- Dads fight for fairness
- By Sarah Henderson
- The Herald Sun
- 24/09/2003 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: admin ( 75 articles in 2003 )
OVER the past few weeks, I have been inundated with e-mails and letters from parents desperate to end the many inequities imposed on them by the Child Support Agency.
Or more correctly, the inequities imposed by the Child Support (Assessment) Act of 1989.
As I wrote a few weeks ago, the House of Representatives standing committee on family and community affairs is inquiring into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation.
And judging from the correspondence I have received -- which is obviously indicative of only a fraction of the complaints out there -- the committee will need to make some very radical decisions if it's going to redress some of the most serious problems with the system.
The committee's terms of reference are to inquire into whether there should be a presumption that children should spend equal time with each parent post-separation.
They must also inquire into the circumstances in which a court should order that a child should spend time with other people (such as grandparents), and whether the existing child support formula works fairly for both parents in relation to their care of, and their contact with, their children.
It's this last term of reference that will no doubt prove to be most contentious.
The CSA was established after the Government decided to transfer matters of child maintenance from the courts to an administrative body.
The rationale for doing so was entirely proper.
Parents would no longer have to fight in the courtroom about who would pay what.
The formula was meant to make things much more streamlined, transparent and easier to administer.
Yet taking child support from the domain of the Family Court and into the hands of the bureaucrats has led to all sorts of problems, largely because of the difficulty in finding a "fix-all'' formula.
One of the biggest problems concerns the "payee'' parent, who receives child support on behalf of their child or children yet systematically breaches court orders relating to access and residency.
Is it fair that the non-resident or payer parents, usually fathers, properly and consistently pay child support while being denied access to their children in breach of court orders?
There are plenty of payee parents, most often mothers, who are more than happy to take the money and run, literally.
The problem is that unless parents are prepared to pay thousands of additional dollars in legal fees and court costs, access rights granted by the Family Court are almost impossible to enforce.
But just imagine if parents improperly denied access to their children were legitimately able to reduce their child support payments?
It may not work in all cases, but as they say, money talks.
At the moment, the enforcement of Family Court orders is costly and complex.
And while the CSA has wide-reaching powers to enforce child support payments, it can do absolutely nothing to redress the balance when a payee parent is in breach of a court order.
Perhaps what's needed is a separate agency or tribunal to deal with these systematic breaches -- cheaply and quickly -- which are causing such hell for so many parents.
It may be a contentious idea -- but it's one that has already been touched upon in evidence before the parliamentary committee.
During the week, a senior officer with the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, Kym Duggan, told the committee that a major issue of controversy in terms of the enforcement of court orders related to access.
HE said: "There is an argument -- philosophically at least -- for public law intervention in that regard as well.
"I make no comment on whether that means setting up something similar to the Child Support Agency but I understand the thrust of those concerns.''
One of the most disturbing letters I received was from a man whose ex-wife had remarried and refused to allow him to see his children for eight years, despite court orders that granted him regular access.
In all that time, he had paid child maintenance. Yet, he could not afford to return to the Family Court and has been left completely heart-broken.
This is not just unfair.
This is criminal.
shenderson@kudosmg.com
SARAH HENDERSON is a lawyer and director of Kudos Management Group
Or more correctly, the inequities imposed by the Child Support (Assessment) Act of 1989.
As I wrote a few weeks ago, the House of Representatives standing committee on family and community affairs is inquiring into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation.
And judging from the correspondence I have received -- which is obviously indicative of only a fraction of the complaints out there -- the committee will need to make some very radical decisions if it's going to redress some of the most serious problems with the system.
The committee's terms of reference are to inquire into whether there should be a presumption that children should spend equal time with each parent post-separation.
They must also inquire into the circumstances in which a court should order that a child should spend time with other people (such as grandparents), and whether the existing child support formula works fairly for both parents in relation to their care of, and their contact with, their children.
It's this last term of reference that will no doubt prove to be most contentious.
The CSA was established after the Government decided to transfer matters of child maintenance from the courts to an administrative body.
The rationale for doing so was entirely proper.
Parents would no longer have to fight in the courtroom about who would pay what.
The formula was meant to make things much more streamlined, transparent and easier to administer.
Yet taking child support from the domain of the Family Court and into the hands of the bureaucrats has led to all sorts of problems, largely because of the difficulty in finding a "fix-all'' formula.
One of the biggest problems concerns the "payee'' parent, who receives child support on behalf of their child or children yet systematically breaches court orders relating to access and residency.
Is it fair that the non-resident or payer parents, usually fathers, properly and consistently pay child support while being denied access to their children in breach of court orders?
There are plenty of payee parents, most often mothers, who are more than happy to take the money and run, literally.
The problem is that unless parents are prepared to pay thousands of additional dollars in legal fees and court costs, access rights granted by the Family Court are almost impossible to enforce.
But just imagine if parents improperly denied access to their children were legitimately able to reduce their child support payments?
It may not work in all cases, but as they say, money talks.
At the moment, the enforcement of Family Court orders is costly and complex.
And while the CSA has wide-reaching powers to enforce child support payments, it can do absolutely nothing to redress the balance when a payee parent is in breach of a court order.
Perhaps what's needed is a separate agency or tribunal to deal with these systematic breaches -- cheaply and quickly -- which are causing such hell for so many parents.
It may be a contentious idea -- but it's one that has already been touched upon in evidence before the parliamentary committee.
During the week, a senior officer with the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, Kym Duggan, told the committee that a major issue of controversy in terms of the enforcement of court orders related to access.
HE said: "There is an argument -- philosophically at least -- for public law intervention in that regard as well.
"I make no comment on whether that means setting up something similar to the Child Support Agency but I understand the thrust of those concerns.''
One of the most disturbing letters I received was from a man whose ex-wife had remarried and refused to allow him to see his children for eight years, despite court orders that granted him regular access.
In all that time, he had paid child maintenance. Yet, he could not afford to return to the Family Court and has been left completely heart-broken.
This is not just unfair.
This is criminal.
shenderson@kudosmg.com
SARAH HENDERSON is a lawyer and director of Kudos Management Group
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here