Child support has become a “tool of violence” used to economically abuse women in Australia, new research has found.
Those paying child support are overwhelmingly men and some are coercing and controlling payees – mostly women – through avoiding payment.
Women’s Legal Services Australia (WLSA) says perpetrators are rarely penalised and that reforms are urgently needed to stop situations where women leave an abusive partner only to have the abuse replaced with economic abuse.
The abuse is the “weaponisation of the child support system, and part of a broader pattern of coercive and controlling behaviours”, the WLSA report says.
Lara Freidin, WLSA’s executive officer, says fathers take “extraordinary measures” to reduce their taxable incomes and therefore payments for their children’s upkeep.
There are websites advising men how to do this through working cash in hand, earning less, declaring less, or becoming self employed and funnelling money elsewhere. Men are also delaying reporting any income increases and delaying lodging tax returns.
“Non-payment, underpayment and delayed payment of child support must be nationally recognised as a form of economic abuse that has long-lasting impacts on women and children, entrenching their ongoing financial disadvantage,” Freidin said.
Having a child support payment agreement is a prerequisite to receiving the family tax benefit part A, but in some cases women are going without the support so they are not forced to maintain a relationship with their abusers.
“The literature is unanimous that the family violence exemption creates a perverse situation in which the only way to keep the mother and her child(ren) safe is to withdraw all claims for child support,” the report found.
“This exemption means mothers are missing out on supplemental income to support their children, and fathers who have perpetrated family violence are able to avoid paying any child support,” Freidin said.
“Victim-survivors are effectively left to manage the economic consequences of choosing to leave a violent relationship.”
WLSA wants the system reformed and economic abuse recognised.
The federal government has set up an expert panel and a stakeholder consultation group to review the formula used to calculate child support payments. It is also reviewing compliance to ensure income accuracy and better collection and enforcement measures, while $5.1m will be spent over five years to examine non-compliance, how to help parents if private arrangements break down, and whether the formula reflects the costs of raising children in Australia.
According to WLSA, evidence shows about eight in 10 women report the deliberate withholding or non-payment of child support while eight in 10 also report a deliberate minimisation of liabilities.
‘An undesirable amount of control’
Studies have shown controlling men want to dictate what money is spent on, thinking their payment of child support allows them to “question the legitimacy of their ex-partner’s spending and mothering”, the report says, giving fathers “an undesirable amount of control”.
They see the payment as going to the mother rather than being for the support of the child, the report says. Withholding it is “one of the highest causes of insecure housing experienced by single mothers”.
It is then up to single mothers to deal with an onerous and complicated system to try to get the payments, risking retaliation in the process. Many complain that Services Australia does not act quickly and will only directly deduct money from wages as a last resort.
While dealing with the system, women may have to hand over information that an abusive ex-partner can use. If they ask for a change of assessment because they believe they are owed more, they may have to hand over personal information that gives away their location or bank statements that could give the ex-partner detailed information about their personal lives. That information can then be weaponised if he wants to argue that spending is frivolous.
About half of former couples are on private agreements and less is known about how they are operating.
In one instance, an abuse victim-survivor Sophie* spent years battling to get the payments she was owed, while her ex-partner “withheld child support payments as a means of exerting control, particularly if Sophie did not comply with his demands”.
In another instance, victim-survivor Eva* had separated from Jason*, who earned $180,000 a year and paid $410 in child support each week. Then he submitted a revised estimate, saying his income was $0, so the child support was reduced to $30 a week. But a Services Australia investigation found out he was only unemployed for 10 days and had a new job earning $170,000. Then he submitted a revised estimate of $75,000, which was again accepted. There was another investigation, then Jason said his income again was $0.
“Eva has advised Services Australia she believes Jason will work as a sole trader and use his family trust to declare a nominal income at the end of the financial year,” the report said. “Services Australia has advised Eva that there is not much they can do where a parent is self-employed and declares nominal income for tax purposes.”
Eva was also told his income from five investment properties would not be included.
The government review is also considering how to deal with a situation where the taxable income is not a fair representation of someone’s financial situation – for example, when the income comes from a company, trust or partnership.
* Pseudonyms used in the research
