23 May 2005, The Australian, Easing the burden on divorced dads
Patricia Karvelas

DICK Honeyman is tired of having to tell his six-year-old son Jasper "we haven't got the money for that" when he asks for treats.
"Sometimes it's simple things I can't afford, like taking him to the movies or the Show," he says.
Today, federal cabinet will consider a new child-support formula that will give divorced fathers like Mr Honeyman the right to pay less maintenance if they look after their children for just one night a week.
At present, non-custodial parents have to see their children 109 nights a year before they can pay less child support.
Frustrations over child custody and support consistently rank among the most common complaints raised with government backbenchers.
Mr Honeyman, 47, says he is paying too much under the current system and hopes cabinet will opt to make his life easier.
The child-custody taskforce, headed by Sydney law professor Patrick Parkinson, has delivered its summary report on John Howard's request using a formula devised by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM).
Under the plan, the taxpayer would foot the bill for the reduction in income that single mothers would face as a result of receiving less maintenance through the reduction of taper rates.
At the moment, once a custodial parent has received $1149.75 in maintenance payments, the general family tax payment known as FTB-A is reduced by 50c for ever additional dollar.
But under the new model, the taper would be reduced, ensuring the custodial parent, usually mothers, kept more taxpayer money.
Mr Honeyman sees his son every second weekend and half the holidays, about 70 nights a year, but he still pays child support of up to $400 a month.
The Sydney-based roof restorer says it is only fair he pay less considering how much time he spends with his child.
"It's an unfair system. It's expensive to look after a child casually, and the system should acknowledge that if it averages out to a night a week, we shouldn't be paying as much out," he said.


Whats your thoughts on another country falling in line with the "Single Parent Syndrom?"

My perspective on paying support is that the amount that the CP gets in only part of what the non CP pays when you figure in taxes, as the CP gets the tax break and the non CP does not.

Oregon figures how many over nights the child spends with the non CP and reduces the payments by some formula.

In Canada, child support is non-taxable, and not a tax deduction either. I'm just glad I don't have to fight with my ex about it. It's all voluntary.

Of course, I have full time custody, and he has her 4 days a month, approx. Its not the same, really.

But, as much as I need it right now, as soon as I'm in an income position where I don't need it,(hopefully this time next year!) I'm going to get him to just put it in a savings account for her, for when she's older. Not necessarily for school, but just to have that nest egg when she gets married/moves on her own. It could pay for a wedding or down payment on a house or something.

There are a ton of different formulas in place. There are really super complicated ones like Oregon's, and then straight up easy one's like Texas. Oregon figures out how much money each parent makes, how many nights they spend with the kids, and then crunches all of that thru and gives you a ration of how much you have to pay, and it goes on and on. Texas says one kid before the court, okay that's 22% of the NCP's pay. Averaging out all the parents in the system, the complicated formulas and the simple ones all average out about the same.

All that asside, I think living under the Oregon model would be something I would perceive as more fair. What I read in that article was that Australia is trying to go to a system that more closely resembles Oregon's calculator. If it feels more fair to the people living under it, they are more likely to comply, so I say go with it! Sounds like a winner!