*Spin off* How would you like to see the CS system organised?

[delirium]

I would also like to see harsher penalties for people who dodge CS.

Totally agree. Sadly it's often to spite the custodial parent and the child suffers. Under the current system I think the payer amount is very fair, so if a father is only earning 30k a year he won't pay alot.

I think a percentage of the non-custodial parents wage needs to be taken REGARDLESS of how much that is... ON TOP of a "absolute minimum" they need to pay. So, let's say the government decides that each child deserves $5000 a year from their non-custodial. EVERY child should get that from their non-custodial, but then on top of that, the non-custodial also must pay a percentage of their wage to the child.

I also agree with this. $2 a week buys 2L of milk, totally ridiculous. I think there should be some loop holes. A non custodial parent that is injured, or genuinely can't find work and is on CL, obviously can't afford much. But there are non custodials out there that deliberately don't work to stick it to the ex. If they are passing up jobs on CL then there should be a min amount set of say $40 a week. That will 'help' them decide to get a job

Please dont make it sound like all step families are the same Im a mum and I work very hard to make sure that everyone in the family is accomodated.

I don't think brussel meant all blended families suck. Just that's how she feels about her situation. there are families where the father pays without issue, the mother allows plenty of access, they don't hate on each other.

[Jakois]

Ideally, the costs of raising the child should be split 50/50. This should include every expense from food and clothing to schooling and extra curricular activities.

If only there was a way to evaluate each case and do it that way.

[delirium]

I agree, 50/50. The custodial parent is statistically usually the woman and the father non custodial. When they are a couple the father (who also statistically earns the most) is more than happy to pay for a large (if not total) percentage of the child raising. But the relationship ends and suddenly he's angry he has to pay $100 a fortnight for a child he knows costs way more than that to raise.

Just bc a relationship ends and the couple hate each other doesn't mean the father's responsibility suddenly ends.

Fair enough, fall in love again, have more kids, but don't forget the ones you already have bc you hate their mother.

[faroutbrusselsprout]

Please dont make it sound like all step families are the same Im a mum and I work very hard to make sure that everyone in the family is accomodated.

How am I making it sound as though all step families are the same?? I didn't say ALL step families?? I work hard I make sure everyone is accommodated as well. But my opinion still stands.
I have two awesome step parents myself and my DH is an amazing step parent. But I would never choose it. It's exhausting. I hate having to consider two bad relationship choices made by Dh and myself for the rest I my life.

[Jennaisme]

I agree, 50/50. The custodial parent is statistically usually the woman and the father non custodial. When they are a couple the father (who also statistically earns the most) is more than happy to pay for a large (if not total) percentage of the child raising. But the relationship ends and suddenly he's angry he has to pay $100 a fortnight for a child he knows costs way more than that to raise.

Just bc a relationship ends and the couple hate each other doesn't mean the father's responsibility suddenly ends.

Fair enough, fall in love again, have more kids, but don't forget the ones you already have bc you hate their mother.

The only real problem I can see with this is to go full 50/50, then the electricity bill, water, gas, rent, all have to be split 50/50. And in some cases, that would leave the father homeless. I don't think 50/50 would work too well, if only for this reason alone.

I think if it's going to be 50/50, then it should be 50/50 school expenses, doctors bills, etc etc, but 50/50 custody(if safe and applicable), so that the home expenses roughly even out between the two, if that makes sense??

[delirium]

The only real problem I can see with this is to go full 50/50, then the electricity bill, water, gas, rent, all have to be split 50/50. And in some cases, that would leave the father homeless. I don't think 50/50 would work too well, if only for this reason alone.

I think if it's going to be 50/50, then it should be 50/50 school expenses, doctors bills, etc etc, but 50/50 custody(if safe and applicable), so that the home expenses roughly even out between the two, if that makes sense??

You do raise a valid point. Although I think it depends on the circumstances before the break up (if they were together). If a couple are both working, so both contributing financially, then breaking up and paying 50% and paying his own costs will make him worse off. But then a guy whose partner is a SAHM and he is the sole breadwinner is paying for 100% of his children's costs. If they break up he is only paying 50% so that offsets his living expenses and evens out.

Myabe 50% on like you say, drs, education, food, clothes, CC, then 25% on rent, electricity, gas etc?

[Blue Dragon]

I think parents should pay 50-50 on all school costs and medical costs and 'agreed upon 'sports and activitys for the child.

If parents share custody then each parent should have their own uniforms and clothes for the child and no CS needs to be paid.

If one parent has full care or majority of care then the other parent should have to contribute an amount because they are not contributing via having the child in their care.

I DONT think it should be based on wage, it should be based on how much it costs to raise a child.

I think its unfair if one parent studied hard and got a great job ended up divorced and had to pay the other parent a HUGE amount because the other parent CHOOSES not to work. There is too much leeway where one parent can rorte the system.

I think paying the other parents electricity bills and what not is silly, Part and parcel of seperating is having separate lives and homes just because someone breeded with them doesn't mean they should be having to be 100% responsible for every aspect of the ex's life for the next 18 years, yes support the children, schooling, medical etc and if not having any care of the child then pay a set amount to support the other parent with these other costs.

I think its the fact that they take wages into consideration that causes the most friction and stress in these situations, It should be a set amount per year that the non custodial parent has to pay.

[delirium]

I think its unfair if one parent studied hard and got a great job ended up divorced and had to pay the other parent a HUGE amount because the other parent CHOOSES not to work. There is too much leeway where one parent can rorte the system.

On the flipside though, is it fair that a non custodial parent chooses to work 25 hours a week or do cash work to stick it to his ex, so the mum is paying most if not all?

I have a different perspective on the high wage side. The money is not for the mother but for the child. If the father was on a big wage while in the household that child would enjoy a good standard of living. Why should that change bc they are broken up? surely the father on a good wage wants his child to have good shoes and brand new uniforms and not struggle? or is it about punishing the ex by punishing the child?

[Blue Dragon]

On the flipside though, is it fair that a non custodial parent chooses to work 25 hours a week or do cash work to stick it to his ex, so the mum is paying most if not all?

I have a different perspective on the high wage side. The money is not for the mother but for the child. If the father was on a big wage while in the household that child would enjoy a good standard of living. Why should that change bc they are broken up? surely the father on a good wage wants his child to have good shoes and brand new uniforms and not struggle? or is it about punishing the ex by punishing the child?

I agree and if the father (or mother) was a decent human being and was earning tons of money then they probably would splurge more on the child.

It would be selfish and unthoughtful not too.

As for the parents who choose not to work or to earn a really low amount The CSA need to have a better system in place to place to force these people to lift their game, they do have a capacity to earn change of assessment thingo in place but they don't police it or enforce it very well.

I do try and put myself in the 'working' non custodial parents shoes as well.
In general men are the workers and women are the child rearers, it is a huge amount on pressure on them in a nuclear family as is it to make sure every stays afloat financial wise.

Then if their family breaks down and they seperate they then have the costs of 2 homes and food etc, their own home plus the ex's because the child lives their too so it does cost them more $$.

Then in a lot of cases one or both parents re parter, If the father re-partners and has more children he has more costs to cover.
Likewise with the mother but the difference is when the mother repartners and has more children she has the new partner supporting her and the children and the home.

It is hard for both sides, yes the father has an obligation to his 'first' child/ren which he should maintain but he also has the right to repartner and have more kids which = less $$ to go around causing stress.

The mother is at a loss too if she is fulltime carer and has no help from the father its equally as stressful.

I don't think there is a black and white answer to it all.
It would be nice if every one was just nice and decent it would solve a lot of problems but thats never gonna happen.

Money problems are stressful in normal nuclear family's so of course its going to cause more stress and hurt in separated ones particulary when the 2 parents dislike each other.

[Jennaisme]

I think parents should pay 50-50 on all school costs and medical costs and 'agreed upon 'sports and activitys for the child.

If parents share custody then each parent should have their own uniforms and clothes for the child and no CS needs to be paid.

If one parent has full care or majority of care then the other parent should have to contribute an amount because they are not contributing via having the child in their care.

I DONT think it should be based on wage, it should be based on how much it costs to raise a child.

I think its unfair if one parent studied hard and got a great job ended up divorced and had to pay the other parent a HUGE amount because the other parent CHOOSES not to work. There is too much leeway where one parent can rorte the system.

I think paying the other parents electricity bills and what not is silly, Part and parcel of seperating is having separate lives and homes just because someone breeded with them doesn't mean they should be having to be 100% responsible for every aspect of the ex's life for the next 18 years, yes support the children, schooling, medical etc and if not having any care of the child then pay a set amount to support the other parent with these other costs.

I think its the fact that they take wages into consideration that causes the most friction and stress in these situations, It should be a set amount per year that the non custodial parent has to pay.

Thing is that the money is for the child, not for the mother.
So, if it's for the child, if the payer isn't paying some of the bills, then the child would be sitting in darkness, with no access to heat, internet, foxtel, etc etc. I hope this is making sense. I'm really tired. I don't think the payer needs to see the bill, they're paying, but maybe take an average of three months, roughly.
So if the power bill for 3 months is 600 dollars over winter, then the payer would pay at LEAST, 150 dollars for the power bill.
The internet bill would be 300 for three months, so the payer would pay roughly 75 dollars for the three months.
The rent would be maybe 2400 for a two bedroom house, then the payer would pay 600 for the three months.
Say the food bill is 1200 every three months, then the payer would pay 600. Working on the food bill being 200 p/f for school aged children, if it's one child.
Then add on top the school fees, uniforms, books, extra curriculars, etc, which are halved between the parents, so we'll say that all of that comes to 200 p/m, so payer pays 100
At the least, the payer would be paying 1525 every three months, not including everything else, which is 508 p/m

I think this would be a fair system, tbh.