Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Child Support: an experiment that failed?

Following my last post, I received an email from a mother in Australia complaining that the child support system there isn't any better than here. She says her children's father died owing some seven thousand dollars to the Child Support Agency.

This set me wondering - if the system is also not working elsewhere, is the whole concept of non-court child support simply an experiment that failed? If it is, then it has had devastating consequences for many of the guinea pigs involved.

3 comments:

  1. Presumably the Austrialian CSA didn't follow their guidelines as to pursuing the deceased's estate.

    I know the GB CSA can - if they can be bothered and remainded enough via PWC.

    But shrouds do not contain pockets.Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hopefully the CSA can recover the arrears from the father's estate - my point was only to highlight the amount of the arrears.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Its not hard for arrears to arise. I separated 2 years ago and paid the mortgage on FMH since i left (1000 per mth). Wife applied for interim Spousal Maintenance and was awarded 1400 per mth (60% of my salary) in April - but backdated to 1st Jan. So despite paying mortgage for Jan/Feb/March I still had to pay an extra 1400. So total award for Jan/Feb/Mar was over 100% of my wages (no arrears at all up to this point). So on the day the order was made I was instantly placed 4200 pounds in arrears despite voluntarily paying 1000/mth for first 2 years and 1400/mth since.

    And you wonder why there are runaway dads? erm...its cos if you deny them any access to kids (as in my case) and award SM at non-viable levels then they have little choice.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.