DV survivor told to pay child support to abuser she says earns $300k

A Canberra mother is sharing her experience of financial abuse to expose the ways perpetrators can inflict harm.

She is disputing Services Australia's order to pay her abuser child support, with assessors saying they might garnish her pay.

Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek's office was asked about Services Australia's approach, with a federal government spokesperson pointing to proposed reforms.

Canberra mother Chloe separated from her husband to escape domestic and family violence (DFV), but years later, the father of her children is still perpetrating financial abuse.

Beginning this month, Services Australia has told her she must make child support payments to her perpetrator, despite him currently owing her more than $15,000 in unpaid child support, and both children being under her roof.

"It's extremely tiring and debilitating, just getting up and going to work every day, having to do your best and keep a smile on your face because you're no longer going home to [DFV], but you're still living a probably worse hell," Chloe said.

Here is how situations like Chloe's can occur.

Chloe, as she has asked to be called to protect her identity, said after fleeing her perpetrator, he was able to use the legal system to "drag out the divorce for a couple of years to make it financially harder for me".

And when she first sought legal help, she said several family law firms said they could not represent her because her ex had already contacted them.

She said more than half of the financial settlement money she eventually received was swallowed up by her lawyer's fees "because he would constantly get his lawyer to write letters or demands".

Chloe's family home was sold by a bank because no one was paying the mortgage.

"Then all of the house sale funds went into the trust with the lawyers," she said.

"He wouldn't let any funds be released, even though both my lawyer and his lawyer did suggest releasing a small portion each, like $10,000 each, so that we could go on about trying to sort out our lives.

Her children lived with her perpetrator while Chloe was homeless.

During the financial settlement, Chloe said her ex refused to disclose documents.

"Even though it was court-ordered, the court just brushed it off, and he never had to do it. I had to provide bank statements; even though he was asked, he never did," she said.

"And he used that to kind of bully me, harass me, see where I was spending money so he knew what shopping centres I was going to.

"[He] would make comments to the kids about seeing things that I bought on my bank statement. So just literally to use it as another tool to stalk and harass me.

The mother, who works full-time, said the latest front she was fighting came after Services Australia said she would have to start paying her perpetrator child support from this month.

"'Don't stress [about] the money you owe him because you're employed. We will either garnish it from your pay, if you refuse to pay, or we can do a debt offset of the money that he owes you.'"

According to parenting orders, she has custody of one child full-time and the other child half of the time, and earns a salary of about $80,000. Though, she said both children prefer to be under her roof, which they currently are.

Chloe had previously disputed the amount of taxable income the father of her children had reported in a past disclosure period, and said about seven months later Services Australia's assessors calculated his annual taxable income to be above $300,000.

In his most recent disclosure, he has estimated his taxable income to be below $20,000, which is why Chloe must now pay him.

She has little confidence in the assessors determining his true income, as she believes he has now discovered a loophole in which he has added other people to his bank accounts so they cannot be viewed by Services Australia.

"When we were married, I helped run his business. So I knew exactly what was coming in and going, and then obviously during the divorce, all of a sudden it was a lot less," she said.

"I've lost a ridiculous amount of weight because I can't afford to eat, over 50 per cent of my pay goes on rent plus the bills.

"The kids have sporting activities, which he doesn't go half in. [He] just refuses to reply to messages or pay, and I don't want my kids to miss out. I'm on payment plans with everyone," she said.

Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek's office was asked whether Services Australia's handling of Chloe's case was appropriate, whether she had a message for the woman and what could be done.

A federal government spokesperson who responded did not comment on Services Australia's approach but pointed to reforms to child support announced in the May budget.

"This includes improvements to data sharing between Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office to validate the income estimates for parents and flag more quickly when these estimates are wrong," the statement read.

"This will help catch people who deliberately under-estimate their income and ensure more parents, like in this case, receive the right amount of child support and debts are less likely to be accrued."

Dr Amira Aftab, a senior lecturer at Macquarie Law School who has studied family law and gendered violence, said: "With the government's response, I suspect there'll still be this burden placed on the victim-survivor".

Dr Aftab believes there are incorrect assumptions underpinning the child support system that need to change.

"I see it as designed around this utopian ideal that separated parents will cooperate and that it's amicable.

"It really fundamentally overlooks … that family law is such a highly personal and emotive area of law, especially where children are involved," she said.

Care Financial and Consumer Law Centre chief executive Amy Kilpatrick said the proposed reforms failed to sever the child support-facilitated links between perpetrators and victim-survivors.

She said Care Financial counsellors commonly heard from clients who were being financially abused through the child support scheme.

"We believe that a reset is needed on the system whereby the nexus between someone who has left an abusive relationship in particular is broken with the perpetrator," Ms Kilpatrick said.

"And the only way to do that is for the survivor to not be dependent on the payments coming in from the perpetrator. So, once someone is assessed as needing child support … Then the money comes from the government. They should just receive the funds."

She said the paying parent would still be required to pay what they owed into the system, but crucially, it would create financial separation.