5 Comments Family & de facto law, financial agreements, consent orders
I'm not going to enter into the whole child support cap what is fair debate, fact is the system is the system.... As far as a binding financial agreement. If I was your ex I would not agree. I would agree to a limited financial agreement as they allow for changing circumstances.
Have a read of the info below.
I think this could be a way forward for you. I do realise that the ex is difficult and his proposal for 50/50 night time care while you act as a free baby sitting service during the nights when the kids are in his care is nothing short of silly. BUT a limited 3 year agreement where he has more time with the kids but also agrees to make additional financial contributions could be a win.
I think a solicitor's favourite statement is when they hear their client say "I'd rather give the money to my solicitor than my ex..." The fact is giving you an extra $10 000 a year for 3 years is going to be cheaper than continuing to pay solicitors and at least the money is going to the his kids, not his solicitors kids. But good luck explaining that...
[QUOTE=rannii] ... Its been suggested I look at a "binding child support agreement", which will essentially mean he will pay the cap no matter my earnings. Has anyone any experience with this? Pitfalls? Things to look out for? [/QUOTE]
No pifalls for you, plenty for him.
Because it's a BFA both parties need to receive independent legal advice on the advantages & disadvantages of signing up to the agreement. I can't see any reason that he would agree to such a thing. They are notoriously difficult to vary or set aside if circumstances change, A better option would be a limited CS agreement as mentioned by Eamon.
Sounds like you have had a property settlement finalised with orders?
Did it include any s75(2) adjustment in your favour? If not why not?
Such an adjustment is specifically to take into account your caring responsibilities for children (especially pre school age children). If you received extra in the settlement based on those factors, then that, at least in part, is the other parties contributions to you as primary carer as well.
As for withholding children. You have orders. The only valid reason for withholding children is if there is a SERIOUS risk of physical or psychological harm, & even then you are only to withhold for as long as is necessary for that harm to be removed or minimised. Any other contravention of orders & you run the very real risk of being found without reasonable excuse.
I seem to recall that you have had a costs order made against you by this judge, but that it was suspended pending final orders. Usually that's a message that your continued conduct in proceedings will influence whether or not that costs order goes ahead.
You should continue to put forward reasonable proposals. (Keep a record), but his failure to accept them is no excuse to contravene orders. It will be up to the judge to decide if he has been unreasonable in considering your proposals & decide on his conduct & how that may affect final orders..
Your suggestion necessitates dealing with a reasonable person - which unforutnely I am not. Suggestion was put forward and ignore.
THE Binding Child Support Agreement was suggested to me by a community lawyer, in regards to wanting agreement in the future re school fees & health costs of the children.
Eamon, just a point of clarification - ex's proposal was not 50:50 night time care. Child in his care 7 nights a week, my care during 7am - 6pm Monday - Friday & every other sunday.
The limited agreement does not get me around the "school fees" etc of the future. So argument will be happening consistently. FYI, the issue of paying for what I consider joint expenses (ie school fees, no matter whose care the children are in), is different to "access" of the children. I will not withhold the children for financial gain. Whatever agreement we come to has to be fair and reasonable on both the parents, and in the best interests of the children.
Property ORders finalized with not S75(2) adjustments - was advised short relationship & therefore not applicable. I entered relationship with 60:40 of assets and left with 49:51 of assets and primary career for newborn & toddler.
My lawyer was a twat. I kept saying I will self rep & do urgent application - he cited $1000 and issue done. Over $10,000 later (no bills sent to me in interim), argh!! Yes, I signed the agreement, but it was the day I arrived home with a newborn, just having life saving surgery. The bank were foreclosing on the house, I had no work & no $$ to my name. Huge medical bills and children to feed. Ex timed things well.
Issue with extended visit is the feeding of our child. I am willing to supply expressed BM, but he is not willing to accept this. When we initially split I read numerous judgment re a child's right to BF, but cannot locate these now :-(. There has been significant research regarding the psychological impact of the fast weening of a child. FYI, we BF our first child til 12 months - it was the stress of the split & the subsequent pregnancy which behind the decision to end the feeding.
Application in the case, the judge advised the two of us to work together to ensure the child could maintain her BF'ing arrangement. I'm doing everything reasonably possible to enable her to continue. He gave her formula right at the very beginning, but it made her sick to the point she was in hospital :-(
I almost think this crap is about getting back at me, and also ensuring he doenst get significant time with the children so he can tell his family "its all the courts fault, they are biased towards the mother" - afterall, I spent the first 9 months trying to get him to be interested in the childrens lives.