CSA complaint.

CSA Complaints Forum

Do you have a complaint about the CSA and child support? Make your thoughts known in this CSA complaints forum.

The forum is a place for parents to voice their problems and issues. You can learn from the experiences of others, and let others know what happened to you.

You are on the Child Support Australia site. The goal here is to change the child support formula and system. By participating in the forum, you can help reform child support. Your views will be read by others and may contribute to future policy.

Note that comments are moderated and non-constructive entries may be hidden from view.

6 Responses

  1. PainfulHelen
    | Reply

    Private School Fees and Other Stuff

    I don’t understand if both parents have signed contracts with Private Schools why is the mother who is chronically ill, has Income Protection which is lower than “Low Income” and the ex-husband says he has NOT had a pay rise in 6 years, is now a director of 4 companies and is a shareholder of a National Commercial Property Company and is also working in Senior Manegement for another Company (for the same money).The sick mother has been asked for her bank accounts as the father reduces his income via the companies. The mother has the children 100% and is left with all the medial, school levies, camps, book, sport and based on you calculator is getting 10% of the school fees??? Really??

    • mm
      Andrew Lancaster (admin)
      | Reply

      You’ve raised a few different issues Helen. Child support isn’t really intended to cover massive private school fees. The parents should normally make an arrangement for who pays before signing contracts, etc.

      If earning capacity is being under-reported in some way, that’s dealt with through a Change of Assessment manual review.

      Child Support routinely asks both parties for financial info when doing a review.

  2. Casper
    | Reply

    Reform is Needed

    This needs to be addressed sooner than later. The CSA indicated that it’s not a gender-based system but it sure feels like the dads seem to have it worse. I agree that we need to help and support our kids, no issue there but I would like to see the money I spend actually be spent on the kids. I have to continue to buy my two daughters clothes and amenities because their mother doesn’t. Receiving parents should have to provide evidence of where the money is being spent and that the kids see the benefit of it. The receiving parent can simply spend the child support on whatever they want, for themselves or for the new husband. It sounds crazy to me one person has to pay for the decision of both parents to get divorced. I am ready to fight and support a reform in this area, no longer should one person have to pay without having the basic access to their kids. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that one day this will end, I can’t wait!!

    • mm
      Andrew Lancaster (admin)
      | Reply


      Agree that the amounts of child support paid are often over the top. Young children especially really don’t cost much to look after. So where do thousands of dollars of child support actually end up going?

      The challenge is to improve the system without creating other problems.

      Requiring receipts would reveal big differences between payments and spending. An issue is that it would create a lot of paperwork. Plus, it wouldn’t allow for shared expenses (e.g. children benefit from higher spending on cars, housing, holidays, etc). A partial solution is to set child support closer to actual spending in the first place, which is what the new formulas are about.

      Very true that there shouldn’t be a monetary reward for denying access. The system could certainly be improved here, including by Child Support recognising court-ordered care even where the orders are not being followed because access is being denied. The primary carer missing out on a few bucks is less important than promoting the participation of both parents in a child’s life.

  3. Mike
    | Reply

    Problems with Overpayments

    Hi it’s good to see someone is trying to address the issues of the CSA here in Australia. Basically the system has major issues but I am sure I am not the only person to say this. As a male I feel that I am severely disadvantaged. Courts still deem that a child’s natural position is with the mother. A mother finds out quickly the potential financial gain in keeping the children away from their father. A few short words to a child will have them believe that staying with their mother is their only choice.

    As a self employed person I have had to face a diminishing income each year over the last decade. Unfortunately, as you are aware, my child support was calculated on the previous tax return. It was impossible to have my tax returns done within a short period after a financial year (due to related companies in the USA). So when my returns were done it was found that I had paid too much each year. The CSA stated that I could not get credit on overpaid child support as “we do not want to place the receiving party under duress”. However in this case the receiving party is a millionaire.

    Overpaid child support should be construed as a credit. They are the only organization in this country that does not recognize an overpaid account.

    Furthermore, there is no correlation between a court asset settlement and child support. In my case my ex wife was significantly over paid for my company valuation in 2010. Since that time the business relatively collapsed (along with my income) yet there in no adjustment for this. So she ends up with most of the money, takes away the children to another state and leaves me in financial ruin still borrowing money from relatives to pay the CSA!

    • mm
      Andrew Lancaster (admin)
      | Reply

      Thanks for your feedback Mike.

      Yes – a clearly unfair aspect of the system (intentionally ignoring overpayments). The philosophy seems to be that the child comes first. Therefore, everything has to the favour the primary carer, no matter how unfair it is to the other parent.

      The attitude is outdated and wrong. A child’s welfare depends on both parents. It doesn’t help children to always favour one parent over the other. This acts to weaken the primary provider and, by making them dependent on other people’s money, the primary carer as well. It really is a foolish way to try and help children and should be seen for what it is – theft by the CSA. I really hope this incredibly dodgy aspect of the current scheme is discontinued when reform happens.

Leave a Reply

Your comment