NO! My daughter is NOT dead!

NO! My daughter is NOT dead!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human rights are about recognising and respecting the inherent value and dignity of all people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine what it is like, to be officially told by the Australian Government, your biological daughter does not exist. Despite her being alive, well and part of your life.

For over 5 years the Australian Government, through the CSA, claims Legislation deems my 6 year old daughter, Zoe, a 'non-entity'. In the eyes of the administrators of this Legislation, I have no daughter, her brother no sister, our family dismembered. Her existence denied through the arch-enchanters wand, a pen. She is the living dead !   (Ironically, my daughters name means "life" )

I love my daughter, care for her, clothe, feed, educate, provide a home for her. Her brother loves her and she him. To be told my daughter, who is alive and well, does not exist is totally abhorrent, an obscene massacre of family rights.

All roads lead back.

I raised complaint of this offensive and disgraceful situation with the CSA some years back. They claim they only administer the legislation as written by politicians. They refuse to escalate the issue and refuse to discuss it. An appeal to a tribunal determined the Agency correctly enacts the legislation and it is their prerogative to take the matter further or not.

The Ombudsman viewed it as an agency 'policy' issue and would not intervene. Human Rights Commission deemed it a 'domestic' issue and referred it back to the agency. My local Parliamentary Representative, referred it to the Minister in charge, who referred it back to the agency to decide. My sons mother, who can request my daughter to be taken into consideration, a request that may not be accepted, refuses to because it would adversely affect her financially of a few dollars a week.

In the five years I have been fighting to rectify this abomination, I have found all roads lead back to the CSA and their interpretation of the Legislation they administer. Supporters within suppressed. Outsiders hindered or cowered at the Agency's monopolised stronghold.

Penalty.

Because the Australian Government refuses to recognise my daughters existence, her rights and that of her family, my costs of caring for her is not taken into consideration. I am seen to have only one child and must pay support based on calculations accordingly. This in effect creates an unjust imbalance. Effectively, my expenses in providing a comfortable home for my family of two children is penalised. My sons mother on the other hand benefits beyond an acceptable level.

Options?

The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period. - Oriana Fallaci

I have no options to correct this situation , merely adverse alternatives. The overriding principles in any Australian child related legislation is the "best interests of the child is paramount" and the 'parents are in the best position to determine the childs best interests.' These principles I agree with and uphold, unfortunately the Government doesn't.

1. The CSA suggests to register my daughter with them. This from an Agency well known for polarising parents. Both myself and my daughters mother, have determined it is not in our daughters 'best interest' to involve a meddling third party. We have a private agreement for care and financial support.

2. Make a deal with my sons mother. Incentives for an ex-partner is based in Legislation, negating private negotiation. Any agreement could only be achieved through a court of law at a considerable cost, promoting hostility in an already unfriendly situation. Any such action infers individual fault, relieving blame on the Governments lack of due care and consideration.

3. Take the Government to court. I'm a battler, $50,000 plus in court costs is an insurmountable amount to come by. It's a cost that outweighs any personal long term financial benefit.

4. Allow situation to continue. I am a father, a man, a member of society, a human, I cannot allow such an incomprehensible sanctioned corruption of the family unit to continue, nor should you.


Help

As an individual, I have discovered I cannot alone breach the walls of the Government or the CSA they have empowered beyond belief. So I appeal to all to assist in rectifying my daughters right to be formally recognised. For her to be instated formerly in the family unit and retrospectively so.

Due to Privacy Laws, the Agency will not discuss this matter with any outsiders. But if enough people knock and tie up their time in having to answer, they may be willing to open discussion with me. Please feel free to phone, mail or email Harry Hemmes and/or the Agency's General Manager requesting he instigate the enactment of my daughters rights.
____________________

Phone:
CSA's GM's Direct line: Your international dialing code XXXX + 61 2 6272 8355

Harry Hemmes Direct line: Your international dialing code XXXX + 61 3 9293 1808

CSA 131 272 (local call charge within Australia excluding mobile and public phones)
(long option list - ignore and wait to it finishes and you get through)
Within New Zealand 0800 440 953 (freecall)
From other countries* +61 131 272 or
+61 3 6216 0864 (International call charges apply)
Fax (02) 6272 8898

website contact form- https://www.csa.gov.au/contact/form.aspx
email; harry.hemmes@csa.gov.au ; harry.hemmes@humanservices.gov.au ; csa@csa.gov.au
.
Sample email.

Att: Harry Hemmes, CSA Team Leader, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.

CC: CSA General Manager

Re: Zoe has Rights!

Dear Harry,
As a member of the human race, I find it atrocious you, your agency and the Australian Government formally refuse to recognise the rights and welfare of Zoe, a 6 year old girl and her family. Stop your absurd fight against the family unit, human principles and values. It's about time you pulled your finger out and do right by Zoe and her family by ending this obscene massacre of family rights and do so retrospectively.

Please reply .

Sincerely
'sign here.'

-----------------------------------------------

Contact any or all of the Australian Federal Politicians, especially the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs https://reporting.facsia.gov.au/MinisterialContacts0/Macklin/contact.aspx
.
For others try the email megaphone; (not sure if it still works)
http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/mailsend/election2007megaphone.nsf/frmsendmail

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/index.asp
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me
zoehasrights@yahoo.com.au

http://blogs.fanbox.com/zoehasrights

Psychological violence by women, the Courts and the CSA against fathers.

Domestic violence and abuse can happen to anyone, yet the problem is often overlooked, excused, or denied. This is especially true when the abuse is psychological, rather than physical. Emotional abuse is often minimized, yet it can leave deep and lasting scars. It is recognised psychological violence often escalates into physical abuse and even murder, be it by the abuser or abused. (We have all heard of cases where an abused person has been granted immunity from serving a gaol term for killing their abusive partner.)

Considering the relative size of the average man compared with the average woman, men can inflict more pain with their fists than women can and are more able to restrain an abusive partner. Women tend to lash out emotionally and psychologically. Studies have suggested that up 40% of men have been physically abused by their partners and up to 90% of men have experienced psychological abuse of varying degrees. Abused men can experience emotional hurt, helplessness, fear, sadness, anger, stress, revenge seeking, shame and humiliation, depression, psychological distress, and psychosomatic symptoms.

The recognition of physical domestic violence gained momentum in the 1970's, laws made and numerous studies undetaken. On the other hand, psychological violence remains very much neglected. This year, France is to become the first country in the world to ban 'psychological violence' within marriage. The law is expected to cover every kind of insult including repeated rude remarks about a partner's appearance, false allegations and threats of physical violence. This law applies to both men and women equally.

Like Frances new law, domestic violence research generally has been confined to people in relationships. I have been unable to find any studies that focus on the psychological violence that goes on during separation proceedings, custody and child support battles. Anyone who has gone through the Family Court or the CSA process can tell you psychological violence is well and truly alive, being encouraged by these institutions and it's followers.

It is said over 70% of women involved in contested child custody cases accuse their former partner of violence, that around 90% of these accusers fabricate the accusations to benefit their case. In a number of States and Territories, a women whom sucessfuly obtains a Domestic Violence Order or Restraining Order against their former spouse, are eligible for free or low cost legal representation. That the courts will grant an immediate interim Restraining Order and continuance, even if at contested hearing the accusations are proven false, on the mere heresay the woman 'fears' her ex may become violent. Given such orders, the father may find himself homeless or couch surfing, facing an uncertain future, paying for legal representation or having to self represent, the mother interim custody of the children, Women utilising free legal representation account for more court appearances, often with a subtle vindictive or vexatious nature. Any property settlement remains in limbo pending on outcome of child custody case, debts such as a mortgage most likely paid by the father.

A survey done by Cosmopolitan magazine a few years ago had thousands of repsondents. It concluded women were responsible for nearly 90% of relationship breakdowns, the main reason given due to 'falling out of love'. It found that women planned their separation up to two years before doing so, were usually fully briefed on what to expect and what processes to follow. Around 85% of these women believed their partner were taken by 'total surprise' at their ending the relationship.

The average guy who finds himself in a custody battle, in what he believes to be in the best interest of the children, is likely to have suffered from psychological abuse in his former relationship and remains affected by it. The abuse escalates through false accusations and they given credence by the justice system. His former partner continues the harassment through excessive court appearances. His character soiled, bank account diminished, loss of income due to lawyer consultations and court appearances, dependency on the mother to when and/or if he sees his kids. Stress and frustration causes him to behave out of character.

The mother with assurances from her legal representation, maps out her future. Maintains the rage, keep custody of the children at all costs, stay put until property settlement, is financially supported by the government, nights out with the girls, etc; Life as normal without a partner.

The mother having interim custody of the children applies for Child Support. She having spilled her version out to them, told them of the court orders and what a deadbeat her ex is. Dad gets notification he has to pay 'x' amount based on his previous years earnings. Dad tells them he can't afford that much, he has had to set up new accommodation, pay for lawyers, still paying debts from the relationship, over compensates spending on the children due to the situation, loss of income due to appointments and court, possible loss of job due to stress and/or excessive time off. CSA tells him to apply for a Change of Assessment, takes 3 months, pays what he can and gets letters of demand from CSA for the remainder. CoA allows minimal change if any at all. The CSA considers him a 'risk' and garnishes his income.

His lawyer long ago told him the system is against him so to expect very little. If the father has the strength and resources to get to the final hearing for custody, he finds the mothers lawyer promotes the Restraining Order, his lack of adequate accommodation, his unstable income, his failure to pay full child support, erratic behaviour and so on. How the mother has maintained a stable environment for the children and her nurturing nature that the children respond to. The court takes all into consideration, it's unscripted policies and awards the majority of care to the mother. The father walks from court a beaten man.

The above-mentioned generalised scenario is a demonstration of how psychological violence against fathers is institutionalised in Australia. Fathers walk away from their family because of it. Our children witness it and react adversely to it. Dads commit murder and suicide because of it. The list is endless. IT HAS TO STOP !



Family Courts Violence Review , October 2009, pdf download
http://www.mensrights.com.au/FC%20Violence%20Review%20MRA%20reply2%20revised.pdf

Child supporrt system - Privacy and CoA

Source: AAP

Changes to child support system likely

05 Feb, 2010 08:55 AM

Kevin Rudd has flagged year-end changes to Australia's child-support system, saying the present arrangements are causing many families angst.

The Prime Minister today acknowledged that the system, which requires a non-custodial parent to make a financial contribution to the other parent for the care of their children, was a matter of "huge controversy".

"A whole lot of families are going through a whole lot of angst on this," Mr Rudd told the Seven Network's Sunrise program in answer to a question from Emily Turner, of Sydney.

The government was working on a "whole series" of long-term reform proposals.

It was important to ensure the reforms were "absolutely right" because any changes would affect many families, Mr Rudd said.

"Our anticipation is the changes to the system will be made by year's end."
........................................

It has been suggested elsewhere these 'long-term' reforms include powers of investigating 'payee rorts' and the Child Support 'Change of Assessment' process (CoA).

I have previously blogged about payees rorting the system resulting in payers enhancing payees lifestyle, at the expense of the non-custodial parents lifestyle and ability to care. At this point I won't revisit. We can only hope that the Government actually does something about 'payee rorters'.
The other issue, the CoA process, I have considerable experience of and could blog for hours about it's invasive, adversarial and discriminatory approach. For this post I will confine my comments to privacy issues of third parties and how the law actually sanctions another payee rort.

At a CoA interview, I presented evidence of being a biological parent and payments made for the welfare of another child. A child not registered with the Child Support Agency. Payments made under a Private Agreement for a child 'acknowledged' by the CSA, but not formally recognized according to the CSA under the law they administer. This resulting in a very imbalanced Child Support Assessment, hence the need for a CoA.

Prior to the CoA, I discussed with the parent I have a private agreement with, the requirement to provide evidence of support transactions. It was accepted the CSA could be privy to these transactions as the Government through Centrelink were already aware of these payments. It wasn't accepted that the parent of my CSA registered child be given details of my payments, nor other personal details. It was viewed the other parents relationship to them was via half siblings and as such, had no right to be provided information of their financial affairs.

According to the Assessment Officer (AO) at review, to take into consideration any private agreement with a third party, all details were to be made available to the 'other party' in the CoA. That as the child under the private agreement wasn't registered with the CSA, a change to my assessment would only be possible if the 'other party' agrees to my supporting a child under a private agreement be taken into consideration. At the end of the day the CS Officer would make the final decision.

I raised the privacy issue with the Assessment Officer and explained the third parties view. The AO didn't believe it breached privacy laws as I was the person making the payments. I asked if it would be sufficient if details such addresses, banks, account numbers, etc; and/or payment amounts be blacked out. I was told the evidence had to be provided in full. I asked if the CSA could provide me with the 'other parties' bank account details, address, etc; I was told they couldn't as that would be a breach of privacy. I asked what the difference was between my request and theirs forwarding on a relatively unrelated persons details to the 'other party'. The AO got into a huff, claimed it was a legal requirement. That if I didn't, they had no possibility of being taken into consideration. I asked more questions and was told I was being argumentative. The AO refused to enter into any further discussion about the issue and sternly stated I was to table the details or not. Understandably, I chose the latter.

It is worth noting the AO was an employee of the CSA and not a contract AO.

The 'other party' agreed at interview I was the biological parent of another child and was responsible in financially supporting her. The 'other party' reasoned if they agreed the support of my other child is considered, they would receive less support from me. A situation concluded as unacceptable by them. Given comments made, it was obvious the 'other party' would not agree and to present 'all details' would merely satisfy curiosity, potentially creating greater adversity given the difference between the CSA assessed child and that of the private agreement.

The outcome of the CoA was no change in Assessment be made as it only could only take into consideration children registered with the agency. An apppeal with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal upheld the CSA's view of the law and recommended a 'private agreement' between the parties. Something that has never been possible in the former 11 years and very unlikely to occur in the future given the nature of the 'other party.'

In essence, this is one example demonstrating CS law is not in control and needs to be changed. Perhaps this lack of control is the "huge controversy" Mr Rudd speaks of, or the "angst" it creates.

Child Support laws promote discrimination between the welfare of children registered with the CSA and those who are not. They sanction a payees rort to maintain fiscal remuneration in opposition to a 'just and fair' outcome for all children in a situation like the above-mentioned. The process of a CoA should be disabling the empowerment of an individuals decision for financial gain, not reinforcing it.

The privacy issue in this case exemplifies the contradicting Governments claim to promote individual rights of privacy whilst failing substantially to extend them to isolated third parties connected to people locked in an adversarial process. The CSA legislation is wrong to encourage parties through a CoA to forego the privacy of others relatively unrelated, especially when outcomes are largely dependent on those legislation have incorrectly empowered.

More news..

source: http://www.psnews.com.au/Page_psn20011.html

Child Support audit
finds reforms lacking

An audit of the “most significant change” to the Child Support Scheme since its inception has found the Child Support Agency could have better managed the reforms which affected one third of the scheme’s clients.
The audit, Child Support Reforms: Stage One of the Child Support Scheme Reforms and Improving Compliance, found it was difficult to determine if the reforms had achieved their desired results.
The report covers stage one of the reforms, which are to be undertaken in three separate stages.

Unable to measure success

Auditor-General, Ian McPhee said the reforms were being implemented to address concerns about the fairness and adequacy of the Child Support Scheme (CSS) and to assist women and children with financial support following separation or divorce.
Mr McPhee said a compliance program was also considered necessary to complement the Child Support Scheme Reforms (CSSR).
He said an Improving Compliance program was designed to address the growth in child support debt and to encourage parents to comply with policy and make child support payments on time.
The Auditor-General said while the reforms were lead by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the day-to-day management was undertaken by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in partnership with other Departments.
“As is common with the delivery of any major policy reform, the planning and implementation of stage one of the CSSR experienced some difficulties,” he said.
“Many of these issues, however, could have been better managed, or in some cases avoided, if weaknesses in both whole-of-Government and individual Agency governance and project management arrangements (such as risk management, communication and performance monitoring and reporting) had been adequately addressed.”
Mr McPhee said the CSA’s inexperience in implementing policy reform and its lack of a “robust project management framework” had contributed to the difficulties, as had the absence of Agency support agreements and insufficient risk management practices.
He said the Improving Compliance program was track to meet just one of three key outcomes.
He highlighted a lack of strategic planning and inadequate financial planning management practices for the poor results.
“The effects of these shortcomings include that some compliance risks to the Child Support Scheme remain unaddressed, and some individual projects have been unable to achieve their collection targets,” the Auditor said.
Mr McPhee made six recommendations, saying the CSA had “taken some steps” to improve operations, including a reorganisation.
The audit report was available from www.anao.gov.au

-------------

I will comment after reading the report

In the news

source; Bigpond News

Child Support Agency shamed

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 » 11:33am

The national Child Support Agency has been slammed after a crackdown found parents owe more than $1 billion in payments.

A new report by the Auditor-General revealed almost 400,000 parents are not receiving proper child support.

That was because the other parent's income estimates were not being checked against their tax.

The Child Support Agency was also criticised for employing expensive private detectives to catch 'dead-beat' parents.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you just love how the news is reported? Who are the 400,000 'not receiving proper child support' and who are these 'other parent's'? Could some of these parents who owe be considered the custodial parent? It's quite possible due to increasing shared care and the main custodial parent now having to work a minimum of 30 hrs a fortnight. Could these parents be the ones underestimating their income?

Have to wonder who these 'expensive private detectives' are targeting? Obviously not those underestimating.