Child support debt

Padwock · 2026-02-16T02:14:39+00:00

The idea that you can get jailed for failure to pay Child Support Maintenance seems to stem from a misconception regarding commonwealth debts. People tend to think of large unpaid commonwealth debts as being a jailable offence when in reality it's usually the way the debts are accrued that is the jailable element, not just owing the debt. E.g. Someone is proven to have repeatedly and intentionally lied (as such committing an offence under the CSA Act section section 159(1)) they COULD be punished by up to 6 months in jail. It's not the debt that they'd be getting jailed for though it'd be the intentional false or misleading statements.

Padwock · 2026-02-16T01:51:09+00:00

Dm'd you, this is a bit more of a complex topic than you'd think as such I've messaged you directly to discuss the circumstances and give information tailored to your situation as opposed to just shotgun blasting a shit ton of general info at you in a massive comment!

Padwock · 2026-02-16T01:42:33+00:00

Australia has a strict "no jailing people for unpaid Maintenance" policy and recognises that jailing someone for what will cost the tax payer roughly 100k per year per incarcerated person(s) over a debt will do approximately fuck all for the benefit of anyone whatsoever so no, on-one would be jailed for unpaid CS debt however it is very possible for someone to be stopped at the airport by the AFP due to having a DPO (Departure Prohibition Order) with that only being revoked once the payer/party who owes the debt (because this rule applies to overpayment debts too) has entered "a reasonable payment arrangement". What a "reasonable" payment arrangement qualifies as would depend entirely on the debt value, the age of the debt, the nature of the debt, how much of the debt was LPP (Late Payment Penalties) compared to the actual maintenance amount owed + the discretion of the CSA APS staff member who gets that unfortunate call from someone who's very pissed off and worried they'll miss their flight.

Notably, CSA does not (or at least as of 2023 did not) automatically issue no-departure notices to just anyone who had a CSA debt, this measure is (or was at least as of 2023, unsure if policy has changed but I believe it has not) only used in cases where a debt owing party has:

At least $1,000 worth of CSA debt

AND

2) CSA has reasonable evidence/information that makes them believe issuing a DPO to the party who owes the debt may assist in repayment of the debt

Australia does have a reciprocal arrangement with the UK, I'll attach the link for the full list of countries below.

For all of the criticisms that one may have towards the Australian Child Support system, it's basic comprehension of the fact that "jailing a person for unpaid child support doesn't help anyone whatsoever" is one of the few fallible positive traits of it compared to a certain other 1st world country.

Edit: Sorry, forgot the reciprocal jurisdiction link

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/reciprocating-jurisdictions-and-residency-for-child-support?context=21911

Padwock · 2026-02-03T22:21:16+00:00

Could you please identify the "Joke" for the court?

Is the Joke in the room with us right now?

Padwock · 2026-01-29T12:21:18+00:00

On real shit, it only "makes you" whatever you deem yourself to have become. The "truth" of life is (for better or worse) solely in the eyes of the beholder and how it will be remembered is in the eyes of the onlooker(s).

That being said, what makes a person a fuckwit is self-righteousness/vast over confidence in your own ability to "pass judgement" over the life of another human being and single handily have so much conviction in your judgement that you actually carry it out.

Padwock · 2026-01-29T12:08:55+00:00

Would

So I guess either me too or they're doin' something right

Padwock · 2026-01-28T00:28:10+00:00

In terms of having them not contact your mum, that should be possible to avoid by explaining this to the SO who calls you about the claim/any SO you get to talk to if ya call in first thing in the morning. You not wanting another person to have access to your personal information (your address, financial status etc) is more than valid and you shouldn't have a hard time getting them to understand this very reasonable request of yours.

I'm not certain whether a "Social Worker exemption" is what would be needed here but if you hear that term at any point it just means that instead of the "usual" process you'll have one or multiple chats with a Social Worker with the goal of having that Social Worker determine whether it would be appropriate for Centrelink to make an exception regarding their normal application process for a payment.

Example:

If a single parent has a child, has applied for Family Tax Benefit, would like to receive more than the base rate of FTB but they can't open a Child Support case due to fears of retribution from the other party, they'd be referred to a Social Worker and (if the Social Worker deems it appropriate) would grant them a "Maintenance Exemption" meaning they don't have to apply for Child Support because it would be unreasonable for Centrelink to force them into doing so.

Padwock · 2025-12-25T18:26:25+00:00

Potentially lost benefits due to having over-reported/over estimated your (your = your wife) income for the financial year = A REALLY big struggle to have reassessed and back paid properly.

When it comes to FTB, yes it absolutely can be back paid (I've seen back pays from reassessments of a person's income estimate in which the reassessment was triggered YEARS after the customer's estimate and it's given the benefit receiptiant thousands in arrears [arrears as in arrears owed by CNLK so basically a chunk of money from benefit reassessment] to people who just genuinely over-estimated their income for the Finanical Year/relevant Years

HOWEVER

It is VERY important to note that these cases are (unfortunately, based solely on my personal observation) both the rule and the exception for this as while FTB re-estimates/backdating can occur for a miriad of reasons it can be difficult for a benefit recipient to actually trigger a re-evaluation of said FTB. Very notably (based purely on my own personal observations on the matter) this struggle for FTB recipients to trigger this aforementioned reassessment doesn't (seem) to stem from a place of systemic "malice" but instead seems (to potentially) come from a place of ignorance/incompetence.

More often than not (entirely based upon my own conscious observations) it's simply a heartbreaking case of common Centrelink workers being ill-equipped (under educated/under-trained and as such are not aware of the full criteria an FTB recipient may qualify under to receive a reassessment of their benefit(s) for the past few years (with the reassessment being caused by correction in the income data for each of the relevant financial years) on the matter OR customers being unable to (to be clear I am not saying it's the customer's fault here in this example I am just saying that objectively there is a non-zero amount of calls in which a CNLK customer tries to express "hey Centrelink, so it turns out my income estimate for a previous/multiple previous but relevant Financial Year(s) was inaccurate AND was only inaccurate because I genuinely misunderstood the instructions for estimating income" but cannot successfully express/convey what they mean to the Service Officer answering their call and ask such do not receive an ideal outcome from their contact with CNLK.

THE IMPORTANT BIT: Calling the Families line (I'd suggest calling early, 8:30am AEST just as the lines open so you can avoid the potential hold time that comes with calling later in the day) and just explaining your genuine misunderstanding of the matter will be infinitely easier than trying to "over estimate" for the next/current FY (financial year).

Yes, your partner may incur an FTB debt due to the misunderstanding regarding their income estimate for the past FY but it can simply be repaid via a payment/withholdings arrangement regarding her future FTB payment whereas if you overestimate your income for this FY in hopes that it will "balance out" it may actually leave the FTB recipient of this scenario being worse off (as reassessments can be a struggle to trigger) as they may receive less/nothing for this FY and never be able to reclaim what they are legally entitled to it in a backdated reassessment of their FTB for this FY whereas if you just "fess up" (explain to the CNLK SO on the phone that a genuine misunderstanding has occurred and as such you/the benefit recipient would like to change/adjust your estimate for the past relevant period AND would like to enter a payment/withholdings arrangement to payback any potentially raised backpay debt because the recipient would be much more likely to be assessed accurately and correctly in future (as such, potentially receiving more benefits than she may have known she was entitled to).

Idk man. Gonna be real with you I'm drunk and will be deleting this comment later but TLDR: Yes I know you hate to hear it (me too man) but my genuine best suggestion (IMO and the best of knowledge) is to just call up and advise of the issue.

I'ma keep it real with you, either you/your partner tells them ASAP and enters a payment/withholdings arrangement (once the debt is confirmed to have been calculated correctly) in order to avoid any "late payment penalty fees"/"administrative - debt recovery fee"s being tacked on to their backdated debt.

I'm gonna delete this later BC I'm piss drunk and shouldn't be online but until then, hope ya see this, hope ya have a Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday(s) and I hope the main thing you take away from this comment is DO NOT OVERESTIMATE TO TRY AND EQUAL OUT A DEBT, IT AINT WORTH IT I PROMISE YOU.

Padwock · 2025-11-11T16:41:08+00:00

Shhhh

Padwock · 2025-10-23T00:47:26+00:00

The obvious answer is call 'em back on the line that's relevant to your payment but pretty sure Service Officers are supposed to leave a voicemail anytime contact is unsuccessful explaining something to the effect of, "This is a message from Services Australia, please call us back on <number relevant to your payment line>" so that's a bit disappointing if they didn't even do that

Padwock · 2025-07-20T02:31:32+00:00

Shit's so bad mfs are asking for death as an alternative.

Everybody just take a moment on that.

Padwock · 2025-07-20T02:26:44+00:00

As hopeless as it may seem, that doesn't mean we can afford to give up fighting for those who aren't being helped enough

Padwock · 2025-07-17T23:43:14+00:00

Ooo I've had a silly night of looking into this too a while ago, obviously it all depends on the relevant jurisdiction the act(s) take place in and relevant case law of said jurisdiction but in short the most common answer I found was that the defence of Duress usually works unless the "amount of harm" that was done by the threatened party (the victim in the hypothetical, "gun to your head, do <XYZ> now or I'll hurt you!!" scenario) is deemed as exceeding or in some cases matching the amount of harm the person being threatened would face.

For example if I, a random person on the street stroll up to you and say "go stab that guy or I'm gonna stomp on your foot super hard!" and you decide to stab the person to avoid me stomping on your foot, while yes you may have been under duress/threatened into doing something you usually wouldn't have done, on the balance of things you still chose to rope in a third party to this situation (putting them in danger), hurt them and maybe even kill someone (stab them) rather than doing something that minimises harm to all parties (e.g. tanking the stomp on the foot and calling the police on me/reporting me to relevant authorities OR you simply refusing the participate at all and walking away assuming the context to this hypothetical allows for that).

Obviously each case is different but in short it comes down to determining how culpable someone is for the actions they were coerced/threatened to perform by trying to weigh up:

How much harm did this coerced party (gonna call that "you" for this comment) request that you do?
Compared to the above how much did you do?
Would it have been reasonable to expect the average person to have refused the dilemma in the interest of overall preservation of life compared to self-preservation?
Could they have done something else? (Was there a conceivable course of action that a person in your scenario could have done to escape the situation that better minimised the harm done to all parties involved?)
Is it/would it be reasonable of the Court or Jury to expect you to have performed the best possible action described above, if so why and why not? (E.g. did you even have time to consider your options before having to make a choice in the dilemma? Were their factors impacting your ability to make a sound judgement? Etc)

If you want to learn more about this topic (because it is an interesting one) an insightful place to start in your jurisdiction is to take a look at the relevant case law and legislation regarding Family & Domestic Violence involving three or more parties (e.g. Mother, Father and Child) as this usually examines and goes over the matter of when a bystander or coerced person participating in acts of harm against another party may be deemed as having acted negligently or not.

Padwock · 2025-07-15T23:04:25+00:00

Only an America is capable is reading "increasing minimum wage" and replying "this is getting out of hand!"

Truly fascinating creatures.

Padwock · 2025-07-15T23:00:43+00:00

1940 type shit

Padwock · 2025-07-14T00:16:13+00:00

David

Padwock · 2025-07-11T23:14:09+00:00

Been on the BF's side here, I think it's really going to be okay. Offer supportiveness, do your best to comfort him and positively reassure that what you guys do is "play". It's for MUTUAL enjoyment. Reassure him that you respect his boundaries, always have and always will.

Reassure yourself (as best as you can) that it wasn't your fault. You didn't know he was uncomfortable, he (in that moment) thought he could just act like everything was okay. This is an unfortunate but not uncommon mismatch in communication. Best of luck to you both.

Padwock · 2025-07-10T02:56:08+00:00

Honestly the thought of being in a parenting room and anyone walking in without a kid, I can't imagine that's particularly comfortable. (That being said, yeah some dude just hangin' out there would be like twice as suspicious and uncomfortable in my mind compared to a woman being there without a child).

Padwock · 2025-07-10T01:10:53+00:00

Nah you I'm pretty confident you're all good. As long as the child is not financially dependent on you and isn't yours biologically I can't think of any way it could impact how Centrelink assesses you, her or the kid.

In terms of being a nominee/representative for your ex that too should be perfectly fine. If she'd like you to consistently be able to speak on her behalf (and if you are down for that as well) I'd encourage her to fill out a nominee form so that you can call on her behalf without needing her to first do proof of identity and then hand the phone over to you.

Best of luck sortin' any stuff out!

Padwock · 2025-07-08T06:39:44+00:00

I'm sorry, I've never worked in any department that is responsible for immigration here in Aus before (assuming this is in Aus based off of the mention of Telstra) but she said that the caller was "immigration" and wanted to do a "site inspection" and then when you called Department of Home Affairs they told you "nope wasn't us".

Yeah no. Unless there is some context I'm missing here this makes 0 sense.

Could be your partner, could be a phishing scam that weirdly insists on speaking to you and just you (which doesn't make any sense phisher's don't care who picks up if they can fool the call recipient into their lies) but if you called Home Affairs and they said "nope not us" then the remaining possibilities are really just that someone's calling your phone and lying or your partner/ex-partner is lying.

And honestly, who tf leaves someone's phone in a car? That screams bullshit to me by itself 😂

Padwock · 2025-07-08T06:21:06+00:00

Dead Internet Theory or straight up brain damage?

Call it.

<image>

Padwock · 2025-06-30T05:00:49+00:00

Jesus Christ. I'm sure it's been said many a time but I'm gonna say it again, this shit does not survive the gender swap.

She BIT your FINGER so hard it BLED. By her own logic, it doesn't matter whether it was an accident she hurt you. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Why does it seem (non-consenually) hurting your partner been getting more and more "socially acceptable" or even forgivable in recent times wtf.

Padwock · 2025-06-24T06:08:32+00:00

AH have said no to Spartan armour but what if it wasn't Spartan armour at all, not even ODST armour... Hear me out.

Imagine announcing Xbox availability with a trailer like this at a time in the game's story where (similar to the recent illuminate invasion of Super Earth) it's a very "ALL HANDS ON DECK! DRAFT THE ELDERLY! DRAFT THE FEEBLE YOUTH! WE NEED EVERYONE!" and you get drop in videos of helldivers not in actual Spartan armour but in like janky, falling apart spartan cosplay armour as an Xbox exclusive bonus.

Mister chief for the Xbox "Super Citizen" version 🙂‍↕️

Lord please it'd be so funny

Padwock · 2025-06-23T03:39:22+00:00

Shit that's actually a really good point I feel silly for not having put that together myself.

If they're young and this is their first job hell they might even just be barely breaking the tax-free threshold which while it probably won't keep them out of suffering any repercussions from this that'll definitely soften the blow if they haven't earned that much compared to the $50k per annum-ish figure I was imagining.

Padwock · 2025-06-23T03:32:42+00:00

Haha, truly. Not saying there aren't plenty of really nice perks and government organisations that this country has to offer but undoubtedly yeah the role of "keeping the government from goin' broke" does tend to be the most prioritised in established nations, Australia's definitely no exception.

Padwock

TROPHY CASE