New formula has bitter taste for mums | NEWS.com.au
March 10, 2008 | Posted by ANCPR New formula has bitter taste for mums | NEWS.com.au
Between now and May, the 1.5 million parents with a financial relationship through the Child Support Agency are being notified by mail of their new payment arrangements, to take effect from July 1.
According to Sole Parents Union of Australia’s Kathleen Swinbourne, most mums will be furious at the news they get in the post.
Stripped back to the basics, the reforms mean reduced payments to support children living with resident parents. And that is usually mums.
From July 1, child support payments will no longer be based on straight percentages of income from the non-resident parents, usually fathers.
Under that system, dads earning more than $100,000 a year were paying up to $10,000 per child to support offspring from a first marriage.
Instead, payments will be arrived at with a new formula that at first glance makes the Income Tax Assessment Act look as simple as a script for the teen soapie Home and Away.
The new payment formula takes into account incomes from both parents after deducting an initial sum, $18,252, for “self-support” for each.
The childcare payment is then calculated based on the age of the child, whether there are other children from a second relationship and time each parent spends caring for a child.
Coupled with this are changes in the treatment of the Family Tax Benefit, which mean the non-resident parent must provide care for about a third of the year to receive a portion.
Ms Swinbourne said the changes were just the latest big cave-in to the resurgent men’s rights lobby. The legal and financial rights of women after relationship breakdown were firmly in retreat, she said. They followed 2006 Family Law Act amendments in 2006 that urged judges to consider “equal time” child custody.
Ms Swinbourne said her biggest concern with the July 1 changes was that non-custodial parents were to be induced financially into seeing their children.
Child support payments reduce sharply where children spend two to four nights a fortnight, or 52 to 127 nights a year, with their non-resident parent.
Lone Fathers Association of Australia president Barry Williams, a fathers’ rights lobbyist, acknowledged the reforms were a big win for men, especially the move to base payments on incomes of both parents.
Categories: Child Support | 
Tags: | 
2 Comments »
I agree with these new laws. Unfortunately in some of these cases depedning on the total income, it can still leave fathers with a childsupport payment that can exceed percentages that can prevent them from being able to support themselves. Child support is for the children, not supporting the other parent. That would be alimony. The state of Georgia has had such a reform and those who fall in a lower income group may end up paying too much. Example: the formula claims that the cost of supporting two children of parents with a total combined income of $5000.00 monthly is 26% of their income where a couple with a total household income of 4 times that much is only 13% of their income. It is true that just because you make more doesn’t mean some things cost more in regards to supporting a child, but for the lower income noncustodial parent this can leave them with an inability to provide a roof over their head. Also if a custodial parent makes a significant amount of money and the noncustodial parent doesn’t, the overall percentage the noncutodial parent pays may be low, but it’s a percentage of a large amount, there’s where the problem occurs. There are some benefits to the new law like giving father’s more time with their children but still doesn’t protect all noncustodial parents, and there needs to be a federal formula making all states the same, excuted of course through the state courts. Also I feel if a noncustodial parent pays 50% plus of the child’s care and they are in 100% compliance of that support they should at least be able to take turns claiming the children. I am told that federal law protects the custodial parent allowing them to claim the children. The only way to allow the noncutodial parent to claim the children is if the custodial parent files a form granting this, most women will not do that. The law does this figuring the custodial parent pays most of the costs for the children, and most is based on the time the children live with the custodial parent. There is still much more reform to be done to give father’s a fair shake in the matter.
The child support laws shoul be changed. If the parent who has the custody has a lot of income, then the other parent should not be harassed for child support. Especially if the other parent is poor. This is exactly what is happening in my case.
If you are interested in knowing more about my story, please visit my wbsite www.justiceisblind.info.
I was thrown here in jail illegally for not signing consent on my daughter’s passport application. I am planning to do a hunger strike in front of the U.S.Supreme Court. If any one want to join please contact me.