I have recently undergone a coa and ssat hearing in relation to this. In my instance traval was 89% of my child support amount. Neither csa or ssat reduced child support amount because of travel utilising the grey area of the law in the act which states "can be considered" ie they asked the mother and she said no.  Unless a judge specifically states travel is to be in lieu of child support or Travel costs to be reduction of child support they will not consider it. Afterall they are a free debt collection service for the resident parent paid for by the taxpayer as they consider all non resident parents to be people who do not want to support there children financially.

Interestingly many years ago when my ex left my children with me for a weekend and did not pick them up until a month later I attended at a centrelink office and was refused assistance as I did not have a court order however all a mother has to do is go in and say the relationship has ended and she gets immediate assistance and goes to the top of the housing list etc. All of these examples of how government policy and staff interpretation affects outcomes for children and non resident parents.

Thanks Mike T.  At the moment it is about 13% of father's income.
The reason I asked is because we get the feeling that CSA is not going to view it as an expense (in our cross application to the COA) because it IS court ordered. To us this seems ludricrous. We thought we might be able to get around it by visiting the kids in NSW rather than bringing them to QLD.

Ajae said

The court orders state "that father takes full responsibility for the cost of travel of the children from NSW to him in Qld and return for the purpose of visitation with the children  (two thirds of all school holidays" = 51.4 days).  And therefore will not be classed as an expense by C$A.

Ajae, it's got nothing to with whether or not it's classed as an expense or whether or not it's the parent or children who do the travel. It is the costs associated with spending time with or communicating with a child or children that can be claimed. If those costs are greater than 5% of the parent's adjusted taxable income then the amount above the threshold, if significant, should be used to adjust the assessment.

With regard to the costs being court ordered, then the guide, under the guise of "just and equitable" the following is said :-

CSA Guide (extract) - 2.6.7: Reason 1 - high costs in enabling a parent to spend time with, or communicate with, a child said

In considering if it would be just and equitable to change the assessment CSA will consider any court orders made regarding the management of spending time with, or communicating with, the child, especially where the court order directs that costs be shared.

To me that indicates the opposite, that is that if the costs are shared the matter will undergo a "just and equitable" test.

From what I have heard few parents were willing to enter the biased and unjust world of the change of assessment, as the CSA would more than likely have found some way of applying an unjust inflated income to more than compensate for any reduction due to such costs, myself included (prior to the legislation change that changed the test amount from the CS paid to the Adjusted Taxable Income).

The court orders state "that father takes full responsibility for the cost of travel of the children from NSW to him in Qld and return for the purpose of visitation with the children  (two thirds of all school holidays" = 51.4 days).  And therefore will not be classed as an expense by C$A.

The kids are now teenagers and we don't expect them to want to spend that amount of time with dad anymore. However, if dad goes to NSW to see the kids a few times per year could the costs of travel then be classed as an expense??

Thanks,

ajae