Government to investigate child support system

on October 21, 2016 by admin

pauline-hanson The federal government’s independent auditor has flagged an investigation of the $3.5 billion child support system, a move that could provide further ammunition for Pauline Hanson’s claim that the system is unfair to non-custodial parents.

It’s the latest in a push to test the integrity of the child welfare system, which some claim is plagued by rorting by some parents trying to dodge child support payments and some childcare service providers who are blamed for almost $600 million in incorrect government payment claims.

The Australian National Audit Office has listed the child support system as a priority issue for audits for 2016-17 and plans to focus on the arrangements between the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Human Services.

In the weeks following the federal election, Nationals MPs reported to their partyroom that anger over the child support system was a sleeper issue that risked losing voters to One Nation unless major parties started taking notice.

The accuracy and effectiveness of the child support system is based on parents lodging accurate tax returns to give their assessable taxable income,

In the same year, the ATO and Department of Human Services were behind 65,678 enforcement actions on parents’ tax returns to collect an extra $27.4 million in child support payments.

Child support

Another 105,202 tax refunds were intercepted to garnishee $121.5 million in child support.

But fathers’ rights groups and One Nation say the child support system must be overhauled and the formula that dictates the amount of child support payments should be reviewed.

The audit will focus on the effectiveness of the agencies’ enforcement activities, including intercepting tax refunds and reviewing the accuracy of parents’ tax returns.

One Nation leader Senator Pauline Hanson said in her maiden speech this month that some parents were left caring and providing for children without any financial help from the other parent, while others refuse to work altogether to avoid the payments.

“The system needs to be balanced, taking in the age of the child on a sliding scale and both parents’ incomes should be taken into account,” Senator Hanson said.

“Non-custodial parents find it hard to restart their lives, with excessive child support payments that see their former partners live a very comfortable life.”

Interim audit

An interim audit by the Auditor-General of 21 government departments and agencies – including Education, Communication, Defence, Employment and Defence – for the year to June 30 this year found childcare compliance was the significant adverse problem facing government bookkeepers.

Thanks to a 2013 change to the monitoring of childcare operators, compliance moved from inspections of childcare centres and family daycare operators to asking parents to confirm their child’s attendance in child care.

As a result the potential incorrect payments blew out to an estimated $693 million by June 2015, before being reined in to $587 million this year.

Education minister Simon Birmingham, who now has responsibility for the problem which has switched between the Education department and Social Services since 2014, said recent measures to close loopholes allowing “child swapping” by carers claiming payments has helped stop more than $400 million in suspect claims from being paid.

A $27 million crackdown introduced to Parliament last week explicitly ruled out people claiming childcare subsidies where the care was provided by the child’s own parents in their own homes “or even in the back of the car”.

“These new measures will ensure there are much tighter controls on who cares for our children – it is not good enough that existing rules have been able to be ‘worked around’ and these measures will put a stop to it in the interests of child safety and the protection of taxpayers,” Mr Birmingham said.

Related Family Law Videos

No items found in feed URL: https://www.familylawexpress.com.au/family-law-express-media/aiovg_categories/child-support/feed/. You requested 15 items.

A study in Predicting Divorce

on October 18, 2016 by admin

dividing-gifts-after-divorce Not all negativity in the workplace is a bad sign. Common sense says employees who describe their workplace in negative terms are the ones that are more likely to leave it, but new research shows this isn’t the case.

The study identified some forms of negativity are benign and can be tolerated, whereas others are loud and clear warning signs in terms of employee retention. Study participants were asked to describe their past experiences with the organisations they had worked for, both good and bad.

Three forms of negativity predicted that employees will have a greater intention to leave an organisation one year later: disappointment, strong negativity (such as anger or ridicule) and indirect negativity (like focusing on the negatives in a positive story). Other forms of negativity, like complaints, entitlement and even despair, did not.

The method used in this study was adapted from a method that successfully predicts divorce. Reports on this method show that it predicts divorce with more than 80 per cent, and sometimes more than 90 per cent accuracy. Anyone who ever tried to systematically predict human behaviour knows this kind of success is very rare.

After more than three decades of research, the divorce prediction method is so refined, that its developer says that he can predict a divorce of a couple based on listening to the first three minutes of an argument.

Participants in this turnover study were first interviewed, and their attitudes (like job satisfaction, commitment, intentions to quit, engagement, and burnout) were measured. A year later, their attitudes were measured again, and another year after that, the study looked at who left and who stayed.

The study found that employees who left their jobs didn’t use the following coping mechanisms: they didn’t balance the good with the bad, they didn’t genuinely accept that bad things are just part of life, they didn’t avoid lengthy discussions of the negatives and they didn’t express hope.

Employment and marriage: similarities

Employment and marriage are not exactly the same (for most people anyway), but they are not that different either. In both cases, the parties establish mutually loyal and trusting relationships over time, based on the exchange of resources. These resources can be material (like money or goods) or social (like love, status, or information).

Both relationships operate based on a balance between the attractiveness of the relationship (with the job or spouse), the attractiveness of alternatives, and barriers for leaving. Barriers can be legal, cultural, financial, or practical – either in a marriage or a job.

The predictions of employees who leave organisations in this research are very similar to predictors of divorce. Past research has shown that when there are forms of negativity in a marriage, like disappointment, withdrawal, hostility, or contempt, you know the couple is at a high risk of divorce. Couples who not only accept their struggles but even celebrate them remain happily married, and so do couples who successfully avoid conflict.

Research on divorce also demonstrated another way to know if a marriage is in trouble – looking at the emotions the couple displays when they fight. Couples stay happily married if they show at least five times more positive emotions than they show negative ones when they fight.

There was similar evidence in the study on employees, but with a lower ratio: employees who showed at least two-to-one positive to negative emotions when they talked about their past in the organisation generally had better attitudes towards their work and their organisation.

One major difference between the way things work in marriage and with employment is empathy. When couples express empathy for one another, that is generally a good sign, but when employees use empathy to cope with things they do not like at their work, this actually predicts worse job outcomes.

Employees who empathise to cope with negative feelings about their jobs were less satisfied with their job and less committed to it a year later. This could be because employees’ empathy means that they have accepted that this problem will not change, and they are willing to move on – but not out of anger.

How to reduce employee turnover

This research basically shows that employment and marriage work in similar ways. What this means for employers is that they can use the same tools that save a marriage to increase their employee retention rates. Basically, the research shows that for a relationship to survive, there needs to be a balance of positive and negative emotions.

If you want to keep your employees, you need to either reduce the negative emotions, or increase positive emotions they experience at work. What creates positive or negative emotions varies from one employee to another, so it’s important to know what works for yours.

Knowing this, one thing to do is to avoid destructive negative behaviours, like contempt, hostility and withdrawal. This can be pretty hard to do and impossible to enforce.

Positive psychology, however, teaches us that the best way to fight dark emotions is by increasing the light. In the same way, relationships research found an effective way for increasing positive emotions: gratitude.

People who expressed gratitude towards others felt that their relationship with the others were stronger. When people actually felt this gratitude, and not only expressed it, their spouses echo this gratitude with greater satisfaction.

So a good step forward to increasing employee retention is to start saying “thank you,” and mean it.

Irit Alony is a researcher at University of Wollongong.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Cancer Council sues dead woman’s estate for medical records over $12.6 million will

on October 14, 2016 by admin

gavel Cancer Council Victoria has launched a Supreme Court bid to get its hands on a dead woman’s medical records, to establish whether it has a claim to $12 million left to the organisation in her previous will.

Elizabeth Bell Thomson was 94 when she died last year.

In her first will, in 2004, she left her entire estate to the Cancer Council (then the Anti-Cancer Council) in the event her husband died before her.

But seven years later she wrote another will, cutting the Cancer Council out entirely – as well as her husband, who was still alive.

Instead, Mrs Thomson bequeathed $12.6 million to two individuals, Victoria Anne Wilshire and Peter Gordon Jeffs, and $500 each to the RSPCA and the William Angliss Hospital.

Mrs Thomson made her second will on July 1, 2011.

Four months later, according to documents filed with the Supreme Court, Mrs Thomson was admitted to an aged care home with formal diagnoses of dementia, glaucoma and visual impairment.

According to a statement of claim filed by the Cancer Council’s fundraising chief Andrew Buchanan, Mrs Thomson’s nieces and nephews contacted the organisation in October 2015, to say a “possible large bequest” was coming their way.

But, Mr Buchanan said, the Cancer Council was told the matter was “complex” and they should consult their lawyers for more information.

According to Mr Buchanan’s account (Fairfax Media has been unable to reach Mrs Wilshire and Mr Jeffs, despite repeated attempts), the matter has split the family.

One of Mrs Thomson’s nephews, William Jeffs, provided the Cancer Council with a copy of a medical record that showed Mrs Thomson had short-term memory problems in 2010 “and constant supervision of her was recommended”, Mr Buchanan said.

In an affidavit cited by Mr Buchanan Vera Jeffs, Peter Jeff’s wife, swore that she completed the 2011 will under instructions from Mrs Thomson, and said: “I wrote what Elizabeth told me to write”.

“My husband and I travelled to Melbourne to care for Elizabeth shortly prior to the will being executed,” Mrs Jeffs wrote in her affidavit, according to court documents.

“Elizabeth told me that she wanted to make a new will. I told Elizabeth that she should go to see a solicitor … Elizabeth said that you do not need a solicitor to make a will.”

Mrs Thomson’s GP, Dr Geoffrey Hanson, swore in an affidavit in March that Mrs Thomson had been of sound mind to alter her will in 2011.

But according to the documents filed with the court, when Mrs Thomson died her death certificate recorded her cause of death as “Bronchopneumonia – 4 days and Dementia of Alzheimer type – 5 years”.

The Cancer Council has asked the court to order Mrs Wilshire to hand over Mrs Thomson’s medical records from between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2013, from Mrs Thomson’s GP, Opal Specialist Aged Care Victoria, Medicare Australia, Advent Care Yarra Ranges, Domain Gracedale Aged Care, Aged Care Assessment Services, and Eastern Health.

An earlier request to Mrs Wilshire, as executor of the will, was refused, Mr Buchanan said.

Mr Buchanan said the Cancer Council could not decide whether to challenge the will until it could prove whether Mrs Thomson was of sound mind when she made her second will.

Chinese tycoon behind Grindr will pay $1.5 billion in divorce

on October 13, 2016 by admin

Divorce can take a toll. For the Chinese tycoon behind the gay dating app Grindr, that toll comes to $US1.14 billion ($1.51 billion).

Zhou Yahui, a Chinese internet mogul and billionaire, will have to transfer nearly 300 million shares of his company to his wife, Li Qiong, according to a statement from the company. The document does not say why, but China’s media is abuzz with articles saying the two are getting a divorce.

Chinese billionaire Zhou Yahui will have to transfer 300 million shares in his company to his wife.

That apparent split is the latest to show how divorces can have a significant impact on the commercial ventures of some of China’s wealthiest business leaders.

Zhou, 39, earned his fortune developing web and mobile games. In January, he made headlines when his company, Beijing Kunlun World Wide Technology Share Co, purchased a controlling stake in Grindr for $US93 million ($123m).
In a Monday ruling, the Haidian district court in Beijing awarded Li 70.5 million of Kunlun’s shares. Based on the most recent stock price, Li’s shares are worth about $US1.14 billion ($1.51bn). The huge equity transfer would make this one of the most expensive divorce settlements in China.

Neither Kunlun nor Grindr could be reached for comment Thursday, which is a holiday in China.

Resolving matters of the heart can be especially costly in China because many of China’s billionaires derive a significant chunk of their personal wealth from equity shares in businesses they control. When couples divorce, the division of marital assets has significant effects on their personal finances.

The well-publicised 2012 divorce of Wu Yajun, who founded Longfor Properties Co with her former husband, Cai Kui, is a notable case. Wu, once the richest woman in China, saw her wealth tumble by nearly $US3 billion ($4bn) after she transferred about 40 per cent of her shares in Longfor to her ex-husband.

Tudou, a Chinese video streaming service, had to delay its 2010 initial public offering after Yang Lei, the ex-wife of its chief executive officer, Gary Wang, filed a lawsuit against him. During the delay, Tudou’s competitor, Youku, raised $US203 million on the New York Stock Exchange, valuing the company at $US3.3 billion. Tudou eventually went public with a valuation of $US822 million.

By comparison, Zhou may be emerging from his former marriage somewhat better off. After the equity transfer, Zhou will still hold 388 million shares in Kunlun, retaining a majority 35 per cent stake in the company.

According to the court filing, Li will not be able to cash out Kunlun’s shares until January 21, 2018, per conditions the company agreed to when it went public on the Shenzhen stock exchange in 2015. Kunlun’s board members and major personnel will stay the same, and Li will not be able to invest in competing businesses.

How harmful is fighting in front of kids?

on October 8, 2016 by admin

It’s a parenting tip echoed from one generation to the next: “Don’t fight in front of the kids.” But many parenting experts believe it’s not the actual fighting that upsets kids: it’s the way in which parents argue.   So how does inter-parental conflict affect children? Is it ever okay for parents to argue in front of the kids?

Warren Cann, CEO of Parenting Research Centre, says the impact of parental conflict on kids depends on the severity and frequency of the conflict, and the way it is resolved. “Severe parental conflict is very damaging to children,” he says. “Ongoing, high level conflict can lead to emotional and behavioural disorders in children and there is evidence that the effects can be long-lasting.”

The parents’ relationship creates the emotional climate for a home, explains Cann. “If that climate is stressed and hostile, then it can affect a child’s development.” It doesn’t have to be the loud fighting variety either, Cann points out. Even when there’s no arguing, unspoken hostility can cause distress. “It can be those long periods of stony, frosty silence,” he explains, adding that if these periods become extended it can have a serious impact.

Conflict increases with parenting

Whilst conflict is a part of any relationship, it increases when you become a parent. “Research shows that stress levels rise significantly after the birth of the baby,” says Cann. “Conflict increases with stress and stress increases with parenting – it’s how parents manage conflict that can either be helpful or harmful to kids.”

“What inevitably happens when you have a baby is the relationship goes on the backburner,” explains Cann. He has this important message: Attending to your relationship is as important for your children as it is for you. “It’s not a selfish thing to be keeping an eye on that relationship. It’s extremely good for your children.”

Is it ever okay to argue in front of kids?

There is research that shows that there can be advantages to children being exposed to parental disagreements, particularly when they get a chance to see their parents work through issues.

A recent Cardiff University study claims that there’s no need go out of earshot when having an argument with your partner. Rather, the psychologists at Cardiff University believe it’s good for children to be exposed to constructive arguments as it sets a good example for the children.

Psychologist and Director of Parent Wellbeing, Jodie Benveniste, agrees that it isn’t always a bad thing for children to be exposed to parental disagreements, particularly when they see their parents discussing issues respectfully. “There are ways to discuss issues which strengthen relationships rather than pull them apart.”

“Children can actually benefit from witnessing disagreements if parents listen to each other, and are willing to give and take,” says Benveniste. “It shows kids how to negotiate and find solutions to problems.”

In other words, it’s fine – even healthy – for kids to witness your arguments. But there are caveats. “If you’re shouting and name calling, that’s not setting a good example at all”. Parents need to be aware that their kids are watching, and feeling the emotion in the room, explains Benveniste.

Cann agrees, adding that low emotional arguing is not damaging for kids. “All couples argue from time to time and it’s inevitable this will happen in front of the kids,” he says. “Children tune into high emotion – that’s the harmful stuff.”

He suggests that any discussion that could lead to high emotion should take place away from the kids, adding that it can be particularly damaging if children witness arguments that are about them. “Always avoid arguments about the kids in front of them,” advises Cann.

How are children affected by parental conflict?

It’s not the occasional bickering that harms kids, says Cann. This is a normal part of life and children are robust enough to deal with it. “An environment of chronic friction and hostility is what harms kids the most.”

Interestingly, the effects of parental conflict do not appear to be experienced equally by all children. New research by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) found that the impact of everyday parental conflict on children’s behaviour is driven by how the children understand the problems in the relationship as well as the nature of the conflict itself. Children were more likely to experience behaviour, such as depression, if they blamed themselves for the conflict, or emotional problems if they felt threatened.

Factors such as temperament and age also make a difference. Younger kids will often think that they have done something wrong, explains Cann. Older children will worry that their parents are going to break up. “Some children are very sensitive to toxic elements in their environments; some are more robust and more resilient.”

Some research suggests that gender plays a role in how kids respond to conflict. “Boys are more likely to act up or become more aggressive, whereas girls tend to internalise conflict more and become withdrawn,” explains Cann.

Healthy Conflict Resolution

If you’ve fought with your partner in front of your children, don’t panic, urges Cann. “Don’t beat yourself up about it if it happens; there’s no benefit in guilt. The most important thing for a child is to see their parents really trying to work it out,” he says. “If that’s absent, that’s most worrying”. Benveniste agrees, adding that if there are ongoing issues, it’s a good idea to seek professional help.

Children don’t need to know the ins and outs of the issue, explains Cann. What they need most, he says, is reassurance. “Be clear with your children that they are not the cause of your disagreements and reassure them that you are working on a solution to the problem.“