I found an interesting quote in an email today. It's attributed to Thomas Jefferson although there is some uncertainty that they are his words - regardless they are worthy of attention
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not” (See http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4053 re the authenticity issue)
Some more on it at http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-cease-to-exist-quotation with another Jefferson comment "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that
of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who,
or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to
violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, -€˜the guarantee
to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits
acquired by it."
I'm not quote sure if those were supposed to be Jefferson's words or a translation by Jefferson of another's words.
I'm certainly not feeling much free exercise of my industry and the fruits acquired by it with around half my gross pay going without me having any real say in how it's used.
I've written to the ombudsman today, no great confidence that they can or will change anything for me but I'd hate to let this go on longer than it needs to by ignoring a possibility. If nothing else if enough people do so they may get an understanding of where so called Child Support legislation fails and provide advice to the government to make some changes which could make it a lot fairer.
The lack of any fairness provisions in Child Support enforcement is really frustrating.
I'm certainly travelling a lot better than I was initially, some extra hours in place to make some more income and I've cut out some expenses (one PT session a week rather than two, mig gas bottle returned, avoiding the tunnel on the way home and putting up with Valley traffic and a few other bit's and pieces). Things like some home repairs will have to wait for a while longer. I'm doing a fitness challenge with a team at work which is helping with motivation for exercise which had dropped off badly after this all started. My work life balance has been impacted badly by some of the changes but I hope on balance that's better than the alternative.
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Another call from CSA today in response to objections I posted to their contact us section.
I spoke to a pleasant women who at least gave some sense of empathy if not any ability to change anything.
It seems as though the only hope of change is if the pollies start taking the issue serious - aaaahhhh!
Of interest CSA don't seem to have any mechanism to give feedback to the Government on how well the system works (or does not work). They can read my points of concern, they can emphasis with my concerns but I still get stung, my ex continues to profit at my expense from my son and the Government apparently does not get feedback from those in the best position to collect "client" feedback.
The formula is government mandated and they can not deviate except in a limited range of circumstances which don't include fairness provisions.
What should be done (in case any pollies read this)
1/ Ditch the whole thing, the conflict CSA generates between parents is not worth it. The good parents will support their kids and I doubt that CSA gets many of the bad ones anyway. Decent parents on both sides of CSA suffer if the other parent is good at playing the system.
I doubt that is politically viable to drop the system so
2/ a. Set a minimum share of a reasonable cost of the care of children shared by both parents regardless of their taxable income. Both parents should be responsible for the upkeep of their children not just the one unfortunate enough to be separated from their kids. A history of dodging real work should not absolve someone from responsibility for the cost of the care of their kids.
b. Allow for variations in the allowed amount (not the share) where there is reason to do so related to necessary costs of raising the kids
- Out of hours care costs related for care to allow for the custodial parent to work
- Special medical needs
- Agreed extra curricular activities
Above all never ever allow the system to be used by a greedy parent to financially punish the other parent for perceived hurts from the past.
I spoke to a pleasant women who at least gave some sense of empathy if not any ability to change anything.
It seems as though the only hope of change is if the pollies start taking the issue serious - aaaahhhh!
Of interest CSA don't seem to have any mechanism to give feedback to the Government on how well the system works (or does not work). They can read my points of concern, they can emphasis with my concerns but I still get stung, my ex continues to profit at my expense from my son and the Government apparently does not get feedback from those in the best position to collect "client" feedback.
The formula is government mandated and they can not deviate except in a limited range of circumstances which don't include fairness provisions.
What should be done (in case any pollies read this)
1/ Ditch the whole thing, the conflict CSA generates between parents is not worth it. The good parents will support their kids and I doubt that CSA gets many of the bad ones anyway. Decent parents on both sides of CSA suffer if the other parent is good at playing the system.
I doubt that is politically viable to drop the system so
2/ a. Set a minimum share of a reasonable cost of the care of children shared by both parents regardless of their taxable income. Both parents should be responsible for the upkeep of their children not just the one unfortunate enough to be separated from their kids. A history of dodging real work should not absolve someone from responsibility for the cost of the care of their kids.
b. Allow for variations in the allowed amount (not the share) where there is reason to do so related to necessary costs of raising the kids
- Out of hours care costs related for care to allow for the custodial parent to work
- Special medical needs
- Agreed extra curricular activities
Above all never ever allow the system to be used by a greedy parent to financially punish the other parent for perceived hurts from the past.
Monday, 28 May 2012
I've been pondering the concept of responsibility and the way it's applied. It would not have made a difference in my situation, I didn't seek child support payments.
If I had I would have received very if anything because my ex earned very little. That was I believe a lifestyle choice rather than a case of disability. During the period she and her husband have been together there have been overseas holidays most if not every year, there has been regular other travel. There appear to have been plenty of nice weekends away. My ex has enjoyed a standard of living that bears no relation to her earned income.
Because the only thing that's measured in terms of financial responsibility is earning history CSA does not and as I understand it would not have considered her responsible for any significant portion of the financial responsibility for her son. Because I've not found (nor looked for) someone able and willing to support me financially I'm considered far more responsible for the upkeep of my son than someone enjoying what appears to be a higher standard of living than I have(in financial terms) .
It's not the situation of someone who's been unable to work because of the care of children.
CSA believes that her partners income should not come into yet that partners income is I suspect the main reason that she has been able to keep her own income so low over that period.
I don't see why a history of choosing not to support yourself should be a reason to be absolved of responsibilities that are demanded of others who have supported themselves.
It time she started to take some financial responsibility for our son. If her husband chooses to bear that responsibility on her behalf then that's their issue but the idea that a long term choice not to work much (while enjoying a high standard of living) should make someone less responsible than someone else is a nonsense that we should be rid of.
If I had I would have received very if anything because my ex earned very little. That was I believe a lifestyle choice rather than a case of disability. During the period she and her husband have been together there have been overseas holidays most if not every year, there has been regular other travel. There appear to have been plenty of nice weekends away. My ex has enjoyed a standard of living that bears no relation to her earned income.
Because the only thing that's measured in terms of financial responsibility is earning history CSA does not and as I understand it would not have considered her responsible for any significant portion of the financial responsibility for her son. Because I've not found (nor looked for) someone able and willing to support me financially I'm considered far more responsible for the upkeep of my son than someone enjoying what appears to be a higher standard of living than I have(in financial terms) .
It's not the situation of someone who's been unable to work because of the care of children.
CSA believes that her partners income should not come into yet that partners income is I suspect the main reason that she has been able to keep her own income so low over that period.
I don't see why a history of choosing not to support yourself should be a reason to be absolved of responsibilities that are demanded of others who have supported themselves.
It time she started to take some financial responsibility for our son. If her husband chooses to bear that responsibility on her behalf then that's their issue but the idea that a long term choice not to work much (while enjoying a high standard of living) should make someone less responsible than someone else is a nonsense that we should be rid of.
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
I've received a couple of emails from CSA this week informing me that I have messages, to get to them seemed to involve creating an account with the australian government website and having a current CSA reference number. The reference number was not included in the emails and I had a little bit of time during the day today so worked through the process of registering then grabbed an empty meeting room and rang CSA to get my login sorted.
I actually got someone who was good to deal with (still no changes to what is a fundamentally unjust system though).
The good news, I'd been told some years ago that CSA stayed until the child turned 18 or finished full time study including tertiary study - whichever was the later. It turn out the tertiary part was false, it's secondary so this ends in a 3 to 3 1/2 half years. All other things being equal I may get the sponges out of my pay and get some ytears to try and get my finances in order for retirement, not a lot but better than it was looking.
The bad news, CSA takes no responsibility for failing to make the arrangements with my employer that were discussed in the initial call in march nor do they take any responsibility for a known problem that some "clients" including me had not been receiving emails. I'd not received any communications from them following the initial call in march until last thursday and had hoped that the whole thing had gone away (that my ex's partner had developed a conscience).
I will/may be subject to a fine for late payment despite CSA agreeing to arrange to have the money taken from my pay. Another sign of a corrupt organisation acting without ethics.
In true CSA respect for privacy the assessment messages included both my and my ex's taxable income. I made it clear in march that I objected to that information being shared with my ex, it's not her business nor is her income my business. I'm in no position to know if her claimed income is real nor is she in a position to know the validity of my income. Should only be an issue if there is reason to think one party is cheating on declaring income and the tax department is in a far better position to review claimed income than an ex who you have not been with for years.
CSA won't send me the details in emails to protect my privacy but share financial details with one of the few people in the world I have some personal reasons to detest. Another of those really silly policies from an organisation lacking accountability.
It does turn out that my choice not to have sought child support from my ex was a hollow gesture, she has managed to keep her income low enough that I would have got little or nothing anyway. I knew it would be low but not how low.
I don't think that particularly influenced my decision, I was able to support my son and myself without any great pain. Some things had been left on hold in the expectation that as he got older my costs were reducing but the lack of tension over finances was a great thing not to have. Unfortunately I'm now facing a doubling of costs to support my son rather than a reduction.
Also interesting that we both get a deducted amount for self support, an identical amount with no relationship to our living arrangements. The same amount is allowed for someone who has remarried and sharing a home as is allowed for a single maintaining a home themselves - not quite the same rules the government uses for itself when providing support. Probably irrelevant in our circumstances, a difference would not impact on what I pay but yet another of those poor policies in CSA rules.
It's been a mixed day, it's a big help to know that this is only 3 1/2 years but that 3 1/2 years is a long time to keep stuff on hold. A long time to have my ability to do something with my partner impacted by sponges using me son for supplemental income, a long time not to have the spare money to fix a shower with bulging tiles and make some other repairs that can't be done cheaply.
I actually had a discussion with a CSA employee that did not leave me with a sick feeling in the stomach. CSA policies were shown to be even more arbitrary and symptomatic of a lack of accountability than I'd previously realised.
I strongly believe that most of those CSA manage to get money from are people who would willingly support their kids anyway. CSA may be able to over inflate the amounts transferred but I doubt that they get many payers to pay who would be unwilling to support kids under a more responsible and fair set of rules. They introduce such an unfair element to the whole system that they create and motivate conflict between parents which need not to be there. If kids welfare is an issue the government should be seeking to minimise causes of conflict, not running an organisation structured to create it.
I actually got someone who was good to deal with (still no changes to what is a fundamentally unjust system though).
The good news, I'd been told some years ago that CSA stayed until the child turned 18 or finished full time study including tertiary study - whichever was the later. It turn out the tertiary part was false, it's secondary so this ends in a 3 to 3 1/2 half years. All other things being equal I may get the sponges out of my pay and get some ytears to try and get my finances in order for retirement, not a lot but better than it was looking.
The bad news, CSA takes no responsibility for failing to make the arrangements with my employer that were discussed in the initial call in march nor do they take any responsibility for a known problem that some "clients" including me had not been receiving emails. I'd not received any communications from them following the initial call in march until last thursday and had hoped that the whole thing had gone away (that my ex's partner had developed a conscience).
I will/may be subject to a fine for late payment despite CSA agreeing to arrange to have the money taken from my pay. Another sign of a corrupt organisation acting without ethics.
In true CSA respect for privacy the assessment messages included both my and my ex's taxable income. I made it clear in march that I objected to that information being shared with my ex, it's not her business nor is her income my business. I'm in no position to know if her claimed income is real nor is she in a position to know the validity of my income. Should only be an issue if there is reason to think one party is cheating on declaring income and the tax department is in a far better position to review claimed income than an ex who you have not been with for years.
CSA won't send me the details in emails to protect my privacy but share financial details with one of the few people in the world I have some personal reasons to detest. Another of those really silly policies from an organisation lacking accountability.
It does turn out that my choice not to have sought child support from my ex was a hollow gesture, she has managed to keep her income low enough that I would have got little or nothing anyway. I knew it would be low but not how low.
I don't think that particularly influenced my decision, I was able to support my son and myself without any great pain. Some things had been left on hold in the expectation that as he got older my costs were reducing but the lack of tension over finances was a great thing not to have. Unfortunately I'm now facing a doubling of costs to support my son rather than a reduction.
Also interesting that we both get a deducted amount for self support, an identical amount with no relationship to our living arrangements. The same amount is allowed for someone who has remarried and sharing a home as is allowed for a single maintaining a home themselves - not quite the same rules the government uses for itself when providing support. Probably irrelevant in our circumstances, a difference would not impact on what I pay but yet another of those poor policies in CSA rules.
It's been a mixed day, it's a big help to know that this is only 3 1/2 years but that 3 1/2 years is a long time to keep stuff on hold. A long time to have my ability to do something with my partner impacted by sponges using me son for supplemental income, a long time not to have the spare money to fix a shower with bulging tiles and make some other repairs that can't be done cheaply.
I actually had a discussion with a CSA employee that did not leave me with a sick feeling in the stomach. CSA policies were shown to be even more arbitrary and symptomatic of a lack of accountability than I'd previously realised.
I strongly believe that most of those CSA manage to get money from are people who would willingly support their kids anyway. CSA may be able to over inflate the amounts transferred but I doubt that they get many payers to pay who would be unwilling to support kids under a more responsible and fair set of rules. They introduce such an unfair element to the whole system that they create and motivate conflict between parents which need not to be there. If kids welfare is an issue the government should be seeking to minimise causes of conflict, not running an organisation structured to create it.
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
The issue is still churning on my mind. The lack of hope of a way to stop this rort is distressing.
I'm seeing the opportunities for myself and my partner in the future to do something about a home together harmed, the opportunity to get my mortgage paid off gone and the continued pressure to keep earning at a level that's not always easy to maintain for the sake of a corrupt so called child support system that uses a dishonest measure of what it costs to raise a child to prop up a scam.
The lack of recourse to an independent arbitrator, the lack of any kind of fairness test or check, the lack of a review of the relative impacts or need for what's being done is galling.
I want to be able to make a public issue of this but it seems difficult to do so without making an issue for my son which I don't want and there does seem to be a massive community indifference to the corrupt child support system and the incentives it provides to the unethical to do the wrong thing and the harm that inflicts on others.
I don't want this to dominate my life for years to come but every day spending decisions and choices will be impacted by this rort, stuff that I could afford to do when I had full time care of my son (and didn't get money from the ex) is now a difficult choice even working extra hours. Those extra hours result in a greater liability to pay child support.
The system is corrupt, those who take more than a share of what it costs to raise a child are profiteering from their kid's and those who choose to support the system share in the corruption. Their job involves hurting innocent people with a clearly unbalanced abuse of power.
I don't know how much venting helps, it does seem to be of benefit. There seems to be little that I can do right now to get any practical change.
I'm seeing the opportunities for myself and my partner in the future to do something about a home together harmed, the opportunity to get my mortgage paid off gone and the continued pressure to keep earning at a level that's not always easy to maintain for the sake of a corrupt so called child support system that uses a dishonest measure of what it costs to raise a child to prop up a scam.
The lack of recourse to an independent arbitrator, the lack of any kind of fairness test or check, the lack of a review of the relative impacts or need for what's being done is galling.
I want to be able to make a public issue of this but it seems difficult to do so without making an issue for my son which I don't want and there does seem to be a massive community indifference to the corrupt child support system and the incentives it provides to the unethical to do the wrong thing and the harm that inflicts on others.
I don't want this to dominate my life for years to come but every day spending decisions and choices will be impacted by this rort, stuff that I could afford to do when I had full time care of my son (and didn't get money from the ex) is now a difficult choice even working extra hours. Those extra hours result in a greater liability to pay child support.
The system is corrupt, those who take more than a share of what it costs to raise a child are profiteering from their kid's and those who choose to support the system share in the corruption. Their job involves hurting innocent people with a clearly unbalanced abuse of power.
I don't know how much venting helps, it does seem to be of benefit. There seems to be little that I can do right now to get any practical change.
Thursday, 17 May 2012
I'd been beginning to think that my ex's partner may have had enough decency to get this stopped as the money still had not started going but a call from CSA today showed me the error of that misplaced optimism.
CSA was wanting backpay and were suprised that I'd not sent them money despite their plans to have the money taken from my pay. I'd happily cooperate with a sane amount but refuse to cooperate with such an obscene assessment. Unfortunately they will get the money anyway but I don't want to make it easier for them to do their wrong doing.
It's a horrid feeling to be so ripped off by an ex who was always a user and have the government there to help.
No where to turn to get it fixed and a man who I'd once respected turning out to be either a money grubbing slime or too weak to make an ethical stand against wrongdoing. Maybe that's how he manages to stay seemingy happily married to my ex.
On the upside my son continues to be happy with the school (despite a general dislike of school). Something he never expressed with the local high school in my area. It's a shame his mum and her husband are willing to put blatent profiteering (or revenge for invented harms) ahead of working cooperatively for his well being.
I was less than friendly to the CSA caller, another CSA person willing to do great harm in her day to day job and seemingly not taking responsibility for her choice to do that job. She may not be responsible for the formula but she is responsible for staying a job that applies it. I generally don't like to make it personal when people are stuck with silly company policy but there is a point when the job is far more than some silly restrictions on policy and becomes one of doing great harm where it should be personal. Where those willing to do that job know that they are doing harm to some of those they call with no fairness or justice involved to the ones they harm.
Whilst I don't wish any harm to the woman who called I'm hoping something got through, that each day when she does her job she is aware that this isn't just applying a formula, it's not always helping the needy and that sometimes she is siding with the users and abusers to rip off parents who have always tried to do the right thing by their children. I hope that she and her co-workers have a few of the sleepless nights that those being ripped off by CSA's formula experience and maybe just maybe there might eventually be some impitus from inside CSA for a less destructive system.
CSA was wanting backpay and were suprised that I'd not sent them money despite their plans to have the money taken from my pay. I'd happily cooperate with a sane amount but refuse to cooperate with such an obscene assessment. Unfortunately they will get the money anyway but I don't want to make it easier for them to do their wrong doing.
It's a horrid feeling to be so ripped off by an ex who was always a user and have the government there to help.
No where to turn to get it fixed and a man who I'd once respected turning out to be either a money grubbing slime or too weak to make an ethical stand against wrongdoing. Maybe that's how he manages to stay seemingy happily married to my ex.
On the upside my son continues to be happy with the school (despite a general dislike of school). Something he never expressed with the local high school in my area. It's a shame his mum and her husband are willing to put blatent profiteering (or revenge for invented harms) ahead of working cooperatively for his well being.
I was less than friendly to the CSA caller, another CSA person willing to do great harm in her day to day job and seemingly not taking responsibility for her choice to do that job. She may not be responsible for the formula but she is responsible for staying a job that applies it. I generally don't like to make it personal when people are stuck with silly company policy but there is a point when the job is far more than some silly restrictions on policy and becomes one of doing great harm where it should be personal. Where those willing to do that job know that they are doing harm to some of those they call with no fairness or justice involved to the ones they harm.
Whilst I don't wish any harm to the woman who called I'm hoping something got through, that each day when she does her job she is aware that this isn't just applying a formula, it's not always helping the needy and that sometimes she is siding with the users and abusers to rip off parents who have always tried to do the right thing by their children. I hope that she and her co-workers have a few of the sleepless nights that those being ripped off by CSA's formula experience and maybe just maybe there might eventually be some impitus from inside CSA for a less destructive system.
Thursday, 12 April 2012
Where I'm at now
I've not been writing as much as I expected. I don't want to make this about my ex and her partner or my views on their ethics or lack thereof and their disgusting choices have occupied my thoughts far to much since this began. I've not yet had to deal with them directly, not looking forward to that as I don't want a scene in front of my son but also can't stomach the thought of exchanging polite courtesies with either of them at this point.
I've made arrangements to work some extra hours to try and get to a viable position financially, still not back to where I was with my son living with me and paying the costs myself but at least with some financial space to live.
It's frustrating that my choice to work extra hours will result in an increased CSA liability and at some point I'll have to contact CSA to tell them, a process I'm not looking forward to as the whole process is so corrupt that the thought of cooperating with them is distressing. As far as I can tell I'll loose about half of any extra money I earn in extra tax and CSA payments and would rather maintain a better work/life balance but CSA's overly inflated assessments make that not viable.
Having this around makes stuff involving my son much more difficult, I really don't want to have to deal with my ex or her partner after recent choices but would like to be able to maintain an active role in his life. Given my son is living with them the ultimate choices about schooling and some other issues does and should rest with them but I'd not even been given the courtesy of being consulted about a choice of school or any other decisions which have been made since the change in residency.
The nature of the CSA approach in just taking large amounts of money and give it to my ex with no accountability on how it's used leaves me with no actual say in decisions about what money is spent on my son (or if it is spent on him at all rather than going to supplement his mums wants).
The process leaves me feeling completely isolated from any active role other than as a money source for an unethical and self serving woman.
I'm very disappointed in my ex's husband. While my son was living with me he was apparently all for keeping communication and cooperation happening and things on a civil note. Once my son moved an my ex had power to do it all her way his interest in all of that seems to have disappeared. Now it's dismissive of my concerns and a disinterest in resolving anything. I had thought he was a better man than that. I don't think that he is actually stupid enough to believe the CSA figures nor so stupid that he can't see the problem with my ex not contributing at all while my son was her then using CSA to rip me off but those appear to be what he's supporting. I don't know his reasons, perhaps he's just buying himself peace but he's not chosen to communicate his reasons for choices with me.
People wonder about why so many men are so bitter about family law outcomes and CSA but the system is so flawed and so structured to produce bad outcomes that it's an almost inevitable outcome.
I've made arrangements to work some extra hours to try and get to a viable position financially, still not back to where I was with my son living with me and paying the costs myself but at least with some financial space to live.
It's frustrating that my choice to work extra hours will result in an increased CSA liability and at some point I'll have to contact CSA to tell them, a process I'm not looking forward to as the whole process is so corrupt that the thought of cooperating with them is distressing. As far as I can tell I'll loose about half of any extra money I earn in extra tax and CSA payments and would rather maintain a better work/life balance but CSA's overly inflated assessments make that not viable.
Having this around makes stuff involving my son much more difficult, I really don't want to have to deal with my ex or her partner after recent choices but would like to be able to maintain an active role in his life. Given my son is living with them the ultimate choices about schooling and some other issues does and should rest with them but I'd not even been given the courtesy of being consulted about a choice of school or any other decisions which have been made since the change in residency.
The nature of the CSA approach in just taking large amounts of money and give it to my ex with no accountability on how it's used leaves me with no actual say in decisions about what money is spent on my son (or if it is spent on him at all rather than going to supplement his mums wants).
The process leaves me feeling completely isolated from any active role other than as a money source for an unethical and self serving woman.
I'm very disappointed in my ex's husband. While my son was living with me he was apparently all for keeping communication and cooperation happening and things on a civil note. Once my son moved an my ex had power to do it all her way his interest in all of that seems to have disappeared. Now it's dismissive of my concerns and a disinterest in resolving anything. I had thought he was a better man than that. I don't think that he is actually stupid enough to believe the CSA figures nor so stupid that he can't see the problem with my ex not contributing at all while my son was her then using CSA to rip me off but those appear to be what he's supporting. I don't know his reasons, perhaps he's just buying himself peace but he's not chosen to communicate his reasons for choices with me.
People wonder about why so many men are so bitter about family law outcomes and CSA but the system is so flawed and so structured to produce bad outcomes that it's an almost inevitable outcome.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Cost of a child
I've been trying to work out how anyone can seriously believe that it costs $410 a week to keep a 14 year old boy with limited extra curricular interests and no ongoing medical treatment yet that's the figure my ex and her partner are using and the one that CSA apparently use.
Apart from the obvious of food clothing etc which I'll address in a moment there two figures mentioned by my ex and her husband to justify this.
An extra $35 a week in rent after moving to a larger home
Adding our son to their health cover, those with a few minutes on their hands may care to hit iSelect and get a couple of quotes, one for couples health insurance and one for family cover. For those who could not be bothered all the policies I saw listed were exactly the same price for both.
My estimates on weekly costs (not quite what I did as I kept a phone plan for him, tried to make pocket money earned, grew some food, he avoided haircuts and I was fortunate that a friend with an older boy gave a lot of good quality casual clothes). The figures are approximate, no doubt they can be run up but savings can also be found with some care.
$60 food
$5 clothes
$5 grooming
$15 pocket money
$10 extra power & cleaning products
$3 X-Box online
$15 school costs (depends on how uniforms & books are treated)
$10 extra fuel for run around (rides a bike to school). Not much extra curricular
$15 out of pocket medical
$15 holidays
$5 gifts
$5 wear and tear (things that wear out and may need replacing)
Eg around $163 a week. My gut feel had been around $150 but pocket money was not often earned.
Sometimes there may be extras but they are not guaranteed and sometimes there will be savings.
In my view the optional extras should be subject to negotiation, not have the money just taken and used by the other parent without review.
I'm also struggling with the type of ethics that allow for someone who didn't contribute to any of the basic costs while my son was living with me to use CSA in such a brutal manner. The hardship this is causing me has been casually dismissed with a call that we all should get on with it by my ex's partner, meanwhile I'm searching around trying to work out what costs I can cut and still keep some kind of life. I need to get over that and accept that I'd badly misjudged my ex's partner.
I'll probably need to get rid of my aquarium, it uses power. I won't be able to keep using a great personal trainer I've been working with for a while. Discretionary spending on hobbies is almost gone. I'm pondering if it's worth the entry fee and fuel to do another triathlon in April whereas before this started those were not a stretch, now it's two or three weeks of discretionary spending. I'm doing a more difficult drive to get home from work as the Clem 7 is more than I can afford. Tried the train again and the few dollars a week that might save don't come close to the lack of comfort and extra time taken but that may change when I don't have free parking.
I'm trying to work my way to a focus on more positive things, accepting that this is really being done and nothing much I can do can change it. My PT has suggested that I do the Circle of Influence exercise which makes sense, there are some things I can control and I need to work with those.
The CSA system badly needs some kind of independent fairness review process, what they do now is a massive abuse.
Apart from the obvious of food clothing etc which I'll address in a moment there two figures mentioned by my ex and her husband to justify this.
An extra $35 a week in rent after moving to a larger home
Adding our son to their health cover, those with a few minutes on their hands may care to hit iSelect and get a couple of quotes, one for couples health insurance and one for family cover. For those who could not be bothered all the policies I saw listed were exactly the same price for both.
My estimates on weekly costs (not quite what I did as I kept a phone plan for him, tried to make pocket money earned, grew some food, he avoided haircuts and I was fortunate that a friend with an older boy gave a lot of good quality casual clothes). The figures are approximate, no doubt they can be run up but savings can also be found with some care.
$60 food
$5 clothes
$5 grooming
$15 pocket money
$10 extra power & cleaning products
$3 X-Box online
$15 school costs (depends on how uniforms & books are treated)
$10 extra fuel for run around (rides a bike to school). Not much extra curricular
$15 out of pocket medical
$15 holidays
$5 gifts
$5 wear and tear (things that wear out and may need replacing)
Eg around $163 a week. My gut feel had been around $150 but pocket money was not often earned.
Sometimes there may be extras but they are not guaranteed and sometimes there will be savings.
In my view the optional extras should be subject to negotiation, not have the money just taken and used by the other parent without review.
I'm also struggling with the type of ethics that allow for someone who didn't contribute to any of the basic costs while my son was living with me to use CSA in such a brutal manner. The hardship this is causing me has been casually dismissed with a call that we all should get on with it by my ex's partner, meanwhile I'm searching around trying to work out what costs I can cut and still keep some kind of life. I need to get over that and accept that I'd badly misjudged my ex's partner.
I'll probably need to get rid of my aquarium, it uses power. I won't be able to keep using a great personal trainer I've been working with for a while. Discretionary spending on hobbies is almost gone. I'm pondering if it's worth the entry fee and fuel to do another triathlon in April whereas before this started those were not a stretch, now it's two or three weeks of discretionary spending. I'm doing a more difficult drive to get home from work as the Clem 7 is more than I can afford. Tried the train again and the few dollars a week that might save don't come close to the lack of comfort and extra time taken but that may change when I don't have free parking.
I'm trying to work my way to a focus on more positive things, accepting that this is really being done and nothing much I can do can change it. My PT has suggested that I do the Circle of Influence exercise which makes sense, there are some things I can control and I need to work with those.
The CSA system badly needs some kind of independent fairness review process, what they do now is a massive abuse.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Some initial thoughts
I've recently needed to have dealings with CSA again after some years of being the prime carer and avoiding their involvement. The assessed support amount is going to cause me considerable financial hardship and is more than double what I believe it was actually costing to meet real and healthy costs for maintaining my son other than where there were significant extra expenses (out of hours care when he was younger).
A number of points have stuck in my mind since the call from CSA
- There was no mention of any support services, financial or personal. I was called at work and left absolutely gutted by an assessment that is going to leave me financially stretched for years to come seeming with no concern for my well being at all.
- There are no fairness or context criteria to the assessment, a formula is applied regardless of the relative impacts of the history of sharing of costs, financial commitments and impacts of the decision.
- Whilst the other parent's partner should not be responsible for the costs of raising my child I should not be responsible for ongoing career choices by someone I'm no longer in a relationship with. I'm having to pay the vast majority of the assessed costs because of work choices by my ex which I've had no say in and which are impacted by my ex's partners income and lifestyle choices.
- There does not appear to be any independent review process, no one to turn to and have the assessment reviewed other than CSA itself unless I find evidence that they have acted illegally and could afford a legal challenge. having CSA review their own decision looks like a source of additional pain with little likely hood of any improvement.
- There does not seem to be viable way's that I can make changes to improve my situation, finding way's to increase my income would increase my tax and CSA obligations meaning that I'd have to make a lot extra to get a little back. Extra income could also increase my "capacity to earn" meaning an increased CSA obligation regardless of an ongoing capacity to continue to earn at that rate, not sure of all the rules around that. I'm still pondering options there and I'll have to spend some more time on what options I have to make more income and the trade off in work life balance.
- The government does not involve itself with other families and demand that they spend a certain proportion of their weekly income on raising a child, the measures are on a level of care not expenditure. I can't see any way that it can be good for a child without special needs or significant extra curricular activities
to have as much spent on them as the formula's suggest. http://www.csa.gov.au/child_support_formula/child_costs_table_2012.php
I've been more than happy to pay real costs associated with raising my son but I object strongly to the amount's CSA chooses to nominate and the utter lack of balance in the way they deal with such decisions.
There should be fairness criteria in the process which take into account context and leave both parents responsible for their choices, not a system which seems focussed on maximising the transfer of money between parents.
A number of points have stuck in my mind since the call from CSA
- There was no mention of any support services, financial or personal. I was called at work and left absolutely gutted by an assessment that is going to leave me financially stretched for years to come seeming with no concern for my well being at all.
- There are no fairness or context criteria to the assessment, a formula is applied regardless of the relative impacts of the history of sharing of costs, financial commitments and impacts of the decision.
- Whilst the other parent's partner should not be responsible for the costs of raising my child I should not be responsible for ongoing career choices by someone I'm no longer in a relationship with. I'm having to pay the vast majority of the assessed costs because of work choices by my ex which I've had no say in and which are impacted by my ex's partners income and lifestyle choices.
- There does not appear to be any independent review process, no one to turn to and have the assessment reviewed other than CSA itself unless I find evidence that they have acted illegally and could afford a legal challenge. having CSA review their own decision looks like a source of additional pain with little likely hood of any improvement.
- There does not seem to be viable way's that I can make changes to improve my situation, finding way's to increase my income would increase my tax and CSA obligations meaning that I'd have to make a lot extra to get a little back. Extra income could also increase my "capacity to earn" meaning an increased CSA obligation regardless of an ongoing capacity to continue to earn at that rate, not sure of all the rules around that. I'm still pondering options there and I'll have to spend some more time on what options I have to make more income and the trade off in work life balance.
- The government does not involve itself with other families and demand that they spend a certain proportion of their weekly income on raising a child, the measures are on a level of care not expenditure. I can't see any way that it can be good for a child without special needs or significant extra curricular activities
to have as much spent on them as the formula's suggest. http://www.csa.gov.au/child_support_formula/child_costs_table_2012.php
I've been more than happy to pay real costs associated with raising my son but I object strongly to the amount's CSA chooses to nominate and the utter lack of balance in the way they deal with such decisions.
There should be fairness criteria in the process which take into account context and leave both parents responsible for their choices, not a system which seems focussed on maximising the transfer of money between parents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)