Men's Rights Agency - Feminism

B. The agenda of the fathers' rights movement continued

4. Child support

All of the groups have major concerns about the current Child Support Scheme.¹⁵⁴ Some groups do acknowledge that under the prior system of child maintenance there were problems with the poverty of children and of single income families headed by women.¹⁵⁵ Others argue that more child maintenance was paid than is claimed by official statistics and when it wasn't paid this was for valid reasons. For example, Parent Without Rights argues that under the previous scheme 75 per cent¹⁵⁶ of Family Court ordered maintenance was being paid. The 25 per cent of fathers who didn't pay were being denied access by the mother or through the legal system, or had crippling debts because of legal battles, or couldn't pay because of the costs of attempting to start life again with a new partner, or were out of work and below the poverty line. Some fathers' rights groups actually argue that the percentages of non-custodial parents paying child support have declined under the new Child Support Scheme because of the serious inequities in that scheme.¹⁵⁷ There are major problems with these two latter claims in that they contradict the official data¹⁵⁸ and the statistics cited in support are unsourced.

A. "Excessive" child support liability

One of the inequities upon which all groups uniformly agree is that the amounts levied under the current Child Support Scheme are too high. The Child Support Action Group expresses this forcefully when it states that, "the basis of the present system is injustice, tyranny, robbery and extortion regardless of human morality".¹⁵⁹ The Family Law Reform Party claims that child support and tax can consume up to 60 per cent of a[n] non-custodial parents income.¹⁶⁰ Parent Without Rights puts this figure at 88 per cent.¹⁶¹ It is not clear how' these groups have come up with the figures they cite in support of their arguments.¹⁶²

All groups seem to agree that the consequence of such high rates of child support is that non-custodial parents are financially crippled.¹⁶³ The Lone Fathers Association says that fathers are "living out of cars and sheds and giving up employment. Suicide is the only escape from their shackles."¹⁶⁴ The Campaign for Men's Rights argues that:

The practical result of..... [the Child Support Agency] has been to throw 90 per cent of all divorced men in Australia into poverty. This agency has done more to create a new class of poverty in Australia than any recession has done.¹⁶⁵

Some groups say that this means that fathers do not have the means to exercise access,¹⁶⁶ get on with their lives, or remarry.¹⁶⁷ Many fathers' rights groups also argue that the extreme financial burden the child support formula imposes on non-custodial parents who are working makes them better off on the dole,¹⁶⁸ and that there is little incentive under the formula for fathers to earn extra income.¹⁶⁹ Lone Fathers argues that excessive child support liabilities exacerbate conflict between the parents, which in turn detrimentally impacts on the children.¹⁷⁰

A number of related criticisms attest to the general dissatisfaction with the amount of child support for which non-custodial parents are liable. The first is that children cost a lot less than the results produced by the application of the child support formula.¹⁷¹ For example, Men's Confraternity argue that maintenance payments for children should be equal to the allowances paid for children by government agencies¹⁷² because welfare allowances have been set with the “survival of the recipients in mind". The claim that children cost less than the child support amounts is controversial.¹⁷³ Perhaps more problematic however is the fact that the child support formula is based on the principle of "resource sharing"¹⁷⁴ rather than "cost sharing". These arguments therefore amount to requests for a fundamentally different basis for the formula.¹⁷⁵

The second criticism is the suggestion made by some groups that child support is either so excessive or not actually spent on the children that it is really spousal maintenance in disguise. Thus the Child Support Action Group submits that "children are being used as a source of income" and that the payment of child support "negates the final termination of marriage as it imposes an ongoing liability of l5-2O years on a non-custodial parent".¹⁷⁶ The Lone Fathers Association comments that child support is not always spent on the children. Instead;

Some custodial parents have taken holidays overseas, purchased properties and new cars, purchased expensive personal items, leave their children with babysitters while they go out to various clubs sometimes up to four times a week, then apply to the welfare systems for help. This ... is not an uncommon factor and can easily be proved...¹⁷⁷

Some groups accordingly argue that child support should be paid to the children rather than the custodial parent.¹⁷⁸ A common suggestion is that the custodial parent should be required to account to the non-custodial parent for how they spend child support.¹⁷⁹

A number of groups go further to suggest that there are women who deliberately get pregnant in order to set themselves up financially. The Lone Fathers Association comments that: It is a simple (and possibly financially rewarding) matter for a female partner to inform a male partner that contraceptive measures have been taken, when they have not, and then deliberately attempt to conceive a child so that she can receive "child support" payments for the next 18 years.¹⁸⁰

A few of these groups would like to give men the right to avoid responsibility for their biological offspring in such circumstances. Equality for Fathers comments that "[i]t is totally inequitable for society to impose a crippling responsibility on an individual, for an act which is now acknowledged as being almost a universal social recreational activity."¹⁸¹ The Family Law Reform and Assistance Association go so far as to argue that, with the advent of the new Child Support Scheme, paternity should no longer be presumed but should be proven:

This basic tenet exists in the Australian Criminal Law where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, surely this basic freedom should be extended to males, after all, why should they pay for a child who is not biologically their child, if this same child has been fraudulently passed off as their offspring?¹⁸²

Only a few of the groups recognise that the Child Support Scheme might be failing custodial parents too. Lone Fathers, for example, says that the scheme is making some people pay more than they should be paying and not making others pay who should be paying and is therefore failing in two areas of fundamental importance.¹⁸³ In fact there are indications that a significant proportion of resident parents (more than half) are not receiving any child support payments, that outstanding debts under the scheme are often not recovered, and that non-resident parents who receive business or investment income have the ability to minimise their child support liabilities under the scheme.¹⁸⁴

B. Equality critiques

There are two equality critiques that are commonly run in relation to child support. The first is that the child support formula produces results that discriminate against non-custodial parents. For example, Men's Confraternity point out that 90 per cent of the calls it receives on this issue are from men. Only 1 percent of those attending the self-help groups run by Men's Confraternity on behalf of themselves were women, while other women attended with their sons, brothers and husbands. Nonetheless this is hardly objective evidence of discrimination given that women are generally unlikely to contact a group for assistance which has the name, constituents and policies of this organisation.

Some rather punitive methods of gaining equity are suggested which do not actually reduce the child support paid by non-custodial parents but do reduce the custodial parents' income. The rationale seems to be that if the non-custodial parent is suffering, so should the custodial parent (and their children). For example, Dads Against Discrimination argues that the sole parent pension should be reduced dollar for dollar for that received in child support.¹⁸⁵ Men's Confraternity suggest that the custodial parent's income should be taxed, at least in some circumstances:

Custodial parents who derive child support from more than one father should have their child support income taxed as obviously they are in the business of ripping off men. They use children as income producing property, in effect, a form of child slavery.¹⁸⁶

Most equality suggestions are, however, designed to reduce the alleged disparity between custodial and non-custodial parents' contributions to the children's upkeep. This disparity in financial contribution occurs because the child support formula allows the custodial parent "disregarded" income and the non-custodial patent “exempted" income, but the amount disregarded under the formula for the custodial parent is much higher than that which is exempted for the non-custodial parent.¹⁸⁷ This difference is designed to reflect the fact that the custodial parent is making non-financial contributions to the children in terms of the basic ongoing daily labour of caring, as well as paying opportunity costs in terms of forgoing income and career development in order to undertake such caring work.¹⁸⁸ However most fathers' rights groups argue that it is inequitable that the non-custodial parent should bear a greater financial burden in respect of the children.¹⁸⁹ The Campaign for Men's Rights, for example, claims that the child support formulas are based on the non-custodial parent being liable for 100 per cent of the cost of raising the children, and that "the effect of the child support agency is to find every man guilty and sentence him to poverty through the taxation system".¹⁹⁰ For many of these groups, equality would mean that both parties' exempted income levels were either exactly the same¹⁹¹ or closer together.¹⁹²

Some argue that the custodial parent's income should be taken into account in the formula no matter how little s/he earns,¹⁹³ while others argue that the threshold where it is factored into the equation should be reduced to less than average weekly earnings.¹⁹⁴ Some groups go much further than this and argue that the custodial parent's potential income should be taken into account in the formula.¹⁹⁵ Lone Fathers expands on the argument about equity between parents by submitting that the Child Support Scheme fails to take into account the heavy direct costs of separation, mostly borne by the non-custodial parent¹⁹⁶ Accordingly it argues that there should be a moratorium of three months on child support, while Men's Confraternity argues for 12 months.¹⁹⁷ Neither group suggests how the custodial parent is to support the children in the mean time.

Lone Fathers Association is one of the only groups that addresses the issue of the non-financial contribution of the custodial parent. It says that the argument that the custodial parent is contributing as a result of caring for the child is weak especially where the non-custodial parent would have been happy to assist in caring for the child but was prevented by the custodial arrangements from doing so".¹⁹⁸ This comment fairly applies to those cases where the non-custodial parent is willing and able to take on a major active parenting responsibility whether sole or equal parenting. However it does not address the situation in which the non-custodial parent is happy to relinquish residence to the other parent, as appears to be the most typical scenario.

The second equality critique is that the child support formula produces results that discriminate against, alternatively, children from second families,¹⁹⁹ second families themselves,²⁰⁰ or spouses in second marriages.²⁰¹ These arguments are based on the fact that liable parents are allowed an exempted amount to acknowledge obligations they might have to subsequent dependent children. It is argued that this exempted amount tends to be lower than the child support obligations they may end up having under the formula in respect of children from their first family.²⁰² It is worth noting, however, that the exempted amount does not represent the amount that the liable parent actually has at the end of the day to spend on second family children. It represents only the amount of his/her income which is not subject to assessment under the child support formula in respect of the children from the first family.

Men's Confraternity run an unusual discrimination argument, which doesn't fit into either of these equality critiques. It submits that child support should only be payable until the child is 17 and add: "Who would pay if the father were dead? The father is discriminated against by virtue of the fact that he is alive."²⁰³

Other general critiques of the Child Support Scheme are couched in terms of rights. For example the Child Support Action Group argues that child support obligations under the scheme infringe individual rights. Namely, the right to property, the right to work and enjoy the rewards that flow from that, the right to dignity and the parental right to choose how they provide for their children.²⁰⁴ Some of these rights arguments are re-characterisations of equity arguments. For example; the Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group argues that it is a right not a privilege to remarry if desired, as it is to have children in a subsequent relationship.²⁰⁵

Clearly there are legitimate concerns underlying the claims made by many of the groups in relation to child support. Children are expensive to rear and for many Australian families there just is not enough money to adequately support one, let alone two, households. Where we would depart from the claims made by many of these groups is in their characterisation of this problem as being one of inequality between the parents or in their assumption that, because they are now being asked to bear a portion of the poverty formerly carried by the custodial parent and the children,²⁰⁶ the custodial parent is either well off or is in some other way the problem. For example, their critiques or their suggested solutions, discussed below, do not address the extent to which the child support legislation is not directed towards supporting the custodial parent in their parenting role so much as reducing public expenditure on single parent families.²⁰⁷

C. Further specific reform proposals

A number of specific suggestions that have wide support amongst the groups concern the alteration of the formula.²⁰⁸ In addition to dealing with procedural issues, these suggestions also have the effect of lowering the amount of child support payable, thus "equalising" the financial burden between both parents.

One such suggestion is that the formula should be based on after tax not pre-tax income.²⁰⁹ Another is that child support should be calculated on a base income that does not include overtime or income from a second job.²¹⁰ A number of groups argue that the Child Support Agency should cease deducting from wages for privacy reasons²¹¹ and that liability should automatically cease on unemployment.²¹² A number of groups attack the provisions for reviewing the application of the child support formula in particular cases. For example, Men's Confraternity argues that hardship should be taken into account in applying the formula. It suggests that:

While financial relief is given to the mother because she has the children, no such financial relief is given to the father who still has to pay. This effectively kills the goose that lays the golden egg. He is given no quarter. He is made to pay until he drops dead.²¹³

Under the present child support formula the non-custodial parent is credited with their caring work under the formula once the amount of contact equals 30 per cent of the nights of the child support year.²¹⁴ A number of groups have suggested that the formula should be more closely linked to the amount of contact time spent with the non-custodial parent.²¹⁵ For example, Dads Against Discrimination argues that no payments should be made for any time children are on a contact visit.²¹⁶ Alternatively it submits that the substantial contact and shared residence provision should be changed to 20 per cent. This equals two nights a fortnight and half of school holidays which the groups argues the "standard”²¹⁷ contact order made by the courts.

Another common submission is that non-custodial parents should be eligible for a pro rata portion of the sole parent taxation rebate in proportion to their financial contribution to the children.²¹⁸ For example, Dads Against Discrimination queries why the non-custodial parent is taxed at the single rate when they are responsible for most, if not all, of the financial support of the children. Dads Against Discrimination also argues that child support should be tax deductible.²¹⁹

Some groups argue that if the custodial parent re-partners then their new spouse's income should be taken into account under the child support formula, either invariably,²²⁰ or once their combined income reaches a certain level.²²¹ The Family Law Reform and Assistance Association says that, "the new partner has the benefit of the children, and all the joy they bring, so why should they not share the cost?”²²² The Family Law Reform Party goes the furthest. It argues that if the custodial parent remarries or enters a de facto relationship then their new partner should be responsible for the financial support of the children leaving the non-custodial parent "free to remarry or enter a de facto relationship of their own, free of the financial responsibility of the previous relationship or marriage".²²³ Somewhat inconsistently it also argues that the new partner of the non-custodial parent should not have their income pooled with the non-custodial parent for the purpose of child support payments as "we regard this as an infringement of civil liberties".²²⁴

In accordance with many of the groups' wishes to move towards alternative dispute resolution mechanisms generally,²²⁵ most fathers' rights groups are committed to, a system of private ordering in respect of the payment of child support.²²⁶ Some of these groups see a role for the Child Support Agency and/or an administratively assessed formula in cases where the parents cannot agree.²²⁷ The Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group is alone²²⁸ in arguing that the current scheme requires too much private and not enough public responsibility, and that the government should pay a guaranteed minimum amount for children of low income and no income non-custodial parents.²²⁹

Recently, Cabinet announced a series of proposed reforms in respect of the Child Support Scheme.²³⁰ These include increasing the amount of exempted income for non-custodial parents²³¹ and decreasing the level of disregarded income for custodial parents,²³² exempting non-custodial parents overtime and work-related allowances from assessment under the child support formula, permitting non-custodial parents with second families to deduct 50 per cent of their child support payments from the household income when determining family payments and child care assistance, and encouraging parents using the Child Support Agency to move to private arrangements once regular payments have been established. Most of these proposed changes are clearly an attempt to accommodate the fathers' rights agenda.²³³ Not all are.

For example, also proposed is a requirement that all non-custodial parents, including those who are unemployed, contribute a minimum of at least 5 dollars a week in child support.

154 The current scheme has two central features. The first is that child support is collected administratively by the Child Support Agency. This part of the scheme is contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and came into force on 1 June 1988. The second is that child support is calculated according to a formula, which is based on the income of the custodial and non-custodial parents. This part of the scheme is contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1988 and came into force on 1 October 1989.

155 See DADs, NSW (JSC CFLI: CSS). For a dismal picture of child maintenance payment prior to the introduction of the Child Support Scheme see M Harrison, G Snider and R Merlo, Who pays for the Children? Monograph no 9, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, 1990, p 7. See also L Hancock, “Reforming the Child Support Formula: Who benefits?”, forthcoming in Just Policy.

156 JSC CFLI: CSS. Harrison, Snider and Merlo, ibid, p 7 found that only 34 per cent of custodial parents were actually receiving regular, periodic child maintenance under the old scheme and they were receiving, on average, slightly less than twenty four dollars a week per child.

157 The Family Law Reform Party (JSC CFLI: CSS) says that "[i]n 1990 it was claimed by the Federal Government, in Judge Fogarty's report. that there was a compliance percentage of 70 per cent in child support payments, now it is claimed there is only a 56 per cent compliance ratio and they wonder why non-custodial parents don't pay". Men's Confraternity also claims that before the Family Law Act came into being 7Oper cent were making regular child support payments. And that when the Child Support Agency started to collect monies the rate of payment dropped to 3Oper cent, rising to 45 per cent in 1991 (JSC CFLI: CSS).

158 Seen n 111. The 34 per cent compliance rate under the previous regime can be contrasted with a compliance rate of around 65 per cent under the new scheme, Child Support Advisory Group Report 1992. Kate Funder has noted that, "Australian Institute of Family Studies "search has shown that since the Child Support Scheme was introduced the rate of payment has doubled from one-third to two thirds in divorced populations with dependent children" (K Funder, above, n 40 at p 37).

159 JSC CFLI: CSS. The Family Law Reform Party submits that "[t]he Child Support Agency... has become a gigantic octopus gobbling up a non-custodial parent's pay packet" (JSC CFLI: CSS).

160 JSC CFLI: CSS.

161 Communication with research assistant.

162 The DSS (JSC CFLI: CSS at p 146) produces a table showing the percentages of income a non-custodial parent on different incomes will have left after payment of child support and tax. This table show that percentages of income paid in child support are lower than stated by these groups.

163 See, for example, the Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parents Without Partners (JSC CFLI: CSS); FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS).

164 Newcastle-Hunter, (JSC CFLI: CSS). There are the familiar arguments that the child support provisions cause violence. For example, CSAG, NT argues that the formula encourages murder and suicide (JSC CFLI: CSS).

165 JSC CFLI: CSS. Parent Without Rights comments that the Child Support Scheme has created "a new class of persons living below the poverty line" (JSC CFLI: CSS).

166 Parent without Rights (ALRC, Contempt); LFAA, WA, (JSC FLA).

167 However, figures show that fathers are more likely to repartner than mothers after separation. See K Funder, Remaking Families: Adaptation of Parents and Children to Divorce, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, 1996, pp 39-42.

168 LFAA (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parents Without Partners (JSC CFLI: CSS); Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS); Non-custodial Men's Support Group (communication with research assistant); FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS); the CSAG, Vic (JSC CFLI: CSS). The Family Law Reform and Assistance Association states that many non-custodial parents are giving up jobs rather than pay child support (JSC CFLI: CSS). Note however the Legal Aid Child Support Unit's (JSC CFLI: CSS) argument that the formula functions to adjust payment according to ability to pay and that, therefore, the worker is always financially better off than the welfare recipient

169 Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS); Men's Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS). LFAA National President's Supplementary submission to JSC CFLI: CSS).

170 ALRC, Children

171 CSAG, NT, (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Family Law Reform Party (JSC CFLI: CSS); LFAA, Newcastle-Hunter, (JSC CFLI: CSS); Equality for Fathers (JSC CFLI: CSS); Family Law Reform and Assistance Association (JSC CFLI: CSS).

172 Men's Confraternity Equal Opportunity Sub-committee (ALRC, Matrimonial Property). See also the Non- Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Non-Custodial Men’s Support Group (communication with research assistant).

173 The DSS argues (JSC CFLI: CSS) that the child support amounts produced by the formula are less than the actual direct costs of supporting children. J Bowen, Child Support: The Essential Guide, Jacaranda, Sydney, 1992, P 489 suggests that if non-custodial parents have not been involved in the day-to-day budgeting for the household they may not realise the true costs of raising children.

174 In other words the intention of the scheme is to give priority to the rights of children to share in the living standards [or resources] of both parents" rather than making the parents responsible for sharing the bare costs of the children. See F Carberry, "The Child Support Scheme: An Evaluation of its Personal Impact" (1992) Social Security Journal 43.

175 Equality for Fathers explicitly argues (JSC CFLI: CSS) that child support payments should not be based on income levels but should be equal to half the cost of supporting the children.

176 (Vic) JSC CFLI: Equality for Fathers says that "[t]he children should not be made into “cash cows"'. And "If the payment [of child support] is over and above an equal share of the cost of raising the children, the ‘cash cow’ situation exists" (JSC CFLI: CSS).

177 (JSC CFLI: CSS and ALRC, Children). Men's Confraternity also suggests that in many cases the spouse spends the child support money "on themselves or their paramour" (JSC CFLI: CSS). See also the Family Law Reform and Assistance Association (JSC CFLI: CSS).

178 DADs QId, provides a moderate variation of this argument by suggesting that once the children are aged 18 then there should be direct payment of support to them (JSC CFLl: CSS). The Family law Reform Party argues that all child support payments should be made directly into a bank account in the name of the children (JSC CFLI: CSS).

179 For example, the Gay and Married Men's Association (ALRC, Contempt) suggests that the custodial parent should have to submit an audited account annually through the Family Court to the non-custodial parent for their approval. See also the Family law Reform Party (JSC CFLI: CSS); Campaign for Men's Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS); Women and Grandparents Treated Unfairly by Family Law (JSC FLA); The Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (JSC CFLI: CSS); CSAG; DADs, Qld (JSC CFLI: CSS).

180 Supplementary submission to JSC CFLI: CSS (by the National President).

181 JSC CFLl: CSS. Interestingly some feminist authors have also, from a different perspective, critiqued the construction in purely biological terms of kinship obligations under the Child Support Scheme. See R Boden and M Childs, "Paying for Procreation: Child Support Arrangements in the UK" [1996] IV Feminist Legal Studies 131.

182 JSC CFLI: CSS.

183 Supplementary submission to JSC CFLI: CSS (by the National President). At another juncture (JSC CFLl: CSS) it comments that "the fact that many self employed non-custodial parents can largely avoid child support payments while employed non-custodial parents are required to pay very high rates of child support is a most unacceptable feature of the present scheme" (having just made the point that the vast majority of non-custodial parents are highly responsible and would pay child support even if the scheme wasn't them). See also Parents Without Partners, Maitland, (JSC CFLI: CSS): FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS).

184 See the discussion in L Hancock, “Reforming the Child Support Formula: Who benefits?”, forthcoming in Just Policy.

185 QId, (JSC CFLI: CSS).

186 JSC CFLI: CSS. See also the CSAG, NSW, (JSC CFLI: CSS); LFAA (supplementary submission by National President) (JSC CFLI: CSS).

187 Essentially the custodial parent must earn more than the average weekly earnings before their income is brought into the child support calculations at all. They are also entitled to additional amounts for childcare. The non-custodial parent, if s/he has no other dependant children is only exempted an amount equivalent to the single rate of the social security pension.

188 M Smith, “Child Support Guidelines: Emerging Theories of Child Support" in Child Custody, Support and Sexual Abuse Allegations in Divorce Litigation, MCLE, 1987. Smith points out that the higher disregard level is also designed to avoid impairing work force incentives for the custodial parent. Broader structural questions of gender equity are implicit in the comment of the CSAG, NSW, that "consideration of the impact of child rearing responsibilities on women's future earnings has in recent times been negated by equal employment opportunity legislation" (JSC CFLI: CSS).

189 See the CSAG (JSC CFLI: CSS): LFAA. Newcastle-Hunter Region group and the National President, (JSC CFLI: CSS); The Family Law Reform and Assistance Association (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Campaign for Men’s Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS); FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS).

190 JSC CFLI: CSS.

191 The Family Law Reform and Assistance Association (JSC CFLI: CSS); CSAG, NT; (JSC CFLI: CSS); DADs (LFAA Conference 1997); LFAA Barry Williams, LFAA Conference 1997); Men's Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS); Equality for Fathers (JSC CFLI: CSS).

192 DADs (Qld) (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Family Law Reform Party (LFAA Conference 1997); the Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS).

193 CSAG, NSW, (JSC CFLI: CSS). Margaret Harrison notes that it is rare that custodial parents, especially when they are sole parents, ever earn close to average weekly earnings, thereby reducing the payable child support, “The Australian Child Support Scheme: Practicalities", in J Eekelaar and P Sarcevic (eds), Parenthood in Modern Society: Legal and Social Issues for the Twenty-first Century, Mertinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993, p 583.

194 Parents Without Partners says that the custodial parent's income should be taken into account if it is above $20,000 (JSC CFLI: CSS).

195 LFAA, Newcastle-Hunter, criticises the formula (JSC CFLI: CSS) for giving no consideration at all to the custodial parents capacity to earn an income. Men's Confraternity would take into account the ex-spouses potential to receive benefits from relatives (JSC CFLI: CSS).

196 Who can find themselves paying the mortgage and/or rent on two houses and other expenses while settlement is being worked out, (Newcastle-Hunter) (JSC CFLI: CSS).

197 JSC CFLI: CSS.

198 Newcastle-Hunter, (JSC CFLI: CSS).

199 See DADs, Qld, (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (communication with research assistant & JSC CFLI: CSS); Men’s Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Gippsland Child Support Action Group (JSC CFLI: CSS); FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS); Family Law Reform and Assistance Association (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parents Without Partners (JSC CFLI: CSS); Non-Custodial Men's Support Group (communication with research assistant); Campaign for Men's Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS); Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS).

200 CSAG, NSW, argues discrimination against the second family unit: "Poverty has been transferred to the non- custodial parent and the second family is the family unit which experiences a poor standard of living in order to meet the unreasonably high costs of child support to the first family."( JSC CFLI: CSS).

201 LFAA, Newcastle-Hunter, says that they receive complaints from women that their marriages have broken down because of the greed of the first wives and other complaints that new spouses need to work so that payments can be made to the non-custodial parent's former spouse (JSC CFLI: CSS). See also Equality for Fathers (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parent Without Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS); The Family Law Reform Party (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Gippsland CSAG (JSC CFLI: CSS). Some feminist writers have also critiqued the adverse effect the scheme might have on women whose partners are deemed to have more important financial commitments to previous children. See R Boden and M Childs, above, n 181.

202 If the liable parent has a new dependent child then the exempted amount goes from the single pension rate to twice the married persons rate and the child additions applicable to social security pensions. Presumably it is this latter amount that these groups are commenting on. For comments on the equity of the manner in which new families reduce the amount of child support paid to existing families see S Parker, 'Child Support in Australia: Children's Rights or Public lnterest?' (1991)5 International Journal of Law and the Family 24 pp 46-7.

203 JSC CFLI: CSS.

204 CSAG (Vic) (JSC CFLI: CSS): Men's Confraternity argues (JSC CFLI: CSS) that it is a father’s right and responsibility to provide for his children and dispose of his income as he deems best.

205 Equality for Fathers speaks (JSC CFLI: CSS) of the human rights of fathers and non-custodial parents to continue a normal life.

206 Research suggests that after divorce about three quarters of men are better off financially, whereas the opposite is true for women. It also suggests that child support payments have been significant in reducing the poverty of resident mothers. See K Funder, M Harrison and R Weston. Settling Down: Pathways of Parents after Divorce, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, 1993; L Hancock, "Reforming the Child Support Formula: Who Pays?”, forthcoming in Just Policy, 1997.

207 It is general knowledge that the scheme was introduced in part in response to a crisis about public spending: S Parker, “Child Support in Australia: Children's Rights or Public Interest?" (1991) 5 International Journal of Law and the Family 24. Features of the scheme which demonstrate that one of its essential thrusts is public revenue saving include the following: if the recipient of child support is on social security then their pension is reduced by 50 cents for every dollar of child support received above a threshold of $16.35 per week for the first child and $5.45 per week for each additional child; private arrangements are available but in very limited circumstances if the recipient of child support is on a pension; lump sum payments or payments in kind cannot rise above 25 per cent of the assessment payable if the recipient is on social security without the liable parent running the risk of having to pay again in cash to the amount exceeding 25 per cent; the scheme only assists children who have non-custodial parents who can and do actually pay.

208 As well as many specific suggestions that don't have general currency, which we will not go into exhaustively here. For example, the CSAG, NT argues (JSC CFLI: CSS) that custodial parents who are not on the dole should be required to pay the Child Support Agency a fee for their services to cover costs and encourage private agreement. Men's Confraternity argues (JSC CFLI: CSS) that the Child Support Agency must guarantee that the children are still alive. In their submission the father should at all times have their current address and if he can prove the address is not current payments should stop immediately.

209 CSAG, NSW, (JSC CFLI; CSS); DADs (Qld & NSW) (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parent Without Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS); LFAA (ALRC, Equality & Lone Fathers’ Noos); The Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (JSC CFLI: CSS)’ Parents Without Partners (JSC CFLI: CSS); Men's Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS); Non-Custodial Men's Support Group (communication with research assistant). But note Bowen, above, n 173, p 48. who argues that child support is not calculated on before-tax income because the costs of raising children are not a tax deduction for parents who are still married.

210 DADs, Qld, (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parent Without Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Family Law Reform Party (JSC CFLI: CSS); LFAA, Newcastle-Hunter, (JSC CFLI: CSS and ALRC, Equality); The Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (JSC CFLI: CSS); Men's Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS); FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS): Family Law Reform and Assistance Association (JSC CFLI: CSS).

211 DADs, NSW, (JSC CFLI: CSS); FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS).

212 CSAG, NSW, (JSC CFLI: CSS); DADs, NSW, (JSC CFLI: CSS); Men's Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS). In general a parent who is reliant on social security will not have to pay child support: J Bowen, Child Support: A Practitioner's Guide, LBC, Sydney, 1994, p 27.

213 Men's Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS): CSAG, NSW, argues (JSC CFLI: CSS) that the grounds for review are narrow and inflexible; LFAA, Newcastle-Hunter, suggests (JSC CFLI: CSS) that hardship cases are not being considered. For a different set of perceptions note the submission of the Single Mothers' Support Group (JSC CFLI: CSS) which comments on the ease with which non-custodial parents seem to be granted departure orders for lower amounts of child support.

214 See ss 8, 47-54 Child Support (Assessment) Act.

215 See for example, the Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (JSC CFLI: CSS); CSAG, NSW. (JSC CFLI: CSS); FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS).

216 Men's Confraternity also argues that reductions in maintenance should start with I per cent access, and that child support access reduction should be based on hours not nights (JSC CFLI: CSS).

217 See above, n 63.

218 CSAG, NT; (JSC CFLI: CSS); FLIGHT (JSC CFLI: CSS); The Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (JSC CFLI: CSS): Campaign for Men's Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS).

219 DADs, QId, (JSC CFLI: CSS); see also Parent Without Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Family Law Reform Party (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parents Without Partners (JSC CFLI: CSS); Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS); Campaign for Men's Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS); LFAA, Newcastle-Hunter, (JSC CFLI: CSS).

220 Parents Without Partners (JSC CFLI: CSS): Men's Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS).

221 DADs, NSW. for example, argues that there should be an automatic financial review whenever the custodial parent remarries or lives de facto with someone and their combined wages are two and a half times greater than their average weekly earnings (JSC CFLI: CSS).

222 JSC CFLI: CSS. This is further evidence of the "user pays" mentality of some of the groups in relation to the connection between child support and access/contact. See above, text to n 129.

223 Ibid.

224 Ibid.

225 See text to n 305.

226 See, for example, CSAG, Vic, (JSC CFLI: CSS); Men's Confraternity (JSC CFLI: CSS): Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS); the Family Law Reform Party (JSC CFLI: CSS); and some groups of DADs, for example Qld (JSC CFLI: CSS).

227 See The Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parents Without Partners, Maitland, (JSC CFLI: CSS).

228 Equality for Fathers comments that the government in making provision for child support has tried to shift unreasonable responsibility for sole parents onto fathers because it found it to be an "economical impossibility". It goes on to say that "[i]t is not society's responsibility to ensure that parents can reproduce without any responsibility for the care and happiness of their children.....if it is solely a women’s decision about whether or not they wish to continue a pregnancy then she, or she and her partner, have the responsibility to ensure the ability to pay for the upbringing of the child". (JSC CFLI: CSS).

229 The Australian Council of Social Service and the Women's Electoral Lobby withdrew their support for the Child Support Scheme in 1987 when it became clear there would be no such guaranteed minimum amount or "advance maintenance guarantee". See R Greycar, "Family Law and Social Security in Australia: The Child Support Connection" (1989) 3 AJFL, 70 p 83

230 Sydney Morning Herald. 24 Sept 1997, p 1; Sydney Morning Herald, 2 October 1997, p 15. These reforms were prepared by the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Social Security. They have not yet been reduced to a bill and will not be implemented before 1999. Note that in June 1997 Roger Price MP introduced a private members bill, which, to date, has had a first reading only.

231 By $901.

232 From $37,424 to $29,598.

233 Although they would say the changes have not gone far enough. See B Arndt, “Wimping on Child Support", Sydney Morning Herald 2 October 1997: "Father Slams Child Support Changes", The Age, 2 October 1997.

Continue on to The Agenda of the Fathers Rights Movement - Domestic Violence & Child Abuse

Go back to Index for Fathers' Rights Groups in Australia

Go back to Feminism Intro Page