You still haven't answered my questions Chezzie.

The newspaper reports say Liam Magill was released from responsibility for paying for the two children not his in 1999 and was released from his CSA debt for these children as well. Is this true Chezzie? Which children is he still required to pay for and does he still owe debt for?

Liam Paid for all 3 children for 8 1/2 years. (32% of his gross salary )
When the time came to refund the massive over payment in 2000, the CSA refused to do this. In other words, they allowed Liam Magill to wear the overpayment for Rowe's 2 children. The reason was to not to disadvantage the mother and the 3 children in her care. Nothing was done to pursue Rowe even after I handed the CSA Rowe's bank account statements showing a balance of $400,000 in cash
The CSA are still collecting for one child from Liam Magill. Liam Magill's account should have been closed after the decision was made not to refund for the children that were fathered by Rowe. Rowe is laughing all the way to bank. So is the mother. So is Rowe's wife Veronica Rowe.

So finally you confirm that the CSA payments for the two children not his were terminated in 1999. You didn't bother set Scrap straight when she said that Magill was still paying for the 2 children not his--and you didn't bother answer me before despite more than one request.

http://www.paternityfraudaustralia.com.au/06_VCC1395.pdf

has some details about the CSA payments paid by Liam Magill. It says that 24 June, 1999 the CSA payment was increased from $138 per fortnight to $553 per fortnight. The higher amount was due to a reassessment based on an early superannuation payout. So he had more than his wage at that time. Up to $578,17 on 18 August 1999 and then down again to $223.77 after 2 September, 1999.

Well if $138 is 32% of his pay he wasn't being paid much--that would mean he had a wage of $207 per week. It is a pittance to pay for supporting three children. If the higher amount was only temporary (it that was for less than two months) because of a superannuation payout-it is a rather rude to pretend that it extends for eight and a half years. The $223.77 amount is only $112 approx per week. That is not half what it takes to support three children.

The mens sites are saying the CSA payments only covered seven years so I suppose that the other year and a half you talk about includes while they were together.

Still think children are human beings whose real parents are the ones that care for them--not the piece of sperm or the egg. I would never punish my children if I found out they were not genetically mine. I couldn't imagine just abandoning them now I have a relationship with them nor that anyone could be that heartless. I am with Justice Kirby on that one.

8th December 2006 A Current Affair - Channel 9 at 6.30 pm tells a little bit of the Magill story. And I mean just a little bit-( about half of one percent)Studies show that anyone who justifies blatant fraud would consider coducting themselves in a similar manner with no consideration for the person who has been defrauded. No need to identify who I am referring to here.
Cheryl King - Melbourne

I thought it was time for a re-read of the article as the debate seems to have got bogged down on just one case and peoples perceptions of that case.

The article closes with a comment we could all remember

"Most importantly it is about ensuring both parents meet their responsibility of supporting their children in a fair and equitable environment."

I have a letter sitting here from C$A telling me my new C$A obligation to my ex. Significantly reduced from when we were doing shared care as I now have my son 12 to 13 nights a fortnight (in theory less during the school holidays but my ex has not nominated any extra time to have our son during the xmas holidays). The current residency arrangements are at my ex's request, I've always wanted shared care.

We both have jobs, I work full time and my ex works part time (her preference).

I may be able to contest it, to do so I either have to prove to C$A that my ex has a higher capacity to earn or surrender any concept of privacy in regard to my finances and provide full details to C$A who will then pass them onto my ex.

Nothing extremely secret about my finances but it's something I do like some privacy in.

Again:
"Most importantly it is about ensuring both parents meet their responsibility of supporting their children in a fair and equitable environment."

R0bert

Robert, do you pay child support to your ex even though you have your child 12 to 13 days a fortnight and she only one or two? How's that possible?

Chezzie, missed the show. Deflect, deflect. I wonder what the studies show about a person who holds a child in their arms, beaming love at her(him), spends days, nights and years with that child, shares her smiles, wipes her tears, feeds her, plays with her, has her drop to sleep in their lap, be there for her first word and first step, catch her when she falls--and then dumps her cold.

You talk about fraud--its defrauding the child one moment in a loving relationship next to have the father turn off all his feelings like he turns off a tap, because of a test done in a clinic. Not anything the child did to him, but because of something the mother did.

I have children I love. If someone told me they weren't 'mine' because of their genetics it wouldn't change my feelings for them. I love them as individuals not as genetic material, because I was there in their early years.

You treat children like a supermarket commodity you buy with sperm and return if they are 'defective'. I think of the child as an individual and of the bond that is forged between a parent and child through time together.

The betrayal of those children is a million times worse because it happened in those early years forming their characters. To have the father they thought loved them treat them like that and then dedicate his life to destroying the one person who still loves them will emotionally scar and mutilate them in a way that not being genetically his could never do.

I'm not into defrauding anyone--if you ran a test on my children it would show they're genetically their father's and that was never in any doubt. I just love my children in a way that could never be broken by anything and I could never blame them for something someone else did.