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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
The CSA/media bias at work.. "particularly dads"..."spy on divorced dads" etc
dads singled out again..
dads x 5, mums x 0, parents x 5
The Australian
12 June 2008
Parents owe $1bn in child support
Patricia Karvelas, Political correspondent
Separated parents - particularly dads - owe their former partners a record $1billion in unpaid child support.
The failure of parents to meet their financial obligations has forced the Rudd Government to declare that it intends to "get tough" on unpaid child support.
Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig told The Australian he was alarmed by the figures and would investigate all options to ensure separated parents fulfilled their obligations to financially assist with the raising of their children.
"I'm doing something about gathering in the outstanding debt," Senator Ludwig said. "I'm planning new action against parents who refuse to meet their child support obligations. All options are on the table. It's time to get tough on those who don't meet their obligations to support their kids."
The Australian has learned that much of the increase comes from "international debt", which includes parents who move to Australia and bring their debt with them, yet have no Australian children - a common occurrence with the increased migration of skilled workers to this country.
Australia is obliged to collect overseas debt in reciprocal arrangements with other nations under the Hague Convention.
"I want to make sure as much as possible of the debt is collected. It is, after all, for the benefit of the kids," Senator Ludwig said.
"The debt-collection task of the Child Support Agency is a difficult one and staff work hard to get the best outcome for the children. I want to put more focus on how we can drive the debt down, and back up the staff's hard work in this tough area. We also want more emphasis on preventative activities by the Child Support Agency."
Senator Ludwig said that while most parents did the right thing, there were "still too many who don't, and are failing in their duties to their children".
About 40per cent of separated fathers pay just $5 a week in child support and about 105,000 are using self-employment and cash transactions to understate their real incomes and so avoid paying child support.
The Howard government employed a team of investigators to spy on divorced dads who cry poor, using photographic and video evidence to expose them driving around in expensive cars and living in affluent suburbs.
About 120 people have been employed to undertake the intensive investigation work to force money from divorced parents who are using elaborate methods to cover up their real incomes.
The previous government, with the support of Labor, changed the child support system to allow divorced fathers who see their children only on a weekly basis to have their support payments cut. For example, the payments of fathers with at least one day access a week have been reduced by 24per cent.
Since 1988, more than $25billion in child support has been transferred for the benefit of children through both private and CSA collect customers.
The amount of outstanding child support payments in Australia grew by almost $61million during the 2006-07 financial year to $951million and was $983million as at March 31.
In the last two months, it reached $1billion.
"About 40per cent of separated fathers pay just $5 a week in child support and about 105,000 are using self-employment and cash transactions to understate their real incomes and so avoid paying child support."
Posters question - ^^ What percentage of liable mums pay "just $5 a week"... 30%/50%/70%/80%?
Note how the focus in the following article is on the payees "mainly women" and nay a word about the 1/3 of payers, "mainly men", who are worse off.
The Age (Melbourne)
8 August 2008
Recipients of child support lose out under new formula
By Carol Nader
Separated parents who care for children at home - mainly women - are the biggest losers as a result of changes to child and family support benefits.
Figures released yesterday by the Federal Government show that about half the 600,000 parents who receive child support lost money under the changes announced by the Howard government in 2005 and introduced last month with the support of the new Government.
Of those paying support, mainly men, about one-third are worse off under the system.
Under the changes, the formula used to calculate child support payments was changed to take into account both parents' income, the actual cost of raising children and the time non-resident parents spend with their children. Non-resident parents who spend less than 35% of time with their children no longer receive family tax benefits. The net gain or loss takes into account both child support and family tax benefits.
According to the Government analysis, most people are no more than $20 a week better or worse off.
But about 16,000 resident parents and 7600 non-resident parents stand to lose more than $60 a week. Conversely, 29,000 non-resident parents will gain at least $60 a week, compared with 8300 resident parents.
Overall, about half of resident parents lost some income, 37% gained and 13% had no change. For parents paying child support, half gained financially from the changes, 33% lost income and 16% had no change.
Paul Le Moing-Ross, a family law specialist at Westminster Lawyers, said the figures confirmed concerns that resident parents stood to lose the most. He said clients were applying for spousal maintenance to make up the shortfall.
"The Government talks about the struggle that working families are having making ends meet," he said. "Single-parent families tend to struggle even more than dual-parent families."
Last financial year, $2.9 billion was paid in child support to benefit 1.1 million children. The changes reduced the amount due this year by $210 million, but the Government says this is offset by an extra $140 million in family tax benefits.
The Government said it would monitor the impact of the changes to protect children's interests.
Jane Stanley, from the Council of Single Mothers and their Children, said even $20 a week was a significant sum. "I think it's a real concern there are that many receiving parents that are going to be at least $60 a week worse off, particularly with the higher cost of living," she said.
Lone Fathers Association president Barry Williams said the new system was much fairer. He said most parents receiving family tax benefits were resident parents.
Could the bias be related to the uneven gender numbers in the CSA? 2953 females / 1075 males (27% male).
Why does the media keep writing stories of parents not paying. Why not look at some of these mothers making false claims for expenses for their kids. I had overpaid $3000 in 6 months due to false cliams after numerous appeals etc it was corrected but the CSA of SSAT would not prosecute the mother for the false cliams. In addittiion she only worked part time to ensure I had to pay more. I know only pay $138 a month but previosly due to false calims I was paying $1100 a month. 2. Why should child support payments be on pre tax dollars, taking a huge slice ot of the payers wages? The CSA don't care if you are left nothing to live on.
Wayne of Toowoomba
I know only pay $138 a month but previosly due to false calims I was paying $1100 a month.
comment made by annonymous on sept 1.
So can you tell me exactly how $138 a month is actually contributing anything to your child/children. It is less than $40 a week!! Hope you are proud of yourself not contributing to your childrens real financial needs. I find these topics quite deplorable. You wanna breed you (help) feed.
"You wanna breed you (help) feed."
If you bother to read the legislation it states both parents are responsible for their childrens welfare. Both incomes taken into account. Your attitude seems to place the onus on the non-resident parent. You sound like a bludging mum to me.
Post a Comment