harmful people to have contact with them. Sometimes it just isn't in the best interests of the child to have ongoing contact with a natural parent. And sometimes it just can't work - if parents are locked in power struggles and are hell bent on destroying each other rather than thinking about what is best for the child, it just isn't going to work. It is awful when children become pawns in their parent's game of emotional blackmail and revenge :crying: . I know for me personally (yep Yasmeena, a personal anecdote to back up my argument :p ) when I left my abusive relationship, I put measures in place to prevent my ex from hurting me. I went to court and got an AVO, I saw a domestic violence counsellor who helped me work through the mental and emotional harm. He had no way to hurt me anymore - except by hurting my (our) children. It is awful, immature and very destructive - my 7 year old daughter in particular is still working through the emotional BS he subjected her to. Sometimes the only way to stop it is to cease all contact, which in our case is easy because he doesn't want to see them anyway. Buutttt...if he were to take me to court (highly unlikely, thank god!) I know he would be given visitation rights.

Cmd'smum, I think you've made an excellent point. Child support is completely seperate to access. Paying child support isn't purchasing rights to see the child, it is paying to raise the child. Regardless of access, the child still needs to be fed, clothed, schooled, entertained etc.

Briannabear

16-08-2006, 07:12

My Mum's exhusband (father of my youngest brother) gets away without paying a cent. He is a millionaire cotton farmer, but has set up his business in a way to make it look like he doesnt earn anything. I dont know how he gets away with it, but he does. He is a ***** of a man and I dont know how he lives with himself. :mad:
He would rather take his new young wife away on holidays overseas than support his child.

grubindi

16-08-2006, 07:16

unfortunately what i see that is unfair is that when my DH and his ex were together he was earning sfa in a wage only around 400 per week yet for the 9 years we have been together he has finally got a brilliant paying job. as far as im concerned (not starting just my opinion)is that it should be worked out with his previous income amount and not his new higher income as if he was still with her he would never be on the money he is on now. cs should be a set rate across the board not all different figures. also i know that cs is to help with the up keep of the child but hey she has no right to hit him up for more money therefore using him as an atm. (which he doesnt give her any extra as what he pays is way too much)(i'm not talking 100 bucks a week im talking heaps more)so its not a measily amount.also he is only legally responsible for half of the childs up keep per week and her mother is Supposed (ha) to pay her half per week to help bring their kid up. yet she has been with her partner for years now and has been on centrelink for 11 years. so sorry but i dont have any sympathy for her if she cant afford for the child to have certain things with the rediculous amount of cs a week then she should take responsibility for her kid also and earn a living not sponge it off everyone.IYKWIM.

(sorry if it sounded harsh but am not causing anything):thumbsup:

Pippi Longstocking

16-08-2006, 07:22

Grubindi, regardless of your husband's income at the time of conception, he still has a duty to provide for his child. Why would he begrudge the child? Personally, I am happy to spend every available cent on my children. My husband's income fluctuates week to week (he drives cabs) and on the weeks we have extra money, we are quite happy to spend extra on the children. I really don't see why it should be any different for the absent parent.

grubindi

16-08-2006, 07:24

unfortunately i think you are missing the whole point. so i will cease this here.:thumbsup:

Pippi Longstocking

16-08-2006, 07:38

It certainly does suck eh ATD-FAH. it sucks that men can "refuse to pay anymore".:banghead:
It's not a choice. It's not a voluntary payment. It is not a kind gesture. It is a responsibility, regardless of what he perceives she spends it on. Even if she does spend it on herself, that would logically mean that she is using her own money to feed, clothe and house the child. What is $21 a month going to buy her anyway, she may as well spend it on herself!

Little Gorilla

16-08-2006, 08:29

my partner pays over $300 a month to his ex...how the hell are all these other fathers having to pay $21 a month is what I want to know.:confused: :confused:

my partner isn't on an overly huge wage....his ex earns at least $20-30k a year more than him......:confused: :confused: plus we have a child of our own....????

PlebeianProselyte

16-08-2006, 09:35

It seems to me the most common reason for non payment is the paying parents belief that they are paying the custodial parent and not the child.

Whether it is simply an excuse created to hide the paying parents spite or selfishness or they have valid reasons for not wanting to pay (they are honestly struggling or they feel the children are supported in other ways)

The simplest 'fix' is to allow paying parents the choice of how they pay their child support.

Remove the excuse and allow the full amount of child support to be paid by way of school fee's, uniforms, child care, sporting fees, utility bills etc. with any unused amount going into trust for the child.

Some will argue mortgages etc benefit the child (personally unless the child is to be an equal owner i would exempt such as with or without the child the adult has to house themselves)

And I know some will point out the custodial parents right to budget 'their' money their way and that while Child support is spent on item A for the parent, their wage or payment pays for item B for the child.

So i will add that direct payment of child related bills will leave no need for juggling those amounts. Quite simply whatever you receive into your bank account be it wage, profit or government payment is yours to spend on yourself AND your share of those child related costs.

I realize it would be a difficult and costly scheme to introduce but do believe it would be welcomed by many 'non paying' parents.

In the absolute least, i wonder if the introduction of a special EFT / ATM card could not allow access to the funds while controlling where the money is spent ? At least this way, the paying parent would know the bills are paid, the children are fed and the card CANT be swiped at the local pub / poker machine / drug dealer / lingerie store or any other adult only purchase you can imagine.

Pippi Longstocking

16-08-2006, 09:39

Some will argue mortgages etc benefit the child (personally unless the child is to be an equal owner i would exempt such as with or without the child the adult has to house themselves)

Quite right, some will. Because if I didn't have children, I could house myself in a cheap run down one bedroom apartment in a seedy part of town. But, as I have 5 children, I need a large house in an area suitable to raise children in. Which is ultimately much more costly.

Yasmeena

16-08-2006, 10:58

I think the answer is not to pander to spiteful delusions about paying 'the ex' and educate the paying parent on why it is their responsibility to pay child support.
Engaging in implementing a confusing system of recording how child support money is spent, is simply allowing an ex partner to assume control over 'their money' and 'their child'. It is not 'their' money. It is child support. It is not an option, and should not be seen as one, private agreements to pay school fees, clothes etc, are fine, they are private and presumably amicable agreements, however it is quite absurd to suggest that this sort of arrangement should be made across the board.
The system is quite reasonable, the percentage is not of the entire wage, but the entire wage less a base living expense and it does take into account other children the payer may be supporting.
It does not split the costs of raising a child 50/50, that would be extremely complicated and impractical, (plus the 40% of payers who pay $320 or less would be paying much much more :eek: )

Pippi Longstocking

16-08-2006, 12:06

I think the answer is not to pander to spiteful delusions about paying 'the ex' and educate the paying parent on why it is their responsibility to pay child support.

Exactly! That kind of system suggests that the majority of mothers spend the money on the pokies/alcohol/drugs/any other non-child focussed purchase rather than use it for taking care of the children, which is unfair, untrue and stems from power and control issues rather than genuine concern for the child/ren.

grubindi

16-08-2006, 12:10

what i think is rude and shows that DP ex is using him as an atm is that she wont send any photos of the kid to us even after requests continuosly, and the new hubby is called dad yet her bio father who is good enough to pay cs is called by his first name, and the mother whinges yet wont get off the dole to get work to support her kid too instead of leaving it to the paying parent.i dont see why we should have to fork out thousands of dollars in court fees to see her when there isnt even a custody order arranged.what a lovely example that kid is growing up with a mother and step father on centrelink money with 3 other kids all to diff fathers and only 1 getting stung cs as he earns a packet, she will have no job incentives and look at men to screw over when she is older. and she has high high cholesterol, and the onset of type 2 diabetes. and no there are none in either family so as you can see the child is really cared for.

Pippi Longstocking

16-08-2006, 12:17

shows that DP ex is using him as an atm is that she wont send any photos of the kid to us even after requests continuosly

erm...sorry, but how exactly does that show that the ex is using your partner as an atm? Maybe it shows that she doesn't have a camera...maybe she just doesn't want to, which could be called spiteful yet doesn't show that she is using him as an atm?

kathrine

16-08-2006, 12:26

Sorry, but I really think that it is a bit of a cop out when Dads claim they cannot see the children. The family court has policies in place that make it near impossible to prevent the other parent from having access to the children. Domestic violence, drug abuse, past sexual offences are all not enough reasons to prevent fathers from seeing their children. The rights are there, it's just that a lot of men are too apathetic to chase them up.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many mothers who DO everything they can to stop the father seeing their children. And have been very involved with one such case a while ago with an ex-partner. We broke up as he shifted interstate to be near his children, and I had too many comitments to follow.

Currently my brother-in-law's ex wife is also stopping access. To spite a court order that allowed him to collect the children from school, she either didn't send them to school that day, or twice changed schools. She isn't home when he is allowed to pick them up, and even tried to take them interstate to live.

It is sad, it is true.

Nobody stops to think

"What abouth the children"

kathrine

grubindi

16-08-2006, 12:44

erm...sorry, but how exactly does that show that the ex is using your partner as an atm? Maybe it shows that she doesn't have a camera...maybe she just doesn't want to, which could be called spiteful yet doesn't show that she is using him as an atm?

she is quite happy to take the money that is a known fact isnt spent on the kid but legally my DH is supposed to say what school she attends etc there are a whole range of things but she isnt good enough to sned a report or photo etc and yes she has a couple of cameras and the internet.have you had any dealings in this type of capacity?

grubindi

16-08-2006, 12:49

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many mothers who DO everything they can to stop the father seeing their children. And have been very involved with one such case a while ago with an ex-partner. We broke up as he shifted interstate to be near his children, and I had too many comitments to follow.

Currently my brother-in-law's ex wife is also stopping access. To spite a court order that allowed him to collect the children from school, she either didn't send them to school that day, or twice changed schools. She isn't home when he is allowed to pick them up, and even tried to take them interstate to live.

It is sad, it is true.

Nobody stops to think

"What abouth the children"

kathrine

exactly and who has the thousands of dollars to take it to court time and time again? not everyone so why are they classed as pathetic for not havig the money to go to court? my DH and i could take it to court but y should we waste all of that money. why shouldnt we like a lot of other paying parents have the child come up on holidays and go straight to the cop shop to organise a custody order be filed that way she cannot leave the state until a judge has decided who she is better off living with.and her mother cant even get her as it will be against police orders. an d hey maybe if it comes to that then the judge will gives us custody of her as we are able to provide financially for the kid, where as her mother is obviously unable to.health wise and money wise.

lippintyna

16-08-2006, 13:53

i dont see why we should have to fork out thousands of dollars in court fees to see her when there isnt even a custody order arranged.

IMO if your ptr wants to see his child then the money is well spent on court fees to gain access to a child.

I don't see it as a waste of money or time...we are talking about a child. It wouldn't matter how much it cost in court fees & time etc to have contact with my child, I would do it. You state that you are in a financially better position to care for the child, so why is it a waste of money and time for your ptr to get access to his child?

Pippi Longstocking

16-08-2006, 15:14

To the women who support their men in avoiding their responsibilities, do you realise that statisitcs indicate that at some point, you may very well become the single mother? How will you feel when your partner gets a new girlfriend who supports him in not paying YOU child support?

Kathrine, yes there some mothers who do do everything in their power to prevent their ex from seeing the children. -Usually- there is good reason. Perhaps he is violent. Perhaps he cannot care for the children properly. Perhaps he will fill the childs head with damaging lies? Yes, sometimes women can be just spiteful and malicious but this usually isn't the case. Most women love their children dearly and want the best for them - this usually involves having a healthy relationship with their father. But if their father cannot provide that healthy relationship, then I can understand why they try to prevent access.

Grubindi, if I thought that sending my child interstate to see their father would result in him having a custody order filed and not having them returned to me, you can bet your bottom dollar I would be just a tad reluctant to send them too.

Kids aren't possesions. Nobody owns them. But both parents have a RESPONSIBILITY to provide for them. Both parents have a responsibility to put their own relationship issues with the other parent aside and work together or the best interests of the child. Be a little bit grown up about it, people!

kathrine

16-08-2006, 15:59

Norah,

You know the sad thing is, we all only want what is best for the children, but we all have different opinions about what is best. I do believe in the age old adage - It takes a village to raise a child

I could generalise and argue both points.

Not all fathers are "dead-beat" dads, and many do pay their support.

Not all mothers are "malicious *****es' who block access, and despair when yet another promised pick up goes missed

But let's all face facts, there ARE dead-beat dads and the media loves to beat up a story, and there are malicious ***** mothers who do block access for no good reason.

Kathrine

Pippi Longstocking

16-08-2006, 16:07

Kathrine, a generalisation is called a generalisation because it's generally true. The few exceptions don't invalidate the argument.

pookiesossige

16-08-2006, 17:07

My ex is also one of them 'dead beat' dads. He has 3 kids, working cash-in-hand and claiming the dole just so that he pays the minimal rate of child support. He doesn't even see his kids (loooooooooong story) and thats his excuse as to not paying me anything except the minimum rate. D

Oooo Lauren that makes my blood boil! You know what I'd do? Dob him in to Centrelink for the cash-in-hand stuff. Is that a bad thing to do? Grrrrr!! :banghead:

Yasmeena

16-08-2006, 17:44

Not all fathers are "dead-beat" dads, and many do pay their support.

Kathrine

Actually as I mentioned earlier, 40% of payers are paying minimum child support or less. Many dads do pay child support however there seems to be a rather lot of them who don't!

But let's all face facts, there ARE dead-beat dads and the media loves to beat up a story, and there are malicious ***** mothers who do block access for no good reason.
Kathrine

How interesting that you diminish the dead-beat dads by implying that there is a media 'beat up' of the story, yet you boldly use invective to describe the mothers who 'block' access. Methinks there is a bit of a 'beat-up' in regards to your own story eh? *psst.... your bias is showing*:thumbsup:

Certainly there are mothers who would rather their ex didn't see his children, some of them may have very good reasons, some of them may not, and may be acting out of spite and anger.
However I can't think of ANY good reason that a father could have for not paying child support. It is not excusable! It is his responsibility as a parent to provide for his child, and it's also the law.

In regards to court applications for access, it need not cost thousands of dollars, if the applicant is fiscally challenged, he will have access to legal aid, if he just doesn't want to spend the amount of money required, he may represent himself.

angelickaren

16-08-2006, 17:47

hi ladys my ex is the same he is also just stopped paying c/s he has not done a tax return since 2002 and i kept telling csa to make him do it but they can make anyone do it :mad: so anyway he told them he was earning $45,000 for the yrs of 2004and 2005 but due to we have a house and we are trying to settle things i had to proved my income and so did he. he gave me his group certifcates which for 2004 he earned $ 70,000 and 2005 he earnt $75,000 well that a bit differnet from $45,000 so i chased the csa for 18mths to change his assement and they finally changed his yearly income to $65,000 and 2 weeks after they changed it he put in for change of assement saying he didnt earn that much etc and his assetment was shown to be the right income so no change to the assetment :smiliedance: :smiliedance: they told him to do a tax return to make sure he is being asset at the right income but he not going to do that due to he will owe me back support and so he has not payed for 2mths now i ring csa they just say we are chasing him so i just feel so angry because my son has to go to speech thepry and physio and things which is not cheap but i just know he will get his one day and i will be there laughing all the way to the bank hehehhehe:yelclap: but fathers also forget its for the kids

grubindi

16-08-2006, 17:57

Actually as I mentioned earlier, 40% of payers are paying minimum child support or less. Many dads do pay child support however there seems to be a rather lot of them who don't!

How interesting that you diminish the dead-beat dads by implying that there is a media 'beat up' of the story, yet you boldly use invective to describe the mothers who 'block' access. Methinks there is a bit of a 'beat-up' in regards to your own story eh? *psst.... your bias is showing*:thumbsup:

Certainly there are mothers who would rather their ex didn't see his children, some of them may have very good reasons, some of them may not, and may be acting out of spite and anger.
However I can't think of ANY good reason that a father could have for not paying child support. It is not excusable! It is his responsibility as a parent to provide for his child, and it's also the law.

In regards to court applications for access, it need not cost thousands of dollars, if the applicant is fiscally challenged, he will have access to legal aid, if he just doesn't want to spend the amount of money required, he may represent himself.

a friend of ours tried legal aid for a different matter and they were declined as it is income tested. so sorry but on my DH wage we sure as hell wouldnt get it and we dont need it but i cant see the point and neither can he on wasting that money on a judge (it is very costly )
he has tried on many occasions to see if she can come here for hols etc and have more contact (only with the mother though not through any court etc) and she is just spiteful this kid has two younger 1/2 sisters sleeping in her room and they had from when they were born and the mother never heard them before she did so she ended up getting up to them at night and getting a bottle etc. she still does it now and they are nearly 3.so sorry but i have and never will have sympathy for the mother, if she cant utilise the cs she recieves each week then too bad the gov pay her over 900 per fortnight on top of the rediculous amount of cs. some people dont realise that cs is to pay for things when they need them also, she has no right to put her hand out continually and say she needs money for school uniforms and medical etc especially when the kid goes to a public school where it costs a levy of 30 per year and she has a pension and so gets prescription meds for 4.80.

if thats the case then my kids are worth what she is supposed to cost to upkeep therefore there would be no money going to her at all IYKWIM they need to change the system get someone in there who knows more about the situations. all the csa are is debt collectors and thats all they ever will be.

cupcakemafia

16-08-2006, 18:01

Lightheartedly...
All I'd like to say on the matter is...god i'd hate to work for CSA.
I work for Family Assistance Office and thats complicated enough!
No wonder when I speak to CSA reps they always sound so frazzled.. theres so much powerful emotion involved in child support cases, or anything to do with children for that matter.

cmd'smum

16-08-2006, 20:12

Little Gorilla

16-08-2006, 20:17

Norah ....I could'nt have put it better myself.....access and cs are completely diff!! If people think they arn't seeing enough of their child, they need to address access issues, not cs issues...... the law is black and white in this area....you have a child...you pay cs to help with their upbringing full stop.

so the dad doesn't get to see the child if the mother doesn't let him - she has all the say in the world....

if he really wants to see the child then he should go to court and spend $$$$$$ trying to see his child....I personally know of court cases for "access only" being over $20,000

in the meantime he should pay money to someone who is doing his child harm by not letting the father be involved in the upbrining and causing grief to all parties involved

now I'm talking about dads that aren't abusive drunks etc etc, normal nice guys who unfortunately have mean nasty ex partners....

subaruforestermum

16-08-2006, 20:33

Just wanted to say....that I am glad that there are ppl out there who have a similar opinion as I do..........as at the start I was ridiculed for having my opinion that didn't conform to the others....(not by all I must add).....

and although this is relly interesting to read, it is just going round and round in circles......and ppl seem to be thinking that their opinion is right and no-one elses who are opposing are accepted as being an acceptable opinion...... Its the way I see it anyway.....forgive me if I'm wrong.

As I said before.....it's the children who are the ones that are effected the most......and in reality they need love more than money, althought it does help.........

Yasmeena

16-08-2006, 23:06

carmum - I agree:thumbsup: the one's who think they are right, aren't really listening to the opposing view, I think it is probably because they think they are right (I might be wrong!)
Kids do need love, but who's paying for that love? Do you know how much love costs these days? I blame sockrates.........

hope this helps :wave:

grubindi

16-08-2006, 23:19

you have a child...you pay cs to help with their upbringing full stop.

i have no problems with that and neither does my DH but you tell me how it costs $300 per week to feed and clothe a 11 year old who lives in housing comission with her mother and step father who are dole bludgers and the mother has 3 other kids to other fathers. and also when you do get to visit (and no my hubby isnt denied access due to violence etc its just because she is spiteful and even tells the kid that he is the one that doesnt keep in touch yet we can provide proof that we try to) her clothes always smell like spew. she has continuos and i mean all the time head lice even since she was younger (his family live near her and see her every now and then)

We have 4 kids together and it doesnt cost me $300 per week all up to look after my children and i can tell you now my children dont need anything they have everything they need and want.
and tehn she tries to hit him up for more money and tells the kid that her father pays for nothing....Hello what the .... is cs for if you look at it legally that is what it is paid for. so now can you understand my point and the point of many other people in australia????? 20,000 is cheap i have a friend who is still going through court and has so far cost them 85,000. they are both rediculous amounts that dont need to be spent, that is why hell would have to freeze over before we spend any money in court fees. Also the mother has financial responsibility as well and if she cant provide that adequately then the child shouldnt reside with her she should live with the parent who is able to provide. JMO:thumbsup:

pegasus

17-08-2006, 00:41

I think we'll all have to have this talk again when the new changes go through.

The main bit I'm happy with is the fact that the payee's income will be taken into account at a more equivalent rate. Currently the payee can earn about $35k (sorry if this is wrong - I haven't checked this for a while), before it affects the cs. The paying parent only has a pittance put aside with the first child from a new relationship being "worth" about $10k and subsequent children only about $2k. (Again - will have to check figures)

Due to this, when my son was born, I questioned if I could be a dependent as I wanted to be a SAHM - I was told no- I had no reason that I couldn't go to work and earn money (hey - except that I wanted to be home with my child), whereas his ex relied on his money! My children were only going to be worth the same amount in 'put aside' money, whereas the amount in cs would be going up with any pay increases.

There lies my gripe - I have not been able to raise my children as I wanted (as a SAHM fulltime), whereas DH's ex has been able to be a SAHM while placing them in fulltime child care before school. She is also able to receive more money than I can earn tax free before the cs is affected, whereas any money I earn is taxed and affects my family tax benefits.

The new system will take into consideration that people who earn different amounts spend differently percentage wise on their children. This is more fair (I believe) as (grubindi said this as well), I don't believe that my hubby would have ended up earning the amount he is now if he hadn't left his ex and married me. I'm sorry if anyone else thinks this is blowing my own trumpet, but the writing was on the wall when I ended up paying off a credit card debt that they had together (they'd broken up a year before I met him), and watching the lifestyle that is being lived in the other house, the art of budgetting hasn't been learnt in the last 10 years of paying support, whereas in our house, everything is paid for - I do not do things like pawn my son's playstation when I need money.

Any system that means that some people receive more money in their hand without going to work, while other's of us have to go to work and receive less, isn't fair. Let's see if these new changes work and if they help get more of the parents that just pay the minimum to pick up their game, so it doesn't give the ones that do pay a bad name.

cmd'smum

17-08-2006, 00:56

Pippi Longstocking

17-08-2006, 07:03

Forestermum, you were never ridiculed, just disagreed with. And I agree with Yasmeena - I think my opinion is right which is why I am defending it. it is a common practice when debating an issue.

Pippi Longstocking

17-08-2006, 08:19

Roightio, where were we? Oh yeah, I'm right and I am defending my opinion because I am right. Over to you....:D

grubindi

17-08-2006, 08:23

PlebeianProselyte

17-08-2006, 08:30

Quite right, some will. Because if I didn't have children, I could house myself in a cheap run down one bedroom apartment in a seedy part of town. But, as I have 5 children, I need a large house in an area suitable to raise children in. Which is ultimately much more costly.

That's a very valid point, I still think if Child support pays the mortgage, then the home should legally belong to the children. But that's only a personal opinion and not really helpful in finding workable solutions to the problem discussed.

I think the answer is not to pander to spiteful delusions about paying 'the ex' and educate the paying parent on why it is their responsibility to pay child support. Engaging in implementing a confusing system of recording how child support money is spent, is simply allowing an ex partner to assume control over 'their money' and 'their child'. It is not 'their' money. It is child support.

Exactly, it's not 'their' money it's Child Support. This applies to those receiving the money as well. As such it should ONLY be used to support children, no matter what type of parents are involved.

Those who do use Child support as it is intended (to support their children) will see little change in their budget and expenses, those who abuse the 'income' will simply have to start putting those children first.

I don't see this as pandering to the paying parents 'spiteful delusion' i see it as removing excuses (and stopping misuse) for the sole benefit of the children involved.

Implementing any new system is expensive and time consuming but I don't agree a controlled EFT system would be confusing for the client. They have cards which access their current CSA account. That card can not be used in pubs or clubs for gambling Alcohol or cigarettes etc. (or for cash withdrawals for that matter, If you need cash budget it from YOUR income not your children's)

I can see a system like this benefiting both the children and the payee, It could also remove the need for monthly account deposits allowing instant access if required (I don't know ANY child related costs that fall due the 3rd Wednesday of every month) custodial parents aslo gain.

It may be a stop gap solution, but if it means the payer feels protected enough to actually pay AND those children who ARE being supported are protected from misuse it can only be better than the mess we have now.

Little Gorilla

17-08-2006, 08:44

babaganoush and bindi..I am telling you how the law is. Its not my personal opinion. I would'nt state my personal opinion in this thread, for obvious reasons. If people arn't happy with the ratio between cs and access they need to address their concerns to parliament.

these forums are full of personal opinion including this thread - by posting some opinions that aren't "cs needs to be paid no matter what" then it may open somones eyes to the "other" side of the story.

:thumbsup: cmd for knowing the law - my my family is living with the law which in our case is tilted very very favourably towards the mother of the child....I doubt that a handfull of people complaining to parliament will make much difference.

KarniF00l

17-08-2006, 10:37

Oooo Lauren that makes my blood boil! You know what I'd do? Dob him in to Centrelink for the cash-in-hand stuff. Is that a bad thing to do? Grrrrr!! :banghead:

I think i would need concrete evidence as to where he's working for cash-in-hand. I know for a fact he is working cash-in-hand as his mum has told me and so has he. I understand that he has a family to support aswell but regardless of seeing the kids or not he still has responsibilies and i've learnt to ride it off because my kids don't need scum like him in their life. He put them through enough when we were together and for them to see him again i know that DS1 would go backwards emotionaly. Which of course leaves me to pick up the peices, again! As for DD1 and DS2, they don't really know him. They were very young at the time and if he was to walk in the door today i think they would be very confused as to who he is.

Thank goodness for my DH, he has taken on so much but as he said he wouldn't have it any other way and all four kids are his not the ex's.

It's so easy being a father the hardest part is being a daddy. There's a difference. :thumbsup:

Yasmeena

17-08-2006, 18:18

Leez

17-08-2006, 18:34

I have seen the ugly side of the CSA with their treatment of my brother. It always amazes me to hear the stories of 'deadbeat dads' who apparently get away with paying little or nothing and the CSA can do nothing about it, when I have seen my brother harrassed and threatened in the form of phone calls and letters for over 4 years.

My brother is hunted like an animal and it makes me so angry I could spit. If he gets a pay rise, he has to pay his ex two and a half times what his pay rise is. How do you figure that one out? I could turn this into a novel with his story but I'll restrain myself, I'll just say that the CSA's treatment of my brother is nothing short of disgusting, and I have a strong suspicion that it is staffed by a bunch of man-haters.

Yasmeena

17-08-2006, 19:06

Leez - why would the CSA 'harrass' your brother? Surely if he was paying the money and assessed correctly there would be no call to 'hunt him like an animal'?

Calling a government organisation a bunch of 'man-haters' is slightly irrational and a bit over the top don't you think?

Before the introduction of the Child Support Act in 1989 less than 30% of child support was being paid, the CSA is enforcing the law in regards to the Act and any 'harrassment' of your brother would likely be due to him failing to comply with legislative requirements.

Your brother has a right of appeal to the courts if he feels his assessment is unfair:thumbsup:

grubindi

17-08-2006, 19:34

the system is unfair to the paying parent (male or female) as it uses their gross income before tax instead of using the net amount after tax so therefore the money that is taken in tax is still assessed even though you do not recieve it the tax dept does. therefore in our situation he is paying 300 roughly per week at the moment yet if they worked it on the net amount it would only be around 100. the money that tax takes is still added into the cs amount yet we have to make that up as tax has it not us so therefore they should be made to use the net amount after tax to work the cs out on.IYKWIM.

Yasmeena; if you would like proof of the people being done wrong majorly by the system then pm me and i will give you a link to another forum where you can read for yourself these peoples stories.:thumbsup:

PlebeianProselyte

17-08-2006, 20:53

Where is the evidence that mothers are 'misusing' child support money?
The issue is not misuse of child support money, but rather the fact that many men are avoiding their responsibilities by not paying, thereby there not being any money to misuse. Perhaps you could explain how 40% of mothers receiving child support are 'misusing' their $8 a week?
Pleb - I don't think your 'system' is 'removing excuses', rather it is validating a view that is incorrect, unsubstantiated, unecessarily controlling, condescending, based in vindicism and also a bit silly.
Somehow I don't think it's a matter of needing to 'protect' the payer, I don't think men who avoid child support are feeling vulnerable and need a bit of a cuddle, I think men who avoid financial responsibility for their children need to realise that it is their responsibility, duty and legal obligation to pay child support.

I don't believe it is a matter of 'protecting the payer' either. I have not claimed that non-payers are vulnerable nor have i said any alleged 'misuse' is an acceptable excuse, I'm as disgusted at those who don't fulfil their responsibilities as any other person.

However, i don't believe there is any point in arguing over it, The easiest way to let someone hang themselves is to hand them the rope. (Which is more important, making sure we do not appear to 'validate' the excuse OR ensuring some of those $8 a week payments you mentioned are increased).

If (as you say) misuse of child support payments is not an issue, there should be no problem with the (albeit off hand) suggestion of controlling where the funds can be spent. Those NOT spending the money on themselves would see no difference.

Personally, I can't agree that misuse is not an issue. This thread alone offers (some) evidence to the fact.

Even if (and i am not saying this is the case) every story here was false, the fact that most non payers use misuse as an excuse, MAKES it an issue and an important factor to consider.

I'm sure there would be just as many non-payers honestly struggling just to support themselves as there are 'deadbeats' who simply don't care. Just as many custodial parents wasting child support on themselves as there are scraping to make ends meet.

Unless you can point out an actual disadvantage to the custodial parent, I see no reason not to ensure the money goes where it is meant to go.

grubindi

17-08-2006, 21:12

Unless you can point out an actual disadvantage to the custodial parent, I see no reason not to ensure the money goes where it is meant to go.

exactly agree with you on this one then you would not have situations like ours where the payee tells the child that her bio father pays for nothing (hello CS Payments from him are contributing to the child if the mother cant afford something then she has either spent the cs in a way in which it wasnt supposed to be spent or she needs to gt off centrelink and get a job to contribute her half to support her kid. if she keeps asking for more money then she needs to think that the child would be better off with people who can afford everday items etc or start to use the cs money appropriately. (this is in regards to our situation and not anyone elses):thumbsup:

Leez

17-08-2006, 21:15

Hi Yasmeena - Yes I know the way I've written the post it looks irrational and one-sided, however my brother's story is so long and with so many twists and turns it would take forever to explain.

In a nutshell, he has always complied with the CSA and has no issue with paying child support - he WANTS to support his children! He can't not comply because he earns a salary and pays tax, so if he didn't they'd just garnishee (sp?) his wages anyway. The attitude of his caseworker has consistently been that he is hiding assets and she has outright accused him of same (not true, he can't even afford to rent his own flat, he's been forced to move in with our mother), she threatened him by saying 'we'll keep investigating you until we find them'. She has also LAUGHED, I repeat, LAUGHED when he was explaining to her the financial situation he was in and requesting a re-assessment, which was turned down. He requested a new caseworker be assigned, that was rejected. He filed an offical complaint about her attitude and behaviour, that went nowhere. This is just a sample of his dealings with the CSA. One thing is for sure, their attitude absolutely encourages the 'deadbeat dad' phenomenon, with good, honest men like my brother actually considering 'dropping out' of society, because they can't cope with being continually treated like they are doing something wrong. In addition, as I previously mentioned, for every $1.00 payrise he gets, the way his payments are worked out (some formula they use) he has to pay an extra $2.50. How can anyone survive with that system? Also, how does it benefit a child if their father is living below the poverty line?

My brother's situation is also unusual and more frustrating because his ex earns more than him, cries poor however somehow can afford a cleaning lady, has had extensive landscape gardening done on the home which she owns outright (he willingly gave her everything so that their children would at least not suffer lifestyle wise in their split) , and recieves regular, large cash 'gifts' from her parents. When he asked her if they could privately negotiate a fair and reasonable payment, she laughed at him and said "I only want what's mine" (not the kids, hers). She is not your typical struggling single mum.

The current suicide rate of separated fathers in Australia is 5 men per week. Someone needs to look into why this is happening. I know and have seen first hand how difficult single mothers have it, particularly when they are the main care givers and therefore carry the financial burden, however for those men who do step up to the plate and don't dissapear off the face of the earth, they are often in a desperate situation also and this does not seem to attract any attention or empathy from anyone.

my_lot

17-08-2006, 21:21

exactly agree with you on this one then you would not have situations like ours where the payee tells the child that her bio father pays for nothing (hello CS Payments from him are contributing to the child if the mother cant afford something then she has either spent the cs in a way in which it wasnt supposed to be spent or she needs to gt off centrelink and get a job to contribute her half to support her kid. if she keeps asking for more money then she needs to think that the child would be better off with people who can afford everday items etc or start to use the cs money appropriately. (this is in regards to our situation and not anyone elses):thumbsup:

if this child lived with you it seems you would be very happy BECAUSE you wouldnt be forking out $300 a week to her mother!

grubindi

17-08-2006, 21:29

if this child lived with you it seems you would be very happy BECAUSE you wouldnt be forking out $300 a week to her mother!

exactly and the child wouldnt have clothes that smell like spew continuously, have nits continuously, and would have her high cholesterol etc under control. so yes i suppose if that means the child is looked after properly then yeah we'd be Frig$$ happy to not pay money to a wasted cause.....her mother the centrelink scammer for 11 years so far and counting.:thumbsup:

id like to see her mother even get off her butt to look for work let alone help to pay for a child she wanted.

and sorry but if the money was a major major issue then my DH would be an at home dad to our 4 kiddies and i would return to work and then her mother wouldnt get a cent.

thats like if they try when the child is older for adult child maintenence (that is when the child enrols in uni etc the child not the mother can apply to court for the paying parent to continue cs payments.) HAHA that will never happen her mother can pay for it or if she wants to go to uni then like everyone else she will get a hecs debt. or i will work.

my_lot

17-08-2006, 21:56

.

do you realise how little she would be getting in the way of ftb because of the high $ in cs you pay?

im hearing you say the mother has other children to dif fathers

even if all of her childrens fathers pay the same $ to her for their child, centrelink will only let her have a set amount in cs before they deduct $ from her payments
(eg $1100 for 2 children + 600 for every other child per month in cs payments )

and it even reduces the rent assistance centrelink gives her, becuase as they see it the father should be paying for all round costs of his child and NOT them.

she may not manage her money well, she may be finding it really hard to pay for everything all her children need- just because someone gets centrelink payments doesnt mean they are raking it in.

and just because you would have $300 in your pocket a week if this child lived with you, doesnt mean this child will be better off.

nits and smelly clothes arent enough for a child to be uprooted from the love of their mother, their siblings and their home. and if you are so concerned about this childs welfare report it to DOCS- it wont cost you anything.

grubindi

17-08-2006, 22:05

do you realise how little she would be getting in the way of ftb because of the high $ in cs you pay?

im hearing you say the mother has other children to dif fathers

even if all of her childrens fathers pay the same $ to her for their child, centrelink will only let her have a set amount in cs before they deduct $ from her payments
(eg $1100 for 2 children + 600 for every other child per month in cs payments )

and it even reduces the rent assistance centrelink gives her, becuase as they see it the father should be paying for all round costs of his child and NOT them.

she may not manage her money well, she may be finding it really hard to pay for everything all her children need- just because someone gets centrelink payments doesnt mean they are raking it in.

and just because you would have $300 in your pocket a week if this child lived with you, doesnt mean this child will be better off.

nits and smelly clothes arent enough for a child to be uprooted from the love of their mother, their siblings and their home. and if you are so concerned about this childs welfare report it to DOCS- it wont cost you anything.

sorry but she is on the sole parent pension she only claims cs from us for the eldest kid the other 3 arent on the kids birth certs and doesnt recieve anything from them. the cs doesnt drop the ftb nmuch at all only 40 per fortnight and also the hubby of hers she is with is on a disability pension from the army and a disability pension from centrelink so yes they in this case are raking it in, the kid has half siblings here who she doesnt get to see, her half siblings down there all have rotten teeth at the tops and docs do nothing.
if she has kids then she should really be able to manage her money or she should have thought about that before she had kids. she is living in a housing commission house so pays sfa in rent, the only ftb touched is for that 1 kid not the other 3. i wont continue to justify myself. it just sees to be going around in circles with you.maybe other people want to voice their opinions.:thumbsup:

Little Gorilla

17-08-2006, 22:45

my_lot - everyone is entitled to their opinion and to put forward an example of their experience for others to read......

WeThree

17-08-2006, 22:48

Does anyone else have any contributions to add regarding the OP?
This one is going to have to close as well I think.

pegasus

18-08-2006, 01:53

unfortunately with the new system that is coming in the ones who rely on centrelink (for years) it isnt going to change the payers in that situation are still going to be paying 100% cs but it is supposed to be that each parent contribute to half . yet it still relies wholy and soley on the paying parents. (whther they are fathers or mothers)

The difference with the new system is that if the payee parent has been on centrelink the whole time (as in our case as well), then yes, I agree it won't make any difference to how much she contributes, however, it will mean my children will be "worth more" as I have been working and earned more money.

Pippi Longstocking

18-08-2006, 10:27

grubindi, I am confused. You say that you never get to see the child, that you both live in different states, that you don't even get photos yet you say that the other children have nits, rotten teeth, dirty clothes and nappies etc? I'm wondering hw you'd know all of this if you don't have regular access to the child? How do you know that the child support isn't spent on the child when you don't actually see her?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it very much sounds like a case of bitterness and resentment, which ought to be taken with a graqin of salt.

oh and for what it's worth
her half siblings down there all have rotten teeth at the tops and docs do nothing.

My daughter had to have dental work on her teeth as they were rotten at the tops too. Docs wouldn't have done anything because the reason my daughter had tooth decay was due to the medication she was on that was saving her life(I've gone brain-dead and can't for the life of me remember what the medication was called. The purple puffer for chronic asthmatics :o ). No amount of toothbrushing and low sugar diet could have prevented it - I know because I tried.