QLD child support payment changes

[Atticus]

There are basically 3 steps in assessing CS

1) The percentage of care
2) The Cost percentage
3) The CS percentage

In this case @Cameron1977 percentage of care is 50%.... His Cost percentage is therefore also 50%, What has changed here (by virtue of mum no longer working) is an alteration in the CS percentage resulting in @Cameron1977 sharp increase in payments.

A parent's child support percentage represents the share of the costs of the child they are required to meet, based on their share of income, less their contribution to the costs of the child provided directly through care

SOURCE >>> 2.4.5 Care, cost & child support percentages | Child Support Guide

Basically his assessed CS Liability INCLUDES basic school fees & associated costs , medical & dental etc. If @Cameron1977 wishes to pay for half these ON TOP of his assessed CS, all well & good, but he is NOT compelled to by legislation & he was wrongly advised by the CSA.

If mum considers there are significantly high costs in education or special needs, she can apply for a reason 2 reassessment, or go back to work.

 

[sammy01]

"So you are saying that if one parent pays any child support at all, then the receiving parent has to pay all the out of pocket costs? That’s nuts."
Nope that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that csa makes the rules, not you, not me. And yes that is their rule.. Now this bloke came and asked a question about his payments more than doubling and that is the question i'm answering.

"CSA may not be able to enforce it, but any decent parent would pay it." Yup agreed... But in this case mum has cash income from two tennants. If she is renting she is getting rent assistance. She has undeclared income and has now chosen to minimise work, even though she has the capacity and as a result old mate's payments have gone through the roof and you think he should still pay half of the out of pocket expenses on top of his $210 a week child support?

I've always been a fan of paying a bit extra- my logic was that a bit of extra here and there was gonna keep things sweet. So in some respects you and me agree Immismum. But CSA make the rules, not you, not me... And when my ex started to occasionally withold the kids, accepting gift vouchers for Target to buy them clothes, only to refuse to provide clothes and yell at me at change overs because I was only paying the minimum child support, plus swimming lessons and health insurance and buying school uniforms I stopped paying the extras.

These days the kids live with me 90% of the time and my ex works cash in hand... She was nice enough to agree to pay for half of eldest child's braces - minus the health insurance that I pay... That was nice that she agreed. BUT she has never actually paid a cent... So we're in a similar situation Immismum...

"Of course all of that assumes that the parents are doing the right thing, not hiding income, and actually working to support their own kids"
You've to that right Immismum.... And there in lies the problem, as with your ex, my ex and Cameron's ex... In plenty of cases parents elect 'private collect'. They sort it out between themselves and God bless 'em. But for the rest - CSA makes the rules and as Atticus rightly pointed out - Mum can always attempt to claim extras HOWEVER, CSA don't have to accept that claim.

BIT if one parent is intent on scamming, then hell no - why pay extra to someone who is already forcing you to pay extra because of their scamming.... So do you really think that Cameron, whose payments have more than doubled, because mum chose to quit work and who has cash income from boarders should continue to pay half all expenses when his child care assessed amount has gone from $80 a week to $210? REALLY?

 

[Docupedia]

Let’s consider three issues about child support that temper the argument:
1. Combined income is a factor. The higher the combined income, the higher the child support pool to divvy out. Agreed it is the government’s figures to begin with, but the child support amount payable takes into account the expected amount of income that could be put towards the child if the parents were together. In other words, 100% child support liability is lower for a combined income of say $75,000 than it is for a combined income of $150,000.

2. The receiving parent has no restrictions on what the child support can be used for. Zero. Want to blow it all on the pokies, and then hold their hand out for a percentage of extras? Done. And who’s to say that the money is actually being spent on the extras? The cost to properly police that would be excessive. That is even before considering whether the receiving parent engages with the paying parent to determine what extras will be incurred. Plenty of parents are unable or unwilling to communicate effectively on basic issues - let alone this area.

3. (This is a point of conjecture and cuts both ways) Child support does not take into account the parents’ partners’ income. Granted there may not be a partner, they may not contribute to the child, it is not their responsibility for the child, and gender pay gap may be an issue. It’s complicated. But, if the receiving parent is partnered then the odds are that some of their base costs are being supplemented or met by the partner. There is no acceptable way to factor that into the equation, but it is a relevant notional consideration.

 

[sammy01]

Ok, so to summaries - It is an imperfect system because it is a mathematical equation - care % + combined income of both parents. All good so far. But then you have to add the emotions involved and a child or two then add the various ways people use to abuse the system by not declaring income OR using children for financial gain. = one big mess and only the laywers win

 

[Immismum]

And there is stupid stuff like, childcare.
on the one hand I don’t think someone should pay for the childcare used by the other person. Particularly if it is 50/50.
on the other hand is one parent has all week day care, and needs childcare everyday, then the other should contribute.
Why?
Because if the parent using is childcare to earn money, then the amount of child support paid by the paying parent is reduced as the receiving parent is earning more money.
They a reason however to change the child support assessment wrt childcare. You just have to go through the program.

What happens though if the parents have 50/50, and earn the same amount. Who pays for medical, dental, school expenses then? Should it be shared 50/50?
If that is the case, then if one parent earns very slightly more and is assessed to lay $10 a week for example, does that resolve them of all responsibility to pay for any extras, because child support covers it?

And Sammy, I said several times, that if Cameron’s ex is refusing to work and his child support triples, then he should seriously reconsider the extras, but I think him paying 50% of the extras, while both parents are working full time is the decent thing to do

 

[Docupedia]

The way to even it out, in the long run, would be for the parent who the child is with is to pay the 'extras' when the child is with them. 50/50%? They'll end up paying 50% each. 75/25%? The 25% parent will pay less of the 'extras' but more in child support. A parent who deprives their child of, say, a medical or dental treatment while waiting for them to go back to the other parent so the other parent can pay for it has bigger issues going on than the apportionment of child support is going to resolve.

The issue of childcare is a prickly one, and not a hill I'd want to fight on. Why? What if the receiving parent puts the kid in childcare, doesn't work, and claims the rebates/benefits of childcare? From memory: the system isn't set up to allow both parents to make a claim, and it occurs in arrears. Effectively the receiving parent would have a child in full time childcare, and the cost would be heavily subsidised by the paying parent and public benefits. It may sound a bit farfetched, but looking at the way some parents try to game the system I don't think it's unrealistic. Even were it workable, it's taking an already complicated system and added greater levels of complexity.

For my mind it comes down to the choice factor. Paying parents have no direct say or control in what the receiving parent does with their time or money (including child support contributions). The system is arguably stacked against them already in any myriad of ways.

Plus, the calculated costs of children is apparently determined to include a range of expenses including childcare. It is acknowledged that the formula and values are not exact nor are they accepted by 'either side'. NATSEM (National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling), for example, published some research on the 'lifetime shopping bill from two children, from birth until they finish their education, in 2011-12 dollars' (Table 6, page 16: https://www.goldsborough.com.au/assets/publication-files/AMP-NATSEM.pdf). Included in the calculations are amounts for: recreation, childcare, health, transport, etc. NATSEM was commissioned, at least at one stage, to develop a detailed model for the Child Support Scheme and its interactions with tax and income support systems by the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support in 2005 (see page 4: https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/best_interests_children_full_report.pdf). While that may be out of date now (I don't know), it would indicate that a wide range of expenses is taken into account when determining the cost of children - therefore expecting more contribution for those items could be considered double dipping.

 

[sammy01]

Look there are lots of 'what if's'
What if WHAT IF -

So Immismum - I have a solution. 50/50 is rare... Bloody hard to get in court .Why? Well for 50/50 to truly work both parents have to be focused on the child(ren). Those sort of punters are gonna put the kid's violin lesson above the argument. Getting 50/50 in court is very rare. So it only happens when parents put their crap behind them... And that is what Cameron appears to have done.

But there is nothing in the child support rules that says that the paying parent has to pay for the additional stuff. I understand you disagree with that - But them's is the rules.

But if you want to discuss 'fair' or 'equal - please read this...

Parenting arrangements after separation

Summary of the findings from studies of post-separation parenting outcomes, including family law case files analyses and surveys of separated parents

aifs.gov.au

50/50 happens in 9% of cases... So your hypothetical of 50/50 care and both parents earning exactly the same $$ (or close to) is far fetched.

If you want to talk about 'fair' or 'equal' check out the gender inequity in that data in the link.

Now you mentioned something like - as a matter of decency the costs should be in line with the care % You have the kids 35% of the time, you pay 35% of the extras...Now I could almost agree with you about the payer paying for those extras (maybe) BUT in most cases the primary carer is getting family tax benefit. I noticed when I was having these arguments with my ex... She was adamant that 50/50 was fair when it came to child related expenses $$$ BUT thought it insane that I could have my kids for 35% of the time - let alone 50%. 34.999% she was good with - because that meant she kept all the family tax benefit.. I also noticed that my ex became irrational when I explained to herthat she was getting family tax benefit to contribute towards the costs of the kids AND child care subsidy for child care and as such expecting additional child support from me was a bit rough.

So Immismum - if the payer should pay for 30% of expenses if they have 30% care then what should happen to the family tax benefit? Shouldn't the paying parent get 30% of the family tax benefit? See the system has ways and means to sort this stuff out and it is pretty fair without the payer having to fork out every time the other parent demands it and don't get me started on how that would work when you're dealing with a nutter like my ex...

Ultimately, it isn't the 'system' that is flawed. It is a good system (could be better) It is when one parent is intent on doing what ever they can to either avoid paying for their kid, or scamming as much money as they possibly can, or using the system to seek vengence on their ex...

 

[Cameron1977]

Wow great thread on this one - thanks for all the feedback

to explain my situation.

• have 50/50 care. (had to fight and pay for it in settlement. she wanted money. she got it, i got my 50%. but i've moved on and just keep the peace.)
• CSA told me that child support had nothing to do with child care, school costs, sport, swimming, lessons, medical etc. - the 50% payment was just to even out the income between the two of us. Unless she agrees it goes towards child support - highly doubt that.
• I checked with 3 different CSA staff on this one. Told the same thing.
• Child care - I do use child care as I work full time, so I have no issue paying for that being 50% as i pay for my week. If I only had him 2 days a week, I would pay 2 days a week as he is in my care, I pay for what he needs when he is in my care. We do use her child care ratingbenefit/ so that keeps my costs down here.
• She also gets family tax benefit, I do not. (that could be different now with the partner)
• I have paid to date for activities (like club sport) and medical 50%. and do feel that is the right thing to do.
• She has a live in partner.

My issues are:

• having 50% care should not need to pay child support - in fact they are increased because I need to pay child support (supporting my child while she is in his care - like food part housing), costs while in my care - like food / housing again - plus other general costs.
  • I am being penalized for being more qualified/earn more money (I appreciate there is a gender pay gap in the world, I'm not here to argue that, I have females in my field that get paid same or more than I and there are professions that get paid more than I in mine (male or female)) Professions normally control that. i.e. I have one mate who has a lawyer as his ex. and he was a barman. She was earning 5 times what he was. - no kids in this example sorry )
• her partners income does not get brought into it. He could earn $800,000 a year, in a mansion and I would still need to pay her....base don what I understand. I'm single, my costs for supporting my house are my cost, her costs are shared. So she in theory would have more to spend on him at the end of the week if that makes sense.
• I'm 90% sure she has quit her job and is living off him. (they own the house as I saw someone mentioned renting) But she tells me she is looking for work....we will see

School is coming up in 2023 - how does this work? School Books, uniforms etc.
I saw some comments around if $X child support then you should pay fair share of costs, but if $Y then you shouldn't....what is x and y? - obviously this is part of the question. It all becomes relative to who earns what and who can afford what.

Agree the system is flawed and appreciate not one solution would fit all. I don't have a solution. But I found out that for me to not pay her anything, it needs to be 80% care to me....how is that fair?

If she stays unemployed for much longer, I will call CSA.

 

[sammy01]

Yes - there is lots that is not fair about the system... So when child starts school your ex will cry poor, despite getting family tax benefit. You will need to deal with what to do then. CSA won't help.

But there is some stuff you can do and it is all based on CSA rules. So capacity to work would be the first thing. What was she doing for work? As I mentioned - given you're in QLD she is unlikey to have Covid as an excuse. But you can appeal the decision to increase payments based on her being out of work... What was she doing for work?

She owns the house? as in she owns it without a mortgage? if so then you can seek a review due to her financial situation.

You need to get onto this. You have 28 days to appeal any decision CSA makes. So if you wanna challenge her new income estimate you need to get onto it asap.

 

[Cameron1977]

She works in medical disability care. She has the vaccine.

No house is mortgaged. So has a debt. What...couldn't tell you.

Ok didn't know the 28 days thing. I think it's been a couple of months now. Oh well....I'll just have to hope she finds a job.