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

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.