From the CSA publication Facts and Figures 2009

International cases as percentage of active caseload 3.9% Total caseload 768,856

11.7 per cent of paying parents are on a Newstart Allowance.

Over 96 per cent of all child support liabilities since 1988 have either been collected or discharged, representing more than $29 billion.

And most telling of all

$414.5 million (or 38.1 per cent) of overdue child support associated with paying parents who have child support incomes of $12,000 or less. That is 39.2% of the total number of paying parents with arrears. A further 13.7% have an income less than $20,000.

The CSA harasses one set of parents on the dole to pay for another set of parents on the dole. Great outcome folks.

ChazP - "progressively framing the debate" with lies and lurid fantasies...

Waamm,

I know of a case where the mother phoned up the separated father and said that he had to change the tyre of her car because she wanted to use the car.

The father said that he was at work and couldn’t change the tyre.

The mother then said that if he didn’t change the tyre then he wouldn’t be seeing his daughter in the future. The mother could simply deny contact, and it might take the father months or years of legal action for him to even see his daughter once a fortnight.

So we are in a country where a father has to change a tyre of a car, or he won’t be allowed to see his children.

That is the inglorious, dehumanised and wretched state of our feminist society.

Chatz P

I know of a case where the father was looking after the child for 3 weeks out of 4, but still paying the mother full child support.

This situation came about because the mother suddenly got a job that involved shift work, so the father began looking after the child.

However, the father still payed full child support to the mother in case the mother took the child back and denied him any contact.

I also know of numerous situations where the father was paying much more child support than he had to in case the mother denied him contact with his children.

Such issues and situations are rarely mentioned, but should be mentioned and made known to the public, and should become a part of the education of young men about our feminist society.

Warwick you may have missed a part of the picture, I've not found more recent info on this but I suspect that Roger Smith's article ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11280 ) ties in strongly with this. Especially the point's he made on page 2

"Recently enacted domestic violence acts in several states are prefaced by the words:"domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children" (eg. s.9 (3) of the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007).

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its far-reaching report Family Violence - A National Legal Response released earlier this month has recommended that similar discriminatory words preface all state and federal laws dealing with domestic violence, including the Family Law Act (see Recommendations 7-2 and 7-3 of its report). "

Add those bit's to a broadening of DV definitions, a reduction in the requirements for evidence, a failure to put in place any safeguards and it becomes and even scarier picture for men with an ex who fights dirty.

L.B.Loveday I think you've misunderstood ChazP, to get a better understanding see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833 "The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate"

Eg in the most recent claims ChazP ignores the point that discussions around that issue have been directed to the fatal assault category of child deaths and quite specifically not at accidental deaths.

Links to a number of posts I've made on the topics can be found in this post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12153#209514

R0bert

Marsh's usual anti-female preaching only serves to tell us some of the sad stories he has heard involving poor men who have been abandoned by their rabid feminist women, and had their children cruelly ripped from their chests.

What he doesn't seem to say, is if he has also heard (as part of his loving pro-family ministry) from abandoned women who are trying to survive on a single income, with a bunch of kids, and an ex-partner who tries everything in the book to get out of helping pay for his kids upbringing?

What I don't understand, is what these 'Father's groups' actually want to happen?
Marsh wants all of us to live as a family of dad, mum and kiddies, who all live together forever, go to church on Sundays, and live happily ever after.
All very well until one member is unhappy permanently.

Do many of the men in these father's groups want to be permanently shackled to a women they don't love? Forever?

What if the men and the supporters of these radical groups have daughters who grow up and marry or live with a violent or controlling man? Wouldn't they want to protect her and their grandchildren?

I wouldn't mind betting they would be the first to rant and rave about the inadequacies of the family court system if it adversely affected their daughter or grandchildren.

The courts must be given the powers to protect anyone who is being abused or bashed...especially children.
Anyone who doesn't agree with that has obviously got a problem...

"The courts must be given the powers to protect anyone who is being abused or bashed...especially children.
Anyone who doesn't agree with that has obviously got a problem..."

Suzie what about the topic of this article?

Eg changes to the law which will enhance the power of false accusations with no real safety mechanisms in place.

I've not seen anyone arguing against genuine safety, what's being argued against is systems that further open up those posers to abuse.

Take a step back from the standard gender lines, the usual combatants, our shared distaste for the anti-homosexual stance which some are so fond of and have another go at the topic. There is much more to it than you seem to have seen in the response you've given so far.

R0bert

Well RObert, there was much more to this article than the part about
<"...changes to the law which will enhance the power of false accusations with no real safety mechanisms in place."

But ok, I will have a go at how I feel about that too.

At the end of the day, aren't there lies from both mothers and fathers in the few custody disputes that come before the courts?

Surely any change in the rules will equally affect lying fathers, as well as lying mothers?
How can courts decide who is lying anyway, with only one party's word against another?

This area of law must be particularly awful to rule on, with children's wellbeing at stake in many cases, so I can understand how mistakes can be made, and disputes can be nasty.

I do agree, however, that there should be penalties if it is PROVED that someone has lied under oath, especially if children's safety or wellbeing is compromised as a result of that lie.