Australia has the 5th highest divorce rate in the world, it currently stands at around 47% *, a few percentage points behind the highest, Sweden at @ 54%. In comparison, other countries like India, Turkey and Italy range from a 2 - 10% divorce rate. Without getting into the how and why's, it is obvious many western countries (but not all) have a very serious problem in parents separating and the welfare of the children from their relationships.
Are the parents to blame for separation after pursuing the dream of a lifelong partnership? The latter most of us were led to believe was possible, in a society where family still holds the high ground with many aspects of life revolving around it. Or is it the shift in societies attitudes towards commitment, loyalty and working at a relationship to blame? Whatever it may be, relationship breakdowns are certainly far more prevalent in a country like ours, indicating our societies values are at fault.
If the view taken is our society is to blame for this high degree of angst, then shouldn't society in whole, take on responsibilty for the financial welfare of our children? In doing so, provide equal opportunity for each and every child from separated parents and removing a major drawback in the present system. If all Australians were made responsible for the financial support of these children, then perhaps all would set about creating a more relationship friendly future in the best interests of children yet to be born.
* (Source: Americans for Divorce Reform)
Monday, August 18, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Child Support Legislation amiss
The concept of Child Support Legislation is for child support matters to stay out of the courts. There are literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of parents, whom have private child support agreements without their children being registered with the CSA. These parents, can and do abide by informal agreements without a need for government or court intervention. These agreements are formally recognised by every child related government department except the CSA.
Parents have a right not to register a child with the CSA, but the way the legislation stands, the CSA will not recognise the child of a private agreement if another child is registered with them from a different relationship. This lack of recognition has the effect of a parent being assessed by the CSA as only being liable for registered children. If a parent opposes registering their other children, they face extra financial burden. This situation attacks the welfare of all except the payee parent with registered children.
To overcome this inequality and extra fiscal burden, a parent has no choice but to comply with the CSA, submitting to their bullying tactics. This in turn may create other problems, such as animosity between the parents if one or both are opposed to registering their children. Obviously, such a scenario would have detrimental consequences on a post separation relationship.
The faulty legislation takes from the childs parents the right to have a private agreement without a third party affecting the arrangement. A right parents should be freely given, not denied. The legislation fails the children, it fails to recognise a child, siblings. It rewards a parent whom cannot come to an amicable agreement and penalises a parent who can. The CSA blames the legislation and will not be flexible and utilise their powers to rectify the fault. Parents are being bullied into registering children or be penalised for not doing so.
The right of the parents to make a decision in the best interests of their children is compromised. Under these circumstances the welfare of children is being shamefully ignored. A right to be recognised without resorting to court, costing parents and/or the tax payers thousands of dollars is denied. At the end of the day court action will not change legislation that affects many or the CSA's view, only maybe individual circumstances, as there is no guarantee a court will correct this omission in legislation
This issue has been raised at the highest levels within the CSA, yet the CSA have done nothing about it. The message is clear, they want to maximise control of the financial affairs of parents whom separate, in doing so protecting their own jobs at an unfathomable cost to parents and children.
Parents have a right not to register a child with the CSA, but the way the legislation stands, the CSA will not recognise the child of a private agreement if another child is registered with them from a different relationship. This lack of recognition has the effect of a parent being assessed by the CSA as only being liable for registered children. If a parent opposes registering their other children, they face extra financial burden. This situation attacks the welfare of all except the payee parent with registered children.
To overcome this inequality and extra fiscal burden, a parent has no choice but to comply with the CSA, submitting to their bullying tactics. This in turn may create other problems, such as animosity between the parents if one or both are opposed to registering their children. Obviously, such a scenario would have detrimental consequences on a post separation relationship.
The faulty legislation takes from the childs parents the right to have a private agreement without a third party affecting the arrangement. A right parents should be freely given, not denied. The legislation fails the children, it fails to recognise a child, siblings. It rewards a parent whom cannot come to an amicable agreement and penalises a parent who can. The CSA blames the legislation and will not be flexible and utilise their powers to rectify the fault. Parents are being bullied into registering children or be penalised for not doing so.
The right of the parents to make a decision in the best interests of their children is compromised. Under these circumstances the welfare of children is being shamefully ignored. A right to be recognised without resorting to court, costing parents and/or the tax payers thousands of dollars is denied. At the end of the day court action will not change legislation that affects many or the CSA's view, only maybe individual circumstances, as there is no guarantee a court will correct this omission in legislation
This issue has been raised at the highest levels within the CSA, yet the CSA have done nothing about it. The message is clear, they want to maximise control of the financial affairs of parents whom separate, in doing so protecting their own jobs at an unfathomable cost to parents and children.
CSA , the media and parental bias,
Child Support Legislation and its' implementation has been a hot topic since its' inception in 1989. An ongoing theme of discontentment has been the parental bias that is entrenched in the enactment of legislation and administration.
In the formulation of the original Child Support Legislation in the late 1980's, fathers were grossly unrepresented. Despite ongoing government claims that legislation doesn't discriminate and fathers have equality as to parental status, for nearly three decades around 90% * of non custodial parents and child support payers have been fathers.
In the context of child support, mention a 'deadbeat' parent and the majority of people will automatically assume you are talking about the father. This assumption being in opposition to relative statistics clearly demonstrating paying mothers are more likely to default on paying child support. It can be perceived peoples attitudes are based on media promotion of fathers being the bad guys and its' failure to focus on 'deadbeat' mums. So why does the media show bias?
The media is fed statistics by the government, in respect to child support, by the CSA. The CSA manipulates the information it disseminates and feeds the media with statistics like 'x' amount of parents default on their child support payments, 98% being fathers. They don't feed the media statistics like 8% of fathers and 12% of mothers default. The media only acts on what it is provided.
Why the CSA chooses to focus on fathers is a topic that can long be debated but the reality is the CSA do have fathers in their sights. This is demonstrated daily by the CSA. In contradiction to defaulting parent statistics, the relative percentage of fathers scutinised and harrassed outweighs that of deadbeat mothers. Mothers it seems are to be believed as to why they default and are left alone.
There are many other arenas the CSA show bias towards the mother. For example, a mother in making an application for child support doesn't have to prove the level of care she has of her children. If the father disputes what the care level is, then he must prove his claim. The same isn't done in reverse, it nearly always remains the fathers responsibilty to prove his claims.
Another example is where the parent has entered into another relationship. In disregard to the financial circumstances, if the mother claims a low income and states it's due to her staying home to care for children or her partner supports her then this is deemed acceptable. If a father makes the same claims it is more likely he will be deemed to continue to pay child support on his capacity to earn and his claims investigated.
There is also the bias encountered daily by thousands of parents. Ask any parents who have dealt with the CSA and you will hear stories of imbalanced gender treatment. Be it over the phone, through formal applications such as Change of Assessment or other way.
CSA parental bias exists and is real. It occurs daily and often is visible through the media. It's about time it ended.
* Source - http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/facts_figures/04/ff04_5.aspx
In the formulation of the original Child Support Legislation in the late 1980's, fathers were grossly unrepresented. Despite ongoing government claims that legislation doesn't discriminate and fathers have equality as to parental status, for nearly three decades around 90% * of non custodial parents and child support payers have been fathers.
In the context of child support, mention a 'deadbeat' parent and the majority of people will automatically assume you are talking about the father. This assumption being in opposition to relative statistics clearly demonstrating paying mothers are more likely to default on paying child support. It can be perceived peoples attitudes are based on media promotion of fathers being the bad guys and its' failure to focus on 'deadbeat' mums. So why does the media show bias?
The media is fed statistics by the government, in respect to child support, by the CSA. The CSA manipulates the information it disseminates and feeds the media with statistics like 'x' amount of parents default on their child support payments, 98% being fathers. They don't feed the media statistics like 8% of fathers and 12% of mothers default. The media only acts on what it is provided.
Why the CSA chooses to focus on fathers is a topic that can long be debated but the reality is the CSA do have fathers in their sights. This is demonstrated daily by the CSA. In contradiction to defaulting parent statistics, the relative percentage of fathers scutinised and harrassed outweighs that of deadbeat mothers. Mothers it seems are to be believed as to why they default and are left alone.
There are many other arenas the CSA show bias towards the mother. For example, a mother in making an application for child support doesn't have to prove the level of care she has of her children. If the father disputes what the care level is, then he must prove his claim. The same isn't done in reverse, it nearly always remains the fathers responsibilty to prove his claims.
Another example is where the parent has entered into another relationship. In disregard to the financial circumstances, if the mother claims a low income and states it's due to her staying home to care for children or her partner supports her then this is deemed acceptable. If a father makes the same claims it is more likely he will be deemed to continue to pay child support on his capacity to earn and his claims investigated.
There is also the bias encountered daily by thousands of parents. Ask any parents who have dealt with the CSA and you will hear stories of imbalanced gender treatment. Be it over the phone, through formal applications such as Change of Assessment or other way.
CSA parental bias exists and is real. It occurs daily and often is visible through the media. It's about time it ended.
* Source - http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/facts_figures/04/ff04_5.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
