Closed Thread
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 103
  1. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    2,610
    Thanks
    1,023
    Thanked
    511
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I agree LPH that all children should get the same amount. They are all as important as each other. When you have 2 women seperated from the father then that's not fair.

    But what's also not fair is when a man repartners and has more kids, then his CS to the children of the previous relationship gets reduced. He ultimately decides to create more children, which is his right 100% but the previous children shouldn't be disadvantaged. If you can't afford the child support of your already born kids don't have anymore. Some would say that's unfair, but it's also unfair for the children to miss out bc the father has decided to have more.
    What is weird is that if the custodial parent has more kids by someone else the paying parents payments go up.

  2. #72
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,644
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked
    1,735
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovemyfam View Post
    What is weird is that if the custodial parent has more kids by someone else the paying parents payments go up.
    That's only true if the custodial parent reduces their income to care for the new children. (Eg. if the custodial parent takes time off to become a carer of a new baby).

  3. #73
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,644
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked
    1,735
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by share a book View Post
    My child's father included haircuts every month, hair care products, and other such things like $5/week clothes washing (for just him, in a caravan with his parents) and even included take away, all of which was accepted. Meanwhile, I use the cheapest shampoo, wash my hair once a week and dd's twice a week, and go years (4 so far) between haircuts. All to provide for my child so she has haircuts, decent shoes, clothes that fit, and quality shoes. If I have to sacrifice, why shouldn't he have to as well?
    When we lodged a change of assessment when I was pregnant with my first child - We put in expenses - including $100 /month for takeaways/movies (entertainment), whereas the payee didn't put any of it in there. When we lodged it - the rebuttal was that there should be no allowance for "entertainment" - as that should not come before the children. Fair call - but why put it in there if it's not going to change the assessment.

    BTW - the change of assessment was lodged to apply for me to be a dependent for the last 3 months of my pregnancy, and first 6months of my child's life - this was not allowed, as the agency deemed that as I had a proven track record of working, but the biological mother of my husband's first 2 children (aged at that time 11 and 9) had never worked - she was fully dependent upon CL and CSA payments, therefore no go. I ended up returning to work when my son was 11 weeks. Needless to say - never applied when I was pregnant with my second.

    FTR, my husband pays full amount of CS and has never skipped a payment.

    Quote Originally Posted by ElastiGirl View Post
    I'm pretty sure that the money owed to CSA by the payee IS a government debt. That's why they have the power to garnish wages and tax returns.
    I'm not sure if this is a typo - but the money owed by the payee is not a government debt. When my husband took a significant pay decrease to live closer to the children, it took 2 months to change the payments to the payee. At that time, he was advised not to cease or reduce payments as he would be found in arrears. However, at the end of it, he'd over paid $1600, and things were very tight for us. He was advised that the only way he'd get any of it back was to claim direct from the payee through small claims, and it would probably end up costing more than the $1600.

    Not sure if once it was recalculated, and CL was informed, that CL paid back pay (FTB and PPS to the payee) as to them it would appear she'd received the lesser amount for 2 months prior to when she did.

    Not sure who the debt is owed to when there's a debt owed by the payer as I've never looked it up due to it being irrelevant in our family's case.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    352
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    245
    Reviews
    0
    One more point from me:

    Currently, if you're not claiming CS, you can only get the minimum FTB. I understand the reasoning behind this: C/Link are sayng that if you're not going to bother to claim CS, we're not going to support you financially.

    But for me, my ex-husband and I have chosen to organise ourselves financially. We have the kids 50/50, and we pay for half each of any big expenses (school fees, camps, sport fees or whatever) and neither of us pays CS to the other. it has worked beautifully for us for nine years. But because we've chosen this fairly sensible option, which saves the Govt money (as we're not involved with CSA at all), we are penalised in that we both ony receive the minimum FTB.

    And a comment on the Child Support system as a whole: is it just me, or does anyone else think it's amazing that a system can be simultaneously so unfair to both payers and payees?

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Fox in Sox View Post

    And a comment on the Child Support system as a whole: is it just me, or does anyone else think it's amazing that a system can be simultaneously so unfair to both payers and payees?
    It can be, and often is unfair for both sides. But really it's not about being fair to the parents, it's being fair to the child. The child didn't choose to be born and their needs should ultimately be first and foremost at the top.

    I feel terrible for your partner not seeing his child and not having the money to access the legal system. I feel ill at the thought of not seeing my kids, and I do believe in these cases the govt should subsidise the non custodial parent in at least some travel expenses and possibly legal fees.
    Last edited by delirium; 01-02-2012 at 07:42.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,634
    Thanks
    1,063
    Thanked
    348
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    Firstly I want to say, I feel terrible for fathers whose ex's move their kids a long way away. It must be heart retching and I mean that genuinely.

    The issue though, is that CS is for the *child*. As a mum yourself you know kids are expensive and when CS reduces it's the child that misses out on ballet and football lessons, another set of school uniforms etc. In this case the father has the ability to fight her moving the child away (I'm pretty sure? lol) and that should be the course of action. Take her to court. Don't stop paying CS to get at the mother... and that last comment was not directed at you but generally
    Quote Originally Posted by singlemumma82 View Post
    Fox in Sox I understand what you are saying, IF a custody parent CHOOSES to move away making regular contact a lot harder then CS automatically increases as the visitations have decreased. However, the non custodial parent then has to FIGHT to get their child back, another expense, it is not fair.

    If the custodial parent chooses to move and therefore lessen the visitations between the other parent and child they should not be paid more almost like a bonus for weaken a child/parent bond.
    There are good reasons that custodial parents move away. whether it be for employment, DV etc. I moved 14 hours away from SD. I was living in a capital city in a womens DV refuge with NO family support nearby. I couldnt even leave the house because no car and SD is a local truck driver and most of his workmates knew me. If I had been seen, they would have known what area we were living in. If I had stayed in that city, we would be living in a caravan park instead of the beautiful 3 bedroom house we are living in now and I wouldnt have been able to buy the car I now own outright. SD only sees DS every 5-6 months by choice anyway. And DSs behaviour changes for weeks after. SD doesnt have a bond with DS and probably never will because hes too selfish and bad tempered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerilee View Post
    Just a point..

    If you spend a certain percentage of your income on visitation to your child your assessment can reduce. You just need to have the information to prove it eg plane tickets etc
    You must spend 5% of your total income on plane tickets in order to claim it back on CS. I found this out from CSA when SD was trying to claim back presents, rental car, hotel, flights, lost income etc. Apparently I *agreed* to pay for every visitation. Very generous I must say when I have taxable income of $16k and his is over $100k!

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovemyfam View Post
    What is weird is that if the custodial parent has more kids by someone else the paying parents payments go up.
    Is this really true though? why would a non custodial parent be expected to pay for a child to another man when the other man would be expected to pay the CS?

    Can someone clarify this?

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,612
    Thanks
    2,724
    Thanked
    864
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    Is this really true though? why would a non custodial parent be expected to pay for a child to another man when the other man would be expected to pay the CS?

    Can someone clarify this?

    I don't think that is correct. Just having a read on the CSA site. You can get a reassessment on the basis of being financially responsible for step children, if the parent is unable to pay.

    http://www.csa.gov.au/child_support_...d_families.php


    The only reason the assessment would go up is if the payers income went up and the payees income went down (for the reason of caring for a child).

    Hope that makes sense.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerilee View Post
    The only reason the assessment would go up is if the payers income went up and the payees income went down (for the reason of caring for a child).

    Hope that makes sense.
    Yeah that's what I thought

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,687
    Thanks
    1,089
    Thanked
    4,057
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NutsyK View Post
    Well the cost of a child should include childcare to allow the mother to go to work. Some fathers do pay ridiculous amounts of money.. a father to my friends child has to pay $1000 a month.. you can't tell me that one child costs $2000 a month to look after.

    Like I said though.. the fee should include the cost of childcare. I don't think it should be based off what a father earns either.
    If that father was still with the mother and child that child would be afforded a nice lifestyle, why should she only get given enough to get by just because her parents relationship didn't work out?

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BlissedOut For This Useful Post:

    faroutbrusselsprout  (01-02-2012),SassyMummy  (01-02-2012),trishalishous  (01-02-2012)


 
Closed Thread
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. **spin off** Things your partner has said or done that you've loved.
    By Gonnabemum in forum Issues with Family Members
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 03-06-2012, 19:57
  2. Spin off: Things you have said that haunt you
    By Guest1234 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-06-2012, 03:39
  3. *Spin off* Would you change your child's name spelling?
    By Happy2be3 in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 22-04-2012, 12:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Nice Pak Products
Australian Made and Owned. The Baby U Goat Milk Skincare range is enriched with soothing goats milk sourced from country, Victoria. Goat's milk has a pH level close to that of our own skin and contains natural sources of amino acids and vitamins.
sales & new stuffsee all
Pea Pods
Buy 2 Award Winning Pea Pods Reusable One Size Nappies for only $38 (in your choice of colours) and receive a FREE roll of Bamboo Liners. Don't miss out, we don't usually have discounts on the nappies, so grab this special offer!
Special Offer! Save $12
featured supporter
Heinz Baby Basics
Our BPA Free range offers you a choice for every stage of your baby’s feeding development. You’ll love our brilliant colours, inspired designs and innovative features. Heinz Baby Basics caters for your baby’s needs!
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!