Changing coverage of the Child Support Program and implications for research on separated parents

Overview

Reports generated from the Child Support Program database are key sources of information for researchers exploring aspects of post-separation parenting and child support paid and received. A strength of this dataset is that it covers nearly a decade, so can be used to analyse trends and includes a large population of separated and never partnered parents. A limitation of this data, however, is that it only includes information on children/families that have engaged with the Child Support Program.

Over time, the number of children covered by the Child Support Program has declined relative to the number of children with separated parents. This report presents an overview of how these numbers have changed and discusses the implications for drawing conclusions based on these data. This analysis uses reports generated from the Child Support Program from 2015 to 2024.

Key messages

• The number of active cases in the Child Support Program (CSP) has steadily declined from 2015 to 2024 by nearly 10.5% (from 711,820 to 636,930). The number of children in the CSP has also declined, a decrease of 10% during the period from 1,089,380 to 976,690.
• This is inconsistent with demographic changes, which indicate separated families have increased in number. According to census data, the number of children aged 0-17 years living with only one biological/adoptive parent (as an estimate of children from separated families) increased by 6% between 2016 and 2021 (from 1,127,600 to 1,195,300).
• The representation of children aged 0-17 years from separated families in the CSP data, as derived from these CSP and census data, is estimated to have fallen from 95% to 87% between 2016 and 2021. The decline in coverage according to these data is particularly notable for children aged under 5 years (from 77% to 62% for 0-2 year olds and 97% to 85% for 3-4 year olds).
• Changes in eligibility for Family Tax Benefit (FTB) Part A may have played a role in declining CSP numbers, given that separated parents need to register with the CSP to receive more than the base rate of FTB Part A (unless exemptions apply). The analysis confirmed that FTB Part A has become more targeted to lower-income families, with the higher income threshold for families having declined between 2015 and 2024 when adjusted for inflation.
• The analysis of family incomes for children with separated parents shows this is more likely to have affected separated parents who have re-partnered rather than single parents, with family incomes in couple families more often outside eligibility for more than the base rate of FTB Part A. This suggests some of the decline in CSP numbers may be related to the changes in eligibility to FTB Part A but most separated parents are single parents, and it is likely to only be relevant for a small percentage who have relatively high incomes.
• This analysis has highlighted the complexities of understanding the links between FTB and the CSP. Such complexities could not be fully explored with the data available. It is critically important to understand the key drivers of the decline in the CSP coverage and how separated parents, especially the parents who are the main carers of their children, meet the financial needs of their children.

Introduction

Background

Following the introduction of the Child Support Scheme (CSS) in 1988, the number of child support cases increased considerably throughout the 1990s, with further increases in case numbers continuing through the early 2000s. From around 2014, the child support case numbers began to decline. The Department of Social Services (DSS), in their 2023-24 annual report, reported that the number of child support cases had dropped in recent years. For example, the number fell by 27,626 from 755,077 in 2020-21 to 727,451 in 2023-24. From an earlier annual report, the number of cases in 2015-16 was 783,078.¹ This downward trend is inconsistent with the population trend, with census data indicating that the number of one-parent families with dependents (representing the majority of separated families) increased between 2016 and 2021 (Qu & Baxter, 2023).

Given the decline in case numbers, this report considers how the characteristics of the population using the scheme have changed. It examines the extent to which cohorts of families are using the scheme now compared to nearly a decade ago. This report focuses on the changes over the 9-year period from 2015 to 2024, for which detailed data were available when this report was prepared.

The report is based on a set of customised tables extracted from the Child Support Evaluation Database (CSED), a data extract of the Child Support Program (CSP) from the Services Australian Enterprise Data Warehouse.² The customised data, provided in tabular rather than unit record form, do not allow detailed analysis or linkage with other datasets. They have therefore been used to provide a descriptive account of how the CSP population has changed, comparing these characteristics to some related trends from other data sources. More detailed work with the CSP data, linked with other administrative data, would assist to answer questions about the changing coverage of the CSS but have not to date been available to researchers.

Knowing how the population has changed is important in the interpretation of research that draws on this dataset. The CSP data are often used by researchers to describe trends in post-separation care-time arrangements (e.g. Qu & Baxter, 2026). In that research, we adjusted for the changing age composition of children in the CSP data. Our analysis may have nevertheless been impacted by the changing coverage of the CSP, particularly if the data are increasingly representative of families with particular care time arrangements.

The changing CSP numbers also have other implications. They may suggest, for example, that some groups of separated parents are not engaging with CSP to the extent they have previously. Other research highlights some of the ways that the CSP presents challenges for some separated mothers, potentially creating disincentives to use the CSP. See, for example, Cook et al. (2023) for an examination of CSP and its potential role in contributing to financial abuse. Although this research cannot provide insights on how such experiences are affecting participation in the CSP, gaining an awareness of who is not engaging with the CSP will point to where further research may be needed to understand how parents are negotiating post-separation parenting.

Child support and the Child Support Program

Services Australia administers the Child Support Scheme via the Child Support Program (CSP). Separated parents can register with the CSP to obtain an assessment of how much child support should be paid by one parent to the other. This assessment is based on a formula that takes account of both parents' income and the amount of time spent in direct care of children by each parent as well as current costs of raising children (e.g. taking account of the number and age of children).³

It is not mandatory for separated parents to use this program, although for those applying for government financial support through the Family Tax Benefit (FTB), it is required to access more than the base rate of FTB Part A, unless they are in certain circumstances that deem child support assessment not appropriate (e.g. in cases of intimate partner violence, where the other parent is unknown, etc.).⁶ Further detail is provided in the Family Tax Benefit and Child Support section below.

The CSP can also facilitate the collection and transfer of child support payments between parents (referred to as 'agency collect'). An alternative arrangement is for separated parents registered with the CSP to instead manage their own transfers of child support payments (referred to as 'private collect').

The proportion of separated parents who are not using the CSP, who are making their own arrangements or not seeking financial support from the other parent, is not exactly known, and the analysis in this report attempts to explore how coverage may have changed. There are 2 contextual factors that may have an impact on child support coverage and the number of parents using the CSP: FTB eligibility (given mandatory child support assessment for separated parents receiving more than base rate of this payment); and the size of the separated parent population.

Family Tax Benefit Part A and child support

FTB Part A is designed to help eligible families with the cost of raising children, with separate income tests applying to the base rate and the maximum rate of FTB Part A. Changes to income tests over the years have meant that FTB Part A has been increasingly targeted to lower income families. Klapdor (2022) reported that, in 2007-08, about 75% of families with children under 16 years received FTB Part A and, by 2017-18, around 53% of families received FTB Part A, showing a considerable decline in coverage of FTB Part A over this period.

In applying for more than the base rate of FTB Part A, separated parents are required to take 'reasonable maintenance action'. The 'maintenance action test' (MAT) ascertains whether separated parents have taken reasonable action to obtain maintenance from the other parent. It is assessed by Services Australia. Some key actions in the MAT include lodging (and completing) an application for child support and taking action to establish parentage for the child. Parents can be exempted from the MAT in particular circumstances, including fear of violence and unknown parentage.

If the MAT is not satisfied (and parents are not exempt), separated parents cannot receive more than the base rate of FTB Part A (and this can impact Commonwealth Rent Assistance also where the MAT is failed for all children).⁵ The 2020-21 DSS annual report (2021, p. 34) says 'The Maintenance Action Test seeks to influence low to middle income payees to apply for a child support assessment to ensure their children receive financial support from both parents and through Family Tax Benefit.' This means that if parents are eligible for a higher rate of FTB Part A, they would be incentivised to register with the CSP rather than making child support arrangements outside the CSP.⁶

The DSS (2024) estimated that 82% of separated parents accessing FTB Part A met the MAT requirements (including those deemed exempt) in 2023-24, a lower proportion compared to previous years (e.g. 85% in 2021-22). In the 2022-23 annual report (2023, p. 38), the DSS noted that the proportion was lower for children aged under 5 years but was comparatively high (over 90%) when children were aged between 11 and 17 years.

The MAT was also explored in the 2023-24 Report to Government by the Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee.⁷ Using administrative data, they reported that 71% of separated FTB Part A recipients had passed the MAT and were eligible for a higher rate of FTB. Another 14% were exempted so also eligible for the higher rate, with the main reasons being fear of violence and unknown parentage. Another 14% had failed the MAT. The report noted that most who failed were single parents (93%) and 61% received an income support payment.

Parents who are not eligible for FTB also use the CSP to have a child support assessment, and some will use the CSP to collect and transfer child support payments. With the number of CSP cases declining, one question is whether this decline has been among FTB recipients and/or among those who are not receiving FTB. With FTB increasingly targeted to lower income families, there may be more separated families outside the FTB system weighing up the benefits of using the CSP over making completely private arrangements. We will explore this later in the report (see the section on Family Incomes and Family Tax Benefit trends).⁸

Population and family composition trends

This report is about changes in the population registered with the CSP. As this program is relevant to separated parents with children under 18 years, 2 demographic factors that relate to the trends concern population change (in respect to the number of children in particular age groups) and family composition change (in respect to the extent to which children have separated parents). We consider, for example, whether the declining CSP numbers may reflect there being fewer children overall or fewer children with separated parents over time.

Overall, there was an increase rather than decrease in the total number of children over time. In total, the population estimate (using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimated resident population) for children aged 0-17 years was 5.4 million in 2015, increasing to 5.8 million in 2024 (June quarter). Within this broad age group, the population shifted to be slightly older. The number of 0-2 year olds in Australia declined from about 930,600 to 897,500 (a decline of 3.6%). The population of 3-4 year olds also declined from 622,000 to 609,700 (a decline of 1.7%). There were increases at older ages. Such changes reflect trends in fertility and trends in the number of adults in childbearing age ranges, which is relevant when considering the changing age profile of children in the CSP population.

Regarding family compositional change, some population estimates are presented in the section Children and Family Composition later in this report. The aim of this is to explore whether there has been a decline, between 2016 and 2021 (census years), in the number of children with separated parents, which may contribute to declines in the CSP population. This number is not expected to have declined, since we know from ABS statistics that the number of single parent families has increased over this period. For example, at June 2024 there were 740,900 single parent families with dependants, which was an increase of 88,800 compared to 2015.⁹ Throughout this report, in referring to separated families or separated parents, this includes those in which parents have never been partners as well as those who have separated from a cohabiting or marital relationship.

Focus of this report

This research report provides an overview of CSP cases, and children covered by the program, using data from 2015 to 2024. The analysis uses customised tables derived from the Child Support Evaluation Database (CSED), a data extract of CSP data from the Services Australia Enterprise Data Warehouse.

Focusing on the period 2015 to 2024, this report seeks to answer the following questions:

• Given the declining case numbers, what characteristics of parents or children covered by the CSP data have changed, including payment collect methods, age profile of children in the child support cases and care time arrangements?
• Are there broader changes in the population that might help explain the decline in CSP numbers?
• Is the changing coverage of FTB a factor in the changing CSP numbers?

Given the nature of the data provided, this report is not able to provide definitive answers for the changing CSP numbers. Rather, the aim is to provide useful background information for those using the CSP data for research, and to provide some insights on the CSP for policy makers.

Data

This paper uses CSP administrative data. Customised tables were provided by the Performance and Evaluation Branch in the Department of Social Services (DSS) covering the period from June 2015 to June 2024. The data used include child support case level data, payee/payer level data, and child level data. These analyses included active cases; that is, Child Support Program cases with a current liability.

Each child support case involves separated parents, generally with one parent as payer and the other as payee.¹⁰ Some of the analysis presented here uses only the perspective of the child support payee or payer where appropriate. Most payees are mothers and most payers are fathers.¹¹ A case may cover one child or multiple children so, in analysing these data, the number of cases is less than the number of children. The data include information on each parent's income and gender, and information on children's ages and the care time arrangements of those children.

There is likely to be some inaccuracy in the recorded information about care time arrangements. Parents themselves need to notify the CSP of changes to children's care arrangements so, to the extent that this is not done, the data will contain out-of-date information. This could be particularly the case if the impact of changes on the child support amount is not seen by parents to be significant. A party (often payees) may wish to avoid any further engagement with their children's other parent and so may not report changes.

As well as parent-reporting impacts on data quality, there can be delays in the timeliness of administrative processes after the report of any changes. Some details will update automatically, such as when updated income data are provided to Services Australia from the Australian Tax Office. Other updates will be delayed where the process involves more complex steps.

The focus of this report is on children up to 18 years because child support payments normally stop when children turn 18. However, a small number of children covered by the CSP are 18 years or older, as the program may extend to older ages in specific circumstances; such as, if the child is aged 18 and in full-time secondary education, child support can be extended until the end of the secondary school year.

In describing and analysing the changes in the broader context relevant to child support, some additional data are drawn from the census (ABS data from Tablebuilder for 2016 and 2021).

As noted in the introduction, the CSP data cannot be linked to other datasets (such as the census) to allow a detailed analysis of which families receive child support. The analysis is therefore descriptive, presented to document the change and explore whether there are obvious factors contributing to the decline in the numbers using the CSP.

Child support numbers and characteristics

This section presents the numbers of CSP cases and the number of children in the CSP in the period June 2015 to June 2024. It presents the trends overall and by collect method, care time arrangements and children's ages. These aggregate statistics provide some broad indication of how the CSP population has changed over this period. We finish this section with reference to parents' incomes, with that analysis in Appendix B of the report.

Recent trends: case numbers and child numbers

As described in the introduction, the number of cases in the CSP has declined from 2015 to 2024. There were 711,820 cases in June 2015, and the number had declined to 636,930 by June 2024, a decrease of 10.5%. Consistent with the fall in the number of cases, the number of children in the CSP fell from 1,089,380 in June 2015 to 976,690 in June 2024, a decrease of 10% - see Figure 1 and more detailed data for this period in Appendix A. The detailed data show that each of these trends involved a steady decline over this period.

Figure 1: Numbers of CSP cases and children in CSP declined between 2015 and 2024
CSP case numbers and child numbers, June 2015 and June 2024

Note: Child numbers include a small number of children aged 18 years and older (<1%).
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

While the period of COVID-19 related restrictions is within the time range explored with these data, there was no apparent significant change in numbers around that time. Therefore, this report does not include any analysis focusing on potential impacts of COVID-19 on the CSP.

Payment collect methods

As noted earlier, through the CSP, parents may privately arrange the direct transfer of child support payments from the paying parent to the receiving parent (referred to as 'private collect'). Or this transfer may be facilitated through the CSP at Services Australia (referred to as 'agency collect').

Figure 2 shows that the number of cases for these 2 payment collect methods fell between 2015 and 2024. The decrease was greater for private collect cases (from 366,800 in June 2015 to 314,260 in June 2024, a 14% decline) than for agency collect cases (from 345,030 in June 2015 to 322,670 in June 2024, a 6% decline). In June 2015, private collect cases outnumbered agency collect cases (51.5% cf. 48.5%) but, by June 2024, there was a more even split between the 2 (49.3% vs 50.7%). (See Appendix A for the full trend data.)

Figure 2: The number of private collect cases has fallen more than the agency collect case number
CSP case numbers by payment type, June 2015 and June 2024

Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

Care time arrangements

The amount of time that children live with each parent is a key factor in assessing the amount of child support to be transferred between parents. Figure 3 shows the number of child support recipients (payees) at June 2015 and June 2024 for each of the categories of care time arrangements. For the child support formula, the amount of care time is classified under 5 categories:

• below regular care (0%-13% of nights a year)
• regular care (14%-34%)
• shared care (35%-65%)
• primary care (66%-86%)
• above primary care (87%-100%).

There has been a noticeable decline in the number of payees who have above primary care of the children, from 462,720 to 388,780 between June 2015 and June 2024. There has also been an increase in the number with shared care of children (from 69,510 to 87,320), which is mainly in the equal time category (from 39,310 to 54,615, data not shown in the figure). This increase, though, does not compensate for the decline in the number who have above primary care.

The nature of these data, being cross-sectional and not linked to other data sources, means we cannot be certain of the reasons for the change in the CSP population. Thinking about the broader population of separated parents (including those who are not registered with the CSP), some possible explanations for the decline in the population overall and, in the CSP cases, involving one parent having more than primary care are listed below. Each of these may contribute to the declines to some degree:

• There may be fewer separated parents with above primary care of their children.
• Separated parents may increasingly be choosing arrangements that see children spending some time with both parents. The increase in the number with shared care suggests that is happening a little but it is not reflected in the other categories.
• It might also be that some parents with above primary care of children are opting out of the child support program, so not covered in these data at all.
• Another possibility is that recent cohorts of separated parents may have different care arrangements than older cohorts, although this point cannot be examined with current data. Smyth and Chisholm (2024) examined the trend in shared care (defined as 30%-70% of nights with each parent) among new CSP children over the last 2 decades (excluding those with sole residence; that is, all nights with one parent) and found a moderate shift towards shared care.

We have no visibility of separated parents and their children outside the CSP and how they arranged care time for their children.

Figure 3: There has been a drop in above primary care and an increase in shared care among payees
Counts of care categories for payees, June 2015 and June 2024

Notes: A small number of payees appear in the 'below regular care' (0%-13%) and 'regular care' (14%-34%) categories. These cases can occur where parents are involved in multiple child support cases with different care arrangements, or where updates to administrative care time records are not yet reflected in the dataset at the time of extraction. Care time categories are not exactly mutually exclusive as a payee may have children in different care categories and so appear in more than one categories. The denominator (the number of payees) includes those without a care amount. Child support children include small numbers of children aged 18+ years.
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Program data

Looking further at this by exploring the numbers by collect method, Table 1 summarises the data for payees. The final columns, with the ratio of 2024 to 2018, show where the numbers have increased (if >100%) or decreased (if <100%).¹² Among those payees with primary care or above primary care of the children, the decline in numbers was greater for those having used private collect compared to those with agency collect. That is, the numbers of separated parents in the CSP with primary care or above primary care of children and making their own arrangements for transferring child support payment have declined more markedly.

There was also a decline for agency collect in the groups with primary care or above primary care, so it does not appear that these above primary care parents are shifting to agency collect. Again, the changes could reflect separated parents increasingly making arrangements that see both parents spending time with children. Without longitudinal data, it is not possible to ascertain whether this is happening.

The increase for shared care was most apparent among those using agency collect, although the numbers increased also for private collect. This was the only category of care time arrangements that experienced an increase in private collect and agency collect numbers.

Notes: A small number of payees appear in the 'below regular care' (0%-13%) and 'regular care' (14%-34%) categories. These cases can occur where parents are involved in multiple child support cases with different care arrangements, or where updates to administrative care time records are not yet reflected in the dataset at the time of extraction. The total is the total case numbers. Care time categories are not exactly mutually exclusive as a payee may have children in different care categories and appear in multiple categories. Also see note for Figure 3.
Source: Child Support Program data (data.gov.au)

Further analyses of these care time arrangement data, also by age of child, are presented in Qu and Baxter's (2026) care time arrangements report.

Children in the CSP by age

Figure 1, above, showed a decline between June 2015 and June 2024 in the number of children in the CSP. We mentioned in the report's introduction that, over this period, there has been an increase in the 0-17 year age group population overall but the age distribution of children has become a little older. There were declines in the population numbers for younger children.

Figure 4 presents the CSP child numbers by age group, showing that the decline in children in the CSP has been more at younger ages, among children aged under 10 years.

• The number aged 0-2 years dropped from 85,765 to 54,000, a large decline of 37%.
• The number aged 3-4 years dropped from 94,590 to 67,420, a decline of 29%.
• The number aged 5-9 years dropped from 314,110 to 257,730, a decrease of 18%.

The declines in CSP children for these age groups are much greater proportionally than the decline in the overall population figures for these age groups. For example, the decline in the estimated residential population for both 0-2 year olds and 3-4 year olds was 2%-4%.¹³

Declines were not apparent for older children covered by the CSP. The number aged 10-11 and 12-14 years in the CSP remained steady, and the number in the 15-17 years age group increased a little (from 232,940 to 237,095).

Reflecting the decline in the number of children at younger ages, between 2015 and 2024 the age profile of children in the CSP became older. In June 2015, children aged 0-9 years outnumbered those aged 12-17 years (494,465 cf. 452,745). By June 2024, this had reversed and children aged 12-17 years outnumbered those aged 0-9 years. Specifically:

• The proportions of children in the age groups under 10 years declined. In June 2015, 45% of children were aged under 10 years; the proportion fell to 39% by June 2024. The decline was evident for each of the 3 younger age groups:
  • 0-2 years from 7.9% to 5.5%
  • 3-4 years from 8.7% to 6.9%
  • 5-9 years from 28.8% to 26.4%.
• By contrast, the proportions of children aged 10-17 years rose from 55% in June 2015 to 61% in June 2024. The increase applied to all 3 older age groups.

These distributional changes are driven by the smaller numbers at younger ages.

Figure 4: The decline in child numbers has been more at the younger ages
Number of children in the CSP by age group, June 2015 and June 2022

Note: See notes for Figure 2.
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

Collect methods and children's ages

We reported earlier that the decline in the number of CSP cases from June 2015 to June 2024 was somewhat greater for the private collect payment cases, although it was also apparent for agency collect cases. Figure 5 shows how collect method has changed over this period for each of the child age groups, noting that in the findings above total declines have been greater for younger children.

• Within the 0-4 years age group there was a large decline in the number in private collect, from about 118,700 to 78,500, a drop of 34%. There was also a decline in the number in agency collect but it started at a lower point, from around 62,000 to 43,000, a drop of 31%.
• Trends were similar for the 5-9 years age group, that had also started with a higher number in private collect, which declined considerably (173,600 dropping to 137,200, a drop of 21%). The drop for agency collect was from 140,500 to 120,600, a drop of 14%.
• At older ages, changes were less marked according to collect method. There was a small decrease in the private collect number among those aged 10-14 years but a small increase in the agency collect number. There was also a small increase in the agency collect number for children aged 15 years and over.

Figure 5: The decline in numbers was largest for younger children in private collect
Number of children by age and collect methods, June 2015 and June 2024

Note: The data on number of CSP children by age from data.gov.au is by 5-year age group.
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset for 2015 and Child Support Program data (data.gov.au) for 2024

Parental incomes

Aggregated child support data provided by the DSS included median incomes of payers and payees in June 2015 and June 2024, by age of youngest child and care time arrangements. A summary of these data, for 2 time points, is presented in Appendix B, with incomes adjusted for inflation.

Overall, we found that the incomes of separated mother payees and father payers in CSP increased between 2015 and 2024, taking account of inflation. Mothers' income increases were consistent with the increasing employment of mothers (including single mothers) - a trend that is apparent from labour force data. Incomes vary with care time arrangements, with mother payees with above primary care of their children having lower incomes than mother payees with primary care or shared care. Father payers who have below regular care have lower incomes compared to father payers in regular care or shared care.

This analysis was done with a view to seeing whether there was a change in the incomes of parents using the CSP, which might indicate something about separated parents choosing to use CSP rather than not use CSP. Without information on the counterfactual, however, it proved difficult to be conclusive about how the observed trends might contribute to our understanding of the changing CSP population.

Summary of overall changes in the CSP

This section documented the decline from 2015 to 2024 in the number of active cases in the CSP and the number of children in the CSP. The decline in CSP cases is apparent for both private collect cases and agency collect cases but is more pronounced for private collect cases. It was especially apparent that the number of young children in private collect declined over this period.

The examination of care time arrangements from the payees' perspective reveals that the drop in payees with above primary care of children has been the greatest change, while the number with shared care has increased.

The age profile of children in the CSP has become older. This change reflects that the number of younger children in the CSP has declined, while the number in older age groups has remained stable or increased slightly. As a proportion of the total, in June 2015, there were more children aged under 10 years than those aged 12-17 years. By June 2024 this pattern had reversed.

Linking contextual trends and child support

In the earlier section Population and Family Composition Trends we described some of the factors relevant to an exploration of changes in the CSP population. Here we explore these in more detail to set out trends in family composition and trends in income and FTB access by families. The objective is to explore whether these factors help to explain the declining CSP numbers.

Children and family composition

Overall trends from the census

This section presents findings from AIFS analysis of family composition at 2 censuses (2016 and 2021). These dates are within the time period covered by the CSP data.

In 2021, of all 0-17 year olds living at home:¹⁴

• 76.1% lived with 2 biological/adoptive parents (3,864,728 children)
• 18.3% lived with one biological/adoptive parent (929,375 children)
• 3.8% lived with 2 parents, one being a step-father (191,455 children)
• 1.5% lived with 2 parents, one being a step-mother (74,428 children)
• a small number (0.4%) were in foster or single-step-parent families (18,748 and 2,271 children respectively).

In total there were 1,195,258 children who were living with only one biological/adoptive parent at 2021. This provides an estimate of the number of children who may have had separated parents for which child support could be relevant.¹⁵ This represents about 1 in 4 children living at home (23.5%).

In comparison, for children aged under 18 years living at home in 2016:

• 75.8% lived with 2 biological/adoptive parents (3,594,848).
• 18.6% lived with one biological/adoptive parent (881,706 children)
• 3.9% lived with 2 parents, one being a step-father (185,138 children)
• 1.3% lived with 2 parents, one being a step-mother (60,792 children)
• 0.4% lived with a foster parent (17,157) or a single step-parent (1,803 children).

The total number of children who were living with only one biological/adoptive parent was 1,127,636 or 23.8% of children under 18 years living at home in 2016. This number was higher in 2021 compared to 2016, with an increase of 6%. As a proportion of all children, the proportion living with only one parent declined slightly from 2016 to 2021. Of children who were not living with both biological/adoptive parents, a majority were living with a single parent (78% in both 2016 and 2021).

There is an age pattern to these statistics, shown in Figure 6 for 2021. A majority of children lived with both biological/adoptive parents across all ages but they were increasingly exposed to the likelihood that parents would separate as they grew older. Therefore, living in a one-parent family became more common with increasing age. For example:

• Overall, 89% of children aged under one year were living with both biological/adoptive parents, 9.4% were living with only one biological/adoptive single parent, 1.5% were living with 2 parents, one a step-parent and the other biological/adoptive. Smaller proportions were living with a foster parent.
• By the age of 17 the proportion living with a biological/adoptive single parent was 25%, and the proportion living in a couple family with a biological mother plus a step-father was 3.8% (up from 0.8%).

See AIFS Family Facts and Figures for another perspective on family composition and Baxter (2016) for analysis of LSAC data.

Figure 6: The proportion of children living with both biological/adoptive parents declined with children's age, 2021
Children's relationship to parents in couple and single parent families

Notes: Excludes children who were not in a couple or single parent family and those with an unspecified relationship to parents.
Source: Census 2021 (ABS unpublished data)

Relating census numbers to CSP numbers

Using the number of children aged 0-17 years who were not living with both biological parents at census night as an estimated population figure for children of separated or never partnered parents:

• In June 2016, there were 1,071,870 children under 18 years in the CSP, representing approximately 95.1% of the 1,127,636 children who were identified in the 2016 Census as living with only one biological/adoptive parent.
• In June 2021, 1,035,180 children under 18 years were in the CSP, representing approximately 86.6% of the 1,195,258 children of the same age in the 2021 Census who were living with only one biological/adoptive parent.
• If children living with only a single step-parent or foster parents are included in denominators, the representation of CSP children fell from 93.5% in 2016 to 85.1% in 2021.

While the data do not perfectly align (given the different data sources and imperfect measurement of the potential population for the CSP), the over 8.5 percentage point decline from 95.1% 'coverage' in 2016 to 86.6% 'coverage' in 2021 (or 8.4 percentage points decline from 93.5% to 85.1% if including children with only a single step-parent or foster parents) suggests that there has been an increase in the number of children in separated families who are outside of the CSP. That is, this analysis suggests the decline in the CSP numbers is not due to there being fewer children with separated parents in the population but to fewer separated parents engaging with the CSP.

When examined by child age (Figure 7), the coverage is lowest for the children aged 0-2 years, followed by the age group 3-4 years, and these coverage percentages dropped markedly between 2016 and 2021. Coverage also dropped for other age groups, where it had been close to universal in 2016.

These are not precise measures of coverage but they do suggest there has been a shift, with CSP coverage declining, especially for younger children. The declining coverage of younger children is consistent with the analysis of the CSP population, which showed proportionately greater declines in the number of young children in the CSP database.

Figure 7: Coverage of the CSP appears to be lowest for 0-2 year olds, and was markedly lower in 2021
Ratio of CSP child numbers to census counts of children not living with both biological parents, children aged 0-17 years, 2016 and 2021

Notes: The census data exclude children who were not living with a parent, not living in a couple or single parent family and those with an unspecified relationship to parents. Includes children where a biological parent may be deceased and the CSP is not applicable. Some of these children may have had parents living apart but still in a relationship (e.g, if one parent was overseas). Some children excluded from the census data may have been eligible for child support; hence, the coverage figures presented in the figure are likely overestimated.
Source: Census 2016, Tablebuilder, and place of enumeration, Census 2021 data (see footnote 15), and customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

Limitations

We note that the census data only provide information on children's living arrangements on census night. We are unable to say from the census data whether children were always, mostly or only sometimes living with the parent they were with on census night. Though for the population captured, any alternative household would not change the fact that the child is not living with both biological/adoptive parents. For example, some children would have been living with grandparents because of their parents' separation, which is not accounted for in the analysis. Understanding 'coverage' according to this information would be especially useful, to help with the interpretation of the changing patterns observed in care time arrangements among CSP cases.

The available CSP data do not break down statistics according to whether the parents are single parents or if they have re-partnered. Therefore, we cannot calculate 'coverage' separately for single parent and step-parent families.

Summary

The census data indicate that the proportion of children aged 0-17 years who were living with only one biological/adoptive parent declined slightly from 23.8% in 2016 to 23.5% in 2021. However, the number of such children increased by 6% with the numbers increasing across single parent families, couple families with a step-father, and couple families with a step-mother.

The increased population number contrasts with the decline in the number of CSP cases and children in the CSP. The analysis of CSP numbers against the census data indicates that coverage of the CSP for children aged 0-17 years from separated families likely fell in the order of 8-9 percentage points from 2016 to 2021, with the decline being most pronounced for children in the youngest age group (0-2 years).

Family incomes and Family Tax Benefit Part A

In the report's introduction we noted that one feature of the CSP is its link with FTB Part A eligibility (see Family Tax Benefit and Child Support). With FTB Part A eligibility increasingly targeted over the years to lower income families, one question this report sought to answer is whether this increased targeting, by family income, has potentially led to an increase in non-engagement or disengagement with CSP by families who are not entitled to FTB Part A or are not impacted by the MAT due to their income.

Before looking at the FTB Part A numbers, we provide an overview of family income trends using census data, which includes total annual family income classified within bands. The census captures families' income from all sources, which includes income from FTB (and other kinds of financial support). This income measure is not completely comparable with the income measure used to determine eligibility for payments (DSS uses a measure of Adjusted Taxable Income).¹⁶

This analysis uses child level data, reporting family incomes for children who are not living with 2 biological parents. For ease of describing the findings, we refer to these children as being children with separated parents. The analysis compares children living with a single parent and children living with 2 parents, one of them a step-parent.

Figure 8 shows that, each year, a large majority of children with separated parents live with single parents with family income in 1 of the 2 bottom income bands of less than $52,000 or $52,000-$78,000. The family incomes for couple families tend to be higher compared to that of single parent families. One change between 2016 and 2021 is the increased number in the highest income categories for both single and couple families.

Note that income data were collected at the 2016 and 2021 Censuses using the same income categories, so some creep up to higher categories is expected due to wages growth.¹⁷ While it is not possible to compare 'like with like' in terms of family incomes because of this, it does appear that there has been an increase in the number of children of separated parents with relatively high family incomes (i.e. relative to all children with parents living apart).

It is also worth noting that the median annual taxable income in real terms for CSP female payees increased between 2015 and 2024 (see Appendix B).

Figure 8: The number of children with separated parents with higher incomes has increased between 2016 and 2021
Family incomes in aggregate categories for children who were not living with both biological/adoptive parents, 2016 and 2021

Notes: Excludes children who are not living with parents, not living in a couple or single parent family and those with an unspecified relationship to parents. These income ranges were as collected in each census. They are not adjusted by CPI so some of the change between 2016 and 2021 relates to inflation. For example, $105,000 in 2021 equates to approximately $96,000 in 2016.
Source: Census 2016 and 2021, Tablebuilder, place of enumeration

Family Tax Benefit Part A

This section looks briefly at FTB Part A, for a period corresponding to the CSP data. FTB Part A is paid per child and the payment amount depends on family income, with the threshold set for different numbers of children at different age groups. Earlier, we described the links between FTB Part A and the CSP and noted the increased targeting of FTB Part A toward families with lower incomes. Table 2 presents the annual income thresholds for FTB Part A in 2016 and 2024.

• Those with family incomes up to the lower income free area or in receipt of an income support payment at a greater than zero rate are eligible for the maximum rate of FTB Part A.
• For those with incomes greater than the lower income free area, the maximum FTB Part A amount reduces by 20c for each dollar above the lower income free area, until either the base rate or the higher income free area (HIFA) is reached.
• Where base rate of FTB Part A is reached, the base rate is available to those with incomes up to the higher income free area, after which the rate of FTB Part A tapers off by a rate of 30 cents per dollar above the threshold.
• Where the maximum rate is subject to the 20 cents taper when family income reaches the HIFA, the FTB Part A taper rate increases to 30 cents for each dollar above the HIFA.
• Where families receive child support, the MAT may operate to reduce the maximum rate (but not base rate) of FTB Part A.

As seen in Table 2, if the 2024 thresholds are adjusted by the CPI to be in 2016 dollars, the higher income threshold has become lower, consistent with the increased targeting of FTB Part A to lower income families.

Notes: Adjusted for June 2016 prices refers to being adjusted based on CPI June quarter in 2016. Rates have been rounded. See footnote 19 for information about the maintenance income free area. Maintenance income free areas for families with both parents receiving maintenance are double those for the one parent thresholds.
Source: 3.6.1 FTB Part A - historical rates | Family Assistance Guide (dss.gov.au)

As seen above, the changes in income data suggest that some of the increase in the number of children with separated parents is accompanied by an increase in children living in families with somewhat higher incomes. With the changes in incomes evident in Figure 8, we expect there has been an increase in the number of families with separated parents who are not eligible for the maximum rate of FTB Part A or an income tested more than base rate FTB Part A or who are not eligible at all for FTB Part A. If family incomes are such that they are only eligible for the base rate of FTB Part A or not eligible at all, they may opt out of the CSP, especially if parents work out child support arrangements themselves. In either case, they would not be subject to the MAT.

Drawing on DSS administrative data, Figure 9 shows the number of parents on FTB Part A by whether they are living with a partner at June 2015 and June 2024. The number of single parents ('not partnered') who were receiving FTB Part A was stable between the 2 time points. That is, for children living in single parent families, who had a parent living elsewhere, the number who had a potential connection to the CSP through receiving FTB Part A has largely remained unchanged over this period. This suggests that, for single parents, FTB eligibility may not have contributed to the decline in the CSP numbers, although without more detailed data this cannot be validated.

The number of partnered FTB Part A recipients has fallen between 2015 and 2024. We cannot link this directly with the CSP trends, as many of the partnered FTB Part A families will comprise both biological/adoptive parents. The step-families are likely a small proportion, given the small numbers of these families overall and with lower incomes (see Figure 8). Nevertheless, the increased incomes of step-families, relative to the FTB income cut-offs, may mean there has been an increase in the number of separated families not applying for a child support assessment as they were likely ineligible for more than the base rate of FTB Part A or any FTB Part A.

Figure 9: Numbers of FTB Part A recipients have fallen for partnered recipients but not single recipients
Changes in FTB Part A recipient numbers, 2015 and 2024

Source: FTB data from data.gov.au

Summary of incomes and FTB Part A

This analysis of families' incomes and FTB Part A numbers has attempted to find out whether the income (and family composition) trends might help explain the decline in CSP numbers. We considered that if families' incomes precluded them from accessing more than the base rate of FTB Part A or deemed them ineligible entirely, then parents may see no value in meeting the MAT and engaging with the CSP. Instead, they may elect to manage the calculation of and transfer of child support payments privately.

The results broadly suggest that for most children who are in separated families, that is those living with a single parent, the increased targeting of FTB might not be relevant to explaining the fall in CSP numbers. Single parents generally have lower incomes that place them within scope for FTB receipt, and the number of single parents receiving FTB Part A has not declined over this time. We do not have visibility of whether FTB Part A recipients are receiving the base rate of FTB, more than the base rate or not receiving it at all, however.

If there has been a shift toward those who are only eligible for the base rate or less (due to income testing, aside from MAT impacts), then this could still be a factor in the numbers in the CSP decreasing. This is not unexpected given the change in the age profile of the CSP population, with larger reductions in children aged under 10 years, and with single parents of younger children having lower incomes than single parents with older children.

In addition, the numbers suggest that there may have been a decline in partnered FTB Part A recipients using the CSP for children not born to their current relationship. Without CSP data on the relationship status of parents, this is only suggested from the family income data in the census, which shows higher family incomes for children with step-parents and growth in the number of such families between 2016 and 2021. If higher income families are only eligible for the base rate of FTB (based on incomes) or not eligible at all, they may elect not to use the CSP.

Summary

Over the last decade, the number of child support cases registered in the CSP has declined, reversing the trend of increasing numbers since the start of the Child Support Scheme in 1988.

Mainly drawing on aggregated administrative CSP data, this report has documented the decline from 2015 to 2024 in the number of active cases in the CSP (from 712,800 to 636,900 cases) and the number of children in the CSP (from 1,089,400 to 976,700 children). The report has explored the changing characteristics of the children and cases in the CSP and, using this data along with census data and other FTB data, has explored possible reasons for the decline.

This summary sets out the report findings against each of the research questions introduced earlier in the report. The first question asked how the CSP population had changed, the second asked whether population level factors might explain the decline, and the third asked if the changing coverage of FTB Part A might be a factor. Final comments conclude the report.

Changing characteristics

The first question asked, given the declining case numbers, was what else has changed in the characteristics of parents or children covered by the CSP data, including payment collect methods, age profile of children in child support cases and care time arrangements?

The analysis showed changes in the characteristics of CSP cases: the age profile of children in CSP cases and care time arrangements. The age profile of children in the CSP has become older, reflecting that the number of younger children in the CSP has declined, while the number in older age groups has remained stable or increased slightly.

Regarding care time arrangements, a drop in payees with above primary care of their children was the greatest change, while the number with shared care increased. Overall, between 2015 and 2024, the number of payees with above primary care of children fell from 462,720 to 388,780. The number with shared care of children increased from 69,510 to 87,320 in this period, mainly in the equal care category (from 39,310 to 54,615). Payees with other care time arrangements were relatively stable.

The analysis also revealed that the decline in the CSP cases was apparent regardless of child support collect methods (private or agency collect), although it was more pronounced for private collect cases. Additionally, the shift towards an older age profile of children was evident for both private and agency collect cases.

In additional analysis, we explored how the incomes of separated mother payees and father payers in the CSP data had changed, along with income patterns by age of youngest child and care time arrangements. These analyses showed that the median incomes of separated mother payees and father payers increased between 2015 and 2024 across the care categories examined, taking account of inflation. For mothers, the income increases were consistent with overall trends in increasing rates of maternal employment. Differences by age of youngest child appeared also consistent with expected changes in employment participation as children grow.

Incomes varied with care time arrangements, with mother payees with above primary care of their children having lower incomes than mothers with other care time arrangements. For separated mothers with above primary care and low incomes, FTB is likely a more important source of income than it is for other mothers. Among separated father payers, the lowest median incomes were found for those in below regular care.

Population change

In considering the decline in CSP numbers, one question asked was whether broad changes in the population might help explain the decline in CSP numbers. In particular, this related to the number of separated families. Here we examined the number of children living with only one parent (biological or adoptive) as a proxy for children of separated parents. The evidence suggests the fall in CSP numbers is not explained by any change in family composition.

The analysis of census data found an increase between 2016 and 2021 in the number of children who were living with only one parent, consistent with broader trends of family composition. The numbers of children living with a single parent and living with one parent and one step-parent both increased during the period between the 2 censuses. Against the falling CSP numbers, this indicated that the coverage of CSP has declined. The representation of children aged 0-17 years from separated families fell by 8 percentage points from 93%-95% to 85%-87% between 2016 and 2021. Falls in this apparent coverage rate were particularly marked for young children.

Changing coverage of FTB Part A

Finally, we asked if the changing coverage of FTB Part A was a factor in the changing CSP numbers. This is relevant, given the link between the CSP and FTB Part A, with separated parents required to undertake the MAT (via registration with the CSP) in order to receive more than the base rate of FTB Part A. Parents may be exempt from the MAT in certain circumstances (e.g. fear of violence, unknown parentage). Separated parents may opt out of the CSP if they are not eligible for FTB Part A or if they are aware their income precludes them from more than the minimum rate of FTB Part A.

The comparison of the FTB Part A higher income free area between 2016 and 2024, when adjusted for inflation, is consistent with FTB Part A becoming more targeted over time to lower income families.

We explored whether there may be an increasing number of separated families who are ineligible for more than the base rate of FTB Part A, so therefore an increase in the number opting out of the CSP. The evidence on this is only suggestive, with available data insufficient to make conclusive statements. Overall, the data indicated that single parent families may, in general, not be impacted by the changing FTB Part A higher income threshold, given their relatively low family incomes. However, for children living in step-families (a modestly higher number in 2021) it appeared more likely that families would have incomes that place them outside the eligibility for more than the base rate of FTB Part A.

Data limitations, however, make it difficult to judge the exact role of FTB Part A in the CSP coverage decline. We further acknowledge that such decisions about opting in or out of the CSP based on FTB Part A eligibility and rates of FTB Part A payment assumes that parents have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the way FTB Part A and the CSP is connected, and of the calculation of rates of FTB Part A. This may be a more relevant issue for families whose incomes preclude them from FTB Part A completely, who may seek child support solutions without the involvement of others, including the CSP.

Final comments and next steps

This report has made use of aggregated data on the CSP, with the initial aim of AIFS' analysis to investigate changes in children's care time arrangements (see Qu & Baxter, 2026). This report aims to supplement that analysis, to summarise AIFS' explorations of the CSP data, done with a view to understanding to what extent the changing CSP population was relevant to our reporting on care time arrangements.

These investigations, while confirming that population trends were unlikely to explain the decline in CSP numbers, also highlighted the complexities in understanding the links between FTB Part A and CSP. Such complexities could not be fully explored with the data available, and questions remain about the key drivers of the fall in CSP cases.

Linked data (population data for families, with information on receipt of FTB Part A and CSP program information) would be especially useful to measure more precisely the changing coverage of the CSP across demographic groups. Further understanding parents' own decision making about child support would be of great value, including finding out about parents who are not receiving all government support they might be entitled to.

The particularly low CSP coverage of young children from separated families is worth noting. Single parents with young children are more likely to be out of the workforce or in part-time employment, compared to those with older children (Baxter, 2023) and so may have greater need for financial support. Understanding their experiences with child support arrangements and their interaction, or the lack of, with the CSP is important. Survey or interview work could capture information about parents' perceived options and decision making regarding child support receipt and claiming FTB Part A (or other income support payments).

References

Baxter, J. A. (2016). Diversity, complexity and change in children's households. In Australian Institute of Family Studies (Ed.), The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children Annual Statistical Report 2015 (pp. 41-70). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Baxter, J. A. (2023). Employment patterns and trends for families with children. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Cook, K., Byrt, A., Burgin, R., Edwards, T., Coen, A., & Dimopoulos, G. (2023). Financial abuse: The weaponisation of child support in Australia. ANROWS.

Department of Social Services (DSS). (2021). Department of Social Services annual report 2020-21. Canberra: DSS.

Department of Social Services (2023). Department of Social Services annual report 2022-23. Canberra: DSS.

Department of Social Services (2024). Department of Social Services annual report 2023-24. Canberra: DSS.

Kaspiew, R., Carson, R., Dunstan, J., De Maio, J., Moore, S., Moloney, L. et al. (2015). Experiences of Separated Parents Study (Evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. (2023). Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee 2023-24 report to government. ministers.treasury.gov.au/sites/ministers.treasury.gov.au/files/2023-04/eiac-report.pdf

Klapdor, M. (2022). Social security and family assistance. Briefing book articles, 47th Parliament. Parliamentary Library.

Qu, L., & Weston, R. (2013). Financial support for children after parental separation. In Australian Institute of Family Studies (Eds.), The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children Annual Statistical Report 2012 (pp. 13-27). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Qu, L., & Baxter, J. (2023). Family and family composition (Family facts and figures). Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Qu, L., & Baxter, J. (2026). Care time arrangements after parental separation: Latest trends. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Smyth, B. & Chisholm, R. (2024). Shared-time parenting after separation in Australia: How much does the law matter? Family Transitions. doi: 10.1080/28375300.2024.2425469

Appendix A: Trend statistics

Figure A1: The number of CSP cases has declined, especially for private collect cases
Number of cases overall and by whether child support was collected through agency or private arrangement, 2015-24

Note: For ease of presentation, the y axis starts at 300,000 rather than zero.
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

Figure A2: The number of children in the Child Support Program declined from 2015 to 2024
Number of children in the Child Support Program, June 2015-June 2024

Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

Appendix B: Incomes of separated mother payees and father payers in CSP

This appendix section provides some analyses of incomes of separated mother payees and father payers. The analyses aimed to see whether the changing incomes of CSP cases could tell us something about whether the decline in CSP numbers has been accompanied by a change in the kinds of families engaging with the program. However, while the analyses did show some changes over this time, in the absence of information about families who were not engaging with the CSP, it was difficult to assess whether trends suggested changing coverage of the program. The findings have been included here for background.

The analyses used customised tables of the CSED, on median incomes of payees and payers. As these data were provided by payee/payer gender, we focused on the main groups of female payees (referred to as separated mothers) and male payers (referred to as separated fathers). We excluded those with unknown gender. Income data were provided according to children's care time arrangements and age of youngest child.

The income data are Adjusted Taxable Income (ATI), which is the amount used in the assessment of child support amounts. The amount of child support payable is counted in the calculation of ATI. Data for June 2015 were compared to June 2024 by adjusting the June 2024 data to be in 2015 dollars.¹⁸

Separated mother payees

In considering trends in the incomes of separated mothers, it is important to note that mothers' employment rates increase with age of youngest child, reflecting return to work patterns after the birth of a child. Incomes are therefore expected to increase with age of youngest child, with increased work hours typically resulting in higher family income. This applies to single mothers and couple mothers. See, for example, Baxter (2023). Also, in considering changes over time, it is relevant that mothers' employment rates continue to increase, including within the time period examined here. This would therefore also be expected to improve the incomes of mothers over this time.

There are some interesting income trends in Figure B1 that reflect these employment patterns, with incomes higher in 2024 than in 2015, and generally increasing with age of youngest child. Overall, separated mothers' incomes were higher in 2024 compared to 2015, after adjusting for inflation, except for separated mothers with children aged 0-2 years.

Increases in income by age of youngest child, as well as reflecting mothers' return to work patterns, can reflect an age of mother effect - with incomes likely to increase as mothers progress in seniority or level in their employment.

Overall, the ratio of 2024 income adjusted to 2015 income for separated mothers (i.e. female payees) ranged from a low of 102% (i.e. 2% higher in 2024) for separated mothers with children aged 0-2 years to 136% for those with youngest child aged 5-9 years. This may reflect overall improvements in separated mothers' incomes, given increasing employment rates, or increases in the amounts received from other income sources. It may also reflect a shift in the CSP population to have greater representation of mother payees on higher incomes.

Figure B1: Mother payees' median incomes by age of youngest child
Female payees' median incomes at 2015 and 2024 (in 2015 dollars)

Notes: 2024 ATI was converted to 2015 ATI by the CPI.
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

The added information about children's care time arrangements brings in another dimension, in Figure B2. Key observations about these patterns are:

• Income differences were not apparent by care category for separated mothers with children under 3 years.
• Median incomes did not vary by care arrangement for those with youngest children aged 3-4 years in 2015. In 2024, the median incomes of separated mothers with youngest child aged 3-4 years varied by care arrangement, with higher incomes for those with shared care or primary care compared to those with above primary care.
• Mothers in above primary care of children had by far the lower incomes compared to those in primary care or shared care, except for mothers with the youngest children as noted above.

Figure B2: Mother payees' median incomes by age of youngest child and children's time with payee
Female payees' median incomes at 2015 and 2024 (in 2015 dollars), and by age of youngest child and children's time with payee

Notes: 2024 ATI was converted to 2015 ATI by the CPI. Median income for female payees in regular care or in below regular care by age of youngest child is not shown due to small numbers.
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

Separated father payers

Fathers' employment is not typically impacted by the birth of children as is the case for mothers, so income differences by age of youngest child are unlikely to reflect a return-to-work pattern. Similarly, to the extent there are differences in fathers' rates of employment over time, this is more often connected with prevailing employment conditions, rather than a trajectory as is apparent for mothers. See Baxter (2023).

Figure B3 shows gradual increases in separated fathers' incomes with age of youngest child. As noted for mothers, this may reflect incomes increasing with fathers' age. This trend was more apparent in 2015, with a much flatter profile in 2024. Comparing the median incomes of separated fathers in 2015 and 2024, there was little difference for those with youngest children aged 5 years and over but, for those with younger children, median incomes were considerably higher in 2024. This may reflect a shift in the profile of fathers (male payers) in the CSP.

Figure B3: Father payers' median incomes by age of youngest child and children's time with payer
Payers' median incomes in 2015 dollars, all male payers and by age of youngest child

Notes: 2024 ATI was converted to 2015 ATI by the CPI.
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

When median incomes of separated fathers are compared across care categories (and age of youngest child), as shown in Figure B4, incomes were highest for those with shared care and lowest for those with below regular care. When the differences between 2015 and 2024 are considered also by care time categories, there was more evidence of increases in separated fathers' incomes across these 2 time points within the categories. This was most apparent for fathers with shared care of children.

Figure B4: Father payers' median incomes by age of youngest child and children's time with payer
Payers' median incomes in 2015 dollars, all male payers and by age of youngest child and children's time with payer

Notes: 2024 ATI was converted to 2015 ATI by the CPI. Median income for male payers in primary care or in above primary care by age of youngest child is not shown separately due to small numbers.
Source: Customised tables of Child Support Evaluation Dataset

Summary

The incomes of separated mothers (female payees) in CSP increased between 2015 and 2024, taking account of inflation. Income increases are consistent with the increasing employment rates of mothers (including single mothers). Incomes varied with care time arrangements, with mothers in more than primary care of their children having lower incomes than mothers with other care time arrangements. Separated fathers' (male payers') income increases were less apparent overall but were evident when examined by care time arrangements. For separated fathers, those with shared care had the highest median incomes.