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
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
