They did not father but must pay.

Changes to child support for fathers

on 16 February, 2011 - 09:07

A recent article by the Australian has stated that government figures revealed almost 600 instances of men compelled to financially support children they did not father. A men's rights group has called for mandatory paternity testing of all babies.
In the overwhelming majority of these cases, the courts have not forced mothers to pay back the money they have received. Of the 586 cases, only 74 mothers have been told to pay back the money. Those reparations total in excess of $533,000.
The figures, from the government's Child Support Agency, prompted Men's Rights Agency director Sue Price to call for mandatory DNA testing at birth.
Do you think the government should implement mandatory DNA testings?
For up to date changes in family legislation try TimeBase's LawOne.

Source: http://www.timebase.com.au/topics/2011/02/16/changes-child-support-fathers

Bullshit Julie Brown

Open letter to Julie Brown , CSA Team Leader, Albury, NSW

Dear Julie,

           The first time we spoke you rattled off some excuse about my then case managers absence and her actions prior to her going absent. You, being her superior, contradicted what her co-worker, one seated next to her, had to say. Either you didn't have a handle on the situation and/or just bullshitted.

On the subject of bullshit! You claim "It's in the customers best interest to call 13 272".  It is in the CSA's best interest, not the customers. When the customer, like yours truly, records conversations with the CSA, it is not subjected to FOI and CSA editing, thereby ensuring CSA honesty.

Bullshit!   "I work for the Government" you said. You are a public servant, your role is apolitical, your job is to serve the community, the community that pays your salary. Your job is to deliver services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously, ensuring the highest ethical standards are maintained. I have failed to observe any of these APS values undertaken by you.

Bullshit!  You attempted telephoning me a number of times on two separate dates. A check of home and mobile phone records show only one missed call* on these dates (* home phone) from an unknown number, at a time outside times I have specified my availability.

Bullshit! You won't leave a message on an answering machine with a generic message due to CSA policy. You must be the only CSA Officer that knows of that policy, no other CSA employee has had an issue leaving a message on the very same answering machine. You also have sms available.

Bullshit! A number of questions I raised with you at our face to face meeting late last year,  remain unanswered.

Bullshit! Prior to commencement of an agreed amount of payment, my income gets garnished and continues to be so by an amount in excess of the agreement. In fact, it's more than double my monthly assessment!  You claim it's due to an automated system that you have no control over. Bullshit! Do you think I was born yesterday?  


These are just a few tangible examples , I could go on,  my point is made, you bullshit far too much to be an effective case manager. In fact, never have I encountered a CSA Officer with such disposition to find it necessary to constantly bend the truth. There is no trust, you cannot be believed, even if by chance, you ever do speak the truth.  

Go, piss off, vamoose! Get the fuck out of my life!

Your customer.

Privacy and the unaccountable CSA

Again I find myself in a 'breach of privacy' battle with the CSA. They breach my privacy and on complaint deny it. The denial is standard CSA procedure and when proven blatantly in the wrong, they make excuses like 'our privacy team weren't up to speed with the legislation'. These being people paid to know the legislation, yet blind Freddy can see.

Like times past, I have taken the matter to a higher level and expect like times past to win. Now there's an oxymoron, a win against the CSA. No such thing really. The onus is on the complainant to prove injury as a result of or loss. Except in extreme cases, like where the ex is told of your address (it does happen), comes around and bets the crap out of you, it usually comes down to your word alone.

Get the sack because of CSA incompetence? Your ex boss won't admit to it. Did it cause anxiety? Spend a few thousand on counselling, allow the CSA to access your files and maybe you will be reimbursed a few months later, but unlikely to get any compensation unless you take it to court. This exercise will probably cost thousands and you will be up against smart arsed government lawyers whose only job is to fight such issues. Even if you are lucky enough to get some compensation, you will only do so upon signing paperwork that stops you from even talking to you family about it in a public place.

In a nutshell, the CSA has built a shelter that protects it from litigation. It plods along knowing it doesn't have to be accountable and your complaint will just be a figure amongst twisted stats at the years end. The public servant responsible will just be moved to another desk where they can do less harm.

I've been witnessing this inscrutable plodding go on for over a decade, in my humble opinion a Commission of Inquiry needs to be undertaken.


Questions?  - zoehasrights@yahoo.com.au

Bureaucratic Whitewash

After much debate and squeaky wheeling, sometime last year, my daughter, Zoe, was included in the CSA assessment under the guise that she lives with me part-time. This added $500 to my exempt child support income. This equates to her worth being @ $90 per annum or a measly $7.50 per month. A figure far short of what the CSA determines my other child is worth. A figure that also falls short of the officially determined Costs of children 2011 Table C http://www.csa.gov.au/child_support_formula/child_costs_table_2011.php.,

Utilising apportionated parental incomes on the bottom of the 3rd table C scale, the costs for 2 children equals $16,063 plus. That's  $8,031.50 plus each or a few cents short of $670 plus per month per child. Deduct exempt Child support amounts of each parent (@ $20k +$30k) and it still leaves @ a total annual cost per child of $ 1,125 or $93.75 per month each. So how is it, in CS Assessment, Zoe whom is in my care about the same as her brother, is worth 12.5 times less per annum?

Zoe is definitely not worth less, but the CSA had to do something that had minimal impact on their unaccountable and hidden policies, wouldn't attract the ire of the other party and can officially say she is included in the assessment. Simply, it's a bureaucratic whitewash that demonstrates the governments unwillingness to follow the principals of common law.

any questions? -  zoehasrights@yahoo.com.au