The Child Support System is heavily flawed and requires urgent significant changes to ensure it is fair, equitable and unprejudiced. In theory, the scheme is beneficial to children of separated or divorced couples, providing financial support for their upbringing and education expenses, in line with those afforded to children in a two parent household. In practice, it is a weapon that acrimonious ex-spouses exploit to abuse and shake down the paying parent, further their vengeful crusades and line their own pockets, rather than prioritizing the welfare of children primarily in their care. 

In reality, The Child Support System is nothing more than a means for people to cause mental and financial hardship for the paying parent. The system is defective and tremendously vulnerable to being instrumental in allowing the payee to perpetrate child abuse with impunity, in order to limit, and in some cases eliminate entirely, time spent by the child with their other parent. Such behaviour is rewarded, with the payee becoming entitled by law to further financial reward, as well as exacerbating mental and emotional turmoil for the children and the other parent – which in a number of cases is one of the primary objectives.

Parental Alienation is rife among families who utilize the Child Support System, however, there is no penalty or deterrent for partaking in this damaging behaviour, despite this form of child abuse having been recognized prior to the Child Support Systems inception in 1988.

The term Parental Alienation was first coined in the 1980’s by an American psychiatrist. It is used to describe when one parent deliberately damages the relationship between the other parent and their child; it is a form of child abuse and family violence, which contradicts the Family Law Act 1975 (Section 60C, 60CC.2(b)). Tactics and strategies often used in this type of conduct include emotional manipulation, programming and brainwashing. What this ultimately leads to is a damaged relationship between the alienated parent and their children, both of which are at risk of suffering severe psychological trauma as a result. This term is widely used and accepted in Australian family law cases, especially when it comes to high-conflict custody and parenting disputes. 

Despite the term being widely used and accepted in Australian Family Law cases, including the case of Goldman v Goldman (2018), and an obvious link between the child support scheme and malicious attempts by the primary parent to completely eradicate the relationship between the child and the other parent, it is excluded from the Child Support Act – this oversight at the enactment of the legislation has meant there is a substantial number of cases where parents and children are suffering at the hands of these conceited abusers without consequence. 

Given that Child Support Payment amounts are calculated based on the number of nights children spend with each parent, it is not unreasonable to deduce that a vindictive primary parent would do everything in their power to ensure that minimal time is spent with the other parent – particularly if they have other motivations in addition financial gain, such as simply causing as much pain and suffering to the paying parent as possible, which is often the case. The flaws in the system facilitate multiple incentives for malicious parents to engage in this abusive behaviour; such as opportunities to obtain lucrative rewards in the form of Child Support payments, without the possibility of facing consequences or accountability for their actions, or any regard for the harm afflicted on their children in the process – at present, there is not even a penalty for providing false and misleading information in care arrangement disputes; allowing primary carers to be intentionally deceitful and submit false statements to further their agenda without the possibility of any punitive repercussions, whilst the Case Worker or Registrar may know this to be the case, they are powerless to initiate or enforce prosecution.

Providing false or misleading information is an offence under the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment or a fine of 200 penalty units, or both. ‘A statement is false or misleading in a material particular if, of moment or significance, it is capable of influencing the mind of the person to whom it is directed, and is not merely trivial or inconsequential’ – despite the fact that any child support case constitutes this definition, anyone found to be providing false or misleading information in such is not penalized as per the Act.

Further to the omission of Parental Alienation from the Act and such forms as the ‘Application to Change your Assessment – Special Circumstances (CS1970)’ and the absence of penalties for providing false or misleading information, the fact that the system bases all of its calculations, whether it be the cost to raise a child, or the ‘Self Support’ amount allocated to each parent, on the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) is unjustified and obsolete. The MTAWE is not relevant to the current cost of living, inflation or Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Cash Rate, therefore it is irresponsible to apply it in the calculation of amounts intended to cover such expenses, and could ultimately change someone’s life. Not only is it outdated and sexist to assume that all payers are male, it is naïve to believe that this is fair and just – some parents may have a substantially lower financial commitment to necessary self-support items, while the other has significantly higher expenses, may or may not have access to concessions in relation to actual costs of the child; for example, a parent receiving Family Tax Benefit payments from Centrelink is eligible for a Health Care card and other concessions in relation to the cost of the children, as well as assistance to pay various utilities and rates, while the paying parent works full time and is ineligible for such benefits. Further to this, some benefits are not included in assessable income, such as Family Tax Benefit A & B, or any additional payments and/or allowances received from other Agencies such as FACS, if, for example, the primary carer is receiving payments for fostering and/or adopting children – the exclusion of such benefits severely impacts the accuracy of any calculations or self-support amounts, as the assessments do not reflect truth in relation to the circumstances or financial capacity of each parent. The onus of having secure employment and income is placed on the paying parent, while primary parents are not assessed on any capacity to work, nor are they expected to obtain permanent full time employment, despite having the capacity to do so, oftentimes living considerably more comfortable lives without the mental anguish or stress associated with the possibility of significant poverty, or the obligation to earn a steady income to support themselves and their children. There are instances where some primary parents choose not to work, to ensure they do not impact their eligibility for government funded income and benefits, in some cases receiving multiple payments from multiple agencies, on top of child support payments, for the same child. 

There are numerous inconsistencies in payment calculations – it is absurd to assess parent’s taxable income when ascertaining child support payments, yet the payments are made from the net income of the paying parent. Further to this, income assessed is for all hours, whether ordinary or overtime as well as any lump sum payments. Assessing incomes in this way leads to a vicious circle, whereby the payee secures additional employment and overtime shifts in order to cover the payments, only to have them continue to increase each year, requiring more income and increased work hours to maintain financial stability.

It is no mystery why a vast majority of suicide victims are men – in 2021, 3,144 Australians died by suicide; 2,358 of which were men, accounting for a massive 75% of all deaths by suicide, with men aged between 50 and 54 being particularly impacted, accounting for 9.1% of those. These statistics do not account for the number of suicide attempts, which is estimated at up to 65,000 per year. There are a number of factors that can lead to someone attempting to end their life, some of these include: stressful life events, trauma and mental illness. On the contrary, there are a number of protective factors which promote resilience and a reduction in suicidal behaviour, these include: supportive relationships, family harmony and a sense of purpose. 

Lifeline has revealed (in a press release dated March 5th 2023) that they are experiencing record activity through their website for support. Data shows that there were over 26,000 searches for assistance in January 2023 alone, the highest on record. In addition to these alarming statistics, referral searches by Lifelines helpline counsellors specifically relating to financial issues and homelessness increased by a whopping 49% between August 2022 and January 2023. Lifeline Australia’s Chief Research Officer, Dr Anna Brooks stated “Financial stress and uncertainty can contribute to mental ill health. There is also evidence to suggest that people can experience distress and suicidal thoughts when facing financial stress and uncertainty.” When you consider these findings coupled with the cost of living, it is disturbing that the child support system has such obvious flaws that force payers, most of which are men, into financial hardship and in some cases deny them the opportunity to spend time with their children. It is a double edged sword, not only are these men being denied the protective factors which reduce suicidal inclinations, such as valuable time with their children and family harmony, but they are also impacted financially for something, which in a lot of cases, is through no fault of their own – whether that be because they are unable to commit to the time they would like due to work obligations, or because the payee has alienated the children from them. Some payers will gain secondary employment, or work enormous hours to earn overtime in order to cover the costs of child support in addition to their own cost of living, however, in doing so, this only increases the amount they will be forced to pay the following year. These circumstances lead to increased prevalence of risk factors such as ill mental health and a sense of futility – these men feel that no matter what they do, this vicious circle will continue and for as many as 3 men per day, suicide feels like the only option. These statistics are not only alarming in relation to the men who commit suicide, they are also tragic for the children, who are condemned to a life of trauma and mental turmoil as a result.

The Child Support System as it currently subsists, is not a system for supporting children at all – it promotes child abuse, mental devastation and angst among families, particularly children, who, unfortunately, are used as pawns in malevolent crusades within a system supposed to exist to help them.

There are multiple amendments that need to be made urgently, to ensure the system is fair and achieves what it was enacted to accomplish – to support children:

• Assess Net Pay for ordinary hours worked – Assessments should not be based on Gross Pay and any overtime is to be excluded from the assessment
• Any change of care is to be reported within 28 days and will take effect from the day it was reported (unless disputed), without the possibility of ‘back pay’
• Parental Alienation to be recognized in the Act as a punishable offence, a form of child abuse and family violence
• Inclusion of Parental Alienation as a reason for reassessment on the ‘Application to Change your Assessment – Special Circumstances (CS1970)’
• Any change in care arrangements to be disputable on the grounds of Parental Alienation – if proven, penalties to apply
• Compulsory mediation and counselling, at the expense of the parent requesting the change, in cases where a change of care has been disputed with supporting evidence, to rule out potential abuse and assist in fostering positive relationships
• Penalties to apply for the provision of false or misleading information in all matters related to child support, including care arrangement changes and disputes
• Extraordinary Lump Sum payments shall not be included in assessments – eg. Workers Compensation Settlements or Superannuation payouts
• Childs earnings to be reported monthly and deducted from child support payments
• Statement of Finances to be completed and submitted to Child Support at the end of each Financial Year to be used in the calculation of the ‘Self-Support Amount’ for both parents and assess these costs individually – ie. Parent A has expenses totalling $30,000 for the year and Parent B has a total of $15,000. Parent A will have a self-support amount not below $30,000 and Parent B will have a self-support amount not below $15,000
• In the absence a single annual source of truth in relation to the cost of a child, where the MTAWE has previously been used, the cost of the child to be based on the Persons Total Average Weekly Earnings (PTAWE). 
• Assess income based on actual net earnings, not earning capacity
• Payee is to provide proof of expenditure to ensure that the payments are being used to support the children, not the payee. This could be achieved through the provision of a monthly statement from the payee. 
• All government benefits to be included in assessments, including Family Tax Benefit A & B, any DCJ care and/or other allowances from Centrelink, FACS and other government agencies
• Percentage of care to be calculated according to hours of care, not just overnight stays. Calculating the percentage of care on nights stayed only does not take into account a potentially significant number of hours a parent provides care outside overnight stays
• Amend the Act to include agreement that ‘what is in the best interests of the child’ is to align with parents rights as per Section 51.xxii of the Australian Constitution 
• Ensure payments do not leave paying parents with an amount less than their assessed self-support amount
• Where parents each have custody of one child (in a two child family), neither parent is liable to pay Child Support to the other