dss blog
Queer families and the Child Support System
– Part One
Posted on Monday, July 25th, 2011
This is an overview of a paper that was written in December 2010. It was the first of five papers to be prepared by drummond Street for the Family & Child Support Policy Branch of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) under its Child Support Policy – Community Strategy.
A case study and the recommendations to FaHCSIA will follow.
This piece was prepared by Rebecca Harris, the complete paper was written by Kristie Dunn, with input from drummond street staff Jess Black, Reima Pryor, Zoe Stafford and CEO Karen Field, along with additional information sourced from the Child Support Agency, and independent family law practitioners.
In 2008 there was a big package of reforms covering 84 Commonwealth acts relating to the laws affecting same-sex couples, and their children. In most cases this meant that same-sex de facto couples had the same rights and entitlements as their opposite-sex counterparts. There are some notable exceptions to this principle, namely the prohibition on same-sex marriage and adoption.
This reform package included changes to the acts relevant to child support. Before these same-sex reforms, non-biological parents in same-sex relationships were not recognised as parents by the Child Support Agency (CSA), the folk who administer child support payments. So while previously excluded, same-sex separated couples are now able to access the CSA, and access child support payments, or be liable to make payments.
The research undertaken by us here at drummond street included conversations with the CSA, and with family law practitioners, and anecdotal evidence from the queer community. All evidence suggests that very few queer families actually access the child support system. Primary research with parents would be the next logical step to really find out why, but a number of reasons did come to light, based on information gathered:
- The reforms are relatively recent (they did not come in to effect until July 2009) and queer parents used to existing outside the law may not even be aware that they are entitled to access
- There is a lot of confusion about when a parent is a parent under the law. For example sometimes a parent is legally recognised federally, but not by their State’s law. A parent might be recognised with a parenting order obtained in the Family Court, but this may not be reflected in the Family Law Act
- Under the law children cannot have more than two parents, but this does not reflect the reality for many queer families.
- There is a culture of private arrangements within queer families with respect to financial arrangement about children.
- As our research clearly indicated (see Case Study in our companion piece) the staff at the CSA have a serious lack of understanding about same-sex applications and may be giving contradictory or incorrect advice to people making contact
Feedback from the CSA Customer Review and Quality Improvement area tells us that they have no means of identifying same-sex ex-couples on their database. There was a comment that there was some concern within the CSA that asking queer clients about the nature of their relationship could be seen as offensive.
Surely asking about whether a relationship is opposite-sex or same-sex is only offensive if same-sex relationships are considered offensive. This should not be used as an excuse or impediment to tracking same-sex couple applications, and ensuring they are receiving accurate and informed advice and assistance. The current incapacity of the CSA to collect any data on same-sex couples is a concern. A simple solution to any confusion or assumptions, for example in the case of gender-neutral names like Sam or Jo/e, could be an initial screening question for every applicant along the lines of ‘is your ex-partner male or female?’ This would identify same-sex couple applications quickly and easily. Here at drummond street, a mainstream family service agency, a standard intake question regarding sexuality of a client is well received and also serves to normalise and reduce stigma for this group in the broader community. Applicants within same-sex relationships are unlikely to find such a question offensive, and in fact are likely to appreciate that their relationship is being openly recognised by a public agency. Such a question will go a long way towards normalising same-sex relationships in the eyes of heterosexual applicants. This is one of the aims of the same-sex reforms.
While the same-sex reforms have gone some way towards recognising same-sex families and clarifying financial responsibility and child support liability, the question of who is a parent and what that means remains a confusing area. The fact that those who work at the CSA are not able to give accurate and consistent advice has to be seen as a serious impediment to access.
Read the Complete Policy Paper here.
.
.
Queer families and the Child Support System
– Part Two
Posted on Monday, July 25th, 2011
This is an overview of a paper that was written in December 2010. It was the first of five papers to be prepared by drummond Street for the Family & Child Support Policy Branch of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) under its Child Support Policy – Community Strategy.
This is a case study, along with the recommendations presented to FaHCSIA, and is a companion piece to an overview of the whole paper.
The paper was written by Kristie Dunn, with input from drummond street staff Jess Black, Reima Pryor, Zoe Stafford and CEO Karen Field, along with additional information sourced from the Child Support Agency, and independent family law practitioners.
Case study scenario presented to CSA case manager – 25 November 2010
Kate and Helen
Partners for 12 years. Separated 12 Nov 2010.
Two kids – same known donor, self-insemination at home, birth mother for both is Kate, Helen on birth certificate for one year old but not for five year old (no second parent recorded).
Kids are staying full time with Kate, two nights per week with Helen.
Kate enquiring about whether Helen has liability under the Act.
Called up on 25 November 2010 and presented basic information. The case manager was polite and helpful and responded that she had never dealt with a same-sex application so would seek advice from the technical support team. She then conveyed the advice that because the conception of the children had taken place at home, they were not covered by the Act. When quizzed about this, she replied that she didn’t think that was correct either but that that was the advice she’d been given and that she would look into it and call back. She did so a few days later and said she didn’t have any further advice but asked for a copy of the parenting plan to show details of how the conception took place. In a further follow up conversation on 8 December 2010 the case manager confirmed that the technical support team would not provide any advice on eligibility without a parenting plan being produced.
The advice given to the case manager in this situation is clearly wrong and in conflict with other information provided on the CSA website (for example the CSA Guide clearly states that home insemination is covered by section 5). The requirement that a parenting plan be submitted is quite invasive and does not appear to be warranted as it does not prove any of the essential factors: namely, were the parties in a de facto relationship at the time of conception and did the co-parent consent. This experience was concerning as it suggested that staff, while doing their best, are not being provided with accurate information from the technical support team within the CSA and that this could lead to applicants potentially being discouraged from pursuing a child support application.
Recommendations:
That FaHCSIA implement the following measures within the CSA to remove impediments to access the CSA by same-sex families:
- Introduce methods of tracking same-sex family applications within CSA databases to monitor any impediments to access
- Clarify the evidentiary requirements for same-sex couples in relation to the definition of parent and provide that information on the website and in information materials
- Improve agency understanding and communication of issues around separated same-sex couples’ access to the CSA by:
- Implementing specific training for CSA case managers by specialist LGBTI support agencies on the legal and evidentiary requirements and the cultural impact of the same-sex reforms
- Employing designated same-sex relationship advice team within technical support team, as below, to be accessed by CSA case managers on a needs basis
- Improve community understanding of issues around separated same-sex couples’ access to the CSA by:
- Employing designated same-sex relationship advice team within technical support team of CSA until no longer required
- Producing targeted communication materials for the queer community in relation to child support
- Information brochures, web materials, talks, events advertised in queer and mainstream media and through community organisations, maternal child health centres, government agencies, family relationship centres, schools, doctors’ surgeries etc
-
- Employing queer community liaison officers within the CSA to inform and educate key community stakeholders about the changes to the Act and its extension to same-sex families
Read the Complete Policy Paper here.
Funded by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
The opinions, comments and/or analysis expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), and cannot be taken in any way as expressions of Government policy
