Donate SIGN UP

CSA Goes Aussie

Avatar Image
Drusilla | 12:17 Thu 09th Feb 2006 | News
6 Answers

How is it the Australians can develop a child support system that works while we blunder along in a bureaucratic miasma?
Didn't they also recently revolutionise their pension system to fit in with the requirements of the 21st Century?
Judging by the figures provided here,


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4688514.stm


it's not a matter of smaller numbers of claims being processed.
Is this an example of Australians looking forward and not being mired in the past like so many British people and institutions?

Gravatar

Answers

1 to 6 of 6rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Drusilla. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
No prizes for spotting the split infinitive in the question. It was deliberate, honest!
The CSA is nothing more than an evil regime. What is stopping these lame arse parents from sorting themselves out (I almost said single, but a lot of them aren�t � they are with new partners that have an income anyway)? All the CSA does is ruin lives. If your relationship breaks down you go your separate ways. If someone wants to pay maintenance for their child, then they will. If they don�t then that should also be up to them.
I know of �single� parents that got on with bringing up their child, without any maintenance and without any handouts from the CSA. Unlike the winging, whining, pathetic individuals that have their hands out in the belief that they are owed something for nothing.
If they want the best for their child, then they should get a job, but they won�t. They will give endless reasons why they can�t work.
These people are parasitic, and why should they get more money than a couple with a child on benefits anyway? It�s wrong and it annoys me immensely.

Grrrrrrr
Question Author
Why is it parasitical for one parent to expect the absent parent to help pay towards their child's upkeep and more importantly why should the state support and fund a child when the absent parent refuses to do so?

I agree with soapbox. When a couple splits, for whatever reason, then whoever has custody is by definition more responsible (for the child's upbringing) than the absent parent. However, in very many cases, the parent with custody (usually the mother) sits back and waits for a handout, either from the state or their ex partner (or both). They expect it and seem to conveniently forget that they too are a parent, so they should earn the money to keep the child who is in their custody.


That said, if an absent parent does not pay then he/she should relinquish the right to access to the child.


All that the CSA does is to interfere and impose unreasonable financial sanctions with little regard to the facts, often fuelling utter hatred between the parties. How can that be in the best interests of the child?


I strongly feel that these gold-digging women are an embarrassment to the rest of us. They are hardly setting a good example by choosing not to work and begging from others instead of taking responsibility themselves. It'll just pass on the wrong message to the next generation (just like the "get pregnant, you'll get a council flat" approach to life). It's got to stop.


Another problem is that often the money is not spent on the child. It is given to the other parent who spends it as she/he wants (often up the pub). This is another reason why absent parents don't want to give money to an ex partner they may actually already hate. Who would?


Kill off the CSA. Perhaps people would think twice about having kids in the first place if they knew that they would not be allowed handouts and an easy life when they decided they'd had enough of their partner. Those who genuinely care for their children will make sure they survive. Those whose motives are questionable won't.

Question Author

You make a lot of generalisations about single parents, Elfin. I'm a single parent, run my own business, own my own house and still expect my ex husband to pay towards the upkeep of our children.

Yes, me too except I have a good career instead of a business. My ex paid nothing and therefore got nothing in return, but I didn't feel the need to get CSA to chase him for it. It gave me the motivation to succeed and build a new life and career. Hopefully that drive and independence has been passed on to my son.


Yes I did generalise but the kind of thing I spoke about is rife and needs to be stopped. People are getting hurt and worse over this. I hope the replacement agency will do a better job but all this talk of debt collectors and electronic tagging is way off the mark.

1 to 6 of 6rss feed

Do you know the answer?

CSA Goes Aussie

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.