In 2004, in response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs Report
267, the Government decided to establish a system of 65 Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) designed to provide information, advice and dispute resolution to help separating parents reach agreement, including the development of a parenting plan.
268 As part of its Terms of Reference, the Taskforce has been asked to consider:
- how the Child Support Scheme can play a role in encouraging separating couples to reach agreement about parenting arrangements; and
- how FRCs may contribute to the understanding of and compliance with the Child Support Scheme.
The first issue has been addressed in particular through the recommendations concerning the recognition of contact in the formula (see Chapter 9) and the related changes to Family Tax Benefit (FTB) splitting. However, it is also important to consider child support issues when negotiating post-separation parenting arrangements, and close collaboration between the Child Support Agency (CSA), Centrelink and the FRCs may help parents to work out sustainable parenting arrangements in which the relevant financial issues are properly considered. In this way also, the Child Support Scheme can play a role in encouraging separating couples to reach agreement about parenting arrangements. The FRCs can also play a major role in promoting understanding of and compliance with the Scheme.
15.1 Interactions between child support, family law and parental conflict
There is strong evidence that dealing with separating parents through the legal system alone can entrench conflict, rather than resolve it. A recent UK study shows that, unless the underlying reasons for parental conflict are addressed, the expectation that parents should agree over their parenting arrangements following family separation is unlikely to be fulfi lled.
269 This is mainly because the legal system cannot easily deal with the essentially non-legal problems associated with disputes over children.
270 Issues with the family law system and the Child Support Scheme featured prominently in the submissions provided to the House of Representatives Inquiry. In their decision-making, neither the courts with family law jurisdiction nor the CSA can take into consideration the underlying reasons for conflict between separating parents. Confl ict between separated parents is often exacerbated by interaction with the family law system and the Child Support Scheme.
The FRCs offer a new and different way of helping parents to resolve these confl icts. Managing the difficult transition from parenting together to parenting apart is a critical time to help parents focus on the needs of their children. FRCs can assist families to reduce long-term conflict and to establish sustainable post-separation parenting arrangements. They will also provide valuable support to a range of proposed reforms that the Taskforce is recommending for the Child Support Scheme.
15.2 The role of Family Relationship Centres
The FRCs will be highly visible and accessible to the public, thereby encouraging families to use them for relationship and separation issues. FRCs will be an early intervention initiative to support intact families experiencing relationship difficulties. They will also be well positioned to provide relationship education, for example, through parenting seminars. FRCs will also play a support and counselling role for parents going through separation, with the goal of helping parents to work out post-separation parenting arrangements and to focus upon the children’s needs. In addition, they will be able to provide initial information to separating parents about child support and ways that Centrelink can assist them.
The FRCs will provide both an information and referral service and an intake assessment process. FRCs will be an integral part of the Family Relationship Services Program and a ‘gateway’ to many other services that can assist parents to resolve the issues between them. This includes the family law system, if a legal intervention is the most appropriate means of resolving the issues. Desirably, many parents who cannot resolve their disputes immediately will go on to other kinds of services rather than going to courts. These include continuing efforts at mediation, seeking legal advice about issues, or going to other appropriate services such as anger management courses, drug and alcohol programs, and fi nancial counselling.
The Taskforce expects that FRCs will help achieve a change in the pathways separated couples take after separation. A UK study in 1999 found that the majority of people experiencing family or relationship difficulties chose to visit a solicitor.
271 The same is true for Australia, where a great many people visit a solicitor before any other professional about separation matters. This can have the unfortunate effect of entrenching adversarial attitudes, depending on the approach taken by the solicitor.
While many parents may still wish to seek legal advice at some stage in working out the post-separation parenting arrangements, the FRCs will offer another pathway for assistance. In particular, when all 65 centres have been established, they will offer a readily available source of free advice and assistance to the majority of the Australian population. Parents will be encouraged to make contact with them as a first step towards negotiating the post-separation parenting arrangements and the related fi nancial issues. Outcomes for parents and their children are generally substantially better where parents can reach agreement, through parenting plans, for example, rather than having arrangements imposed upon them by courts. FRCs will provide mediation services to help parents reach agreements.
FRCs will not only have a pivotal role in alternative dispute resolution in the aftermath of separation. They will also have a role in dealing with ongoing confl icts between the parents. Where entrenched conflict makes resolution within the centre unlikely, FRCs may refer the family to the Contact Orders Program, or to other specialist Family Relationship Service Program providers. While parents cannot be ordered to use these programs (only a court can do that), they will be strongly encouraged to do so as a better way of dealing with the issues than going to court.
[
top ]
15.3 How Family Relationship Centres may contribute to the understanding of and compliance with the Child Support Scheme
15.3.1 An educational role
The educational role of the FRCs is particularly important in terms of the way in which FRCs may contribute to parents’ understanding of the Child Support Scheme, and therefore promote voluntary compliance. The information sessions and other educational programs of the FRCs should explain in outline about the Scheme, the basis on which child support obligations have been calculated and the way in which regular contact and shared care are dealt with in the formula.
Initial information sessions do not need to give detailed information—that is perhaps best done through CSA staff offering special information sessions or through legal advisers. However, material on child support should be included in the general information sessions about post-separation parenting. Explanation should be given about how it is that the Government seeks to protect children from the reduced living standards flowing from separation in a way that is as fair as possible to both parents. In particular, if parents can be helped to understand that the formula is based on the amount that each parent would be likely to spend on child-related expenses if the parents were together, some of the controversy about child support may be reduced.
Specific provision of information to parents about their child support obligations and entitlements should include highlighting of areas where the Scheme has considerable scope for parental agreement, and the tailoring of child support arrangements. Parents considering substituting their own agreed child support for the formula outcome need a good understanding of the likely consequences, in terms of both child support outcomes, and FTB interactions (as discussed in Chapter 13). The reasons for change of assessment (as described in Chapter 12) should be made known, so that parents can use the information in their negotiations. There will be more freedom to make lump sum child support arrangements under Taskforce proposals (discussed in Chapter 14).
If a non-resident parent is concerned about whether the child support will be utilised to meet the expenses of raising the child, or would particularly like child support payments to be used for particular purposes, then the parents ought to be encouraged to agree about some in-kind payments. Importantly, the extent to which both parents consider that expenses such as fees for extra-curricular activities, haircuts and educational costs should be credited against a formal child support assessment can be agreed.
FRCs have the potential to streamline and tailor the provision of information to parents, promoting a greater understanding of child support and, by making opportunities available to parents to become involved in their child support arrangements, including both the amount and use of payments, improve compliance and overall satisfaction.
Recommendations 19.1 and 19.2
19.1 The Family Relationship Centres should encourage voluntary agreements between parents on in-kind payments.
19.2 Information sessions and seminars conducted under the auspices of the Family Relationship Centres should provide information on the Child Support Scheme and draw attention to the flexibility provided in the Scheme through the change of assessment process, as well as the possibilities for private agreements and in-kind payments.
15.3.2 Negotiating other financial aspects of post-separation parenting
Child support issues are also relevant to developing workable parenting arrangements in other respects. Once parents have reached an agreement about basic parenting arrangements, such as where the child will live, there is often a need to resolve secondary issues as well, including financial ones. Parents may need to address practical matters such as transport costs, clothing and the provision of other personal items as well as any other matter that is likely to be contentious.
Three areas in particular that it may be important to discuss are any fi nancial issues about where the parents will live, childcare costs, and educational plans. In some cases, it may be important for parents to see child support obligations as a minimum rather than a fixed sum, and discussion of appropriate levels of child support may assist in helping parents to reach agreement over parenting issues. For example, if the parents have been living in an area of a city where housing is expensive, and the parent who is likely to have to pay child support wants to be involved in a shared parenting arrangement, then it may be necessary to explore the financial issues to see whether it is realistic for both the parents to stay in the same area following separation. The price of remaining close to one another geographically may be that the parent with the greater income has to pay more than the formula amount of child support in order to help the other parent meet the costs of renting or mortgage instalments for a home in the same area.
Childcare costs are another area that may need to be the subject of specifi c negotiation. Taskforce examination of the costs of children revealed significant variations in childcare costs. Childcare expenses were specifically not included in costs of children data for this reason. Allowances have been made within the formula to address childcare and other related costs for younger children, in that the costs of children in the 5–12 age bracket have been extended to younger children. However, this is a prime area in which individual discussion between parents may result in agreement about the handling of childcare expenses, particularly where these are substantial, or parents agree that such costs will provide a significant barrier to the resident parent increasing his or her paid workforce participation following the separation.
Children’s education costs are also highly individual, with signifi cant variation depending upon the provider of the tuition. Educational costs are one ground for a change of assessment, and one common basis for a decision that a payer should be required to contribute an additional sum towards private school fees is that this was the parents’ intention when they were together. However, a couple’s mutual understanding as to children’s future education is often affected by separation and resulting fi nancial pressures. Conflicts about money in the future may be best avoided if parents are encouraged to turn their minds to this issue in the course of developing a parenting plan. FRCs are in a good position to prompt necessary discussions in these cases.
These discussions on shared parenting responsibilities could then form the basis of the development of a comprehensive parenting plan that deals both with parenting and ongoing financial issues. The plan could contain anything that the parents thought relevant such as:
- a child’s living and contact arrangements;
- the time a child might spend with other people such as grandparents;
- how parents will exercise their parental responsibility;
- child support payments;
- costs of transportation for contact visits;
- childcare and educational costs where these are high;
- in-kind contributions to the costs of the child and prescribed payments;
- how hand-over will be managed;
- holiday arrangements; and
- ways of resolving any future disputes.
Recommendation 19.3
Family Relationship Centres and other organisations providing counselling and mediation services to parents who are negotiating parenting arrangements after separation should encourage parents to discuss child support issues including childcare costs and the future education of the children, especially where a private school education has been contemplated.
[
top ]
15.4 Collaboration between Family Relationship Centres, the CSA, Centrelink and other organisations
The majority of separated parents who are CSA clients also deal with Centrelink. The two agencies perform different but complementary functions, and parents need information and support from both to fully understand their fi nancial situation. Centrelink and the CSA already have a close working relationship and refer parents to each other’s services. Both agencies also refer to other government and non-government agencies within the community on a regular basis. The FRCs will have an important role in providing initial information and advice to people who may not have an understanding of the range of services available to assist them in the transition to post-separation parenting, including making child support arrangements.
In response to a request by the Taskforce for information on how CSA and Centrelink can work with FRCs, both agencies have committed to working closely with FRCs. The CSA and Centrelink have advised that they are keen to support FRC staff working with parents. The Taskforce supports Centrelink’s and the CSA’s view that this could contribute to improving compliance with the Child Support Scheme.
The Taskforce believes that CSA and Centrelink are well placed to support FRCs to work with separating families and to assist parents to establish parenting plans. Both agencies are keen to be involved in developing services in a range of ways, balancing the needs of parents and children and the efficient use of resources. Other possibilities include:
- Centrelink staff located in FRCs could have online access to the Centrelink computer system and provide real-time information and processing. CSA uses tax data systems and due to security issues has no remote access to their computer system. CSA has an internet-based child support calculator which is widely used in the community sector now to inform clients of the impacts of their decisions and could be accessed from FRCs;
- using telephone technology to make ‘warm transfers’ between agencies to support FRC staff dealing with a range of issues for parents;
- having Centrelink and CSA staff conduct training and information sessions for FRC staff;
- availability of ‘hotline’ telephone support to FRC staff if Centrelink and/or CSA staff are not present in person;
- sharing of information regarding complex cases with families already known to either or both agencies, as appropriate within the context of privacy legislation;
- using an interagency joint case management approach for parents with very complex issues. This approach is being trialled now between CSA and the Family Court, and is used by Centrelink as part of their interventions with families;
- utilisation of national strategies already developed by Centrelink and CSA on domestic and family violence to assist in early identification and service delivery responses by all agencies;
- using remote servicing options such as Centrelink’s network of social workers based in Community Support and Call Centres to support families in rural and remote locations;
- regular exchange of information between FRC staff and Centrelink and CSA staff to identify issues affecting parents in the local area and provide timely and appropriate responses;
- provision of Centrelink and CSA information products in FRCs; and
- regular sharing of best practice to enhance national service delivery.
The Taskforce believes that the more FRCs can be integrated appropriately within the service environment of Centrelink and the CSA and network with other family relationship services, the more families will benefit from services that address their needs, both before and after separation.
Planning for FRCs should involve close collaboration with both the CSA and Centrelink. Both agencies have particular experience in being able to provide advice and assistance to a range of diverse groups who do not have ready access to face-to-face services, including families living in rural and remote areas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and people with a disability.
Many families and individuals may fall into more than one of these groups, creating multiple disadvantages when accessing services. The Taskforce considers that establishment of a ‘virtual’ FRC through telephone, website and video conferencing capabilities would have special benefit for servicing families with special needs or who are too remote to access face-to-face services. The FRCs could facilitate the referral of clients
directly with Centrelink, CSA or the other Family Relationship Service Program service providers. Experience shows that clients who are put into direct contact with a service at the time of the referral are more likely to follow through with the referral.
Recommendation 19.4
Planning for Family Relationship Centres should involve close collaboration with the CSA and Centrelink, particularly on ways of serving the needs of regional and rural Australia.
Centrelink and CSA are not the only organisations that may be able to work collaboratively with the FRCs. The interactions between family law, government family payments and child support are intricate and complex. It would not be expected that FRCs would themselves have available expertise in all relevant areas. The FRCs should take advantage of such possibilities for collaboration and government and community-based sources of legal advice to make opportunities to receive specialist advice more accessible to parents using the FRCs.
Recommendation 19.5
Organisations selected to run Family Relationship Centres should be encouraged to invite the CSA, Centrelink, Legal Aid and community legal centres to conduct regular advice and information sessions on the premises of the Centre.
15.5 Family Relationship Centres and change of assessment
FRCs will be available to separated families to help reduce ongoing confl icts and difficulties emerging as their circumstances change. This availability should extend to difficulties with broader parenting responsibilities, particularly including child support arrangements. Mediation services should be available to assist with any areas of re-negotiation of child support agreements or payment arrangements.
In addition, to promote better outcomes, FRCs could also play a role in the existing processes within the Child Support Scheme to vary assessments. Currently, a very small proportion of change of assessment applications made to CSA are settled by parents without the need for the Senior Case Officer to make a determination.
272 Some proportion of parents may have entered into an agreement, varying their child support based upon change of assessment grounds, although without actually making the application.
Although not appropriate for every case, alternative dispute resolution ought to be as much a feature of the change of assessment process as any other family law dispute. The CSA should have the discretion to encourage separated parents to negotiate the often contentious issues around change of assessment applications through a FRC or other mediation or counselling organisation, prior to determining an application.
Recommendation 19.6
The CSA should have a discretion to encourage parties to change of assessment applications to negotiate the issues through a Family Relationship Centre or other mediation or counselling organisation, prior to determining the application.