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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!