OK. Here is a snippet or two from a multi-chapter story from an anonymous source.
Once upon a time, there was a married couple with children. They lived in a house that they were buying. Their relationship broke down, for reasons that are unimportant here.
After the mother had stolen some $20k or so from the father's bank account and the family court had divided up the remaining marital financial assets at about 86/14 in favour of the mother, the father continued to dutifully deposit money into the mother's bank account to be used for his children. This amount was roughly 40% more than the prescribed amount of child support would have been.
The family court also awarded custody of the children to the mother, with the father having free visitation rights. The father accepted this, as he would be busy working to earn the money to not only pay the child support payments, but to also pay for the mortgage on the family home, rent for somewhere to live, buy furniture, pay bills, petrol, food, etc, etc. This would require either long hours, or a second job. There would be little opportunity to be a real effective father to his children and spend time with them. The mother was a good mother, so all was acceptable.
However, as time progressed, things changed. The father would go to see his children each night after work and they would have fun. This obviously annoyed the mother and she requested the father only visit three times a week. Then two times a week and eventually, she cut him down to every second Saturday between 9AM and 5PM. The father agreed to this, as the mother threatened to get the Child Support Agency involved, who would enforce visitation conditions. Now, the father was not aware of what conditioned the CSA could enforce, but in the interest of peace and reduction of stress in his childrens' life, again agreed.
Then came a number of incidents that required a more formal response from the father. Firstly, the mother informed the father that she was not happy that he controlled the child support money that he paid each and every week and she wanted the CSA to take it from his pay. The father tried to explain that this was not necessary and that it would not benefit her, but I guess her girlfriends and mother knew better. Or did they?
The CSA informed the father that the prescribed amount would be taken from his weekly pay and given to the mother. So, six weeks later (the CSA lag time) she received the first payment from CSA, only to discover that it was only around 60% of what the father had been paying. She, of course, called the CSA and asked for the usual amount she had been receiving to be taken; to which they replied that they can only legally take the prescribed amount and no more.
So then, the mother decided to apply to the CSA legal department and bring a case of inadequate payment from the father. Both were summoned to appear before the CSA lawyers, where the mother showed claims and receipts of purchases for the children. The father, in a separate meeting was asked how he wished to respond to the mother's claims. The father asked if he was legally required to pay more than the prescribed amount, to which the CSA confirmed not. The meeting ended.
Finally, the mother submitted another claim for more money from the father by way of the CSA's official claim document.
In this document, she claimed to have no assets and no income. The father received a copy of this document and upon reading it in full, immediately contacted the CSA requesting confirmation that when they put the mother in jail, he would receive full custody of his children.
The CSA were initially confused, but after the father pointed out the statement typed at the bottom of their document that a fraudulent statement made in this document may result in a jail term, they asked the father why this would be the case?
Well, you see, although the mother had claimed no assets, the couple still owned the family home. About 60% of the mortgage had been paid, so even at a 50% split, it is still an asset to both the father and the mother. So that was a fraudulent statement.
Secondly, the mother had claimed no income and the fact was that although the mother and children had continued to live in the family home, while the father continued to pay the mortgage, they had moved out months before and the family home was being rented out. 50% of the rent went to the mother, so she did have an income. This also was a fraudulent statement.
The CSA promised to discuss this with the mother, who promptly withdrew her claim.
Notice Tania disappeared from the forum. Hope she is doing ok
guides.dss.gov.au
