What does Child Support Cover the cost of?

[Peg]

I thought it was fair to ask for half of the extra activities they do. After looking at the csa website I believe as they get older the percentage will increase as children cost more as they get older. Does anyone have an idea how much public schooling will cost me? I believe I will be getting a school card and have been told it shouldnt cost much at all.

If you havent guessed, I am quiet new to all this stuff. Ive never been through anything like this before, never had to go to centrelink etc etc we only just separated in January and Ive always worked until May last year before I had DD2. Stuff knows where Id fit work into my day at the moment, I take my hat off to single parents who work and care for their children full time.

It wont be easy for you, but if you have a good relationship with your ex maybe you should draw up a parenting plan and come to an agreement on how the finances for the kids will be organized. he might agree to pay a little extra.

otherwise your option is to go thru CSA and they will base the amount of maintenance on his income. You should also get the parenting payment if you are a single parent now...that will likely be close to $400 per week with 2 children. You can claim rent assistence too.

[Persephone1]

Peg is correct. Nobody has to like it (and most people don't), but it's not about what is morally correct or what it "covers."

If a payee pays their calculated CS, there is no legal obligation to pay a cent more - even if that means the CS paid doesn't cover the ballet lessons, shoes, school fees, clothes etc. Don't get me started on how many complaints I hear about this. And trust me when I say, just as many fathers as mothers complain. CSA is a bureacracy like any other, and the formulas they apply have no basis in what is morally correct or what is best for the child.

(I purposely don't practice in CS law, cause it's awful).

[Peg]

I'm with lulu. If dh and I were to split tomorrow he wouldn't have to pay me anything at all.
I don't think most people expect the dad to pay for everything just make a fair contribution based on what they can afford, andbe honest in declaring their income. I don't think the current system is fair at all, but I also don't know how to fix it.

Absolutely they should pay a fair contribution.
But a fair contribution doesnt include paying the mums rent and food bills and trips to the salon.

A fair contribution is the kids expenses. School uniforms, excursions, piano lessons, clothing...

Unfortunately, if the dad doesnt work or earns very little, then there isnt much that can be done about that. He simply wont have the money to provide. My ex lost his job back in May last year and i just started getting maintencance again from him in Feb this year. It may seem unfair, but if they arnt earning any money, how can they pay???


The system is very fair in my opinion.

[Lulu]

Peg,

The OP was asking about contributing to the childrens activities - where does mums rent and food bills and trips to the salon come into it?

[Butterfly Child]

With all due respect to Hollo and Peg - sometimes CSA doesn't even cover the basics.
Asking the other parent to pay only HALF of a child's activities really isn't asking too much, it's for the benefit of the children.

Have to agree with lulu
i mean sometimes its impossible to survive with the cs money you get even for the basics.. i mean 16 dollars a fortnight wont even buy nappies.. enough said their..
Although i know where some of you are coming from i don't agree with the cs system..i don't think its fair at all.. i don't think its fair that xp has never had to contribute anything at all in the way of things for dd since she was born except 16 dollars a fortnight.. i mean luckily i have a supportive family or i don't know where i or dd would be..

i think its fair to say that children's activities should be put into account and maybe a parenting plan could be written up and xp might be willing to pay extra..

(sorry went abit of topic

[Elocin]

where does mums rent and food bills and trips to the salon come into it?

When you're dealing with my DH's ex, that's where!!!

I agree that morally he should pay for half of all activities, but the girls are right... legally, unfortunately, he doesn't have too...

[Peg]

Peg,

The OP was asking about contributing to the childrens activities - where does mums rent and food bills and trips to the salon come into it?

Let me put it this way. for a man earning between 30-40K per annum (a fairly low average wage in australia) he might be required to pay approx $50-$70 per week (or there abouts) for 2 children.

If you put that money aside for the kids expenses, you've got approx $100 a month to contribute towards their expenses. If the mum is also contributing $100 a month on the kiddie fund, then thats $200 a month for the kids. How many children expend more then $200 per month on things like school, clothes, outings, activities?

Surely there must come a point where mums budget the money out and if they dont have enough money for something they wait until they have the money. We can put our kids thru so many activities that it can cost a fortune, but its not up to the ex to pay for them on top of the money he already provides.


I'm not talking about ex's who dont give any money at all...im talking about the ones who pay their req maintenance. Some will be req to pay less due to their lower incomes and thats fair enough... it just means that his kids will not be able to do as much as we might like... wouldnt this be the same senario if you were still with such a partner and the family income was low?

[Pandora]

I never suggested one would want to spend the $ on frivilous things that werent child related. And I dont recall anyone else doing so either.

I do agree with you, that they only have to pay the amount they are legally required to - I just think they arent alwasy legeally required to pay a fair amount.

... wouldnt this be the same senario if you were still with such a partner and the family income was low?

No, not always. If my partner was earning 30-40K and not contributing any of it towards our kids it wouldnt be on whether we were together or not.

[Lulu]

I worked in this area, I don't need it explained to me. The op wasn't asking anything for herself - just the children.
I understand things could possibly go overboard in the activity department and in a perfect world some men would seem to understand how activities like this contribute to the well being of the child.

And since this topic as gone so far off topic anyway - xH 1 has paid for me to go to the salon a few times in the past and xH2 has bought me some beautiful clothes - because they know I spend everything I have on the children and run myself ragged taking care of them

[Peg]

I do agree with you, that they only have to pay the amount they are legally required to - I just think they arent alwasy legeally required to pay a fair amount.

well it is means tested. He still has to pay for his own rent and food and transport... this is all taken into account by CSA

There is an amount he can earn that is not affected and this is the money that CSA say is what he needs to live off... everything over and above that 'self support' amount is what they calculate from

so what percentage of his income do you consider to be fair?

[Pandora]

All I'm saying is I don't consider zero to be fair. Just as I don't consider the 39% my cousin pays to be fair either.

[Peg]

All I'm saying is I don't consider zero to be fair. Just as I don't consider the 39% my cousin pays to be fair either.

well of course zero is not fair. This could only be because he is not earning enough or they have not been informed of his income.

39% seems like a lot too, but again it is based on income and the number of children he is paying for. The 'self support' amount will never be included in the percentage, so the 39% is based on what he makes over that amount.

[tattoo_mama]

well just thought id put in my 2 cents...
nobody is gonna agree what is fair and what isnt cause some ppl may say activites such as ballet, soccer, etc etc arent 'needed' and as BG said its to cover living expenses not social expenses KWIM?
needless to say i only get about $40 a month off XP but fairly often (depending on how much he has left over after spending his money on pot ) he will put another $10-20 a week into DD's account.

i guess that didnt really help did it lol

[Inanna]

This is such an emotive subject isn't it? It is a really tough one when each side of the coin can feel let down.

Let me put it this way. for a man earning between 30-40K per annum (a fairly low average wage in australia) he might be required to pay approx $50-$70 per week (or there abouts) for 2 children.

If you put that money aside for the kids expenses, you've got approx $100 a month to contribute towards their expenses. If the mum is also contributing $100 a month on the kiddie fund, then thats $200 a month for the kids. How many children expend more then $200 per month on things like school, clothes, outings, activities?

Surely there must come a point where mums budget the money out and if they dont have enough money for something they wait until they have the money. We can put our kids thru so many activities that it can cost a fortune, but its not up to the ex to pay for them on top of the money he already provides.


I'm not talking about ex's who dont give any money at all...im talking about the ones who pay their req maintenance. Some will be req to pay less due to their lower incomes and thats fair enough... it just means that his kids will not be able to do as much as we might like... wouldnt this be the same senario if you were still with such a partner and the family income was low?

I would have to agree that the CS system (what I've seen of it - and in my situation) sucks!

Peg if a man is paying $70 per week for 2 kids... That is $280 per month. That doesn't cover my grocery bill for a week!
However, what I find disparate is that in order for the Mama to care well for her children she needs a home. A home in an area that has some parks, PT perhaps, good schools - sufficient space. Very different to my single friends who can happily rent in Fortitude Valley & ponder at the crime... It costs more rent to have kids. It costs more electricity. It costs more internet (kids need it now it's like a calculator was to maths 1 in 1984), more linen, more furniture, more just about everything.

$70 is less than my petrol bill a week. I hope you don't mind me respectfully disagreeing. I think the system supports men largely. Mothers never let their kids do without if they can help it. But at the end of a week of budgeting, stretching and scrimping the bills get paid, food is on the table, dance class, footy training and school excursions are done. New shoes bought because child A lost his 3rd pair for the year... Footy socks at $15, shorts at $35, insurance at $95, fuel to get there and back.

It costs a bloody lot. I can tell you the father of my children paid a damn side more for the kids when he lived here... But now he pays what he should, borrows my car or my children won't be safely transported, feeds them crap & drops them home hungry (cos mum can pay for afternoon tea!)

I am fully aware that there are two sides to the coin. I know there are women who rort the system, who are not fair.

What I am saying is that I don't believe it can be said it's "fair"... Any partnered families who truly think that the cost of 2 kids for a week is $140 ($70 each for Mother & Father to pay 50% each) needs to give us all some budgeting lessons! Maybe for a baby but even that's a stretch. (a fairly big one I reckon)

I don't know the solution either and Persephone said it well. It is not necessarily fair, to either the residential parent or the children. But it's the law.

Unless of course you have a private child support agreement. But generally speaking (& again I know this isn't always the case) there is animosity during divorce. Men typically use money as leverage (as in the case of SAHM) & sadly women can use children... Just as this can be the same for men.

I find it tragic when decisions are not made in the best interest of the children. And Peg, again with sincere respect... Sometimes a trip to the salon for a new do is the difference between just being able to cope and being tipped over the edge. Not everything is black and white.

I find it curious that society (not aimed at anyone in this thread) thinks it okay to question how a single Mama spends her dosh... "She's out drinking", "she had a new dress", "things can't be too tough"... Yet, the ex partner pops a 2 carot diamond on the finger of the next "lucky" lady and "that's lovely he's found happiness again"...

Do you get what I mean? Single Mums seem to need to explain and justify. I think we have to remember that there for the Grace of God (*insert deity) go most of us... Sometimes life throws a few curve balls and we are reminded of how difficult the other side of the fence actually is.

[Peg]

Inanna, i know that single mums have it tough. My mum was a single mum bringing up 3 kids on her own and dad never gave her a cent (that was the time before CSA existed) She had to work to pay for everything. So I know its an extremely difficult cirmustance to be in.
Its hard on everyone involved, including the kids because they do miss out on a lot.

But the thing with the CSA is that its based on the mans income as we all know. If he earns a low wage, then his CSA is going to be lower, not because the system is unfair, but because its trying to be fair on both parties. He still has to pay for his own rent and food bills. If his income is higher, the CSA will be higher. Im sure if all our ex's were high earners, we wouldnt feel the system was unfair.

I think the other thing that makes it harder on women is that they likely have not worked for a while, so when they divorce/separate they suddenly find that the bills and rent arnt being paid and this falls on her shoulders. Its all new to her because for so long he has paid for these things. So i can understand if women use the CSA money for those living expenses and I do myself sometimes, it perfectly ok to do so... but its not ok to use it on those things and not use it on the kids personal expenses. So there needs to be balance in how its used which sometimes is not easy.

[~clover~]

:yeahthat: Gotta spread the love Inanna

Personally if DH & I weren't together I'd be happy to be recieving anything. DH didn't pay when we were seperated $65 a week is so hard when your making a fair few hundred!!
A single friend of mine is entitled to $100 a month for her DD. She might recieve that $100 every 3 - 4 months. Thats only $25 a week. For someone working full time. If you want the best for your kids this shouldn't be a problem, but some are simply too selfish.

[briggsy's girl]

it's a tough situation - you want to be fair to both parties but you also need to take into account the extra curricular needs of the children. yes, they are a choice - and more often than not that choice is made by the resident parent and the non-resident parent doesn't see a need to help with the costs.

what pandora is getting at (from what i can gather) is that there are women on higher incomes than their exes - so because of this, they receive nothing from their ex to help support those children. a parent who goes out and works to support the best interests of their child, gets nothing from the non-resident parent (and it can be both ways - there are single dads out there too!) - they foot the bill for child care, accommodation, schooling and everything, so may have little to no money left each week - but because the government deem them to be better off than their lower income earning ex, they get nothing. it's not right

the current calculation is messy - it looks at total income for mum and dad. takes out a basic living expense per annum (around 13k) for rent and basic essentials. it then puts whatever money is left over in a pool. works out what percentage of time each parent has the children, and where that income comes from. in a situation where the secondary carer has the children a small amount of time, but is on a low income, they may actually be entitled to child support from the primary carer. that isn't fair! it is a dis-incentive for primary carers to do the right thing by their family and go out and work

[Butterfly Child]

This is such an emotive subject isn't it? It is a really tough one when each side of the coin can feel let down.



I would have to agree that the CS system (what I've seen of it - and in my situation) sucks!

Peg if a man is paying $70 per week for 2 kids... That is $280 per month. That doesn't cover my grocery bill for a week!
However, what I find disparate is that in order for the Mama to care well for her children she needs a home. A home in an area that has some parks, PT perhaps, good schools - sufficient space. Very different to my single friends who can happily rent in Fortitude Valley & ponder at the crime... It costs more rent to have kids. It costs more electricity. It costs more internet (kids need it now it's like a calculator was to maths 1 in 1984), more linen, more furniture, more just about everything.

$70 is less than my petrol bill a week. I hope you don't mind me respectfully disagreeing. I think the system supports men largely. Mothers never let their kids do without if they can help it. But at the end of a week of budgeting, stretching and scrimping the bills get paid, food is on the table, dance class, footy training and school excursions are done. New shoes bought because child A lost his 3rd pair for the year... Footy socks at $15, shorts at $35, insurance at $95, fuel to get there and back.

It costs a bloody lot. I can tell you the father of my children paid a damn side more for the kids when he lived here... But now he pays what he should, borrows my car or my children won't be safely transported, feeds them crap & drops them home hungry (cos mum can pay for afternoon tea!)

I am fully aware that there are two sides to the coin. I know there are women who rort the system, who are not fair.

What I am saying is that I don't believe it can be said it's "fair"... Any partnered families who truly think that the cost of 2 kids for a week is $140 ($70 each for Mother & Father to pay 50% each) needs to give us all some budgeting lessons! Maybe for a baby but even that's a stretch. (a fairly big one I reckon)

I don't know the solution either and Persephone said it well. It is not necessarily fair, to either the residential parent or the children. But it's the law.

Unless of course you have a private child support agreement. But generally speaking (& again I know this isn't always the case) there is animosity during divorce. Men typically use money as leverage (as in the case of SAHM) & sadly women can use children... Just as this can be the same for men.

I find it tragic when decisions are not made in the best interest of the children. And Peg, again with sincere respect... Sometimes a trip to the salon for a new do is the difference between just being able to cope and being tipped over the edge. Not everything is black and white.

I find it curious that society (not aimed at anyone in this thread) thinks it okay to question how a single Mama spends her dosh... "She's out drinking", "she had a new dress", "things can't be too tough"... Yet, the ex partner pops a 2 carot diamond on the finger of the next "lucky" lady and "that's lovely he's found happiness again"...

Do you get what I mean? Single Mums seem to need to explain and justify. I think we have to remember that there for the Grace of God (*insert deity) go most of us... Sometimes life throws a few curve balls and we are reminded of how difficult the other side of the fence actually is.

I couldnt agree more lnanna xx