Our child support system is turning parents against each other

"Child support" is literally in the name. So why does this system ignore the needs of children? Instead of supporting children it is focused on de-incentivising the "away" parent, creating more work for the primary carer, and reinforcing an unworkable relationship that only serves to harm children.

For most of the 12 years post our separation I've had the kids around 70 per cent of the time. During the COVID pandemic, some of the care was shared 50-50. The year my ex-partner went overseas - I had them 100 per cent.

We approached the Child Support Agency because, in those first few challenging years, my ex and I were not in a position to make an agreement on the cost of supporting the kids. Nor did we have the funds to get lawyers to do it for us. I can't reinforce enough, people who turn to this system are doing so because they need help.

In my experience the formula that the ATO and Child Support Agency use to work out child support does not include the cost of raising children.

To put it simply, when you approach the Child Support Agency they get you to enter how much money you each earn and how many nights you have the kids per week/fortnight. They include, how many biological kids are shared, and essentially treat your family like it's a business, leaving out emotion and supposedly sticking to facts. But are they the most relevant facts?

When my ex-partner moved overseas to support his aged parents for a year, he continued to pay child support, at a higher amount because I had full-time care of our three children. His support really got us over the line.

However, when he returned and did his tax return, much of the money he'd given as child support was not from his "earned" income, so the system registered that I had a debt to him of $3500. The ATO had the power to put all of my $2300 tax return straight into my ex's account without touching the sides of my bank account. The children and I then went without child support for the next six months until the remainder of "my debt" was paid off. To be clear, my ex was following the policy to the letter and no laws were broken.

This is how the system is inadequate and completely ignores the needs of the children.

MORE OPINION:

It reinforces a "he said-she said-they said" dialogue that in many cases leaves one half saying, "I'm not giving that person any money", and the other pointing out how much stuff the payer seems to have in their new life. It re-ignites resentments that may have led to an irrecoverable relationship - it basically gets two people who are already in turmoil to point-score against one another, which has nothing to do with supporting the kids.

Here is what the Child Support System does not take into account: unearned income such as inheritance; cash in hand; the contribution of a new partner to calculation of household income, and of course the actual cost of children.

If you do have any extra costs, the process of proving it is onerous, For example, one of my children had a few months of medical expenses that added up to at least a thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses. Because it would not be an ongoing expense I was advised I wouldn't be able to apply for "exceptional costs".

For most of us who turn to the child support system for help, it is destructive - too simplified where it needs to address complexities, and overcomplicated where it simply needs to provide for the cost of children.

The federal government is currently implementing recommendations by the joint select committee on Australia's family law system to improve the accuracy and enforcement of child support arrangements.

Let's hope this includes a move away from a system that makes parents adversaries - let's have a system that puts principles above personalities and solely prioritises the cost and needs of children.