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.

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.

Not so much

How long before these figures are taken into consideration by the CS formula?

The Sydney Morning Herald
12 March 2009

Cost of kids not so high after all
By Adele Horin

The cost of raising children is not nearly as high as parents have been led to believe, a study reveals. Far from a child costing $10,000 a year, as previous research indicated, the price is more like $1300.

Michael Dockery, an associate professor in the school of economics and finance at the Curtin University of Technology, says children may even enhance their parents' wealth.

"People now believe they'll be millions of dollars out of pocket if they have children," he said. "It's nonsense."

If children were a "cost", parents would end up less wealthy than comparable couples without children. But his study, based on 3168 couples, found this was not the case. When the net wealth of the parents and the child-free was compared - housing, shares, superannuation and savings - the parents were only marginally worse off, suggesting a child "cost" only $1300 a year.

When wealth accumulation between 2002-06 was considered, couples with children were a little better off.

Dr Dockery said couples with children were more likely to be home-owners and to have a bigger house.

Previous Australian studies have shown that a typical family will spend $537,000 on raising two children from birth to 21. Dr Dockery claims the cost is more like $55,000.

Dr Dockery disputes the logic of seeing children as a cost. The price people were prepared to pay for fertility treatments showed children were regarded as a "very large net benefit".

He also takes issue with studies that used the amount of money parents spend on children to determine their cost. "There seems little justification for considering expenditure on children to be a measure of their cost, any more than going to a restaurant can be considered a cost to the patrons." Restaurant-goers saw their night out as a benefit, not a burden.

As well, when couples chose to have children they understood they would have to switch their expenditure from dining out to nappies and child care.

"They value having the children more than the lifestyle," he said. "To argue they are worse off makes no sense."

Dr Dockery cautioned against using his research to calculate child support because the situation for sole parents was different. But he said the family payments system had helped make children "cost-neutral" and the emphasis on benefits for "working families" needed to be changed to help all people.

New Formula

Is the new Child Support formula working? There's certainly no outrage about it, so perhaps it is.

One thing it hasn't accomplished is targeting those who rort the system or the gender bias that has been longstanding. You know the rorters, parents who demonstrate a low income but are asset and lifestyle rich. For example, a mother in a shared parenting situation who is a company director, buying a house, who enjoys regular interstate and overseas holidays, spends money freely on luxuries, expensive clothing and dines out more than the average person can afford to. Yet her taxable income falls below the child support threshold, so pays no child support. The father on the other hand lives hand to mouth, sometimes having to borrow money to pay his bills because his child support expenses take a considerable slice out of his income. Monies that further enhance the lifestyle of the mother.

Take a case like this through the CSA and all the mother has to do is claim she is being supported by her new partner to ensure no change in assessment. Reverse the roles and the father would be accused of failing in his financial duty towards his children, most likely investigated and made to cough up cash under the 'capacity to pay' legislation.

Isn't it about time the legislation is changed to look at the combined assets of relationships on both sides of the divide? After all. in family law, company income and combined assets of a couple are considered to be theirs and to be divided accordingly if they separate.

Capacity to pay = slavery.

All payers of the Child Support Scheme come under the 'capacity to pay' umbrella. If one is paying child support at a rate assessed by the CSA and their income drops without a reason accepted by the CSA, then the CSA may determine the rate of child support is to remain. The CSA may also investigate a person they believe has a "greater capacity to financially support their kids" *.

Most people have the capacity to earn more money, for many at a cost. It may cost time at home, weekends, social life, relationships and/or health. For others it may cost them time with the children they pay child support for, missing out on a school play or the child's regular sporting events.

Without doubt there are people whom do rort the system and should be hunted down, but there are probably just as many whom genuinely experience an income drop beyond their control, or choose a lesser income for their own personal reasons. Some of these reasons may be to spend more time with their family or new relationship, care for an ill loved one, to reduce stress, a desire for a lifestyle change or due to having achieved their financial goals and not needing to work so hard. Whether or not your family is intact, we all have a right to choose how much we want to work and earn. For a few these rights are denied.

If the number of people on Australian websites and forums, claiming to have been unfairly assessed by this capacity to pay legislation is an indication of a more widespread problem, then it brings into question the workings of it and the power of the CSA Officers whom determine peoples income capacity. It appears the CSA doesn't always weigh up the capacity to pay against the personal cost to maintain an assessed amount. Choosing instead the almighty dollar and the savings to the government by forcing people to maintain their assessed child support amount.

It is irrelevant if there are thousands, hundreds or just one person whom has been unfairly treated by the CSA. If their determination is you have a "greater capacity to financially support your kids" is in opposition to reality or self fulfillment, that you must pay the assessed amount, then such a determination can only be viewed as enslaving you to a minimum income to pay the amount of child support assessed and for self support. In effect, in opposition to human rights and what all western society considers abhorrent, the CSA commits you to slavery ** under the capacity to pay legislation.



* http://www.csa.gov.au/schemereforms/eBulletin3.aspx

** Wikipedia definition- "Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons—known as slaves—are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work."

Who's side are they on?

There are a number of websites on the net and forums within, dealing with CSA and child support issues. One such website is the FamilyLawWebGuide. It's intentions are honourable, but the so called experts whom moderate it are questionable. I have had minimal dealings with the site and from my own experience, it seems if one questions the advice of the experts or points out their shortcomings, you are likely to receive a warning. I was given warnings, was told I was a smartalec, arrogant and impudent. In all, three moderators requested my being banned from the site. The head moderator sent me a courtesy email stating I was suspended for 5 days because my postings were not in the 'spirit of co-operation'.

These same FLWG moderators whom requested my being banned , I found amongst other traits, to be sometimes vulgar, rude, inciteful and lacking in expertise. A read through members posts, (if not deleted), reflect views that reiterate a number of my own, plus views the sites moderators are pro-government, self indulgent, overstepping in their authority, lack humour, deny free speech, etc;

The power of the moderators is such they can ban someone without giving a reason or warning. To a point I don't have a problem with this power towards people whom merely sign-up to post offensive and slanderous rubbish. But should someone be banned because they question the validity of the moderators floundering knowledge? Or suspended because they oppose the moderators views? I think not.

No-one questions the FLWG site more than the person whom runs the blog, exposethetruth08. It is stated in the blogs title page;
"This blog was set up to comment on the sham website www.familylawwebguide.com.au and the injustices that they commit, the lies they tell and to correct the misleading statements they perpetuate."

This blogger I believe has some serious personal issues with the moderators of FLWG. It is apparent they are very bitter, vindictive and angry. Exposethetruth08 goes to great lengths and no doubt does some serious web surfing to find anything condemning the moderators, freely naming names and makes outlandish assumptions. No doubt there is some truths to be found within the blog, but it is also obvious s/he has little respect for the truth, as much of the blog is devoted to slander.

This blogger doesn't stop at just the moderators, anyone whom posts on the FLWG is potential for targeting. I, amongst others were attacked by exposethetruth08 and I gave her a piece of my mind. In response, exposethetruth08 dedicated a whole blog post to me and slandered my name with not even a whiff of truth in the rantings. Everything said about me opposes the blogs opening statement, there's nothing but lies, misleading statements and assumptions. If the attack on me is typical, then the blog has no credence whatsoever. In my view, exposethetruth08 blog is far more a sham than what it claims of the FLWG.

So whose side are these people on? Obviously, not for the good of all or even a few if their use of these sites is to push their own views, display power and/or to denigrate others, all under a veil of good intentions. In both, narcissist personalities get in the way of moral and ethical dispensing of the truth and facts both claim to be advocating.

I'm sure there are many more sites in cyber space just like these, with people all too eager to delete you at the hint of you questioning their so called expertise, knowledge or assumptions. Not to mention a fast and fatal response if you send any criticism their way. What they don't seem to realise is they become their own worse enemies, turn away many a reader/participant and have people like me discussing their failings.

Recording CSA telephone conversations.

Published in the NSW Law Society Journal of March 1998, page 51, an article by barrister Tom Molomby covered the issue of telephone conversation recording by a party to the call. In part it reads:

" At one time some believed that the federal legislation extended to the recording of a phone conversation by a party to that conversation. That was no doubt an available interpretation. However, in recent years decisions of the Full Courts of the Supreme Courts of South Australia and Western Australia have held that "interception" in s.6(1) of theTelecommunication (Interception) Act 1979 does *not include* the recordingby a party to the conversation."
Green v The Queen (1995) 124 FLR 423 at 430-433 also (1995-6) 85ACrim R 229, 135 ALR 181, T v Medical Board (SA) (1992) 58 SASR 382 at398-339.

It is because of these rulings and others, that allows the CSA to record conversations between its officers and customers. It also allows you, the customer, to record your conversations with them via telecommunication equipment with recording capabilities*. What you cannot do is 'intercept' a conversation, that is record somebody elses conversation you are not party to via any means.

The advantage of recording your CSA conversations is, if needed, something permanent to refer back to without having to go through the time consuming FOI and the outlandish expense of transcripts. This could be very handy in the event you have been given conflicting or wrong advice, have been coerced, had a privacy breach or a myriad of other errors the CSA officers have been known to make.

These rulings also mean of course, you can record your telephone conversations with anybody, friend or foe. If you make recordings with the intention to maybe use them in court, then that would depend on whom you sit before and arguement by the other party whether or not they would be allowed as admissable evidence. If it's for your myspace page or similar, I suggest you check the legalities and remember, once public they could be put to uses you didn't intend.

As to informing the other party you are recording theirs and your conversation is debatable, I have not found conclusive proof you need to inform them, that's not to say you shouldn't by law. Perhaps as a courtesy and to cover yourself, one should at least inform the other party on the first occassion you will be recording the current and any or all future conversations. In doing so make sure you record their acknowledgement. With the CSA or any other authority, I suggest you put it in writing.


* There are a number of devices you can utilise to record your conversations. Modern mobile phones often have limited ability as too many cordless base stations with memo/answering capabilities. VOIP telephony is probably an obvious choice if your connection is 256k or better. Most softphones, eg, Xlite, have recording capabilites. With voip handsets, check the user manual. The advantage to recording them on your PC is you can burn them onto a CD.

Who's money is it?

Sometime back, around 2003, I came across a FaCS annual audit and within it I noticed some $695,000 was transferred from a trust account to the CSA. In addition monies from elsewhere (not a trust account) were also allocated to the CSA for wages, rent, etc. I did some investigative ping pong over several months between the CSA and the Finance Department and found out all child support monies went into an interest bearing consolidated trust account.

I did a quick calculation and worked out this $695k would have been equivalent to bank interest gained from yearly average of Child Support monies i.e @ 5% of $1.3 billion. (Interest rates were a lot higher) My calculations may be incorrect, but back when I did this, the CSA held onto CS monies for around 4 weeks before paying the payee. If one was paying $500 a month, around $6,000 per annum, at 5% interest, that's $300 a year or $5,000 over 15 years the government has pocketed of yours or your childs money.

The legislation stated the monies paid in child support to the CSA were to be set aside for the child. Therefor, one would assume these interest dollars actually belong to the children. If this reckoning is correct, then over the life of the Child Support scheme, our children have fraudently been ripped off of millions, possibly billions of dollars. Another point of view is it the payers that have been ripped off millions of dollars, as paid child support monies don't become the child's until received. Interest monies that could have be deducted from a payers payments. Either way, the interest earned was not the governments to do with as it pleases, by law it wasn't theirs.

Argument maybe the government has a right to use these monies to recover costs in part or full. If this is the case, the child support scheme would be considered a user pay system. Or, child support monies are in reality, taxed according to the interest derived from them. As to the user pay theory, the majority of payers do not choose to have CSA involvement and most certainly children don't fill out the forms, it is the payee whom makes the request. How is this taking of moneys from non applicants then considered legitimate?

Since I made my enquiries I have noticed a shift in how child support monies are perceived. Nowdays monies owing are technically seen as a debt owing to the Government, not monies to be set aside for the children. (I wonder today, if it was my enquiries and arguements with the CSA that instigated this change.) No matter how they spin doctor it, the Government continues to make money from child support paid.

I ponder whether a class action by payers, on behalf of the children and/or the payers/children whom have outgrown CSA involvement is possible to recover these stolen monies and return them to their rightful owners..

Who should pay?

Australia has the 5th highest divorce rate in the world, it currently stands at around 47% *, a few percentage points behind the highest, Sweden at @ 54%. In comparison, other countries like India, Turkey and Italy range from a 2 - 10% divorce rate. Without getting into the how and why's, it is obvious many western countries (but not all) have a very serious problem in parents separating and the welfare of the children from their relationships.


Are the parents to blame for separation after pursuing the dream of a lifelong partnership? The latter most of us were led to believe was possible, in a society where family still holds the high ground with many aspects of life revolving around it. Or is it the shift in societies attitudes towards commitment, loyalty and working at a relationship to blame? Whatever it may be, relationship breakdowns are certainly far more prevalent in a country like ours, indicating our societies values are at fault.


If the view taken is our society is to blame for this high degree of angst, then shouldn't society in whole, take on responsibilty for the financial welfare of our children? In doing so, provide equal opportunity for each and every child from separated parents and removing a major drawback in the present system. If all Australians were made responsible for the financial support of these children, then perhaps all would set about creating a more relationship friendly future in the best interests of children yet to be born.

* (Source: Americans for Divorce Reform)

Child Support Legislation amiss

The concept of Child Support Legislation is for child support matters to stay out of the courts. There are literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of parents, whom have private child support agreements without their children being registered with the CSA. These parents, can and do abide by informal agreements without a need for government or court intervention. These agreements are formally recognised by every child related government department except the CSA.

Parents have a right not to register a child with the CSA, but the way the legislation stands, the CSA will not recognise the child of a private agreement if another child is registered with them from a different relationship. This lack of recognition has the effect of a parent being assessed by the CSA as only being liable for registered children. If a parent opposes registering their other children, they face extra financial burden. This situation attacks the welfare of all except the payee parent with registered children.

To overcome this inequality and extra fiscal burden, a parent has no choice but to comply with the CSA, submitting to their bullying tactics. This in turn may create other problems, such as animosity between the parents if one or both are opposed to registering their children. Obviously, such a scenario would have detrimental consequences on a post separation relationship.

The faulty legislation takes from the childs parents the right to have a private agreement without a third party affecting the arrangement. A right parents should be freely given, not denied. The legislation fails the children, it fails to recognise a child, siblings. It rewards a parent whom cannot come to an amicable agreement and penalises a parent who can. The CSA blames the legislation and will not be flexible and utilise their powers to rectify the fault. Parents are being bullied into registering children or be penalised for not doing so.

The right of the parents to make a decision in the best interests of their children is compromised. Under these circumstances the welfare of children is being shamefully ignored. A right to be recognised without resorting to court, costing parents and/or the tax payers thousands of dollars is denied. At the end of the day court action will not change legislation that affects many or the CSA's view, only maybe individual circumstances, as there is no guarantee a court will correct this omission in legislation

This issue has been raised at the highest levels within the CSA, yet the CSA have done nothing about it. The message is clear, they want to maximise control of the financial affairs of parents whom separate, in doing so protecting their own jobs at an unfathomable cost to parents and children.

CSA , the media and parental bias,

Child Support Legislation and its' implementation has been a hot topic since its' inception in 1989. An ongoing theme of discontentment has been the parental bias that is entrenched in the enactment of legislation and administration.

In the formulation of the original Child Support Legislation in the late 1980's, fathers were grossly unrepresented. Despite ongoing government claims that legislation doesn't discriminate and fathers have equality as to parental status, for nearly three decades around 90% * of non custodial parents and child support payers have been fathers.

In the context of child support, mention a 'deadbeat' parent and the majority of people will automatically assume you are talking about the father. This assumption being in opposition to relative statistics clearly demonstrating paying mothers are more likely to default on paying child support. It can be perceived peoples attitudes are based on media promotion of fathers being the bad guys and its' failure to focus on 'deadbeat' mums. So why does the media show bias?

The media is fed statistics by the government, in respect to child support, by the CSA. The CSA manipulates the information it disseminates and feeds the media with statistics like 'x' amount of parents default on their child support payments, 98% being fathers. They don't feed the media statistics like 8% of fathers and 12% of mothers default. The media only acts on what it is provided.

Why the CSA chooses to focus on fathers is a topic that can long be debated but the reality is the CSA do have fathers in their sights. This is demonstrated daily by the CSA. In contradiction to defaulting parent statistics, the relative percentage of fathers scutinised and harrassed outweighs that of deadbeat mothers. Mothers it seems are to be believed as to why they default and are left alone.

There are many other arenas the CSA show bias towards the mother. For example, a mother in making an application for child support doesn't have to prove the level of care she has of her children. If the father disputes what the care level is, then he must prove his claim. The same isn't done in reverse, it nearly always remains the fathers responsibilty to prove his claims.

Another example is where the parent has entered into another relationship. In disregard to the financial circumstances, if the mother claims a low income and states it's due to her staying home to care for children or her partner supports her then this is deemed acceptable. If a father makes the same claims it is more likely he will be deemed to continue to pay child support on his capacity to earn and his claims investigated.

There is also the bias encountered daily by thousands of parents. Ask any parents who have dealt with the CSA and you will hear stories of imbalanced gender treatment. Be it over the phone, through formal applications such as Change of Assessment or other way.

CSA parental bias exists and is real. It occurs daily and often is visible through the media. It's about time it ended.

* Source - http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/facts_figures/04/ff04_5.aspx