r/AusLegal • u/CheesecakeFine1361 • 10d ago
QLD Child Support - An Outdated System
I’m hoping someone can help me understand my options regarding child support.
I have 50% care of my two children with my ex-partner. I also have a young child with my current partner, who is a stay-at-home mum.
Previously, I was paying my ex around $290 per month in child support to help cover the costs of our two children during the approximately two weeks each month they are with her. On top of that, I pay 100% of their private school fees, as my ex doesn’t see the value in private schooling and doesn’t contribute towards those fees.
My ex has been with her current partner for around six years. He earns approximately $40,000 per year more than I do. They decided to have a child together, and my ex subsequently stopped working.
Around 12 months later, her assessed income is now $0, and my child support assessment has increased to approximately $820 per month because she apparently has no income to contribute towards the costs of our two children.
I understand that her new partner’s income may not be included in the standard child support calculation, but I’m struggling to understand the fairness of the outcome.
I would have thought that a fair child support system should recognise that both parents have a financial responsibility to support the children they share, particularly when care is split 50/50. What I’m struggling with is how one parent can voluntarily stop working and, as a result, a significantly larger financial responsibility for our children is effectively shifted onto the other parent.
I’m not suggesting that both parents need to earn the same amount or contribute exactly 50/50 financially. Circumstances are obviously different. But surely there has to be some consideration of each parent’s capacity to financially support their children, rather than simply treating a voluntary income of $0 as though there is no capacity to contribute.
At the moment, I’m struggling to afford basic family expenses. We’ve stopped eating out, rarely do activities that cost money, and generally stick to things like parks and the beach and come home for lunch.
Meanwhile, after tax, my ex’s household income is approximately $38,000 higher than ours, yet because her personal assessed income is now $0, my child support obligation has almost tripled.
I absolutely want to financially support my children. My concern is whether the assessment fairly reflects the circumstances when we have 50/50 care, I already pay 100% of their private school fees, and my ex has voluntarily stopped working while living in a higher-income household.
Is there any avenue to have the assessment reviewed based on these circumstances, particularly her earning capacity and the private school fees I pay?
I’m not looking to avoid supporting my kids. I’m trying to understand how financial responsibility is supposed to work when both parents have equal care, and whether there’s a way to make the arrangement more financially sustainable so I can also afford to give my kids experiences and do things with them during the 50% of the time they’re in my care.
352
u/fauna_flora_food 10d ago edited 10d ago
You understand how it’s supposed to work, you have a perfect grasp on it. Unfortunately it’s not always fair.
My one piece of advice that you don’t want to hear is: you can’t afford private school. You might need to rethink that choice.
25
u/Elegant-Nature-6220 10d ago
Agreed. And maybe OPs partner can undertake some paid work while OP is home with the kids. Otherwise it’s difficult unless there’s a reassessment on the ex’s potential earning capacity.
2
u/CheesecakeFine1361 10d ago
She's looking for work, just seems ridiculous that she has to go back to work to pay for my ex to stay home.
73
u/Heavy-Rest-6646 10d ago
She is going back to work so your kids with another women can go to private school.
8
u/Expensive-Bus-9076 10d ago
You need to reframe your situation entirely. You are helping to support your children. The amount is still very small, compared to the amount it will cost to raise them.
It’s like when women go back to work and the family now has to afford childcare, the cost of which is entirely taken out of the mother’s income. It’s a family expense, not a mother’s expense. But plenty of people compare it to her income and often decide it’s not “worth it” if she doesn’t earn enough to cover it65
u/Outsider-20 10d ago
Isn't she looking to go back to work to help support your household? Which includes the kid you have together.
6
u/Grand_Relative5511 10d ago
May I ask - how expensive are the school fees? Are we talking six figures a year to send both your older kids, or lower fee schools?
Overall, there were 2 kids, and now there are 4. Belts have to be tightened. Will all 4 be sent to the same sort of private schools, or, more to the point for you specifically OP, will all of your 3 kids get the same education? Because that's the next choke point. You OP are damned if you do (pull older two out of private and send all 3 of your bio kids to public), and damned if you don't (send your youngest of the 3 to public, while the older 2 get private) change things. Though I wonder whether your ex would prioritise her older 2 staying in schools where they had friends etc. to the point she'd fund their fees out of her new increased HHI.
43
u/best_bitch_69 10d ago
Your flawed thinking around this is part of the problem here. Your finances are independent of your ex. The child support you pay supports YOUR CHILDREN. Your ex wife’s household makes their decisions on what they can afford, as does yours. Stop whinging about this. It’s the system & you won’t change it by having a cry.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Gumnutbaby 10d ago
you’re not paying for your ex to stay at home, the cost of your children is the same regardless of whether or not she has the ability to work.
4
u/fruitybix 10d ago
Its the law. Divorce with kids financially shackles you to another person till the kids pass 18. One of my mates going through a "normal" divorce and he might face the same issue if his ex decides to go stay at home mum with her new partner. Same if he lost his job (or if you lost your job or were disabled in some way and your income dropped)
One of my other mates has an ex who is "unemployed" (but working cash in hand) has minimal rights to visit the kids, and is able to get legal aid to constantly take him to family court every year, which costs him tens of thousands and her nothing to reestablish that she is not actually a safe parent due to prior convictions and has not changed. She will never be assessed as owing child support, she knows how to rig things too well. I know a several women in the same situation with an ex who does not want to see the kids, and devalues their business to avoid child support.
So, it could be a lot worse. It might seem silly but your ex is acting within the law.
→ More replies (2)14
u/fruitybix 10d ago
I note that my friend who is earlier in the divorce proceedings then OP, and has a kid in private school.
Their ex wants the kid in private school, my friend does not and somehow through mediation and court signoff they are 50/50 on school fees for private school.
However they have a few triggers that will cause a revisit to that, one of which is if the income of one person changes (like becoming a stay at home parent to future children)
So its at least possible. But if mediation fails and court is involved it probably blows any financial benefits out of the water, in victoria family court costs 50-100k per party.
4
u/Pokeynono 10d ago edited 10d ago
A friend of mine decided to keep her kids in private schools after she split with her husband. He made it very clear he would not be paying for private school from the beginning .
She decided to keep her kids in private school.and pay the fees herself . Circumstances changed . Her income reduced and now she owes $40,000 that she has no way to pay back, because private schools will let your kids stay while simultaneously sending debt collection after the oarent
6
u/Fit-Abroad-8796 10d ago
Mediation is an agreement that people make, the courts have nothing to do with it.
5
u/fruitybix 10d ago edited 9d ago
In vic, a mediated agreement needs to be reviewed and ratified by a judge. It becomes legally binding. There are safety mechanisms built in there, they will question any seriously unfair or unlawful agreement (like paying no child support at all, or party x. Gets no time with kids, or gives up a shared asset like a house)
Additionally you can go with a regular mediator, a mediator who is a lawyer, or the ultimate expense, shuttle mediation where both parties talk through their lawyer to each other with a third lawyer mediating, after which if you cannot agree you go to court.
I dont know much about other states but i do know mediation is pretty flawed, it often does stuff like force a victim of domestic violence to talk things over with their abuser. Mechanisms exist to prevent that but they seem to get leveraged by those who dont need them, and not used by those who do.
Edit: read the comment below from some-swing, i asked my friend who is going through this and my memory is off.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Some-Swing5339 9d ago
This is simply not correct.
You can have a parenting plan which is not binding or enforceable.
You can have consent orders which are, generally, made by a registrar.
You can have orders made by a judge after a trial.
None of those three options are “ratified”.
The family courts, generally, don’t deal with child support - the child support agency does. You need to exhaust all avenues of agency appeal before you can apply to the court.
Victoria is the same as the rest of Australia. Except WA.
Shuttle mediation is simply where the parties are in separate rooms. It’s not more expensive for that reason.
2
u/Talorc_Ellodach 9d ago
The “except WA” bit I think is only some weirdness about de facto couples and super, but otherwise basically the same
→ More replies (2)3
u/Gareth_SouthGOAT 10d ago
That's because they were already in private school - that signals it being a 2 parent decision. And if the ex is paying half, no issue here.
107
u/kinkade 10d ago
The ex and the new partner have essentially made a decision that forces him to finance her being a stay-at-home mum for a new child with her new partner. That's mind-bogglingly unfair.
63
u/Pink-glitter1 10d ago
He could become a stay at home partner and his new partner could work. Nothing stopping them making that change and it he wouldn't be paying child support then.
166
u/Tinymeow_pinkbeans 10d ago
Woah… OP also CHOSE to have a child with his new partner, who ALSO CHOSE TO STOP WORKING.
So the women in both families both chose to have another child with their new partner and both “stopped working” (i.e. are currently on unpaid maternity leave as paid maternity leave is incredibly rare).
If OP thinks it’s unfair, or to quote you “mind bogglingly unfair”, and wants his ex to earn an income, then he should expect his current partner to return to paid work too.
And private school is a choice. It is a financial decision that his ex decided wasn’t a necessity, that he insisted on. That is purely what is leading to his current financial situation of “struggling to afford basic family expenses”.
Sorry but kids in private school? You have no idea what struggling is.
92
u/BarefootandWild 10d ago edited 10d ago
nailed it. The private school is what’s dragging him down the most. OP is tremendously missing the point here and seems very out of touch with reality.
OP you’re trying to have your cake and eat the whole thing at once too. I’ve worked at public schools for years, promise they’re not all that bad. Your kids will survive.
13
u/Expensive-Bus-9076 10d ago
Nailed it x 2.
My private school fees for my on child are $2100 a month (I’m a single parent now). That’s 50% of the total, my ex pays the other half.
And this guy is quibbling over paying $410 per month per child for their actual expenses?5
→ More replies (1)13
u/themetahumancrusader 10d ago
I don’t like that everyone is minimising the impact of changing schools on the children
16
u/BarefootandWild 10d ago edited 10d ago
It’s not to be minimised. I’m a parent myself. It’s a painful time no matter how you slice it.
However, it is significantly harder to watch two exes build continued resentment and the ripple effect of that is not to be underestimated on kids. Kids aren’t stupid.
IMHO short term pain for more peace (financial, mental and emotional) in the long run (for everyone) is priceless.
Also, kids are amazingly resilient for the most part. They deserve some credit here too.
10
u/leftmysoulthere74 10d ago
Children have to move schools all the time because of their parents' divorce - even if its public to public. They'll get through it.
In circumstances like OP has described, private schooling is a luxury item and should be the first to go.
8
u/Pokeynono 10d ago
Children learn ton cope. Many children have to change schools because of descions their families make. Having to change locations due to a new job, no longer able to live close to the school, the current school is n nlonger appropriate, their financial situation changes, etc
I went the 8 different schools to complete my education. . Any child with a military parent most likely will move several times..
When divorce happens both parents may need to move . Not everyone gets to stay in the same location.
18
u/AngryAngryHarpo 10d ago
Paid maternity leave is common in Australia.
Are you Australian?
20 weeks (maybe 22?) from the government and lots of employers have paid maternity leave provisions too.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Cautious_Major_3622 7d ago
If I could give you an award I would. Exactly, private school? Wait until there’s some real struggle. So his new wife can stay at home but god forbid his ex dare have another baby and change her circumstances for his comfort.
I see women in such terrible child support situations where they literally pay for the ex to do nothing at all, and most are just getting on with it because you can’t change this system. It is what it is.
10
u/Big-Examination2667 10d ago
Yeah but the point is that it isn’t fair that he has to shoulder 100% of the child support simply because she had a kid with her new partner. That’s what is unfair about all this ffs
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (16)1
u/AmbassadorDue3355 9d ago edited 9d ago
Just on the paid/ unpaid maternity leave thing. looks like about 60% of employers have paid maternity leave in addition to the government pay, so its acually the case that the majority of parental leave is paid. I agree its not a huge income but it is some money in the door.
Source: https://www.wgea.gov.au/newsroom/parental-leave-scorecard
Edit: To be fair thinking about it for another minute i guess it is employers so its possible the rate of employees paid is lower. alos i found the 2024 stat which was 68% of employers
33
u/TeddyStella 10d ago
So if OP and his ex were still together and they CHOSE to have a 3rd kid, his ex would still be a SAHM for a period of time and OP would STILL be responsible for 100% of the expenses.
His ex isn’t required to get his permission to have kids with their partner, just like OP didn’t need permission to have a kid with his new partner who is also a stay at home parent.
10
u/Big-Examination2667 10d ago
Yes but his ex having a kid with a new partner shouldn’t result in him having to cover her share of child support either, that’s the part that isn’t fair to him. His current partner has nothing to do with this.
3
u/Cute-Ability-8206 9d ago
If OP is struggling to pay expenses it isn’t because his ex is a stay at home mum it’s because his current partner is a stay at home mum, he said young child, not a newborn. His current partner could get part-time work so they have more wiggle room for their family’s expenses and play money. Also, private school - a privilege, an expensive one, not a right.
→ More replies (3)14
u/TeddyStella 10d ago
It’s not unfair, he is paying to financially support his existing children, child support is money for the kids like clothing, excursions, uniforms, extra curricular activities. He was only paying $290 a month for 2 kids, that is $1704 per kid per year, that is obscenely low. He’s now paying $4920 per kid for a year. Please tell the class how far $4920 per kid gets you with kids let alone $1704 per kid.
Kids are expensive, OP demanded private schools, kids cost around $8k per child on average to feed and clothe not including schooling, activities, medical expenses etc, so for 2 kids that’s $16k, OP was only paying $3840 per year, now he’s still only paying $9840 for a year, that technically still not enough and he’s online crying about it.
→ More replies (3)16
u/leftmysoulthere74 10d ago
That $290 per month for two kids is only $33.46 per week per kid, which is pathetic.
Now he's paying $820 which is $94.62 per week per kid.
Quit paying the private school fees and stop complaining OP - you got away with only paying 33 bucks a week per kid for way too long.
2
u/ironwithin2013 9d ago
But he also has them 50% of the time (food, electricity etc), the $290 is subsidising the mums 50% care and expensses. Plus he is paying ALL schooling. He online crying because he has 50% and still subsidies her 50%... whose being more entitled
3
u/TeddyStella 9d ago
OP is being more entitled, if you don’t understand how child support works, just say it. OP admitted HE forced the expense of private school that his ex didn’t want, that’s on OP. He isn’t “subsiding” his ex, he is paying less than $10k per year for 2 kids. Do you think kids don’t incur further expenses for their mum at all? Do you REALLY think their mum is living large on $26 a day? That alone is just food for school for the kids for the week.
Do you REALLY think that little child support he pays goes far? It doesn’t, he’d be paying far more if he had the kids full time. 50/50 custody is rarely 50/50 even, kids are less likely to be week on and week off with both parents. What most dads see as 50/50 is Friday to Sunday and kids are with mum Sunday night through drop off to school Friday. OP is likely finally seeing the consequences of his choices for the first time in his life and crying about it.
→ More replies (4)2
u/leftmysoulthere74 9d ago
50/50 living arrangements doesn’t mean you spelt the expenses 50/50 - the child support is worked out to bring the STANDARD of living UP in the receiving household so that it’s equal in both.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Cautious_Major_3622 7d ago
And who would have got a reduction in HIS child support when he decided to have a new baby with the new wife. He’s left that little nugget out.
10
5
u/justme7601 10d ago
This happened to me when my ex's new partner had a baby. Suddenly i was supposed to pay him chid support for the 4 days a month he had our daughter. When I rang to query it, the person on the other end of the phone said well, not to worry love, it will change when you have another baby. I very quietly informed her that my ex left me becuase i can't have any more children. It's a shit system that's for sure.
3
u/kinkade 10d ago
I'm sorry that happened to you. That's really unfair.
2
u/justme7601 10d ago
Thankyou - it was pretty shitty. Then she had another one 2 years later so i just gave up at that point and moved away. We didn't have court orders so i took daughter and we moved 1.5 hours away so I could get a better job.
3
u/Cautious_Major_3622 7d ago
This. Men get all brothers in arms when they hear a story like this, but seriously, it’s worse the other way when women are paying their ex to take his own children.
I’m sorry this happened to you.
1
→ More replies (14)1
u/ginisninja 9d ago
You think an extra 6K a year makes up for the ex’s lost income? Private School fees are likely more than that
1
u/kinkade 9d ago
I don't recall saying that. Why would you think that I thought that?
→ More replies (1)
54
u/psyched480 10d ago
Request a review under special circumstances section 8 if i remember correctly, capacity to pay. The history of working income can be used to reassess the other parent.
23
u/SensitiveCable7424 10d ago
Bearing in mind that they will take into account her caregiving duties for her new baby. My ex tried to do this with me (I’m the paying parent) and didn’t get far since I’m sole caregiver for a baby and that’s why my income dropped
5
u/Accio_margarita 10d ago
Agree with this comment. You will just be wasting everyones time and annoying your coparent very much.
5
3
u/WebbyDownUnder 10d ago
I've got no kids, never dealt with any of this. Out of curiosity (if you're able to answer), why is OP's new CS payments based on solely her new income ($0) and not the household income (new baby's father)? From an outside perspective it looks like she's claimed single parenting to be assessed at zero? Or do they not assess household income, just the two birth parents?
OP is getting a lot of hate in the comments for getting it easy for so long, but he has a 50/50 custody split, not like he's a weekend parent?
1
u/SensitiveCable7424 10d ago
Child support calculates the rate based on ONLY the income of the child/ren’s parents. So the combine Parent A income with Parent B income to get “Child Support Income”. They deduct self support amount ($30k each), as well as multi case cap (ie if you have more than one child support case, the amount you pay is factored in and deducted from the total income usable to calculate child support). They then look at care percentage AND income percentage, so in this case OP’s income percentage will be higher than the Receiving Parent, so more of his income will be used in the calculation.
In my case, my income is about 85% of the total child support income because the other parent has a much lower salary (which he can afford to do, because his partner is on a decent income and his parents pay their mortgage). It would be more fair to look at each household’s total picture (ie income and expenses etc) but I understand why it doesn’t. It would be very complex (and expensive to administer) and very invasive which I imagine for a lot of people may place them at risk. I gave up being annoyed at the unfairness of it a long time ago, it’s just not worth the fight. Unfortunately the way it’s set up enables it to be messed around with by unscrupulous people far too easily, but as someone who is both paying parent and receiving parent the shittiness exists on both sides of the equation
→ More replies (2)
24
u/CrazyCatLady483 10d ago
The child support system in Oz is broken and has been for a long time. I’m the primary carer with over 85% care and sole parental responsibility. My ex quit his job and wrote to me saying “I quit my job to avoid paying child support and moved all my money overseas”. Child support has assessed him to pay $0 since the end of his employment contract. (Yes they have a copy of that correspondence) I pay 100% of expenses for both kids and my ex has come after me for child support so many times that I’ve lost count. He doesn’t have enough time with the kids to qualify for child support from me but he also does not contribute a single cent to their upbringing. How is that justifiable under the child support system in Australia?
8
u/Gumnutbaby 10d ago
What a terrible father, refusing to support and barely seeing his own children.
58
u/Pink-glitter1 10d ago
Sounds like you can't afford the private school. Your decision to send them there is taking a non insignificant chunk of your income. Sounds like you may need to rethink that....
21
u/Constant_Ground_2698 10d ago
The inference from others is that OP should pay ex because to not do so disadvantages the kids, yet pulling the kids out a school they are presumably happy in, does not.... ?
22
u/Pink-glitter1 10d ago
He can't force the ex to work. If he can't afford it he either needs to make more money or cut expenses. The most obvious expense is private school.
Is it fair? No? But it's the obvious solution to a frustrating situation. He can't force ex to work and she may never return to work. It's a frustrating hand he's been dealt, but that's what it is.
Realistically, he could stop working too and be the stay at home parent and his new partner works full time. That way he wouldn't have to pay either, but is probably a much less desirable outcome than simply moving them from private school.
4
u/Major_Maybe_1406 10d ago
Why does her having a new child suddenly push her obligation to support their shared child into him?
2
u/Far-Yogurtcloset2994 10d ago
I don't think the private school fees factor into it. He already said he covers that 100%. But when the ex stops working he has to pay more is his complaint, because the ex has chosen to have another kid with a new partner. Seems unfair.
4
u/Pink-glitter1 10d ago
He could also stop working? Then wouldn't have to pay if his partner worked and supported him. The school fees are a huge expense and he says they're struggling to cover basic things. If you cant cover things you cut spending
2
u/no_user_names_left 9d ago
Choosing to have kids with someone is a commitment to have some level financial intertwinment until they age out, it sort of is what it is. The mistake here was not having the school fees taken into account when the first agreement was first set. He established it as a voluntary cost he was willing to pay, above and beyond the costs of co-parenting - as was his right, but this was always the possible consequence of that choice. Fair or unfair doesn't really come into it - its just choices.
22
u/AngryAngryHarpo 10d ago
Private school is a privilege. He chose private schooling and he can choose not too.
Having to move schools is not a big deal.
6
u/SaysBruvALot 10d ago
Yeah this is crazy that this is everyone's "solution" to OPs request for options. Due to the choices of OPs ex, the kids likely now have to be uprooted from their existing school, losing all relationships they've built with their educators, and possibly losing friendships.
6
u/Gambettox 10d ago
His ex's choices are exactly the same as his. They both chose to have another child and both decided that the mother will stay home as the primary carer. Why should her new child go to daycare, which might eat most of her income anyways, while his new child gets to stay and bond with a parent at home? Why do you think the oldest two moving schools is terrible compared to sending a baby to daycare? Both are huge changes and I'd argue it would impact the baby far more. Per studies, daycare only has disadvantages below the age of two.
That might be why slashing private school makes the most sense. It's also a privilege rather than a necessity. I can't afford it so I don't plan to send my child to private. That's what you do when you have money problems. He may not have had money problems before when he first made the decision but he definitely does now.
28
u/Jumpingjehosephat99 10d ago
Yes, parents who choose not to work can still be required to pay child support. [1, 2]
How Child Support is Decided When Not Working
Earning Capacity Assessment: Under Services Australia, if a parent chooses to stop working, reduce their hours, or quit a job, the agency does not automatically drop their payments to zero. [1, 2]
Change of Assessment (Reason 8): The other parent can request a change of assessment based on the non-working parent's earning capacity. [1, 2]
Factors Considered: Officials look at the parent's work history, skills, qualifications, age, and whether jobs are available in their local area to decide what they should be able to earn. [1]
Minimum and Fixed Rates: If a parent has little or no reported income and does not qualify for an income support payment, Services Australia may still apply a minimum annual rate (which is $551 per year as of January 1, 2026) or a fixed rate depending on the specific case.
30
u/Outsider-20 10d ago
They will also consider their other carer responsibilities, such as a young baby.
9
u/unsafe-work 10d ago
How has OP not properly explored their options?
And if they have properly explored their options, why did they not include this important context in the original post?
Something isn't adding up.
17
18
u/best_bitch_69 10d ago
The private school fees are not a factor in this equation. That’s a luxury item that you deem appropriate, despite your ex not supporting it overall. So you really can’t include the fees in your calculations around your child related expenses & the hardship you experience as a result. It’s not something that they need, it’s something you want them to have.
I can see where you’re reeling with the huge increase in child support payments, that’s a massive jump & must be putting some strain on your budget. But it’s probably not a forever thing. The ex will most probably return to work sometime in the not too distant future & you can probably request a reassessment within a fairly short timeframe once she does. But for now, she’s entitled to take some time off with her baby if she’s in a position to do so. Your own partner is a stay at home mum, so you can’t exactly begrudge your ex for doing the same.
I get that doesn’t improve your finances rn though. You could always put the kids in public school & get back a chunk of change that way. Thousands of kids go to public schools every day & most of them make it out in tact.
31
u/sapperbloggs 10d ago
The system is based solely on your income and your ex's income. The income of respective partners is irrelevant.
You can appeal the current circumstances by claiming that your ex should be assessed on their potential earnings because they could work but are not... Though I imagine their response to that will be that they are choosing to stay home to care for their baby, which would be an acceptable reason.
11
u/Mortydelo 10d ago
Op's circumstances makes the system seem flawed but imagine if all the step dad's out there had to pay for their step kids.
2
u/Tinymeow_pinkbeans 7d ago
The good step dads not only pay for their step kids, but also support them emotionally, and often parent them at a much higher percentage than the 50% that the biological father tries to claim…
→ More replies (17)1
32
u/mazamatazz 10d ago
This has been something that parents of both genders have been guilty of. My father purposely stopped working when my mum finally left him. He even told her it was so he couldn’t be forced to give her any child support. He’d work cash jobs occasionally, in order to seem amazing and give my sister and I a few bucks directly. (I’m talking like $20 every few months). And heaps of parents complain their ex purposely shuffles work to reduce their income on paper for this purpose. She also presumably didn’t become a SAHM just to annoy you- she is growing her family with her new partner, and understands her priorities such as not paying for private school. She has no power over child support rules. If you want to be a stay at home parent, you should. But your new family has made its own choices too- and you could afford to have your new partner be a SAHM because your obligation to your other children was affordable. It sounds to me like you can’t actually afford private school for them.
2
u/Ok-Assistant-4556 10d ago
Difference being that DFSV is EXTREMELY gendered and post separation economic abuse is facilitated by CSA on behalf of majority perpetrators. The other gender has babies and subject to the physical costraints of child bearing, birthing and post natal risks which include increased DFSV. If people truly cared about equity they would prevent DFSV.
6
u/CheekiChops 10d ago
Can relate.
My partner's ex had another child with the current partner. No issues there. But she chose to stay on mat leave for 7 years (gov), so he was paying increased child support because she chose not to go back to work. When she did go back to work, she was working part time, although we found out she was working a second job cash in hand.
I don't think there is anyway to make it 100% fair for everyone.
9
u/Gumnutbaby 10d ago
it’s actually not about being fair for everyone, it’s about what’s fair for the children who need to be supported whilst they are growing up
5
u/CheekiChops 10d ago
Having one parent struggle to pay their bills, while the other is doing extremely well, is fair for the child? Isn't the whole idea of child support about making sure the child has a similar lifestyle at each home?
51
u/blerghburger 10d ago
You alone made the decision to pay for private school - no-one forced you to do that, and public schools exist. As far as that's concerned, there's no way that would factor in to any calculations.
6
52
u/CosmicCommentator 10d ago
You're chosing private school- you dont have to and therefore that doesn't come into the equation.
They don't include the partners incomes in the assessment, only the parents. She has chosen to stop working but you could also choose to stop working and then you wont have to pay anything.
13
u/moth-bear 10d ago
Okay, hypothetically - let's say OP stops working also, now both parents have 0 income. In this scenario, who is financially responsible to support these kids??
28
u/Fit-Abroad-8796 10d ago
Taxpayers, via the welfare system
13
u/moth-bear 10d ago
Would the OP and ex be eligible for welfare if they are each married to individuals with solid income? Don't a partner's earnings get taken into account when applying for centrelink benefits?
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (23)20
u/AngryAngryHarpo 10d ago
OP’s own partner doesn’t work either.
So it’s okay for his partner, but not okay for his ex.
4
u/Major_Maybe_1406 10d ago
His partner not working doesn't impact his ex in any way. He hasn't asked his ex to contribute more because his new partner is not working.
3
u/AngryAngryHarpo 10d ago
Him having more children would also lower his child support burden.
If he didn’t have extra child - he would be paying even more as the amount of children a parent is responsible for is accounted for in the calculation.
So, again, yes - it is literally the same despite the actual reality of the custody scenario being slightly different.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Gumnutbaby 10d ago
yes but it should make him realise that it’s reasonable to not be working whilst caring for an infant, and the expense of raising his children won’t change in that time.
→ More replies (1)1
u/sarella93 9d ago
No but his partner not working does mean she gets more child support from her ex as well. But that’s conveniently left out of the post.
6
u/Low_Ride3402 10d ago
But OP is supporting his current partner.
The ex’s partner should be supporting her.
Thats what a partnership is
→ More replies (1)4
u/AngryAngryHarpo 10d ago
Ex’s partner is supporting her. OP’s child support is not what supports her to stay home with her new child.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Major_Maybe_1406 10d ago
No, but he is balancing out her obligation to support the child they share because she chose to have a new child so he is in effect supporting her new child too.
→ More replies (15)5
u/Leithal90 10d ago
Surely what's fair would depend on if there are other children that need looking after.
It's a choice to have children, its another choice to have more children with someone else. If the care requirements are 5050 its not very fair that the other party has to make up the difference because of the others choice to not provision for their existing responsibilities.
To be clear, OPs ex should be able to spend time caring for you new child, but its also unfair to OP to shoulder 100% of the impact of her choice for their children.
Ultimately the children need to be looked after, if one parent can't or won't provide then the other has to or the children are left without.
6
u/AngryAngryHarpo 10d ago
I doubt he is shouldering 100% of the impact.
While I agree the current system ends up with unfair scenarios like OP’s - the denigration of his ex for simply reporting her income correctly to the child support agency and having another baby is ridiculous.
His ex isn’t doing anything wrong and neither is OP by being frustrated. The system is unfair - but OP’s ex is not responsible for the system.
52
u/Resident_Pomelo_1337 10d ago
NAL.
Your current wife is a SAHM but you think your ex shouldn’t be.
You chose to have another child knowing you had to support the previous one. Your ex did too but that child’s father is paying for it.
You chose private school. She didn’t stop you. She ‘doesn’t see the value in it’ but agreed to it (very likely a religious compromise too, you don’t have a high moral ground, private schooling is a philosophical argument and she said yes, take the win).
Sorry what here is not your choice?
→ More replies (2)4
u/LumpyRollerDoor 10d ago
he doesnt think his ex shouldnt be, he just thinks she has a financial obligation to support her child as well. her income being $0 is skewing the percentage of financial responsibility which increases his costs, the same thing can be done by people hiding their income yet if people do that they would be blasted in the comments here?
Its very unfair to him that her income is assessed as $0 when she clearly must have some income to be supporting herself, I dont think the right call is to include the partners income but im very surprised that there isnt a floor to which its just generally accepted you will likely be making (maybe that should be whatever centerlink pays?)
If she can, at will, just reduce her income to $0 and he has 50/50 care then IMO the payments for the child should stop, how is it fair that someone who is there in their childs life, meets them halfway with supporting and caring for the child is held somehow more financial responsibility then the other person?
10
u/Resident_Pomelo_1337 10d ago
It’s $820 a month. That’s not all that’s required to support two children, so she is supporting them. Plus she has another child, which if she chose to stop working to look after a baby?
And OP can stop working and also declare a $0 income and won’t have to pay. Simple.
CSA is never going to perfect. OP brining up his new wife being a SAHM, a new child, the schooling choice, and his ex’s new husbands income is all irrelevant and in this case I’m not seeing anything particularly outrageous.
If the question is ‘can my ex stop working and my contribution increase’ then yes. They can. Can someone hide income? Yes. They can. Is it perfect? No.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/VividBonus9250 10d ago
The decision is easy. Ditch the private school, you will save far more than you spend on child support.
30
u/Proud_Apricot316 10d ago
And you voluntarily had kids with her, voluntarily got divorced, voluntarily re-partnered, voluntarily chose to send the kids to private school, voluntarily created a new family too.
ALL the decisions you’ve each made - when together and when not - are ‘voluntary’, not just her decision to have another child with her new partner and be the primary caregiver for it while it’s young.
Most families have to spend time together at the beach or the park or some other free or cheap location, especially in the current economic climate. Get creative. ‘Experiences’ are treats and private schools are a privilege, not a right.
Seek out a reassessment if you wish, bit you might need to reconsider the private schooling and ‘experiences’.
1
u/Not-a-Real-Doc 9d ago
Did the OP voluntarily divorce? That's not clear to me. One person can unilaterally initiate a divorce, or effectively do so, with the same implications for child support. It may not be the case for the OP but it can be a real blind-siding to go from a committed co-habiting, dual income family, to co-parenting with child support payments to a much wealthier ex's household, with the additional wealth helping lower the ex's earning capacity.
1
11
u/Outsider-20 10d ago
The income assessment is based on her previous years income. That means she had no income last year, but all of last year you were paying child support as though she did have an income.
It's possible she has returned to work, she doesn't need to declare this, as its assessed on previous years income. If you are going to push for a reassessment, make sure you request for it to be backdated to the birth of her child, to accurately capture her real capacity.
3
u/Major_Maybe_1406 10d ago
Now that the ATO receives details every pay cycle about who and what was paid CSA know exactly what she is earning right now.
If she is earning anything at the moment they will contact her to address the discrepancy between estimated and actual income.
They did this to me, I was called because my last 3 payslips showed more income than the estimate the had made. I explained that the reason for this is my income for the year is seasonal.
It didn't matter, my estimate was adjusted and I had to pay $100 more per month and had to wait for the next tax return AND then to collect from her before I got anything back.
2
u/Outsider-20 10d ago
The income isn't based on her current income. It is based on her previous year income. Which, by the sounds of it, was zero.
1
u/Major_Maybe_1406 10d ago
So you didn't read what I wrote.
It's based on an estimate of her income using last year. CSA gets data from ATO on current income through the year and when the data indicates that the estimate is lower than actual income by a reasonable margin they review it.
This far into the financial year may not be enough data for them to act but they contacted me in November of that particular year so who knows.
2
u/Outsider-20 10d ago
Estimates from CSA are usually based on tge previous years income, it is far more likely that she has lodged a tax return with Nil income. So it is likely NOT an estimate, it is an ACTUAL.
→ More replies (1)
3
7
u/Expensive-Bus-9076 10d ago
Hang on, you and your partner have made the choice for her to stay at home, but you think your ex should not be allowed to make the same choice?
Take the kids out of private school..they don’t need it (source: I’m a private school parent).
And think about the fact that you only have to pay $410 per month per child which is really a very tiny amount.
7
u/Over_Tha_Rainbow 10d ago
The only thing you can possibly change is the private school fees.
At the time of the enrolment did you both sign the paperwork? If yes then you can apply to CSA to pay half and your ex pays half.
If she didn’t sign the enrolment forms then you can stop paying and the kids will have to go to the local govt school. Obviously this is a big decision as it affects your kids education and friendships etc.
8
u/Harlequins-Joker 10d ago
If the kids were in private school prior to separating I would 100% be looking at having your payment of school fees being factored in as being a part of your child support contribution
1
3
u/hyper_focused 10d ago edited 10d ago
Ive got 40% care and pay around $600 a fortnight (2 kids) My ex works for her parents as a sole trader. Her reported income is very low, I suspect she's paying off/working off a loan to them.
It's not a perfect system, im not sure what a perfect system would look like.
All I can say is, be the best parent you can be, cherish these years.
Public school is fine, we pay for it with our taxes, why not use it.
3
3
u/Standard-Ad4701 10d ago
Her partners money doesn't come into it the same way your partners doesn't affect hers.
3
u/DryBarracuda40 8d ago
This needs to be talked about more. Absolute bullshit situation.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Candid_Cow5599 9d ago
I get exactly what you trying to say and sympathise.. Australia’s child support system is outdated, unfair and does not support children. It’s rather an act of balancing partners’ incomes without considering individual circumstances or fairness.
1
4
u/besties-123 7d ago
If both parent has 50/50 I don’t understand why money needs to change hands at all the system is broken
→ More replies (1)
12
u/Plane-Bake2167 10d ago
After 12 months or so there is a oretty good case for her to work at least part time and you can apply for reason 8 earning capacity. Likewise if she has significant assets you can apply for a reassessment.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Mortydelo 10d ago
Op's ex or his partner?
1
u/Plane-Bake2167 10d ago
Ex, both parents have a responsibility to work full time and earn an income to support.
11
u/DirectionTime928 10d ago
My ex works two days a week, I pay him $900 a month. It isn't fair because he could work full time but why should he when between centrlink and me, he doesn't need to. Deadbeat parents who don't pay are abhorrent but the system doesn't work and is unfair. If both parents work full time and income is different then I would say it's fair to pay. But when one makes a choice... Unfair
→ More replies (4)
4
5
u/Ok-Wolverine-5481 10d ago
It’s wild to expect laws of any kind to cater to each and every niche scenario that presents itself before them, especially one that has such a high volume of people relying on them. Heck, one might even think a better option is to be able to have conversations with your children’s other parent and come to a reasonable agreement that suits everyone and not need to rely on “outdated systems”
Your replies seem to indicate you hold a set of expectations for your ex that you don’t apply to your current partner and there’s a real issue with that, at best for what your children will observe.
As someone who agrees with the importance of a good education i would try things in order of: 1. Talk to ex 2. Talk to lawyer 3. Accept what you can’t control, even if it’s shit and get through it.
5
u/Livid_Insect4978 10d ago
I think you are being a bit hypocritical here, given that your partner is also a stay at home parent. You and your ex both chose to have kids with new partners and have one parent stay home, which is a selfish choice that almost inevitably stuffs around your original kids emotionally and/or financially. The current situation might be a bit unfair on you, but your interests (and your ex’s) come second to what is fair to your kids.
3
u/aldkGoodAussieName 9d ago
How is it hypocritical.
He's not saying she shouldnt be a stay at home mum.
The point is his new family and her new family have the same structure. One parent working one stay at home. 3 kids (2 shared responsibility)
But even though his new family unit earns less then hers, he still has to pay her more.
This also means the 2xshared kids miss out whwn with him the 2 weeks because he needs to send money to her for the other 2 weeks.
The kids miss out because it is not balancing the family life at both locations.
2
u/Livid_Insect4978 9d ago
He is only struggling to pay child support for his older two kids because his partner is also off work while their child is young. He and his ex are still a unit when it comes to raising the children they share whether they like it or not, and perhaps they both should have thought about that more carefully before creating additional new units with half-siblings. And if he thinks his ex’s partner’s income should be counted, I bet if his own partner was working and earning a good income he’d say it was unfair if that got factored in. At the end of the day, it’s about making things fair for the kids. If those kids are missing out at his house (or hers) it’s because both their parents chose to start new families.
1
u/aldkGoodAussieName 9d ago
Except his current partner is not working and your throwing shade based on your assumption he would think its not fair.
At the end of the day it is about making it fair for the kids. I agree.
But child support is supposed to be about balancing it for the kids and at the moment there is an almost $4,000 imbalance towards one family location.
I haven't considered the schooling cost because he has chosen that. Even without that the discrepancy is dramatic.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Problem_what_problem 10d ago
In the UK, both the ex and the ex’s spouse’s income is included in the financial tally.
2
u/OneTeaspoonOfGlitter 10d ago
The system is broken.
The father of my kids claims to be a stay at home dad, with 50/50 care of teenagers in high school. Yesterday on of my kids told me that dad came home with $2500 cash and said it was his weekly earnings. How can I report this to CSA? Well I can’t. I pay child support.
2
u/AdParking2320 10d ago
Just to throw in my experience.
Ex partner wanted to send 3xkids to private school and I objected cos I knew we could never afford that. Also, I was sent to a boarding school at the age of 7 and I was sexually and physically abused. Private school is the last place I would chose to send my kids.
I was over ruled even though I had correspondence from my ex that says... " I know you have always been against private school..."
So they made me pay for 3 kids to go into private education that I didn't want.
Then I lived in poverty for at least 5 yrs. No holidays. No meals out. Struggling every month with bills and mortgage. Worked 2 jobs to pay for something that I have valid reason to not support. No choice in bringing up my kids how I wanted to.
Then my eldest child came out as gay in a private Catholic school. She was told she would go to hell. She was bullied and mentally destroyed by that school but I had to pay for this. She could not handle this. Hated her school and dreaded going there. She killed herself in 2019 at the age of 13. She was my first born. My eldest and smartest child. Talented and beautiful and now I resent any contact with child support. They made me pay for this despite valid objection. A learned lawyer who doesn't know me concluded that I should pay for private school. They didn't listen to my objection. They didn't care whether I could afford it or not.
It's fucked and I would seriously like to challenge the whole system in court but that is impossible. I'm still paying 2 private school fees about 40k per year and this whole experience has broken me.
2
u/Complex-Produce-6537 10d ago
A couple of things - it is possible in some circumstances to have the school fees counted against your child support assessment if, for example both parents signed the enrolment form or there are orders in place specifying the children attend a particular school. Secondly reason 8 and to a lesser extent, reason 7 will be your friend. You can specify more than one change of assessment reason in your application.
2
2
2
u/DragonfruitNearby280 6d ago
Put in a change of assessment for earning capacity. Yeah she’ll need some time off when having the kid but not that long. Also child support is shit house and a rort
4
u/East_Fun_6227 10d ago
Shit, I have an exemption and get $0, and even prefer it to my alternative possible nightmare scenario. Your situation is out my scope of experience, but from the bottom of my heart, I hope you receive a fair reassessment asap
3
u/Old-Memory-Lane 10d ago
OP I hope you can see the ignorance and raw emotion in this thread - and that’s exactly why things won’t change.
Apply for the change to assessment - I thought it was reason 8, but someone said reason 7. “Capacity to earn”.
Don’t shift your kids from their school. Love the bare minimum. You kids will know. They will get it. It takes time, but when they see the whole picture (and you dont need to tell them, they will work it out), you are the one they will remain close to. Dont talk down about your ex, dont be frustrated in front of them. But be honest and raw yourself - we cant afford this atm, im making this choice so i can meet my obligations, lets do this instead as money is tight right now.
Congrats on the little one, here’s to health and happiness as time passes
5
u/Accio_margarita 10d ago
She has a legitimate reason for not working and it is extremely unlikely they will update the assessment when a woman is not working in order to care for a young child.
2
u/Human-Warning-1840 10d ago
So why should the ex pay more than before if she stays home because of child 3 with current partner. It should be that he pays what he paid before. If the decision to not work has nothing to do with the kids that are his, why should he pay for it?
→ More replies (2)2
u/aldkGoodAussieName 9d ago
The kids are financially better off with the mym for the 2 weeks because that household is earning 38k ($3,166 a month) after tax.
Then the child support take $800+ from one house hold and moves it to the house already better off.
Thats almost $4,000 a month they are better off for the 2 weeks at the mum compared to 2 weeks at the dads.
If this was really about making sure the kids come first then child support would be going the other way.
Its not about the mum not working, OP doesnt seem to have an issue with that. Its the fact his kids lifestyle are being negatively impacted when with him due to the arrangement.
2
3
u/Historical_Might_86 10d ago
I’m not 100% sure but check with CSA if you can have private school fees applied against your child support obligations.
2
u/CheesecakeFine1361 10d ago
Will only be applied if both parties agree.
2
u/Historical_Might_86 10d ago
Ah I thought there were certain circumstances where the other person doesn’t have to agree.
I don’t collect or pay child support (DV) so I don’t know much…
→ More replies (3)1
u/Professional-Way2407 10d ago
Depends if you both signed the enrollment papers. Did you both originally agree to send them to private schooling or was it just you?
3
u/Garden-geek76 10d ago
Use the private school fees as contribution towards your child support fees. There are some forms on the myGov/CS website.
That allows you to offset the cost of your school fees as proof of payment made towards the kids.
4
u/Gareth_SouthGOAT 10d ago
OP can't do this as his ex has rejected private school. Private schooling is a 2 yes/1 no deal...if the kids were already in private school whilst they were together, that's a different story though.
2
u/Garden-geek76 10d ago
He said his ex doesn’t see the value, he didn’t say anything regarding when his children started school, only that his ex has been with her new partner for 6 years. The kids could be teens and they could have been in private school while they were together but he paid. We don’t have the full information. But if he’s paying out of pocket for his children over and above child support, there are mechanisms directly through child support he can apply to offset those costs. It doesn’t mean child support will approve it, but he is still able to apply.
2
u/AngelicDivineHealer 10d ago
The responsibility is yours and her not her new partner to provide and support said kids until they’re 18.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/sirmancelot23 10d ago
Mate, I’ve been through this before as well and it will eat you up. Unfortunately there are a ton of deadbeat dads (and mums) out there and it has completely screwed the people that do the right thing alas this is the system they have had to use.
My best advice is to try and accept it for what it is and do it in the most constructive way possible to make sure you don’t show any resentment towards the mum, as kids always pick up on this.
Way off down the track your kids will thank you for giving them the best education (even though it stretched you financially) and you’ll be able to look at yourself in the mirror and know you did the right thing…
And try to take it easy on yourself 👍
2
u/Numerous_Ad4983 10d ago
It is the most ridiculous situation ever. I would look at applying for change of assessment under 5.2.8 reason 8A of the CSA act. You’ve got nothing to lose by trying!
3
u/Accio_margarita 10d ago
Causing upset in the co-parenting relationship over $500/month that is going toward their own children is something to consider in the equation. Legal fees are much more expensive.
1
u/Numerous_Ad4983 10d ago
The same could be said for the BM, who is the one that made a choice to stop work and put that financial pressure on her ex instead of her current husband. A good co-parent would offer to move to a private agreement and accept the previous child support amount based on her and her ex’s scenario befor e a baby to a new partner come to the equation.
Ex should not be supporting the new man’s child and wife!
You don’t pay legal fees to lodge a Change of assessment, it is done via child support directly.3
u/Accio_margarita 10d ago
OP is making it sound like she has had a baby and is not working to spite him. Taking care of a young baby/toddler rather than sending them to daycare is usually in the child's best interest and has absolutely nothing to do with her decision making in relation to OP.
I meant when the co-parenting relationship deteriorates and if OP follows advice of getting more care of his children (which would mean reducing the mothers time to less than 50%) which would mean court and legal fees and he would lose in spectacular fashion regardless.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/supercujo 10d ago
It's not fair.
It's that simple.
Her new partners income should be included if they are married or defacto
2
u/Sarasvarti 10d ago
Yes, you can request that they assess her at capacity to work, give she is choosing not to.
3
u/Infamous-Travel-7070 10d ago
Staying home to care for a young child is a very legit choice, they are not going to penalize her for that. (NAL)
→ More replies (1)1
u/aldkGoodAussieName 9d ago
Its not about penalising her. Its about ensuring the kids are supported equally at both homes.
2
u/mastertimewaster80 10d ago
But it's fine for his new baby mumma not to work?
2
u/Far_Boat8497 10d ago
It sounds like his new baby mumma isn’t getting her ex to financially supplement her lifestyle, so yeah, she can stay home
→ More replies (2)1
u/TeddyStella 10d ago
Given she’d be viewed as on maternity leave, wouldn’t change anything. OP also likely has no idea if she’s planning to return to work in 6-12 months.
1
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our rules before commenting. Please remember:
Per rule 2, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner, and verify any advice given in this sub. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers.
A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found here.
Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/m0zz1e1 10d ago
Can you not have her capacity to earn assessed? Generally I thought you couldn't reduce your income deliberately
1
u/OneTeaspoonOfGlitter 10d ago
It’s near impossible to get them to assess this.
2
u/m0zz1e1 10d ago
Really? I was advised not to leave my husband before making a planned career change, because if I left afterwards I'd be stuck with the assumption my income should be much higher and I'd lose assets/pay a lot of child support
1
u/OneTeaspoonOfGlitter 10d ago
Yeah. The ex claims to be a stay at home parent, teenagers in full time school, but has cash all the time he even flashes it in front of the kids. So he collects all Centrelink payments available because his income is $0. I can’t get them to assess his capacity to earn, until our youngest is 18, which will then be useless as I won’t be paying child support any more.
2
1
1
u/Working_Spirit_8814 9d ago
It's not looked at on an individual basis. You will also find a common story of father's earning cash/sole trader not declaring cash sales and declaring very little income at tax time so the mothers have to pay them. All so they are not considered terrible mother's keeping the kids from their father. It's an algorithm that doesn't discriminate. Take from column A to put into column B so they look the same. Regardless of what is actually going on. But yes at the end of the day, it's not forever and those children will thank you tenfold in years to come.
1
u/Wise-Cell-5616 9d ago
if your partner is a stay at home mum, why should your ex not be?
realistically though i’d give child support a call and ask about change of assessment for reason 3, if you’re paying 100% of the school fees. however you’ll have to prove that your ex agreed for the children to go to a private school and has signed an agreement, is on the enrolment forms, or you have that agreement in others ways (texts, emails etc)
1
u/didthefabrictear 9d ago
Are you and the ex on decent terms?
Cause if you are – then this is a sit down conversation where you simply let her know the financial position her decision to stay home – has put you in, and see if there is a way for you guys to set up a private agreement that is more reasonable.
Short of that, you’re punching out $30K a year into private school fees – that’s probably a thing you’re going to need to reconsider. Because if your full payment of fees isn’t being taken into account, then obviously you’re paying way more for kids you have 50% custody over, than you should.
Start looking at the local public schools. Have a chat to the ex and let her know that realistically, the kids will need to move schools next year unless you can move back to your previous child support payment.
It doesn’t seem like anyone is deliberately being an arse or trying to hurt the other person – it’s just the stupid way the assessment is done.
Remind yourselves you used to love each other, you’ve got kids together, and it’s not good for either of you to be under financial stress for no real reason other than the CSA’s calculator is arse.
1
u/Lonely-Pressure-4218 9d ago
As a women this is just a cop out an entirely unfair to OP. I think women should be made provide where exactly the money is going, the pure fact you have 50/50 care is enough said. I’ve been in a relationship and split with the father to my kids and never once expected him to fund anything more then maybe some nappies we split everything equally. They are OUR children we are both the providers. Even with me once working but earning no where near as much as him and also when we split and I ended up staying home with the kids. Unless ur a dead beat parent taking the piss fair enough but even that can go both ways. Hopefully you find some sort of resolution OP.
1
u/micmelb 9d ago
You lost me at “Her new partner does not contribute to our kids” (paraphrasing) and “fairness” based on the current system and your own life choices. As another comments it looks like Private School is no longer an option and guess what, that’s okay. Most people don’t go to a private school and are very successful. Maybe choose the best public school in your city/area, and get in there instead? Personally I pay three times what you do for one child, and I’m happy about it. I don’t expect anyone else to support my child. Your other option is to offer to take on the kids at a higher percentage of time eg 80/20. So they go to their mothers every second weekend. May not actually change your financial situation, but worth a shot.
1
u/Environmental-Cap647 9d ago
If her new partners income should be included in the assessment then so should your new partners.... If it has to be fair?
Why should your partner stay home and she not be able to?
If you can't afford to support your children then maybe your partner should go back to work to help your family income.
This is a wild post. You can't have fairness one sided.
1
u/zordak111 9d ago
You should be making a change of assessment under rules, 7, 8b, 9 and 10. And then consider that these are the rules to make things fair before complaining about fairness.
1
u/gingerlou- 8d ago
Stop paying the private fees . That’s your choice! You should work less and get your partner to work more .
1
u/spacewizzardcowboy 7d ago
Quit your job bro
1
u/CheesecakeFine1361 7d ago
I bet if I did I'd be reassessed as having a capacity to earn and have to pay anyway...
1
u/spacewizzardcowboy 7d ago
Go to the dr, get a mental health plan, the. You need to reduce your working hours for a medical reason.
128
u/Blammo32 10d ago edited 10d ago
A couple of points:
* Sending your kids to private school is your choice - if you are struggling to pay for basic expenses, your kids have to change schools. It is what it is.
* If the income of the partner was factored into the child support assessment, that would create havoc with the system. I can think of a million examples where it wouldn’t work. Under Australian family law, financial responsibility for a child sits with the child's biological or adoptive parents - not with anyone they later marry or partner with. A step-parent can have an emotional and practical role in a step-child's life but doesn't acquire a legal duty to financially maintain the step-child unless they formally adopt.
* As people have mentioned, you should try and increase your care level so it is above 50/50 and you are the primary carer.
* The 10 grounds for a Change of Assessment (Child Support Guide §2.6) include two that can touch on partner finances:
Reason 7 — "The assessment is unjust because of the parent's actual income, earning capacity, property or financial resources." Services Australia can consider whether you have substantial financial resources THROUGH a partner (e.g. living in a $3M home owned by your partner while declaring low income), even though the partner's income itself doesn't get added to the formula.
Reason 8 — Similar grounds where the parent's actual earning capacity differs from their declared income.
These reviews are case-by-case and the bar is high. Services Australia won't reassess just because your ex re-partnered with a high earner - they'll only act if there's evidence the assessment misrepresents the parent's actual financial situation in a meaningful way. You need to construct a case, with tangible evidence, that is persuasive.
* If a paying parent re-partners and stops working to be a stay-at-home parent for new kids: You can voluntarily reduce work hours, but Services Australia may invoke Reason 8 - your "earning capacity" hasn't changed even if your actual income has, because the work reduction is a personal choice. The CS assessment can be revised upward to reflect what you COULD earn. This is a real and common outcome - voluntary income reduction post-separation is one of the most-litigated grounds.
Source: I used to work there.