The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The battle for balance > Comments

The battle for balance : Comments

By Alby Schultz, published 2/10/2006

The Child Support Agency is a customer relations nightmare.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All
It was rather idealistic of Bob Hawke to say that no child will live in poverty. One of the idealism behing the child support principles is that children should not experience a fall in the standard of living following divorce.

By default the custodial parent must also not experience a fall in the standard of living following divorce otherwise the childrens standard of living falls.

Attorney General Phillip Ruddock summed it up when he said "income sufficent to support one household has to now support two."

In Australia the child support formula is calculated on gross income and paid out of net income, subsequently 27% of pre tax income translates to 38.5% of income earned above $25,001 or 45% of income earnt above $75,000. This does not include the medi-care levy.

Just prior to the creation of the CSA, Lenore Weiztman published her research which supported the erroneous public perception that men lived it up following divorce. Her research showed that a woman's standard of living fell by 73% whilst a man's rose by 42%. The only problem with Weitzmans research is that it was wrong. Yet she claims to have influenced divorce laws.

In actual fact both of them expereince a fall in the standard of living.

Under the current CSA arrangements wives and divorce husbands, but fathers can never divorce their wives whilst they have to continue to support them.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 2 October 2006 1:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just the very name Child support Agency,sends up my blood pressure,this agency is biased,and very undemocratic,it is dictatorial,the following I CAN VERIFY,a friend of the family,who slaved his guts out for his wife and two children,she broke up the marriage,and this man was so devasted,up to this day he has not yet recovered,his career has been destroyed,just some time back he confided in me that,he had some money given to him,from his tax return,and the child support agency,just took it and gave it to his ex,without even consulting him,other little income he gets that is also just taken and given to his ex,this ex the cause of the breakup,has a good job,and on confidential talks with a lose friend of hers,she was left a large sum of money,by relative,he the husband,also has to pay his upkeep,his children gets well cared for by this husband's family,when he has them for two days of the week,hi has to get them and take them back to her,that petrol money takes a lot out of his existence money,the husbands family brothers and sisters,buy the best clothing for the two kids,much better then those supplied by the mother,and this poor husband is so greatful to his family for all the care they give to his two children,and is trying to get his life together again,so just were is the fairness of all this,please explain,so were is the justice in the system,the child support agency stands with her on all issues,and the poor husband just has to abide by their decisions,this department should be overalled,but as it now operates,is nothing but DICTATORIAL
Posted by KAROOSON, Monday, 2 October 2006 1:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just an overall impression:

That is, if this is meant to be in the interest of children, then why is the individual earning capacity of either parent important?

At one stage the highest rate of individual child support payment being collected, for an infant, far exceeded what the government was paying under Austudy to a senior student who would be presumed to have greater needs. This shows something of a double standard.

If this is really all about the interest of the children, why are the interests of a child, of a father who has a higher income, more important than the interests of a child whose father has a lower income?

Instead, why not do a detailed study of the AVERAGE amount needed to provide a reasonable level of support for a child at various ages, then collect money from contributing parents and average those payments so that all children are treated equally?

Of course this would mean that some mothers would miss out on what they consider to be rightful spousal support from well off men who they decided they did not want any more, instead just wanting their money.

But I guess that while all children are equal, some children are more equal than other.
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 2 October 2006 1:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Child Support Agency has facilitated the long term faud perpotrated against Liam Magill by his ex wife Meredith. The CSA have done this by not taking any legal action against the mother ( or the biological fatherfor that mattter ). CSA have refused to allow Liam MAGILL any refund or any credit for 2 children that were fathered by mums lover. The CSA prefer not to disadvantage the mother by making her(Meredith ) repay the years of over paid child support. Criminal Negligence. www.PaternityFraud Australia.com.au

Cheryl King - Enduring Power of Attorney for Liam Magill Ph/ 0416 031145
Posted by chezzie, Monday, 2 October 2006 4:42:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Child Support Agency is one of only two government supported entities that actively and agressively behaves in a discriminatory manner.

It is not interested in truth; nor is it interested in correcting mistakes - it simply decides that the non-custodial parent is an open cheque book, and discriminates against them in perpetuity.

The staff of the CSA, in my beleif, are actively encouraged to create as much tension and hatred between the two parents, so that there is a "combatant like" atmosphere...which simply self-perpetuates the CSA's need for being.

If the CSA (and government) truly had the best interests of the children at heart, then there would be a default of shared parenting and NO CSA payments, unless one party could prove beyond a doubt in court that the other was not fit or capable to care for the children.

Then, and ONLY then, would the best interests of the children be put first...not the bigoted, antiquated, and illegal behaviours which we see today - stop turning children into emotional and economic weapons.
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Monday, 2 October 2006 5:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robbing one struggling child... to spoil her brother - the C$A way
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=
Children live in households.
To show how evil C$A rules are.. look at this example. Here is a pretty typical situation. Two parents divorce, she gets the kids. Both re-partner and they end up each with two kids... the mother has his original kids, and the dad has one kid that came with his new wife, and they have had one kid together.

Dad's place
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
One wage
Two kids
One dependant wife ( with a young baby)
pays child support
= poor house

Mother's House
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Two wages
Two kids
No dependant adults
gets child support
= rich house

Yes, it's true... the money flows from the poor kids to their rich half-siblings.

If everybody working earns the average wage, Dad's household has $41,000 before tax, while the mother has $109,000. (before tax). The CSA (under the new formula) is $9000, after tax/tax free

This is the sort of evil that occurs when you forget the fundamental truth that all citizens should be treated fairly before the law and that kids live in households.

The rules are based on ignoring new spouses... so Dad's dependant spouse and her dependant kid is ignored. Meanwhile Mum's new breadwinner is ignored, yet both those rich kids are treated as if she is supporting them alone.

The double standards are blatant... If you are on the dole, and you hook-up with somebody (marry, de-facto) this affects your dole payment. Adults live in households, apparently... but children don't. If you are a C$A receiving mother and you get married, your new husband's income is irrelevant...

Who made up these rules? They aren't fair... they hurt children and they hurt dads... I wonder who gets the cash?


James ADAMS
PartTimeParent@pobox.com
www.fathers4Equality-Australia.org
James ADAMS
Analyst
Fairfax
Posted by partTimeParent, Monday, 2 October 2006 6:55:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only thing possibly worse than the CSA is a Loan Shark where you pay compounding interest, subsequently it becomes a debt you can never pay no matter how hard you work.

I understand that there are some business leases that are structured in a way where the lessee works hard to build the business, and the harder they work the higher the expense of the lease becomes. subsquently caught in an never ending spiral of expenses bleeding you dry.

It like a business rent being based on the turnover.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 2 October 2006 9:31:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Splitting up causes hardship for both parents. Both see the children, property and cash as 'theirs' and can't help hurting when that's divided--and supporting two separate households is expensive.

Children take a lot of money and time to care for. For them, splitting up can mean they lose their family home, change from more expensive schools to cheaper schools, move from more expensive suburbs into cheaper suburbs, eat and dress more cheaply, have less holidays,etc. Despite this being a very common outcome for the children many men turn a blind eye and still complain they pay too much money.

Prior to the CSA, child support was decided in court. Any change of income of either the custodial or non-custodial parent didn’t effect the original judgement until taken back to court. If either parent was in financial distress they couldn't afford the lawyer's fees to fight for the relief they needed. It also took time and stress in that adversarial environment.

The CSA does a yearly reassessment of income of both parties, applies a standard formula to work out the amount payable. If either party’s income changes in the meantime they can ask for a reassessment--they don't have to wait for the next yearly assessment. This was devised to avoid either side paying more than they could afford or less than they should as was happening in the previous system.

The custody of the child is usually given to the primary caregiver--not to the 'woman'. The courts are very strict on this. This isn't always a situation the noncustodial parent doesn't agree to, I have met many men who wouldn't dream of going for custody, believing their children are better off with their partner, I have met other men who have told me they left because they didn’t feel cut out for parenting—they left their children.

Not all non-custodial parents are financially ripped off--but can rip off their partners by minimising their income--by running their own businesses and 'hiding' income--this is extremely common--sometimes also putting assets in their new partner’s name
Posted by Aziliz, Monday, 2 October 2006 9:53:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the non-custodial parent is on a pension or benefits they pay $6 per child per fortnight and if on a low income pay this or not much more. This is not support of their children—it is a joke. Some men reduce their income to this quite cynically to avoid CSA payments (not always because of emotional breakdown).

The income for the non-custodial parent can be $13,983 if they have no dependent children increasing to $23,349 if they do, before having to pay anything above the $6. There is a further increase in child support free income if there is shared care adjusted to reflect the amount of time the child/ren spend in their care. Then they have to pay only 18% of their income (after this minimum is subtracted from the overall amount) for one child increasing to 27% for two and 32% for three. At this level the system is ridiculously pro the noncustodial parent over both the custodial and the children.

Non-custodial parents can claim part of the custodial parents pension for the two days they have the children per fortnight, even though it's difficult for the custodial parent to take advantage of this for childminding while working and custodian parents don't have to pay school expenses on weekends or medical expenses including dental and optical. They may spend more money on going out and having fun with the child/ren which can become a real problem with the 'fun' Dad vs. the 'drudge' mother if she can't afford it--a common scenario.

Parenting Payment is $13,314.60 (only available till the youngest child turns 6) with $3661.84 per year for each child under age 13. Newstart (unemployment benefits) is $10,943.40 peryear--the amount the custodial parent is reduced to after the youngest child turns 6 years old if they have no job. With a three bedroom house in a cheap (and rough) suburb being $11,960 this is not enough to survive and yet when the custodian works they lose 50c in the dollar after earning $62 per fortnight and 60c after $250. This is the stuff of nightmares.
Posted by Aziliz, Monday, 2 October 2006 10:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For them, splitting up can mean they lose their family home, change from more expensive schools to cheaper schools,..etc.., have less holidays,etc."

In most settlements there is a financial consideration given to the custodial parent “to aid is setting up the home for the children” No such allowance is given to the non-custodial parent, even though they are expected to do so. This is discrimination (and your point is invalid.

Please also consider the welfare and well being of the spouse and children of the non-custodial parent’s next relationship – they suffer dreadfully at the hands of the ‘first’ family. They are forced to live with financial disadvantage, and there is no assistance given to THEM to have a nice school…nor can they EVER take holidays. Sorry, but you are sounding awfully ‘snobby’ here.

".....many men turn a blind eye and still complain they pay too much money."

In a land where discrimination is viewed as an illegal act, how dare we NOT complain and demand the SAME and EQUAL treatment of BOTH parents? If one parent is working and paying child support, then the other parent should be required to do this as well. Since when is ONE parent more 'entitled' than the other.

Currently the amount of child support payments are calculated on PRE tax earnings, but not removed until POST tax earnings...of course they are paying too much. EG. Gross Wage $1000. (one child), CSA amount $180, Tax $300, Nett Wage $700, (LESS CSA) $520 which actually represents 52% of his wage.

The custodial parent receives this $180 per week, plus parenting payments, discounted child-care, discounted meds, rent assistance, ‘almost free’ travel. If you aren’t getting enough money, find work…the same as the “subsequent spouses” are forced to do.

"The custody of the child is usually given to the primary caregiver--not to the 'woman'. "

Kindly check the Family Courts - in excess of 85% of custody is awarded to the mother. This includes (and has been documented) situations where the mother is a drug addict, and a danger to her children.

part 2 to follow
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Monday, 2 October 2006 10:48:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all know how these things work. The Govt. will wait till the death toll can't be ignored, form a sub commitee, and shelve it problem til after the next election. Outa sight, outa mind.
Costello's crowing about the budget surplus, most of which was stripped from programmes like this.
Posted by aspro, Monday, 2 October 2006 10:49:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What amazes me consistently in this is are the men, and some women, who plunge into new relationships, breeding further children, knowing full well that they cannot afford the reasonable upkeep of the new family and the old one.

We will have true liberation when we have convinced men that they do not need a brood of their DNA running around them to affirm who they are.

I mean, the sheer and utter stupidity and lack of foresight - they know what they will be up for, they know how much a 'new family' will cost, but they decide to breed anyway, as if their particular genetic traits are vital to the survival of the fittest (from my experience they come from the shallow end of the gene pool anyway).

I agree that the present system seems unfair, but how many of these guys who claim that they cannot support their new family have only themselves to blame?

They have spread their DNA with their first wife - what sort of ego drives them to continue?

I am especially peeved with all those guys who somehow convince women who are 20 years their junior that a family is feasible - what the hell are these two parents 'thinking'? If the guy is 45 and the woman is 25 (it happens..), then the father will be 70 when the child is 25. This happens, and just having children with this sort of age different between parents, and the differing attitudes towards child rearing, means that much of the time it won't work.

Hey guys - get real - if it didn't work the first time, it probably won't work the second.
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 2 October 2006 11:39:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to see a realistic study into the entire cost to society of the so called Child SUpport Scheme and then a look if it's worth it.
- the direct financial cost to the community of parents who reduce earned income to provide the best CSA outcome for themselves - it might be cutting off the nose to spite your face but people do do that. Both payers and payees.
- the cost of kids growing up in homes where no one earns the income - what kind of modelling is that?
- the cost of keeping conflict between the parents going over the childs childhood and the harm that does to children.
- the cost of kids not see a parent as much as they could because the other parent loses income if they do.

I've been a part time parent (with an ex pushing for the 2 day a fothnight thing) and am now the prime carer and I'm quite convinced that any benefits of the child support scheme are far outweighed by the cost to us all resulting from the hardm done by it.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 6:30:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am familiar with three cases of marriaqge break up close to our family, and the common thread is the determination of the fathers to protect theit assets and income. Case one, a family friend, maintains a close relationship with his children and is suppportive, but after the breakup his first concern was that his ex souldn't access his assets. Case two, another family friend, congratulated himself that the family company structure had him being paid 'wages' which minimised tha amount of support he had to pay for his ex and young child. Case three, one of our full-time employee's resigned and chose to work elsewhere for a much lower cash income when the CSA arranged to garnishee his wages. These are all nice blokes, but they all seemed to regard child support as something they should control, and did not see it as an obligation. Our dealings with the CSA were fine (tho we had no choice but to co-operate in the garnishee, so had to be involved in matters we did not feel were any of our business) but I don't think there was any mediation or discussion with the father. Perhaps that would have helped.
Posted by Candide, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 8:45:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide, I agree with you about income-minimising antics of fathers, usually those earning good incomes who ahve the ability to salary package in order to hide assets to an extent. I cannot fathom why, if a father is prepared to support his children when married to a certain level, that when he leaves, he wants to reduce that support and make things difficult for those children - it's bad enough that their worlds are turned upside down by divorce, let alone making it difficult for them financially by changing their living standards.

I also agree with the sentiments that, if you have a first family, then why go on to have another family to the detriment of the first? When you ahve children together, you plan how you want life to be for them, you make decisions jointly on what you can and can't afford. With divorce, the first family get absolutely no say in things that affect them, in decisions that are going to impact hugely on their lives, in terms of fincancial, and social impact. There is lots said about wanting joing parenting decisions in divorce, where everyone has a say in what happens to those kids - how come they then don't have a say in those big decisions such as - can dad really afford to have a second family when the obligation to the first family exists initially? These things need to be discussed as they do impact hugely.
Posted by lote, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 8:56:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert, off course there is such a study produced by PIR Independent Research Group. Result – the direct cost to Australia for every dollar collected by the CSA = $2.80 for every $1 collected. The indirect cost blow out to around $5 per $1 collected.

aspro, the death toll is already at a stage that it can’t be ignored, buts it’s amazing what a little bit of spin and fudging can do to avoid the truth of 5+ men killing themselves every day.

After decades of concerned people lobbying for recognition of epidemic adult male suicide, a paltry $42 Mil was provided for a National Suicide Prevention Strategy. A large chunk of this money went to the CSA. Trevor Sutton (CSA Assistant General Manager) informed me that this money will ... "identify and support clients at risk of self harm". Yet, Trevor Sutton (same written message) repeats the CSA rhetoric that "there is no reputable data that proves the proposition that child support is a contributing factor in suicide amongst men". The same organisation awarded rare suicide prevention funding shows no commitment to investigate its own client suicide numbers.

Of course, while the CSA refuses to investigate their own records, the opportunity to attain 'reputable' date will never come!

Regard ‘capacity to earn’
3 days after the courts granted shared parenting to my child the CSA investigateded my capacity to earn and enquired about my work history and qualifications.

In fact my ex had just left a full time teaching position (she holds a Masters Degree in Education, + second degree in Arts) to go on a welfare holiday on the North Coast. During this conversation with the CSA I informed them of my ex recently leaving her job and asked for an assessment of HER capacity to earn.

Their immediate turnabout confirmed the fact that as a shared-custody parent I would continue to experience anti-father gender bias from the CSA. I was suddenly confronted with total resistance to the same investigation when the subject was a mother and not a father.

CSA is a Diabolical, Failed, and Oppressive system!
Posted by silversurfer, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 12:42:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide and Lote,

You both miss the point, sure there are fahters out there who reduce their income, and there are mothers out there who also reduce their income.

I looked at salary packaging and because of the way CSA assesses it, I end paying more in child support than I would save in tax. So salary packaging does not work.

I worked overtime and a second job just to keep our heads above water when I was married. One monthly telephone bill wiped out all the extra money I earnt from overtime. I would have been better off declaring myself bankrupted.

You are saying that men do not have a right to developing a relationship after the first one fails! This is extremely sexist and judgemental. If a woman expects that she and the kids should have the same standard of living, then she should have stayed married or go out to work doing the overtime and the second job as well.

If you are saying that men should put the first family first, then if you do not expect women to do the same thing and avoid becoming involved in another relationship then you are extremely bigoted.

There is a huge disparity between what the father can earn, compared to what the mother can earn before child support is affected. What happened to equality?

Interestingly if the mother enters another relationship there is no reduction in child support payments, even though her actual living expenses are reduced.

Is it rational that after leaving a job that the former employer has to continue paying you a portion of your previous wage?

Scrapnmafia, wrote "have less holidays,etc."

Boy! Scrape I'd love to be able to afford to take the kids away on a holiday when I have them. There is not single bit of new furniture in my rented house. The TV's are so old they have valves instead of new technology. Even this computer is recycled. I go without buying food to pay the bills. So don't give me hard luck stories of how tough mothers have it.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 4:28:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No-one said anything about not being able to develop a relationship - the comments were in relation to having more children :)
Posted by lote, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 5:47:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not one of the posts made by non-custodial parents, OR subsequent spouses here have ever ONCE argued that financial support of their children should be done away with. What we have ALL stated (in one form or another) is that there should be EQUALITY in all areas.

Hamlet and Lote - If the 'father' isn't allowed to have anymore children, then fine... sterilise the 'mother' as well. After all, equality means treating each the same. So, that being the case, I gather the two of you will be first in line to be sterilised? After all, you wouldn't want to look like hypocrites, now would you.

If you were in a relationship where finances were tight, you would get a job to make things easier, yes? After all, that would be the decent thing to do....so why is it different when the relationship ends? There shouldn't be any, should there? NO.

And I have to wonder why you are all so afraid of Shared Parenting being the default. Because the kids will no longer be the emotional and financial tools of blackmail that they seem to become in divorce (this applies to BOTH sides, not just one.)

James...I'm on YOUR side here! - if you look closely it was AZILIZ who mentioned the holidays, and the downgrade from their expensive schools, and expensive clothes etc. Not me! In fact I was amazed at the sheer snobbery of the comment.
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 6:19:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much comes down to taking responsibility. Firstly, I do not believe in 'no fault' divorce: well, people should be able to divorce without fault coming into the decision, but that fault should be determined when it comes to any financial settlement.

When it comes to children, the only things that are important are the interests of the children, not who 'own them' (therefore the term 'custody' used by so many people shows their own biases). The parents' ego should have nothing to do with the interests of the children.

I don't care how aggrieved a mother or father feels if they don't get what they want for themselves, the only important thing is the healthy development of the children.

By the way, only about 5% of family law matters ever get before a judge. Does that tell you something?

I believe in child support, but not, except in specific circumstances, spousal support. That is why I proposed there be a set amount determined for the reasonable support of children.

As for people having more children - simple - everyone has to decide whether they can or cannot afford to have children and what standard of living they want to maintain.

In the same way that I would aim criticism at teenage mothers who have children irresponsibly, I consider that anyone who has children without taking responsibilities into account are open to criticism.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 6:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After reading these comments, I just wanted to say that when my ex-husband and I separated (and subsequently divorced) we were naive and thought that if the CSA collected the CS payments, it would make everything as easy and smooth as possible. Man, were we wrong about that! They messed up payments, messed up records and files... generally just made like hard for both of us. We decided we could do without them and went through miles of 'Red Tape' just to get them to STOP being involved!

That was 14 years ago! It seems from these comments that nothing much has changed.

PS: I would like to add that I received a 'Part Pension' (as I always worked) for being a Sole Parent. When I moved in with my partner, I did the right thing and told the DSS that I was now in a De Facto relationship and therefore, no longer qualified for the (part) Sole Parent pension. Anyway, they said they COULD NOT STOP my pension because- get this- I was in a SAME SEX relationship which was NOT RECOGNISED by the Government! Therefore, they continued to pay my 'Sole Parent' pension- even though myself and my partner (female!) were working full-time! The Law is so ridiculous at times! *sigh*
Posted by chrislovespugs, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 8:42:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scrapnmafia, I've never been fully in the non-custodial camp and am currently in the prime care role so I don't quite fit your grouping but I do suspect that the costs to kids and society of keeping parents involved in each others finances is not worth it.

In particular the formula where payer and payee are both impacted by the choices the other makes seems to be a massive contributer to ongoing conflict, ill feeling and damaging residency arrangements.

On a general note
1) I don't believe any parent should be responsible for the costs associated with the care of their children for time when they are willing to have the care of the child and don't have it through the actions and choices of the other parent. If we must have child support the reasons for the residency arrangements should come into the process.

2) The financial details of individuals should not be disclosed to an ex at any time after the property settlement. C$A send out estimates of income to former spouses and require massive breaches of privacy to get a change of assessment.

3) As far as practical the same rules as apply to other parents should apply to seperated/divorced parents. The government does not involve itself if a parent reduces their childs financial standard of living as a result of shifting to a lower paying but more suitable job unless neglect becomes and issue, why should divorced parents be held to a different standard.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 8:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The average payment to custodial parents from non-custodial parents is $41 per week. That is not ‘per child’ but a total. http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/via/Child_Support_Report/$File/CS_chapter5.pdf#search=%22statistics%20men%20paying%20child%20support%20australia%22

46% of non-custodial parents pay the $5 per fortnight payment or less: http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/pdf/ff05.pdf#search=%22child%20support%20scheme%3A%20facts%20and%20figures%22 (page 31 and 32)

I’m sure there are non-custodial parents who pay too much, but they are in the minority. Under these circumstances it’s obscene for custodial parents to insinuate the majority of payees pay too much. The horror is how little they pay and the enormous burden on the custodial parent.

Scrapnmafia I was not talking about simply a matter of losing the private school and plush holiday as you so misquote me, I meant to cover the whole range from the rich to the poor including moving to a hellhole in a violent and underprivileged suburb, being unable to pay basic electricity, food, clothes, etc. I was talking about the effect on the *children* not the mother--are you saying the children are snobs and should put up with the loss of their home, their school, their friends and do without decent food and clothes? This is the too common male confusion of the welfare of the children with the ‘selfishness’ of the mother.

There is a reason CSA take payments before tax, they could take it after tax and increase the percentage, all that would do is benefit the richer non-custodial parent (who pays the higher tax rate) at the expense of the poorer.

Just because 85% of custody is awarded to women doesn’t make me wrong, I said that custody was awarded to the primary caregiver, which is usually the woman. Any man who stayed home and changed the nappies while his wife worked would get custody.

To get around the terrible expense of raising a second family, marry a divorcee with children. You get an instant family to love with another man helping you keep them while you help your ex. If you can find a woman whose ex actually pays—that is. Statistically custodial parents are more likely to not remarry because men are less likely to want women with children.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 10:15:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The suicide rate for men has been at a consistent level since the 1920's when statistics began. It was slightly lower in the 1970’s--no fault divorce was introduced in 1975 with a huge surge in divorces--with an obvious increase in loss of custody of children for men.

As the CSA opened in 1988, it's often blamed for the small spike in suicides at that time, ignoring the late 1987 stock market crash and the strong correlation over the 80 years of statistics of spikes in suicides with economic downturns. It's insulting to men to say suicides went down when they lost their children but up when they had to pay support for them.

The highest suicide rate in men is the age range of 25-35 years, the second highest suicide rate is from 15-25 years, the average age of divorce is 42. Although I’m sure some men suicide due to family breakdown it's not statistically significant. (Australian Bureau of Statistics)

The net savings to the government by CSA collections is estimated at $193 million (page 55 of link in previous post). Not a loss.

Silversurfer quotes “the PIR Independent Research Group”–such a bogus report:
http://www.pir.com.au/pdf/report_csareview.pdf#search=%22PIR%20Independent%20Research%20Group%22

The “$5 per $1 collected” is based on PIR’s admitted guess that lost productivity caused by men not wanting to work due to their child support responsibilities is $5,000 million. They base this amount on their own bogus statistic that 76% of all unemployed males are non-custodial parents using the estimate of 221,375 unemployed payers.

The CSA report that they claim to use to ‘calculate’ this number only states that 69,556 were in receipt of any government benefit or allowance (let alone unemployment benefits). The $2.80 per $1 collected stat is not in this report.

Silversurfer and the PIR Report also doesn’t take into account that marriages to unemployed men are more likely to break up, nor that a higher proportion of alcoholics, drug addicts and mentally ill, etc are unemployed--so a proportion of the men were already unemployed.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 10:32:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I was talking about the effect on the *children* not the mother--are you saying the children are snobs and should put up with the loss of their home, their school, their friends and do without decent food and clothes? This is the too common male confusion of the welfare of the children with the ‘selfishness’ of the mother." Aziliz

Nice try, to turn the arguement back on itself!

The resulting fall in living standard is based on the decisions made by the mother, and if you are really concerned about the welfare of the children and their subsequent fall in living standards, then why separate? or better still leave the children with the father.

The CSA figures on child support payments cover all children. Children of teenage mothers etc. It is more than likely that if one looks across the board the vast majority of child support cases involve people on the lower end of the economic scale, unemployed, low income earners. 67% of the population earns less than the average weekly earnings.

The two major factors in male suicide are finances and relationship breakup. If you think that it is not statistically significant I suggest you go Dads in Distress website.

Divorced, separated men have a lower life expectancy than married men.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 6:27:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Comments that male suicide is not linked (at least partly) to family separation fly in the face of Australian research and expert opinion, i.e. Prof Baume (former director of the Instutute of Suicide Research and Prevention, Mt Gravatt Uni), Prof John McDonald (UWS Prof of Primary Health Care). Most importantly these comments ignore what a host of divorced and suicidal men are saying.

Research by the Central Coast Health Promotion Unit (1999) factored the CSA very clearly as an organisation that is detrimental to men in crisis. This research was based on a community supported phone-in of suicidal men, partners etc… In other words it asked those affected to talk about the causes.

3 of the 5 daily male suicides are linked to family separation (1998 Baume and others)
- at least 70% suicides are associated with relationship break-ups
- men are 9 times more likely to suicides following break-up than women.

In 2003 Larry Anthony ordered an inquiry into the CSA cover-up of suicide figures. For years concerned groups have demanded that the CSA release figures on their clients who have committed suicide. The CSA continues to use the defence that they do not collect such figures. This is hardly adequate exercise of their duty of care! Is there any other government body that has been accused of having so many client deaths and has refused to collate the true figures?"

I state again, after years of lobbying, the government assigned 42 Million dollars to a National Suicide Prevention Strategy. A large portion of this went to the CSA, as Trevor Sutton informs me … to identify and support clients at risk of self harm. Doesn't this acknowledge that there IS a suicide issue amongst CSA clients!

As they say … where there’s smoke … …
Posted by silversurfer, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 8:14:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, you go to pains to point out how little non custodial fathers pay as a means of dismissing the concerns of those who pay too much and then you point out

" that marriages to unemployed men are more likely to break up, nor that a higher proportion of alcoholics, drug addicts and mentally ill, etc are unemployed--so a proportion of the men were already unemployed. "

C$A figures don't look at the impact on children of being kept away from fathers to help mums income nor of the long term harm of large numbers of children being raised in homes where nobody goes out to work to earn the dollars.

Your views about residency going to the prime carer ignore the very real roles many fathers play in their kids lives for most of their non paid employment hours (every weekend and week night does not equal every second weekend).

You seem to focus on the worst cases for women and ignore the rest.

My ex did not move to a housing commission place in a dangerous suburb, rather a coastal setting minutes from the beach with two pools in the complex. She dropped from three days a week to one day a week work while we were doing almost equal shared care. We had an agreement to live near each other to minimise the impact of seperation on our son, she announced her intentions to move away within a week of me moving into the house I'd just bought. We signed consent orders about residency and schooling prior to the move (I had no basis to oppose the move if those were in place) and she began moves to get the concent orders changed within about a month of moving. I'd spent about $16,000 opposing those changes by the time I gave in to the demands to stop the harm to son and myself from the ongoing battle.

The current system does not work, it leaves the genuinely disadvantaged struggling and rewards the schemers and scammers.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 8:15:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the CSA web site

CSA values

Background

* We have a strong sense of the role CSA plays in delivering value to the community by our administration of the scheme.
* We meet community expectations.
* We have a strong sense of justice, honesty and integrity in all our dealings.
* We are accountable to the community for administering the law.
* We make a difference and exceed client expectations.

* We appreciate the issues that clients face: being in the shoes of the client.
* We anticipate client needs.
* We create an environment which is understanding, helpful, approachable, compassionate, sensitive, acknowledging and respectful.
* We develop supportive relationships, work together, have common goals and a common direction.
* We enjoy what we do and celebrate achievements.
* We foster an environment which values coaching; creating a culture where together everyone achieves more.
* We create 'one CSA' - an organisational oneness; we value complementary skills; create synergy.
* We create unity.
* We take care of the client - duty of care.

* We recognise that all clients deserve to be treated fairly and consistently — no matter who they are or where we serve them.
* We recognise that our people will be treated on the same basis.
* Our work practices will be transparent, overt, open, sensible and reasonable.
* We will have a strong sense of natural justice.
* We ensure that we listen and accept.
* We operate with integrity and are ethical in our behaviours.
* We are non-judgmental.
* We are impartial, objective, equitable, legal, balanced and flexible.


* We work smart.
* We act with ingenuity, knowledge, thinking and cleverness.

* We have a strong sense of dedication, perseverance and belief.


* We are organised.

* We know our jobs.
Posted by chezzie, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 10:20:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I posted the CSA Values from their own web site. Its been cut down because its very long. But you will be excused for chucking up after you read it.
Cheryl King
Posted by chezzie, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 10:24:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not even ADF can claim efficiencies such as those achieved by CSA. Instead of debating the merits of recruiting women for front line combat duty to promote democracy around the world, why not just plant feminism and franchise local branches of CSA?
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 5 October 2006 1:07:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/1004roberts.html

The Feminization of Poverty?

"When economist Victor Fuchs of the National Bureau of Economic Research combed through the figures from the 1970s, he concluded: "Statistical decomposition of the changes shows that an increase in the proportion of women in households without men was the principal source of feminization of poverty."

"A few years ago sociologist Martha Gimenez sagely observed that the feminization of poverty myth only serves to fuel "conflict between men and women, young and old, and white and nonwhite."

Therein lies the secret of cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxists know they cannot topple Western democratic societies with a direct assault. Rather, they seek to undermine basic values, incite gender conflict, and weaken institutions such as the family. Gloria Steinem may have revealed more than she intended when she remarked: "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarchy."

When widespread divorce and social discord ensue, the Gender Guerillas then blame the whole mess on patriarchal society, leaving behind no marks or fingerprints.

Think about it -- it's the perfect crime. That's the genius of radical feminism."
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 5 October 2006 6:20:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James, I didn’t turn the argument around—you twisted my words and I pointed out your mistake.

The Dad’s in Distress website fudges facts. Male suicide is a real problem and should be funded, researched and managed to reduce it. BUT men have been suiciding at a rate of four men to every one woman SINCE the 1920’s when statistics began. The biggest exception to this was the Second World War when suicide rates dropped the most and the 1960’s when male suicides dropped and female suicides rose to the ratio of 2 male to one female. So other factors are causing it. The number one correlation of spikes of suicides in men is with economic downturns.

Marriage breakup is initiated by the woman in 64% of the cases but there are still 36% of women who are left—a statistically significant group. There are also many women who leave due to the violence, drunkenness, drug addiction or mental illness of their partner (men leave for this reason too). These two groups obviously need a different approach than your punishing “why leave? Or better still leave the children with the father.”

There are people who leave their partners when for all concerned it would have been better to stay. There needs to be something done to help reduce that incidence.

The lower life expectancy of men isn’t just for separated fathers but *never married* men too—it’s quite significant. But the statistics for women show *never married* and separated women live longer than married women. Now why would that be? Why does marriage make women die younger?

Silversurfer, could you please point me to actual research sources—the raw statistical data that Professor Baume etal used—there’s so much bogus research even among academics that are heads of official organisations. My stats are from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for suicides--go check for yourself. I did a search on Baume but couldn’t find his data sources.

Government isn’t as smart as you think they are, SS, they bend to who are the most powerful lobby groups—men’s groups are far stronger.
Posted by Aziliz, Thursday, 5 October 2006 7:11:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz,

this is the biggest load of nonsense I have heard for a long time. Your statement that men’s groups are the most powerful lobby groups really consignes it to the looney bin.

For Baume, try the Institute for Suicide Research and Provention, Mt Gravatt Campus, QUT.
Posted by silversurfer, Thursday, 5 October 2006 7:34:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, I wasn’t talking about ‘my views on residency’—I was talking about the way the courts work. They give custody to the primary caregiver and I know women who have lost custody of their children because they weren’t the primary caregiver.

My own views are different. I think the best solution needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes that’s shared custody and sometimes not. The best case scenario is the parents reunite. There also needs to be more support for families experiencing violence, drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling and mental illness. These aren’t some minor part of our society but a significant section—about 20%.

I can’t believe you can be so biased Robert as you’re usually so reasonable. Didn’t you read the anti-custodial parent/anti-CSA posts? “Splitting up causes hardship for both parents”--that was my opening line. I also post official statistics so wild statements are put into perspective. I criticise the insinuation that *only* the non-custodian parent has a raw deal like that’s 100% of cases. Smarten up, Robert—you can do better than that. Reread all the posts. The non-custodial posts are the one’s that are *completely* dismissive not mine.

The CSA isn’t perfect but it was worse before (unless you were rich or a lawyer). I’m pro the CSA despite my ex being able to dodge payments by running his own business. He worked fulltime as a server administrator. But the CSA could do nothing about it. I have a son with a crippling illness that needs a lot of medical care but that was also all up to me. I got shafted but I’m not angry with the CSA.

Custodial parents getting little to nothing (even when their husbands run successful businesses)is extremely common—people get shafted both sides of the fence. But inadequate as it may be the CSA keeps it out of court which is a blessing. They often fail for the non-custodial and the custodial. They need reforming in their methods not obliteration.

Silversurfer--I've been to that website--can't find any stats on it. Never listen to any research that doesn't give the stats.
Posted by Aziliz, Thursday, 5 October 2006 7:45:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the misfortune of a broken family unit occurs, the government will lend a helping hand to mum because she cannot look after herself and her children. This is called a sole parent pension. She is also entitled to various other modest benefits which attach to the children.

Dad on the other hand, is expected to look after himself. Why? Because he has only himself to support doesn't he? Actually, no, through CS he also has to support his family but without any relief or assistance from the government. Worse, they effectively punish him for what help he does offer:

My case: I am paying $530 a fortnight in child support for my children. My ex is on a sole parent pension (which is where virtually all mothers with young children end up after separation), so deserves my support in raising the kids, no question. The reality is, however, that the government reduces her pension entitlements at 50c in the dollar for any money I pay in CS above approx 1600 in child support. The effect is, of the $530 that I'm obliged to pay, only $300 actually gets to my kids.
Posted by Kalin, Thursday, 5 October 2006 10:14:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued...

While I understand that if people are earning money, then any social welfare support they are receiving ought to be wound back. But I, A TAX PAYER, am paying money which I earned and have already paid tax on, FOR MY KIDS, and the government is using that to justify reducing my ex's welfare payments. That's wrong. By that logic they ought also be reducing her payments if I give the kids Christmas presents or pay my children's medical expenses. That is just plain wrong.

The whole assessment on your gross income is a disgrace. Yes some people structure their businesses so they can virtually earn no net income, however this is a very small percentage of fathers. As it stands, for every extra dollar I earn I am paying 27% in child support, and 43.5% in income tax (including the Medicare levy) or only 30c in the dollar. So if I, in an effort to make ends meet, work overtime or a second job, let say earning the generous amount of say $25, I'd actually only be earning $7.50 for myself, an hour. Oh, but yes, I should think of how I'm helping the kids with an extra $6.75 an hour.. but no, after the government has gouged a further share of 5o cents in the dollar through reductions in the ex's pension, they only receive $3.375. So effectively, even taking into account the money which goes to my children, I'm paying 56.5% tax. That is just wrong.

Why are some NC parents getting depressed?

Little prospect of improving their position.
Few can afford to establish a home large enough to allow their kids to stay with them.
No sense of voluntary contribution to their family. They can barely afford to do what the law obliges them.
Virtually no say in how all their hard earned money is spent on the kids.
Knowing that even if you’re the better parent, you're stuck being the better bread winner.

No, these aren't all true for every NC parent (95% Dad) but they are true for many
Posted by Kalin, Thursday, 5 October 2006 10:17:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, I don't regard my views on this subject as being biased. I don't think the C$A system works (nor many other aspects of Family Law and surrounding infrastructure).

It allows the unscrupulous to manipulate the system on both sides to their own advantage rewarding those who've done the wrong thing and punishing the easy targets. Parents left with kids by a partner who does not want the care of those kids get the same or less support than those who have gone out of their way to avoid the other parent being involved in the kids lives.

They deny having the flexibility to protect parents from each other, I spent quite a while just above one of their boundaries where a couple less nights a year could have cost me several thousand extra in payments. The reason I was close to their boundary was entirely the result of changes forced by my ex.

Nor am I convinced that the court systems actually protect the level of parenting in place prior to judgement, in my case they failed to make a judgement on change in circumstances but kept the process alive until the harm to my son, myself and my finances reached the point where I had little choice but to give in.

I've had my arguments with some of the other posters in regard to attempts to blame feminism for all these problems but in regard to the bias faced by fathers in dealing with C$A, RA and other parts of this system they are telling a largely true story. I just happen to believe that paternalistic ideas about the roles of men and women are a significant factor which should not be ignored.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 5 October 2006 12:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
She had two children when he met her, then later after marriage they had one child now four years a bright and cheerful girl. He got fixed up so he could not have more children as rearing her other children was strain enough on the work load.

Now, this mum objected to them getting together, but they are adults & make their own choice. Now they are splitting after 13 years, and the past couple of years you could see a deep rift & a unhappy woman, getting what she wanted materially but still discontented & depressed as well as reliant on coke & cigarettes.

Amazingly he is taking all in his stride, and loves his daughter, happy to provide for her, and yes mum will be entitled to pension & other assistant after she gets her share of family home. What next, I am still a satirical old biddy who has seen hundred like her in this mining area, so if you recognize the story it could be your neighbour repeated infinitum in today’s society.
Posted by ELIDA, Thursday, 5 October 2006 6:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elida, what a common story you tell. Even though Paul MaCarthy is richer than all of us combined, he still got screwed. Heather Mills needed a child in order to be able to make a greater claim on his assests.

I hear it time and time again after the child is born, divorce follows.

Kalin,what you say is correct
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/objectives.htm

As you show the basic aim of CSA is to reduce welfare payments.

Our Politicans have to fund their billion dollar superannuation scheme somehow. Whilst Joe Hockey pushes the idealism that fathers must support their children. Not the government.

Joe when he retires with have the Australian public supporting his tax free pension. So the Australian people will be supporting him.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 5 October 2006 8:02:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
READ ALL,but my own comments was not biased in anyway,there are cases from both sides,be it from the ex husbands point of view,or from the ex wifes,the system is BIASED,DICTATORIAL,and the people working for the CSA,do not care,it is just a job,and work according to the rule book,but the fault lies with,the system and the system as it is,is outdated,and has never changed,no humanity,no responsibility,no proper investigation,to find out if the financial situation,of ex husband or ex wife has changed,and the cases I know of,the one in my first comment,is for sure a victim of the system,ex wife is living in luxury,has a good job,inherited a large amount of money,has two units,has a caravan parked at a seaside holiday caravan park,the exhusband cannot even afford to run his car,if not with the help of his family,will for sure be in big finacial difficulties,but the CSA,DOES NOT CARE;its stands by the ex wife,her finacial situation should be investigated,but again the system does not care,they remain a dictatorial BUREAUCRACY
Posted by KAROOSON, Thursday, 5 October 2006 8:40:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, I said you were biased for saying my views were biased--not for your other views.

You said:

“Aziliz, you go to pains to point out how little non custodial fathers pay as a means of dismissing the concerns of those who pay too much and then you point out”etc

I said you were biased for that. I wasn’t ‘dismissing’ others concerns but trying to provide a more balanced view to the many comments like Scrapnmafia’s:

“The Child Support Agency…simply decides the non-custodial parent is an open cheque book, and discriminates against them in perpetuity” and Silversurfers comments including the PIR research were downright fallacies to paint a blacker picture of the CSA than the truth.

I was pointing out custodial parents also suffer. Then you have the audacity to say:” It allows the unscrupulous to manipulate the system on both sides” Which happens to be exactly what I was saying.

Criticising me when I am saying there are two sides to the story and not criticsing others who are spewing about rotten women and the CSA ripping off poor men only, shows your bias.

You’re being really censorial when you criticise me for supplying bone fida ABS statistics and CSA statistics—something as fundamentally factual--giving the overall position.

I’m saying the problems with the CSA cuts both ways. I am also saying that the problems prior to the CSA were worse. I’m saying that the system needs reform but an understanding it’s better than nothing. And I have the guts to say that even though that’s about what I got from the CSA—next to nothing. (okay some $5’s) I could instead act like the men on this site and scream that the CSA is ‘diabolical’ for not addressing my personal situation but I choose to be more rational.

There are more men barely paying anything than overpaying and they are not all suicidal men unemployed due to emotional breakdown--the CSA lets them get away with that. I’m sorry if you think I am mean for telling the truth. I will say it again, both sides get hurt.
Posted by Aziliz, Friday, 6 October 2006 8:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“eat and dress more cheaply, have less holidays,etc. Despite this being a very common outcome for the children many men turn a blind eye and still complain they pay too much money.”

"I was talking about the effect on the *children* not the mother--are you saying the children are snobs and should put up with the loss of their home, their school, their friends and do without decent food and clothes? This is the too common male confusion of the welfare of the children with the ‘selfishness’ of the mother." Aziliz

Aziliz your experience maybe different to mine.

If the children are not to experience a fall in their standard of living, then the custodial parent (mothers are the majority) must not also experience a fall in the standard of living. This is assuming the mother does not re-partner.

So basically fathers can never divorce their ex-wives, as long as they are held responsible for the ex-wife’s standard of living because she has custody of the children. This in turn, turns the children into a financial commodity.

It is a continual prison sentence or perhaps more accurately fathers become little more than an ‘Indentured Servant’

Mothers receive more than 50% of assets after divorce up to 85%.

Bankruptcy or death of a parent will also have an economic effect on children’s standard of living
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 6 October 2006 8:42:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CSA facilitates this perfect crime in more ways than one.

What is paternity fraud? Paternity fraud occurs when a mother purposefully lies about who her child's biological father is.
If an innocent child is lied to concerning a fundamental thing like who their biological father is, what are the medical and emotional consequences that child must face? If a man is lied to about being a child's biological father, what are the financial and emotional consequences he must deal with?
Heartache and abject misery abound when mothers make the choice to commit the crime of paternity fraud. It's as simple as that. What's the issue? Paternity fraud isn't a laughing matter, despite the millions of bumper stickers pasted around the world that ask: "Who's your daddy?" Paternity fraud destroys not just the bedrock concept of right and wrong, but the immediate family members of paternity fraud victims.If you lie about paternity, you've commited a serious crime, and you should pay the price. We have joined millions of people around the world to fight paternity fraud. Their web site www.PaternityFraudAustralia.com.au is another starting point to stopping the crime of paternity fraud.
Where is the justice for these victims ? It's crystal clear that paternity fraud destroys entire families both financially and emotionally. The lies hurt. The lies are unacceptable. The children of paternity fraud victims are victims themselves. They often grow up unaware of their correct medical history or their cultural background.

Truth is, we're in big trouble when the crime of paternity fraud is treated as another "gotcha" on television shows like Desperate Housewives. Guessing the paternity of a baby these days is a sick part of our twisted sense of family. We're not supposed to lay moral judgement on mothers who lie about human life.
>
> Mothers who commit paternity fraud should be punished to fit the full scope of their crime for all parties concerned. After all, a civilised world will not continue to exist if the truthful disclosure of a child's biological father remains - a cheating wife's choice.
Posted by chezzie, Friday, 6 October 2006 9:44:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just thought I'd share another one of my favourite problems which the CSA help facilitate:

Because CS has to be paid rain hail or shine, they have absolutely no power in the relationship. Great, us evil fathers can't manipulate the poor downtrodden women and their defenceless children.

But what about the flipside. If we father's don't do what they want, cough up extra money they demand, etc, they simply pull the plug on the kids. Nope, you're not having them this weekend, I've made other plans.

This will be my second weekend without them. Here I am, my family helped me pay to renovate and fix up a nice new room for them (yes she's all bitter and twisted about that), and it's now been empty since it was done.

It would be nice if we could at least pull some of that CS money when they play games like this. Perhaps then they wouldn't play these games.
Posted by Kalin, Friday, 6 October 2006 10:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My husband has been having a child support battle for nearly 8 years. He is a self employed Structural Engineer and his income is $62920.00. This is his income there are no fringe benefits, we pay for the use of the company car. Up until January this year we had sole care of his two children as well as my own and our little one. Child Support has decided that he earns $82,000.00. It doesn't amtter how much evidence we give them, tyhat is what they have decided and they will not change it. His ex-wife however has had her income lowered by child support and is also allowed to have around $7,000 tax deductions as well. My husband is not allowed to have any tax deductions. We have given letters to Child Support from the Accountant, who thinks this is just ludicrous and also asked Child Support to contact the Accountant which they just will not. At present we have not been able to pay our mortage since October last year, a fact well known by Child Support, but they still will not put my husband's income to the real $62920.00.
Furthermore there have been so many mistakes by Child Support, eg they decided that My husbands company income was $78280 one time becuse the number was on the front of his company tax papers. This happened to be the Identification number for the Industry in which my husband works. Also what is with Reason 10? My husband has had to support me and my children after I have our child. I was earning nothing and put in my tax return to prove it. My husband worked like an animal to increase the business to help support 4 extra people, Child Support decided that they could not allow Reason 10 because my husband was earning extra money to look after his own children, this was 2-3 years after he had already been looking after his children and just after I had our baby and stopped work.
Posted by Krisgar, Friday, 6 October 2006 8:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
New child support is hard to understand: Law Council

By Kate Corbett 5/10/2006 AAP

New laws governing child support are so complex that even the Law Council of Australia is having trouble understanding them, a Senate inquiry has been told.

"If a group of highly experienced lawyers could not work out what some of the new clauses meant, what hope did their clients have?" Law Council spokesman Ian Campbell asked the inquiry today........cont

( gee why does this just not surprise me ? Cheryl King )
Posted by chezzie, Friday, 6 October 2006 10:14:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, I'm not trying to offend you so if it's coming across that way sorry. I don't think I'm being unreasonable on this issue but I do think the current system is incredibly destructive.

If I understand your position correctly, you don't mind C$A, they have not done much for you but they've not done you any harm either. Try seeing that from the position of someone who has been forced to pay an ex partner a reward for doing the wrong thing in relation to residency and for not liking work much.

Imagine the pain of the dads who are forced to pay so called child support to someone who makes sure they hardly ever see their kids, not because they are abusers but because the system lets mums play games with the kids well being. The system provides financial incentive for low skilled or lazy mums to not share residency if their ex happens to earn a reasonable income. It does not seem to matter how much of the out of hours care a dad did before seperation, that prime care thing can be fairly slippery.

I'm of the view that there may not be a fair way to run a child support scheme that does not do more harm than good. We may as a nation be better off without it, too many lives are being wrecked.

If we can't ditch the whole thing at least start taking the reasons for the residency and income differences into account so that people are not rewarded for doing the wrong thing.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 6 October 2006 10:17:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, just because I don’t spew vitriol doesn’t mean I wasn’t ‘harmed’, but more importantly my children were extremely ‘harmed’ both by the divorce and by me working around the clock to make up for the lack of financial support—especially as one of my children became an invalid who at one point needed round the clock care and didn’t get it. I also have experience at 50/50 share of custody. I have experience of completely losing my children with little chance of getting them back including being denied any access let alone every second weekend so I do know what that feels like.

I just choose to look at the bigger picture.

There needs to be clarification on what modern marriage, de facto partnerships, responsibilities and obligations of parents are and what happens at divorce as an overall package that takes into account the rapid changes that have overtaken these ‘institutions’ in the last few generations and the impacts that is having on all (not just estranged men).

Questions that need reconsidering include: should men be responsible for children they father unintentionally or not? Should all babies be tested for paternity from birth? What’s the responsibilities and the rights of a man who looks after another man’s children? Should there be 50/50 access as a basic presumption on divorce? Should there be no fault divorce? Should men have to support there estranged children at all? What exactly should marriage as a contract obligate? Should all marriages be subject to enforceable prenuptial agreements? Should value be placed on unpaid work? Is it selfish and irresponsible if a person stays home full-time caring for the children? If the partner who wants that as well selfish too? Is the ideal that all of society should be modelled on a couple who both have high-powered careers with children put in childcare from birth? And many more.

We’re a society in transition, and sloppy haphazard way these changes are being managed increases distress.

I will continue this with my answers to these questions when next I am allowed to post.
Posted by Aziliz, Saturday, 7 October 2006 1:23:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I tried to answer those questions and it was too hard. Children are such hard work, are so incredibly expensive and such an incredibly long term commitment that there's no solution that doesn’t either encourage one or the other parent to give up their responsibilities or jumps on them with jackboots.

Why do parents work that hard for nothing? Parenthood doesn’t supply money it costs masses—there's not all these women on pensions living the life O’Reilly and the unpaid work is still work and damn hard work. There’s no guarantee you’ll still be in their life when they’re three years old nor you won't still be looking after a disabled child when you're 90, no guarantee your children won’t hate you when they grow up. Impossible burdens are placed on parents, then they’re blamed for everything that goes wrong with their children. The greatest punishment you get in life isn’t to be a bad partner but to marry the ‘wrong’ partner, not for sleeping around but for wanting to be a parent, not for ripping people off but for helping someone in trouble being stupid enough to think you will eventually get something back for your trouble. Any agreement you make with your partner is worth nothing as they can change their mind anytime and you’re completely stuffed, it’s just damage control as everything spirals out of control and your children suffer.

The ‘freedom’ of the sexual revolution with its pill and abortion, of no fault divorce and de facto relationships and of working women turns out to be no freedom at all but an obligation with all its own attendant horrors. Should we go back to arranged marriages, locking up our daughters until they have the ring on their finger, holding the shotgun to men’s heads to get them to marry and refusing to allow women many rights? The truth is that didn’t work either. Good luck to anyone in government who has to come up with policies to manage this nightmare. For me if I could have it over again I wouldn’t.
Posted by Aziliz, Saturday, 7 October 2006 6:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I speak form a position of 10 years' experience paying child support. The main problem with the child support system is the lack of accountability as to how the money is spent. My son's mother can elect to spend the least amount possible on our son yet I am compelled to pay her full child support. If the child support was based on a fixed amount equivalent to Austudy, I would be in financial position to spend the additional amount on our son - to his signicant benefit. Under the current system, she pockets the difference.
Posted by DDWW, Saturday, 7 October 2006 11:45:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Child Support is welfare to the mother. It encourages and rewards bad behaviour. Children are its only victims - they would be much better off without it. And so perhaps, would their mothers.

If you doubt this, just take some time to study the CS formula and do some modelling of your own. Yes, I know there is some reform in progress which will amount to a step in the right direction, but that takes nothing away from the points so many estranged fathers are making.

And what of the conservatively estimated figure of 10% paternity fraud, or the 1 in 3 foeti being aborted?

There has been no better time to probe deeper into this covert world of secret women’s business that perpetuates false victim status beyond all available evidence. Just because the state has joined the conspiracy to hide and subvert, does not make our collective denial any more valid.

We are just awakening to the inconvenient statistics on gender violence and abuse. And yet, even there, there is an incredible abundance of wilful denial.
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 8 October 2006 9:15:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason why there are so many howling men on this site and so few women isn’t because they’re having too a good time to bother. So here are some stories from the ‘other side’ to make up.

I worked with ‘A’ in an office attached to his home. ‘A’ broke up his first marriage--his wife, ‘A1’, wanted him to stay. Apart from a short initial period when he paid more than he could afford he didn’t pay ANY child support for his first three children--even when he was earning $120,000 per year and his new wife, ‘A2’ worked full-time too. When A was unemployed, ‘A2’ paid the lawyers fees of $3,000 for the child support court case that ordered ‘A’ need pay no child support (A and A1 had separated pre CSA so weren’t subject to it).

When ‘A’s children by his first marriage visited him ‘A’ would show them all the presents he had bought for his two ‘new’ children (his by A2) and was a very affectionate father with these two. But with his first three, ‘A’ was stern and unaffectionate and would order them to do work around the house and garden or to baby-sit which they meekly obeyed. The difference was extreme.

His new wife, ‘A2’, would shout at them--he always took her side even when ‘A2’ reduced them to tears and accused them of doing things they hadn’t done or were beyond their control. ‘A’ and ‘A2’ were very critical of the three behind their backs.

They had clothes for the children to change into when they visited and then out of before they left. Once they sent the three children home in new clothes and the clothes hadn’t come back on the next visit--‘A’ and ‘A2’ were furious no way was the ex getting anything.

‘A’s ex wife, ‘A1’, remarried a man who resented supporting children who weren’t his own and would beat the boys. ‘A’ behaved with absolute delight when he recounted this story to me as he believed it showed what a failure his ex was.

Cont
Posted by Aziliz, Sunday, 8 October 2006 2:05:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It never ceases to astound me - the gender bias of the CSA since its inception.

If I am a female who is the Non Custodial Parent and I do not declare tax or submit tax returns, but still have a legal obligation to pay Child Support (read: still working) I can get away with this.

Put the boot on the other foot though, and CSA will hunt you down like you belong to Al qaeda.

Then while not being "assessable" (due to non lodgement of Tax returns from which to apply the formulae) you (the NCP) pay off your house in quick time and then go on Unemployment benefits (maximum of $256.00 per annum payable as C-S debt at the time) you get the amount you previously owed for the 3 years prior - "written off" your debt to CSA.

Please explain?
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Sunday, 8 October 2006 2:47:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, the questions you ask are ones which should be taken seriously. They are big issues.

I take the view we should use a default position which has both parents equally involved and responsible for the lives of their children. When for some reason that cannot be made to work then government intervention needs to have as a clear focus protecting the kids from the consequences of the actions of unreasonable parents.

Sometimes that will mean significant shifts from what was in place during the time that parents were together but rarely will the traditional 2 nights a fortnight reflect anything like the situation before a relationship split. As I've said elsewhere a choice by one parent to be a stay at home parent does not mean that the other parent does not do most of the non working hours care.

The value placed on non paid work is always difficult. A starting place might be the persons demonstrated earning capacity prior to having the child.

We need to change the mindeset that seperating women seem to show that the 80/20 residency arrangement, C$A, FTB (A and B) rent assistance, pension etc are some kind of right. Our support should be there only for those who are left with the kids, not those who grab them.

I'd like mandatory paternity testing prior to the first C$A assessement being issued for a child. I do believe that a man should be given a clear choice at an appropriate time regarding his willingness to take on parental responsibilities (while abortion is still an option). The mother can then include in her decision making process the level of support which is available.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 8 October 2006 6:37:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..Despite knowing this new husband was beating his children, when ‘A’ visited he would have a beer with him and together they dissed ‘A1’.

‘A1’ wanted to be a fulltime mother but under pressure from her new husband she worked fulltime in retail.

‘A1’ hired a hall, arranging a major celebration for daughter’s 16th birthday. ‘A’ asked her what present she wanted(he normally didn’t buy anything). She asked for a double CD worth $50. Behind her back ‘A’and‘A2’ said she was greedy for asking for such an expensive gift. They bought the CDs then burnt a copy, kept the original for themselves and gave the daughter the copy! When she opened the present and realised this she spent the rest of her special party crying. ‘A’ behind her back called her a wimp. He didn’t contribute to the organisation or expense of the party.

Two years later ‘A’s daughter complained ‘A1’was fussing too much over arranging a date for her wedding that suited everyone. ‘A’ advised her to do what she wanted-if everyone loved her they would fit in. So she chose a date. He said he couldn’t come as was invited to a long weekend with ‘A2’s workmates (they were playing StarWars role-playing games and he wouldn’t have missed it for the world because he is such a Star War fan). Not one afternoon off in three days to attend his daughter’s wedding.

When daughter refused to let ‘A’ see his first grandchild ‘A’ said his ex-wife had poisoned her against him. Pfft—men are so stupid.

‘A’ said he’d been a bad father to the first three—he was going to fix it with his two new children. He wasn’t interested in fixing it with the children he’d been a bad father to unless they left 'A1'. He left 'A1' because ‘they fought too much’ and she 'put him under too much pressure to achieve'. ‘A’s second wife put him under even more pressure to achieve and the fights increased when they had two children-the second down's syndrome. ‘A’ said he’d learnt now fighting was a normal part of marriage
Posted by Aziliz, Sunday, 8 October 2006 7:27:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz,

You just described a classic cycle of entitlement and dependence in your story “from the other side”. A’s daughter’s sweet sixteen antics and then marriage at 18, show this. The other details you choose to provide are convenient red herrings. These are surely there to complicate and obfuscate, but also, expose your own biases of observation. After reading it, I remain unconvinced that you were aware of all the facts, or that you chose to share them with us.

There is great irony in your statement “Pfft—men are so stupid”. While it is acceptable that two thirds of marriages are broken up by women “falling out of love”, any man walking out is instantly an ogre. Stuff of fairytales indeed.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 9 October 2006 8:45:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, 50/50 custody/access doesn’t leave children used to a fulltime mother experiencing 'the closest' to before separation and few stay-at-home spouses can make the transition to a career without great difficulty. Some men find even every second weekend more childcare than they're used to or want.

Your comment about the working spouse doing the majority of the non working hours care isn't the norm, but quite unusual--even then 50/50 doesn’t address the damage to the career of the stay-at-home spouse.

The only way 50/50 on separation can work fairly for the children and both partners is if there’s a 50/50 share during the marriage.

Taking years off work, choosing low paid work because it fits in better with childrearing or working part-time greatly disadvantages a career. Staying in a job or within a career network is a lot easier than having to start up one from scratch or after a long break. If men want 50/50 on divorce then women would be crazy not to have equal careers to men and minimise time taken off to have children.

Seeker obviously agrees with me on this one as he sees stay-at-home mums as being ‘stuck in a cycle of dependence’ he thinks should be broken. Hello to either external childcare from birth, takeaway food and tramstop homes or everyone working part-time.

Seeker the 18 year old daughter actually married a MAN who was quite a bit older and her father ‘A’ approved of and encouraged him. What about their responsibility? Men shouldn’t chase young girls at all, let alone offer them marriage. They may like having someone to ‘rescue’—but they can destroy the girl's life. Try being a mother breaking that one up.

There are still a lot of women who want to stay at home to raise children but there are far less men who want to support them. Women’s liberation demanding women work is more men’s liberation from having to support their wives and children. Although there are many women who want that career there are even more men who want her to and not be dependent on him.
Posted by Aziliz, Monday, 9 October 2006 5:41:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, "There are still a lot of women who want to stay at home to raise children but there are far less men who want to support them." - spot on.

For many women the choice to do the same thing is something they have manouvered and fought for. Few families can afford for both parents to do it so the one who most wants it wins. To then use that to deprive kids of a parent and grab the lions share of family assets after a breakup is seriously wrong.

What do you think should happen with residency when it does occur dad does share in the care? What do you think should happen in those cases where dads have been actively involved in their kids lives and want an ongoing role better than the two nights a fortnight?

Do you really believe that ex's, solicitors, RA and others really give the kids and dads in those kinds of families a fair go when mum is looking to grab the house, car etc during the property settlement and thinking about an alternative to paid employment.

I'm very tired of the mothers groups opposing shared care as a default position because not all dads want it. None come up with serious proposals for the dads who do want it. The idea of a default position is that you move away from it in cases where it can't work.

It's a dishonest smokescreen designed to play on stereotypes rather than an serious attempt to address the issue. About as honest as the same advocates who talk about protecting children by opposing shared care and totally ignore which kind of household has the highest rate of substantiated child abuse and neglect.

Instead of continuing to focus on the cases of men behaving badly how about telling us what think should happen when the men have not done the wrong thing. We all know some men do the wrong thing, what many of us are opposed to is most men being treated as though they are guilty.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 9 October 2006 7:02:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pregnancy, childbirth and the first year have more in common with medieval torture chambers than anything a man experiences at work. To say ‘now the children can dress and feed themselves, use a toilet and sleep through the night you can share’ isn’t acknowledging that effort nor the bond and empathy it builds for those early years.

How do you 50/50 share a breastfed child? Would you insist the mother has to express milk for the 50% access of her spouse? How does she avoid mastitis? Or should she wean the baby? And how do you 50/50 share a baby in the womb?

If the child is young and attached to the primary caregiver you shouldn't just ‘break them of the habit’ traumatising them until they ‘adjust’ to being in the father’s care. There should at least be a transition period for the child--only slowly increasing the father’s access.

Is it fair to give the non-primary carer a right to have more of a role in the care of the child after separation while the primary-caregiver will wind up with both less of their children and none of the money? The non-primary caregiver gets the stability of his job and income. What if the result is the child spends more time in external childcare?

What if one doesn't want 50% of the childcare? Pay a nanny?

Robert, clarify what ‘government interventions’ you envision for what ‘unreasonable’ actions. The legal system has enough trouble working with abuse claims. How do you prove it? What if the other parent is lying? What if the child has been ‘coached’ to lie? What if the child is screaming, crying and having nightmares about it—does it count?

The difficulty in proving abuse against a partner is one of the major reasons spouses stay in abusive relationships. It‘s difficult to leave an abusive partner if it means having to leave your children in his custody even for one weekend per fortnight. And no father is refused custody of his children simply because he breaks the arms, ribs and back of the mother.

Seeker/Robert 2nd post later
Posted by Aziliz, Monday, 9 October 2006 8:21:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz - go away. You do not have the best interests of the children at heart; you do not have the best intersets of the families at heart; you are only here to attempt to inflame conflict.

You have not made a single constructive suggestion in the past few days, and this last one is just laughable!

If the 'mother' didn't want the physical responsibility of breast feeding, she could bottle feed....and if she didn't want the "medieval torture" as you describe it, then she shouldn't have had the baby to start with. Ever heard of contraception? Adoption? Better yet... ABSTINENCE??

If you can't find something contstructive to put forward as an alternative to the current system, don't waste our time any further.
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Monday, 9 October 2006 8:38:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aliliz - try turning it around

"It‘s difficult when an abusive partner leaves and it means having to leave your children in her custody all the time except for one weekend per fortnight (or she moves away and you never see your kids). And no mother is refused custody of her children simply because she was violent to a former husband."

The issues you raise also apply to fathers. Men end up with abusive spouses as well and they have to live with the knowledge that if the relationship breaks up they will be dealing with a system which will almost always give her the benefit of the doubt.

The issue of breast fed infants is difficult, again no reason to reject a default position of shared care with criteria for variations (and some rules to ensure that as the child gets older the father has more of the care). The current system does not have viable safeguards to allow for the kind of changes you mentioned. If mum gets the custody early there is no simple review process which adjusts that residency as the child grows older.

We might also take the possibility of changes in care arrangements into account when dividing property. I've now got a lot more care of my son than when our property settlement was done, should I now get to retrieve some of the former family assets?

It's not only women who do it tough with former partners, many of the same issues confront men. Start thinking of solutions that protect the innocent rather than just solutions that just protect women.

How does a man with a job prove how much of the out of hours care he provided or for that matter how much of the stay at home hours his ex actually spent caring for children?

Sometimes such a process will leave kids at risk, until we get reliable lie detector technology that will always be a risk.

I do believe that a default position of shared care and responsibility is a much lesser risk than what we do now.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 9 October 2006 9:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get off the grass Aziliz!

Pregnancy and childbirth are similar to a medieval torture chamber. Get real.

reading the rest of your post sounded more like "Maternal Gatekeeping" (google it) or Maternal Chauvinism.

There are always ways around difficulties. I work with women who are breastfeeding their child and they express before work etc.

Intact couples make compromises in relation to child care arrangements, so why is it any different to separated couples?

"Is it fair to give the non-primary carer a right to have more of a role in the care of the child after separation while the primary-caregiver will wind up with both less of their children and none of the money?"

Is it fair that the non-primary carer be deprived of contact with their child? Money! god I hate that word! There is something more precious than mere money. It is that emotional contact with children.

It's being able to watch children grow and develope. It's sharing the highs and the lows of child and parenthood, which many mothers want to jealously guard. the tooth fairy, the cuts, scrapes and bruises.

The joy and pride in their little eyes as they practice new skills. Their wonderment at the world.

There are some men who do a great job at parenting and there are some women who do it very badly. Just because a person is a bad parent does not mean that the children should not have contact with them.

If women own the children then fathers should not be responsible for paying them for the privilege of getting pregnant.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 9 October 2006 9:57:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You guys just don’t get it. I already said I signed a 50/50 access agreement on separation and I have also said the 50/50 after separation could be made fair by having 50/50 before—something that should suit someone like Seeker with his insistence that women in the home is an unhealthy dependence.

If the relationship has a stay-at-home mother and a full-time working father there are more difficulties in the 50/50 access *transition* (emphasis transition) and if men want to have a fulltime career they need to either marry a woman who wants one too or they need to acknowledge there are more inequalities to work out on separation with this arrangement and there should be a transition time for them taking 50/50 so the woman and the children can adjust. The breastfeeding relationship of young babies causes extra complications which I will elaborate on in a later post.

Seeker, I emphasised ‘A1’ didn’t leave or want to break up the marriage only because many men made posts accusing the woman of *always* breaking up the marriage. To me whether a person is the leavee or the leaver doesn’t explain whose at fault—yours is the fairytale with your ‘falling-out-of-love/ogre’ comment—-who thinks that? Not me. The rest of your post equally applies to all the male ‘stories’ on this site so you didn’t score any points with that.

Robert, to say to me to *start* looking for solutions that protect the innocent and not just the women isn't honest when I already suggested a 50/50 split before separation would make 50/50 after a smoother and fairer transition for ALL. Wake up Robert! Stop being so reactive and look at everything I say as a whole and not just focus on the things you don’t like as though that is all I say. I will suggest more solutions next post.

You’re also not thinking things through-for instance many non primary caregivers would rather hire a nanny, use daycare or put the children in the care of the new partner than leave them in the fulltime primary caregivers care.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 7:11:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz reading your earlier post

"I also have experience at 50/50 share of custody. I have experience of completely losing my children with little chance of getting them back including being denied any access let alone every second weekend so I do know what that feels like."

and in your case it sounds like you did not want the marriage to end.

Welcome to the reality which affects many more men than women.

Unfortunately amongst men and women there are very few saints.

Sure there are parents of both genders who would rather put their children in child care rather than let the other parent have them.

the only winners in divorce are lawyers, unless parents start to act like adults, then people can emerge winners.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 8:05:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My suggestions as Robert requested:

Prenups:

With a clause covering custody on separation that’s enforceable by law.

That solves the problem. You don’t like what the other person is offering you don’t get married.

Premarriage mediation:

--ten sessions as a prerequisite to complete before qualifying for a marriage licence.

The purpose to make the participants really confront what they expect out of marriage, childrearing, marriage breakdown and custody, working responsibilities, housework arrangements, how to handle mental or physical illnesses if they arise, what happens if a partner dies, etc. A component would be working out the prenup which would write up all the agreements over the above areas—some enforceable by law but others just a personal undertaking.

Some basic rules to prevent a totally imbalanced prenup should be in place and no prenup can be drawn up outside these properly guided ten sessions.

If the woman gets pregnant before marriage then the man would have no rights or responsibilities over that child. He would be under legal obligation to supply a medical family tree only, unless the couple marry. (Suggested alternatives?)

Any parent who completely abandoned all financial and access obligations in the prenup and the law proved unable to enforce them then they would lose any rights to the child after one year (unless they can prove extenuating circumstances).

Any man who marries a woman with children without a ‘legal’ father or whose step-children become ‘legally’ fatherless during the marriage would automatically become the legal father with full obligations and responsibilities equal to any biological children—that would be non-negotiable. In the case of their being step-children that are under a prenup the new partner would be required to honour that arrangement.

What to do about any children born within the marriage that were not biologically the fathers would be a prerequisite to work out in the prenup covering both cases of rape and affairs and the blurry line in between.

The prenup could be renegotiated under mediation at any time with the agreement of all parties involved including any subsequent marriage partners/step parents.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 8:33:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, a thought provoking list. The only one I can see being an issue (more for single mums than men) is

"Any man who marries a woman with children without a ‘legal’ father or whose step-children become ‘legally’ fatherless during the marriage would automatically become the legal father with full obligations and responsibilities equal to any biological children—that would be non-negotiable. In the case of their being step-children that are under a prenup the new partner would be required to honour that arrangement. "

Make that one an item in the prenup as well or a lot of single mums might find it that much harder to repartner.

The overall approach is one I support, I'd tweak the details - an opt in or out clause for 'dads' of kids born outside marriage so dad is not automatically excluded and mum knows what support she will have if she proceeds with the pregnancy.

What you are suggesting is a fairly significant shift in the way people approach marriage but then what we are doing at the moment seems to be causing a lot of grief so we need to look at alternatives. Am I correct in thinking that you have discarded the legalities of defacto relationships in this approach? I don't like the way that they can creep up on people with fairly serious consequences.

R0ber
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 14 October 2006 6:52:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea is in part a return to the original meaning of marriage--an agreement between two partners to have and raise children. With the upsurge of de facto relationships and unmarried mothers the government panicked and introduced laws that were once contained only in the marriage contract and compulsorily applied them to ‘de facto’ relationships and ‘illegitimate children’.

I’m aware there’s an enormous amount of anger among men who feel they were unfairly ‘saddled’ with a child they didn’t want—especially in an era where there’s contraception and abortion. Although I am horrified by the suggestions some of these men make of enforced abortions and even infanticide to solve their predicament, I do think their situation needs addressing. On the other hand because women get pregnant I don’t think there is a ‘perfect’ solution to this.

I don’t agree with your ‘opt’ in clause for fathers who decide they want to be involved with the child. The ‘opt in’ clause I suggest is the father can marry the women if she is willing.

I know this gives an advantage to a woman in that she can choose to have a child on her own while a man can’t but the only alternatives I can see are:

enforced abortion and infanticide
enforced adoption of the child
enforced responsibilities and rights on the biological father (current law)
enforced use of women as incubators for men’s children
enforcing the women to have a relationship with the father if she doesn’t want it

If the father can chose to opt out or to opt in and choose how much commitment he wants with the child and can enforce that on the mother he has more rights and control over the relationship than she does. It also encourages under-committed fathers. I am seriously not into enforcing abortion and if you force the women to let the father be involved then it’s only fair to force him to be involved and not allow him to opt out either which was what I was trying to avoid.
Posted by Aziliz, Sunday, 15 October 2006 10:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It also weakens the meaning of marriage as a legally binding contract where both parents commit to having and raising children equally which is what I am aiming for.

My emphasis means reducing the wasted time, commitment or money a man commits without full rights to the children and also reduces the disruption to the children of their relationship with their father after it has developed.

The not negotiable rule of the new husband having full rights and responsibilities over the step-children is in part to protect those stepfathers that commit to a relationship and pour their time, their caring and their financial support into children only to have no legal rights over the child in a split up. The only way they do that now is to adopt the child. That requires the agreement of the mother and of the biological father. If the biological father is not committed and another man is, he should be encouraged not discouraged.

There are men prepared to commit to a woman with small children *provided there’s no other father on the scene*--it’s when the children are little that women have the best chance at a new normal family relationship with a proper father figure. Having a half-hearted, foot-dragging, partly committed biological father in the background is a huge disadvantage to cementing a new and decent marriage. Strengthening the rights of the men who are prepared to commit would be an advantage.

Anyone who marries someone with children (with only one involved parent) and then doesn’t care for them as their own children shouldn’t be involved in the relationship in the first place. No child should experience that.

The marriage certificate would be a statement of a full commitment to the children of the family—unless they’re supported by a non-residential parent. They don’t like that they don’t have to get married.

If people want to get married for the party or a commitment to a spouse only and not commitment to child-raising then maybe we need two types of marriage certificates so the two don’t get confused.
Posted by Aziliz, Sunday, 15 October 2006 11:15:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, again laregely in agreement and I suspect that the bits where I don't agree are more a matter of a different perspective rather than a serious disagreement.

My opt in clause still leaves the choice regarding abortion with the mother. What it does do is provide a clear point of committment or otherwise. I'll think some more about your comments about that.

I'm still thinking through the issues in taking on responsibility for someone elses kids regardless of how the relationship gos. Your point is a good one about men investing themselves in kids that are not theirs and then having that relationship cut if the relationship with the mum fails. I can see benefits and catches all round on that.

Thanks again for the thought that has gone into what you have put up here.

The point about different types of marriage certificates is one that has been floated before - some suggestions that we change the name because of the baggage associated with marriage. Ideas I've seen include fix term contracts, in the case of what you've written it is mostly a parenting contract, traditional marriage (till death do us part, for better or worse etc). I'd support something which let people agree up front what they were doing, what the exceptions were, and then let them get on with it.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 15 October 2006 4:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Robert.

My suggestions make sure noone who isn't truly committed to their partner and to having children with that partner can wind up in a relationship with them.

Your suggestion just blows the whole thing apart.

If couples can just ‘get pregnant’ without going through the process of the ten sessions and the prenup and then 'have to' have a relationship because the man wants it then you undermine the whole process. I am anti-abortion so that isn't an option for me. So there would be no escape clause for those sort of women. I would never take a child away from a man if he went through the nine months of pregancy and the birth and the breastfeeding. Why are men so attached to a bit of sperm? It is so easy for a man to get a woman pregnant and any man who made one woman pregnant has obviously proved he is fertile. Women are different. The very decision to have a baby is by nature a huge commitment. Men don't even have to be in the same room as the baby for those three processes--they don't even have to be in the same country.

Women also have a 'biological clock' that goes off earlier than men's--if they are thirty five are they supposed to abort then when a later pregnancy might not happen or may be prone to difficulties? And what about fertility problems? Women have far more of these and if they have been told they can't have children and then they have a pregnancy after years of infertility they are not allowed to keep the child? Women are different to men.
Posted by Aziliz, Monday, 16 October 2006 7:52:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People have a tendency to drift into things often without bothering to find out who their partner really is and what they really want out of life. They hope for the best and then panic when they start to see the long term consequences of their actions and realise their partner is not going to ‘change’ in the way they hoped—but they are stuck like a fly in a web. The mediation sessions and the prenup is there to do this process when it should be done AT THE BEGINNING and I would hope that it would have the same effect, ie 80% or there about deciding to not get married after all.

To have a really informed, well thought out and clear commitment before people partner is what I am pushing for. Your way just completely squashed that, may as well throw the whole thing out.
Posted by Aziliz, Monday, 16 October 2006 7:52:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Azilz,

I think your proposal was excellent.

As Robert has noted, it would be harsh for fathers who get a woman pregnant, but who are then shut out, but I think that is something men could get used to if we, as a society, could get used to the idea that the mere donation of sperm, alone, without any further commitment, does not a parent make. Being cut out of the child's life at that point, whilst excrutiatingly painful for many fathers, would probably be no worse than the life sentence of anguish such fathers are presently faced with, dealing with hostile mothers and a punitive legal and child support system.

It would also give marriage some real meaning. As it stands at present, it is a pretty meaningless, religious phenomenon.
Posted by Kalin, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 7:28:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, "Women also have a 'biological clock' that goes off earlier than men's--if they are thirty five are they supposed to abort then when a later pregnancy might not happen or may be prone to difficulties?" Just in case there is mis-understanding, no part of my view includes forced abortions.

I don't like abortion but have come to the conclusion that their availability at the mothers choice is better than the alternative.

I don't see that man having a choice regarding opting into the childs life if the mother proceeds as invalidating the rest of what you propose. "If couples can just ‘get pregnant’ without going through the process of the ten sessions and the prenup and then 'have to' have a relationship because the man wants it then you undermine the whole process.".

I see it as a decision regarding parenting rather than about a relationship between the parents.

The act of marriage (with associated legal benefits and obligations) would still require the mediation.

Not perfect, kids are better off being raised in a stable and loving home by both parents. If that does not happen I consider having two loving parents involved in their lives is a better alternative than being raised by one parent even if the parents are not together.

"To have a really informed, well thought out and clear commitment before people partner is what I am pushing for. Your way just completely squashed that, may as well throw the whole thing out."

I don't agree, I think I'm just approaching some of the issues around parenting differently.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 8:13:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The CSA has hidden behind "In the best interests of the Children", and "...according to our legislation" for way too many years. The system is a disastrous failure, and does nothing more than create dissent, anger, bitterness and hatred between parents - at a time when there is more than ample conflict.

Since Joe Hockey made that horrendous statement "I will hunt them to their grave" (meaning the non paying non-custodial parents), then I would hope that he will also hunt down the REAL father of the children that Liam Magill was duped into paying for.

The courts know his name, and where he lives, and knows about all the assets he funnelled into his wife's name - and that they skipped the state as soon as he realised he was going to be named. Where is Mr Hockey's zeal for justice now?

Plain and simple - the CSA took money that they weren't entitled to, and now want to wash their hands of the whole thing. They have not taken action against the woman who ADMITTED IN COURT she knew she was lying; they have the option to do so, but wont. WHY?

The fact that this has HAD to be taken to this level is abhorrent - and simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the CSA is now corrupt, and blatantly discriminatory. (Strange, here I was thinking that Discrimination of any kind was illegal in this country)

"Disgusted-With-Hockey" Danielle rhis_mummy@yahoo.com.au
Posted by chezzie, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 8:30:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I forgot to put this para in my last post. It was supposed to be the first paragraph and I'm afraid the rest didn't make much sense:

"I would rather marriages didn’t break up. I think it is hell. But it happens. The reason I suggested ten mediation sessions before marriage is because my sister and her husband went to a course before getting married that was so confronting eight out of ten of the couples decided not to marry. My sister by the way is still happily married 17 years down the track."

I was very impressed.

Thanks Kalin,

Robert you aren't even reading my posts.

The best chance the child has of getting a proper live in father is if the biological father gets off the scene. I have met many men out there who are perfectly happy to marry a women with either one or two children who are very young. But they want to be able to step in from early on and they would much prefer there were no other man around. You ignore that because you are so hung up on the biology.

You go on about children needing to have two loving parents. I agree--that is precisely why I suggest the man should have nothing to do with the child. Parents shouldn't just love the child while they rip each others eyes out--they should be two loving parents to each other and the child living under the one roof. My suggestions are to give this option for the child the best likelihood of happening.

You are forcing abortions on women. You said so yourself in an earlier post that if she didn't want a relationship with the father she could have an abortion. That is forcing her.

Even so not all children from sole parents are wrecks--some are great. In fact it shocks me how often many of the best husbands around came from broken homes. I think the stats need more analysis.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 10:38:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chezzie, I think Liam Magill is a creep. What his wife did was despicable but what he did was a million times worse. The real victim isn't LG it is those poor innocent children. One incidentally is his bit of 'sperm', but all are real living human beings. That he held in his arms and cared for them for years and then screams he wants nothing to do with them and he wants $70,000 back ensuring they will have the most excruciatingly poverty stricken life. I feel so sorry for the kids.

If I had put years of money and time into a child and then found out they weren't biologically mine it would not make one jot of difference to me in how I felt about them. How it made me feel about my partner would depend on the circumstances. He doesn't pay any child support now. He has had his arrears cancelled. What more does he want? His children's blood? And what about that awful girlfriend of his. They are both heartless and soulless and incredibly self-centred.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 10:41:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Azliz - I strongly suggest you retract your statement and apologise.

You do not know anything about the case (other than what you have interpreted from the news), and you do not have the right to sit in judgement over anyone. Your comments regarding the Child Support situation are patently incorrect, and your character assassination based on that is the only 'evil' thing here.

Liam Magill DOES have a debt with the CSA - they have never cancelled it; in fact they have created a bigger debt because of the ONGOING deceipt of Meredith Magill.

Liam Magill DOES still pay Child Support, to this day.

Liam Magill was advised be a LAWYER to not have contact with the children who were not his. (It wasn't a decision that any father would have made lightly)

Meredith ORDERED the two children who weren't Liams to NOT call him "Dad" anymore - is that not evil?

Until you are aware of the facts, kindly have the common courtesy NOT to pass judgement or comment.
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 7:10:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, "You are forcing abortions on women. You said so yourself in an earlier post that if she didn't want a relationship with the father she could have an abortion. That is forcing her."

Not true.

"Robert you aren't even reading my posts."

Not true.

Disagreeing with aspects of what you are saying does not mean I'm not listening. it just means I have a different viewpoint. Have I misquoted you? Have I attributed comments to you that you have not made?

Please settle down and discuss this rather than attacking. I have a different perspective to you on the matter. Mostly I think the points you make have a lot of merrit but I don't think you give enough weight to some of the issues which are important. The biological thing does seem to be fairly important to men, it's not an issue women have to face, they have a bit more certainty regarding the question of the child being their offspring or not.

Agreed not all children from sole parents are wrecks just as not all children from traditional families are great. It's more about stacking the odds in the kids favour. Smoking does not always cause lung cancer and not smoking does not guarantee you won't get it. Same kind of issue.

"I think Liam Magill is a creep. What his wife did was despicable but what he did was a million times worse." - are you serious.

The main victim is the kids but Liam also appears to be a victim. I've only seen what's been published in the media on this, I'd hate to be faced with the choices he has had to make.

I suspect that I would have chosen differently because of the the potential to add to the harm done to those children. However the person who placed the kids in harms way appears to have been the mother, final responsibility for any harm done to them lies with her.

Placing another person in a no-win situation does not somehow pass the responsibility for the wrong across to them.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 8:30:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding Liam MAGILL. People often make judgements on their limited knowledge of the facts of this tragic case.
Can I please clear up a few points ?
Liam Magill did not choose to deceive those 3 children for the 1st decade of their lives. It was mum who lied to them for all those years.
Liam Magill has never been refunded one cent of the 8 years of child support he paid for Derek Rowe's 2 children.
Liam Magill is still paying child support.
Liam Magill is still in arrears with the CSA ( the phantom debt )
The children's minds have been badly poisoned against Liam by his ex wife Meredith. He is now the 'family villian'
Meredith allowed her children to perk up to a total stranger Mr Greg Bearup- journalist from the Weekend Australian...and say...I hate my old dad.
Meredith (McClelland) Magill is from one of the wealthiest families in rural Victoria. Her inheritance runs into the millions.
She will never be financially disadvantaged.
The CSA allowed the biological father Derek Rowe to run away with his wife Veronica to Southport in Qld
Derek Rowe left Melbourne with almost half a million dollars in his bank account. The CSA never pursued him. CSA stated in documents obtained through FOI.To take action against Derek Rowe was "problematic"
The children have lived with their mother since they were aged 1,2 and 3 years of age. Meredith left when the yougest child was 11 months old.
The children tried to burn Liam home down on 3 occasions.
The children stole $900 from Liam's bedside table one access weekend. It was never returned.
No doubt mum would have known if the children had so much money in their possession.
But one can only put it down to mum's documented drug addiction.
Chezzie and Cheryl are the same person and she IS the 'awful' girlfriend of Liam Magill.

CHEZZI
Posted by chezzie, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 10:21:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz,

How do you think ammends should be made to a man who has paid CS for many years for kids who turn out not to be his?

How should the mother be punished in such a case?

Frankly, I cannot even imagine a just outcome for either person or the children
Posted by Kalin, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 4:11:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalin, I agree—I don’t advocate women cheating on their husbands but I also cannot imagine a just outcome for all. In my outline of a new system I avoided tackling it by putting it in the prenup—I shouldn’t have.

My emphasis is the children and their relationship with both parents (once established). If it happened to me (not possible) I’d do everything I could to stop it affecting my relationship with the children.

Now, Robert--don’t get so defensive--explain yourself better.

Your quote:

“My opt in clause still leaves the choice regarding abortion with the mother.”

This gives women a choice of having a relationship with the father or an abortion. If you’re happy with forcing that on a woman just say so and stop fudging.

Explain how it would be negotiated and how much force used on the unwilling. If a full 50/50 custody--when does that commence? Can he insist on being present at the birth? Can he take the baby when one or two days old—a week?

You’re not listening not because you disagreed but because you didn’t comment on the ease a woman with one young child can repartner. You still argue about children needing two parents. Do you exclude adopted children as experiencing two parents? Women with multiple/older children are less likely to repartner and more likely to have step-parenting problems.

Chezzie—Thought you were cheryl--trying to flush you out—and succeeded. ;)

I experienced all the floods of women who raced into my ex’s life determined I was an awful villain he needed protecting from (and sometimes our children) even though they never met me. I’m very wary of the ‘knight in shining armour’ rescuer attitude now—I understand how much damage it can do. I doubt you really know Meredith as well as you suppose and casting the children as ‘dragons’ is callous.

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 Chezzi? Which children does he owe debt for?
Posted by Aziliz, Thursday, 19 October 2006 9:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Solicitor General- ( The Government's legal representative ) mentioned during the High Court Appeal in Canberra on 7th April 2006 that decisions are made in courts around Australia every day against people who have families and children.( not quoted word for word ) In my opinion, why is the Magill case any different ? Criminasl who are living from the proceeds of their crimes are having their homes and valuable belongings confiscated by the government. Are we now saying because these criminals have children...they should be exempted from any penalty? The arguements that are being put forward by some people are just absurd. Paternity Fraud is not uncommon. 1 in 5 men in Australia who question the paternity of their children will have their suspicions validated by DNA testing. I am a mother of 3 and if I knew that my own baby's true identity was deliberately concealed at birth, I would take action to find out who was responsible and I would not rest until the truth was uncovered. Liam Magill and the deceived children are entitled to the same course of action. Don't be surprised in the future if these children mount their own case against their mother for the pain and suffering she put them through. All children and all adults are entitled to their identity, heritage, bloodline, medical history and above all the TRUTH.
Cheryl King - Chezzie (the awful girlfirend of Liam Magill) phone 0416 031145- Melbourne
Posted by chezzie, Thursday, 19 October 2006 9:50:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They also say Liam Magill has been on disability pension for years. Does this mean the child support he still pays is $5pw for all those years or has he been a victim of the CSA laws of ‘capacity to earn’?

I’m against the ‘capacity to earn’ rule. Although I understand the CSA’s frustration over the majority of men not paying any appreciable child support ($6pw), the men who have genuine reasons to be on a lower wage than previously shouldn’t be penalised.

He was given a lump sum from his previous employer in 2005--there’s some contention over that—strange all of a sudden getting that so many years later--what was that?

Saying Meredith is rich isn’t good enough when Liam Magill’s court case was to set a precedent for all women including those without a cent--weren’t you all trumpeting that.

Liam Magill was paying the child support Derek Rowe should have paid(if DNA+male pays is the standard adopted). Society says the non-custodial must pay and when he doesn’t, advocates suing the woman who supports the children? Not consistent. Derek Rowe should have been sued.

If the CSA can’t get money from Derek Rowe then he’s the same as the majority of NCP--his marriage seems to have survived too.

Many people with drug addictions have a mental illness that attracts them to drugs—if not mentally ill before they can be afterwards from the drugs effects. Our society needs to support the mentally ill and their family. If what you say is neither a fabrication nor an exaggeration then it’s a pity Liam Magill and his supporters are so insensitive to Meredith’s problem. what were the circumstances of leaving those children with a drug addict? Instead of bandying around the word ‘drug addict’ as an insult you should recognise it as the serious illness it is.

Scrap, if your lawyer said go jump off a cliff you would? Most lawyers love destroying families—but no lawyer could convince me not to see my children in exchange for no CSA.
Posted by Aziliz, Thursday, 19 October 2006 9:50:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there,
There is no more disgusting an organisation than the Child Support Agency. If this amorphous, disgraceful, lying, cheating, undemocratic, organisation calling itself the CSA is to be rendered to the grubby status it deserves, then it will be, as soon as "equal parenting legislation" is actually followed by the courts.
Not that I expect any family Court to lawfully adhere to Commonwealth Gazetted legislation. Because they too, are a law unto themselves.
The wealthier the man, the more the CSA encourages the woman to claim, not child support, but a matrimonial settlement.
After having supported my boy all along I was re-assessed at at the mother's request at $50,000.00 retrospectively and $350.00 pw.
My 4yo is living the high life? Of course not! But his mother can now as she never had to work and doesnt now in her new affluent relationship.
My point is this ....if there is ever to be any justice or equality then make it equality of parenting. Then let's see what the little Hitlers at the CSA say if those women magistrates follow the law and give the father equal access to his kids. Equality of the sexes equals equal access...equal access equals equal costs.
Then maybe we can close the doors on this unaustralian organisation and the billions they waste a year sitting on their fat, dum, shiny bums can be spent on the kids.
Posted by lARRY pICKERING, Thursday, 19 October 2006 5:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Azliz, why don't YOU jump? Really?

You have proven yourself, through numerous posts, to be intolerant, highly ignorant, and thoroughly petty.

From your purile carry on, I'm not surprised that your ex, or anyone else he partnered with, thought you were an evil villain. You certainly have portrayed yourself quite nicely as that in this discussion!!

And if nothing else, the fact that you beleive all the crap that you read in the papers, or hear on the news.... you are a loon of the highest calibre.
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Thursday, 19 October 2006 8:33:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My partner is just now beginning his relationship with the CSA. The letters they've been sending the ex at the end of financial year stirred her up, and after many months of the mother's poison, the youngest has refused to speak to his father until he pays CS. There is nothing we can do to stop the damage her mother is doing to those kids. We have no objection to paying CS, but the way they do things REALLY needs to change. The ex, in her application, lied about just about everything (except his address and ph. no.!), and now its up to my partner to prove her wrong. The breach of OUR privacy involved in a change of assessment (to take into account the fact we pay all costs of maintaining contact)is horrifying. If the mother gets a right to know ALL of our financial details becuase it may affect HER CS income, then why don't we get a copy of her details, because, after all, that CS we pay affects our income. Is anyone actually DOING anything, or are we all just waiting for someone else to change things? Point me in the right direction.
Posted by atticus, Friday, 20 October 2006 8:56:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chezzie, paternity fraud isn’t illegal yet--Liam Magill’s case is the test case that may create the precedent to make it illegal.

If you make paternity fraud illegal--what happens if the woman tells the man and he decides to forgive her and stay in the relationship? What happens if he changes his mind years down the track? What if she says she told him and he says she didn’t—who do the courts believe? Does she have to prove he agreed or does he have to prove he didn’t know? If the man is compensated financially how do you calculate that? Will he only get refunds on CSA payments or can he claim for when he was living with her? How do you calculate that debt? Do you advocate laws to stop adultery?

Should it be also illegal for the biological father? What should be the consequence to him--equal to the mother or less? Should women be punished because women are worse than men or because it’s harder to change the law to punish men? How different is this to stoning the adulterous women while the man goes free in some countries?

There are many frauds perpetrated in marriage leaving the other spouses’ lives in tatters. Is this the only fraud that should be suable?

If the woman can’t pay is she imprisoned? Can women left with children be able to sue NCP’s the same $70,000 per ten years they don’t pay child support for their biological child even if they don’t have the means—and imprison them? Hasn’t the woman been defrauded also if the father promised to support the children and then doesn’t?

Should all children have paternity tests at birth? Make them compulsory, or only compulsory if the male wants one? Would you legally insist on paternity tests for men accused of being the biological father? Should the testing be performed in utero?--enforce abortions for babies not biologically the father’s? If the women has the abortion and the marriage breaks up anyway as a result of the DNA test does she get any punishment?
Posted by Aziliz, Friday, 20 October 2006 10:54:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can a live-in husband sue his wife?

What about the husband who has a child outside the marriage paying child support thereby taking money out of the family—does she get to sue him too? Can he be imprisoned if he doesn’t support the children of his legal marriage after he has impregnated another women? Or can he join Derek and more than half the NCP paying nothing to $6 because they hide their money while you want someone in Meredith’s situation to have a $70,000 debt when she can't afford it but because of the fraud.

If the father hides that he’s supporting a child by a previous relationship can the wife sue him for paternity fraud when she finds out? Can you sue bigamists?

Should the mother who commits paternity fraud automatically lose the legitimate children to the spouse? Should the wife have the same benefit if the husband is the fraud?

Your suggestion Meredith’s children should sue her is disgusting. She can go through pregnancy, birth and care for 18+ years, cooking, cleaning, washing paying for their clothes, schooling, food, changing nappies, cleaning their wounds, wiping their noses, holding them when they cry, nurse them when sick,etc without any financial support from either father and then be sued by her children. Why not instead fight for the right to take the children from her so you and Liam can give them the upbringing you seem to think they should have? And you say this woman is struggling with a drug addiction as well? Vicious.

Scrapnmafia. You don’t criticise the contentious comments made by men. Your attitude is ‘women are evil--no exceptions and men are poor victims—no exceptions’. That’s never been my stand. I also ask questions of people to encourage them to debate. Don’t think I don’t notice you just insult and don’t debate or answer questions—nor has Chezzie. Look at your nick:‘scrap’n’(fighting)‘mafia’(a group of men involved in extortion, drug-smuggling, gun-running and prostitution). You describe yourself as a thug—you have the same opinion of yourself that I do.
Posted by Aziliz, Friday, 20 October 2006 11:05:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was 20 years old when I met my husband. He was separated and had a son of 2 years old. He paid child support but it did not matter to him, he wanted to support his son and it allowed him to continue with access. If he paid less she would not let him see his son. I did not care, I was working full time as well. As young people in love do, we got married and soon my thoughts turned to having children. My husband could not support me, our child, his son and his ex-wife. No problem, I thought. I would have a baby and then get straight back into work. So all sorted. But nothing could have prepared me for the feeling you get with motherhood. I did not want my baby in childcare. I was so in awe of this little bundle of joy I just wanted to stay home with her and love her and look after her.

But financially we just couldn't afford it. Any attempts to reduce the large amount of child support we were paying were met by a mother threatening to withdraw access. We had paid thousands of dollars with lawyers and family court and we did not want to go through that process again. So I did night packing, I cleaned a pub at 4am so I could be at home. I had to work at night because my husband had taken on a second job. However, my husbands ex was not working. She was receiving government benefits, had remarried and was not expected to work until the children reached school age.
More to come.....
Posted by Nat04, Friday, 20 October 2006 12:55:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those who think that we should have not had children because we could not afford them, please have some heart and understanding. I am a mother just like anyone else. My children are now 16 and 14. They are very close to both myself and my husband, he is a wonderful father who has been very badly treated by an acrimonious ex-wife who has been assisted by the system and the CSA that supports her.

I will never regret having my children. They are my life. We are still poor but very happily married. People deserve second chances for happiness and love. Compassion for each other is the key in these forums. Take a moment to see it from the other side.
Posted by Nat04, Friday, 20 October 2006 12:55:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz,

You are being a little melodramatic.

The problems you raise with paternity fraud being actionable are almost all questions of evidence. Courts decide such matters on a regular basis.

Yes, some aspects of paternity fraud ought not to be actionable, such as the parental costs paid by a live in father who then discovers he is not the biological father. I agree it would be impractical for courts to sort out whether the father really knew or not, etc, so these expenses are not something the court should involve itself it. However, if a man is not a custodial parent, but is being asked to pay CS then you can be 99% sure he is paying because he believes the child is his. If it turns out otherwise, he ought to be able to recover his money.

Would the kids be disadvantaged by such actions of course, but only in the same way children are disadvantaged when their parents have to pay back stolen money or money received in error. The world can't function on the basis parents are immune from responsibility just because the children might also be affected.

Now on a different issue, does anyone have any ideas how the system could be fairer for people in Nat4's position. I too would like to try again, but finances make it almost impossible.
Posted by Kalin, Friday, 20 October 2006 1:39:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see that most of the population of Australia are fair minded and prefer to deal with the truth rather than lies and deceit. The people who find excuses for deception are usually the ones who would consider being deceptive themselves. You can skirt around the issue as much as you like but mark my words 'when these children become adults they will want to exercise heir own brand of justice ' 2 of these children are males. How ironic it will be if they become victims themselves and they use the same 'Magill' case law to address the any issues of fraud/decit/deception in their own adult lives. The posts in favour of Meredith Magill will definately have the sanction of her very high powered legal team Clayton Utz.
Cheryl King ( Chezzie ) 35 Moselle street Box Hill Victoria 3128 ph 0416 031145
www.PaternityFraudAustralia.com.au
Posted by chezzie, Friday, 20 October 2006 2:11:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Don’t think I don’t notice you just insult and don’t debate or answer questions—nor has Chezzie. Look at your nick:‘scrap’n’(fighting)‘mafia’(a group of men involved in extortion, drug-smuggling, gun-running and prostitution).

You describe yourself as a thug—you have the same opinion of yourself that I do"

To all those here, I am a MUM....A WOMAN... I have fought for 12 years in and out of court for justice for disenfranchised fathers. I have seen first hand the destruction that women wreak on their partners during divorce, and it is from THIS standpoint that I argue the validity and legality of the CSA and Family Court.

Azliz - I expect a written retraction and apology for your liablous comment regarding the "origin" of my nickname. Had you but asked, I would have happily explained where it came from, but again, you pass uneducated and ridiculous judgements upon others whom you do not know, nor care to listen to.
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Friday, 20 October 2006 6:26:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scrapnmafia is really telling it like it is. You go girl ! WHO IS Aziliz who will not publicly identify herself? I won't try and flush her out because she is obviously a coward and hides behind the forum safe non identification. Come on Aziliz - where do you live ? What is your hidden agenda. Have you also deceived your family and maybe feeling guilty.Will the Magill landmark case give legs to someone who knows about your own issues ?
Chezzie - Cheryl King 35 Moselle St, Box Hill Victoria 3129 - Ph 0416 031145
Posted by chezzie, Friday, 20 October 2006 7:14:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There would be no paternity fraud if all birth certificates issued included true paternity status. Could be just a footnote to the father’s details. A simple asterisk could indicate “Not biological”. Perhaps other condition codes and accompanying explanations could also be included to fully qualify the context of paternity.

The man can then consider his options – right then and there - allow him 30 days to decide. No need to “change his mind a few years down the track”. We have the science – cheap, accessible, and accurate. Marxists can willingly pay.
Posted by Seeker, Saturday, 21 October 2006 12:38:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The man can then consider his options – right then and there - allow him 30 days to decide."

'30 days' to make a decision about something that is going to impact on you for the rest of your life! GEE that is generous.

It would pretty hard to make a clearly rational decision in that time.

The term 'emotional blackmail' comes to mind.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 21 October 2006 7:05:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can identify with what you're saying Nat04, I was 21 when I met my partner and he had 2 kids already, and I was working fulltime, always have but we've since had 2 kids. We deserve the choice to stay at home with our kids, but that will not be the case for me much longer. His ex has spent 15 years on government pensions, and her partner owns his own home while we still rent. After years of a private aggreement, she has used CS as a means to brainwash her children into thinking their father does not love them and that he is generally a 'bad person'. Thankfully the eldest is a fair-minded girl and can see past it. She has successfully ruined our attempts for them to be part of their new brothers' lives. As a mother, I cannot believe the lengths some other mothers go to to inflict such pain on their own children in a misguided attempt to make them hate their father as much as they themselves do.
Posted by atticus, Saturday, 21 October 2006 7:08:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This case below comes to mind when I think of the CSA and the victims of this dispicable agency. The CSA breaks the law every day when they apply unjust and inequitable decisions. They have ample legislation that they can apply to act 'fairly ' but the CSA chooses to abuse their statutory powers by applying their own brand of injustice. Previous court orders are often overidden, ignored, & abused. So why bother to even get your court orders in the 1st place? They are a law unto themselves and accountable to no one.

"If the courts of common law do not uphold the rights of the
individuals by granting effective remedies, they invite anarchy, for
nothing breeds social disorder as quickly as the sense of injustice
which is apt to be generated by the unlawful invasion of a person’s
rights, particular when the invader is a government official" Gaudron,
Toohey JJ Plenty v Dillon & Ors HCA 91 1/1/01

Cheryl King ( Chezzie ) 35 Moselle Street Box Hill- Victoria- phone 0416 031145
Posted by chezzie, Sunday, 22 October 2006 11:59:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You’re naïve Kalin. There are many friendly split ups that get increasingly contentious until they're all out war—that’s common. It would be rare to be able to prove conclusively whether there was fraud when the two partners disagreed. My other points are pertinent. If you change a law it causes consequences no-one considered.

Do notice the deafening silence on my points about fathers who defraud.

Chezzie's refusal to answer my questions speaks volumes too. What is it--fifth amendment? Why are you so afraid to answer? Scared what people will think of you if they know the truth?

No, chez my three children were all biologically my ex’s. But I can’t understand how anyone can hold a child in their arms, caring for them for years and then treat them like that. I don’t understand the virulent poison poured out on the children and I don’t understand your scot-free attitude to Derek Rowe.

I wanted to adopt a child who would otherwise have a rotten life. It seemed crazy to give birth to another child in this world when others went without. But my ex wanted his own DNA. I have a cousin who adopted a little chinese girl. In China due to the one child policy they drown little girls—their orphanages overflow with them.

After my marriage breakdown I did look for another relationship—that’s when I discovered how important DNA is to most men--if they do marry someone with children they often maltreat them. This DNA trip impacts on many levels. Children are not treated as individual human beings but carriers of their parents’ immortality through genes. There’s a documentary on monkeys where the new leader of the 'harem' of female monkeys kills all babies to maximise the survival of his DNA. This DNA attitude you encourage is a cruel and selfish impulse.

Without a doubt the true parent of a child is the one who cares and nurtures them whether they are theirs genetically or not.

Who looks after your children chez? Would you like them to take you to court after dedicating your life to them?
Posted by Aziliz, Saturday, 28 October 2006 9:56:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scrap, as a women you deserve more condemnation. Go have a look at all the pro-male/NCP recommendations I make. I said I was against the ‘capacity to earn’ rule and I offered my ex 50/50. Did you or Chezzie have 50/50 with your exes? You pretend men are the only victims. There’s no-one saying sometimes woman get a raw deal and the answer to the children getting a raw deal is they can sue the mother.
.
I’ve also seen firsthand the destruction men wreck on their partners. I know women beaten to a pulp in front of their children and then peed on. I’ve seen the broken backs, necks, ribs, fractured skulls—women and children. I have been with them when their children are hospitalised after access visits. I’ve seen them stay in a relationship so they don’t have to leave their children alone with him for access. I’ve been to their funerals when they did try to leave. I know the women who have lost custody of their children being accused of PAS while their children are screaming “not daddy—he hurts me”.

I know the men who left their wives with huge debts while he hides his money--so many men who work full-time and pay no child support. I work in IT surrounded by men--they all joke about it. I have met the men who tell me they left because they hated the burden of children. I know the women whose men walk out and refuse to have anything to do with the children while the women beg them to take access. And the women who are terrified because they know on access visits their children are with a heroin addict or someone seriously mentally ill. It’s not only men who get hurt.

Most men pay nothing to $5pw for their children. These are not all unemployed. These include men with businesses and men with so many schemes to keep their money.

My suggestions were to maximise the chances of a marriage lasting and a mutual agreement for separation drawn up before marriage. That’s fairer than any of you.
Posted by Aziliz, Saturday, 28 October 2006 9:58:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, you say,
There’s a documentary on monkeys where the new leader of the 'harem' of female monkeys kills all babies to maximise the survival of his DNA. This DNA attitude you encourage is a cruel and selfish impulse. What about horses, the new Stallion will kill all the offspring of the mares under his ‘harem,’ and I am sure with other animals too.

Take a look at religious wars & differences of opinions, in present news. Young lasses getting about with their mid-riff exposed as well as cheeks of their lower bottoms! Does this not incite lust in the eye of the hormone bursting youths. If you want to take the discussion into the nature of man & beast, start a new topic, please.
Posted by ELIDA, Saturday, 28 October 2006 10:54:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AZILIZ is having trouble grabbling with the truth here. She must work for Clayton Utz( mothers legal tream )or maybe the CSA
Fraud is fraud and when you gain through deception, you have broken the law. Aziliz you are typical of the minority who will always hide behind the 'best interests of the children' So being a mother gives you the right to not pay any penalty- or so it seems. You would also be a great assett to the CSA. They facilitate fraud every day. They had their own officer/witness committ perjury in court just recently. I was there and witnessed it first hand. Its an appalling and dispicable organisation and the sooner they close their doors the better. What will you tell these kids when they are adults? When they ask why they were deceived about their true identity? I hope you are around later when these kids 'sue' the authorities for not ensuring that their basic human rights were upheld. Women like you make me PUKE. You can never even start to comprehend what it feels like to be involved in the crime of 'paternity fraud'. You are brave behind your log in name and hidden identity.
Cheryl King ( Chezzie )35 Moselle Street Box Hill 3129 Phone 0416 031145
Posted by chezzie, Saturday, 28 October 2006 12:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Azliz, I am still waiting for your retraction regarding you supposed origins of my online nickname.

If you read my posts from the start I have regarded 50/50 as a requirement - unless there are extenuating circumstances. I have never once said that men are all victims - nor would I. So kindly stop attempting to twist my words, or indeed put words in my mouth.

I have to say that I am concerned by your mental state - on occasions your posts have been well thought out, and very fair...then the next post you seem to be so vindictive and spiteful towards anyone who doesn't agree with you, or simply chooses not to respond....

The radical 'mood swings' you have shown (from being relatively calm, to completely agressive and spiteful)... I sit here, and wonder if you aren't in some way Bi-Polar? I doubt it is Schitzophrenia...althoug a few of your behaviours do point to this as being a possibility!
Posted by Scrapnmafia, Saturday, 28 October 2006 1:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scrap, both yours and chezzie’s posts have been vituperative, vindictive, spiteful and one-eyed consistently and right from the beginning--I guess that means you are not bi-polar. You need someone to tell you how vicious you are being. It is a pity you can’t listen.

How ridiculous to tell me that you are for 50/50 access. I brought that up to show that I consider both sides. It is obvious you consider the male side, what are you trying to prove?--the remark is so absolutely absurd given the context of my criticism of you being biased.

You don’t have to say that ‘men are all victims’ you simply need all your posts to aggressively push the male barrow without concession or any look at the other side. They do.

I did ask you and chezzie if 50/50 is what you gave to your ex’s—as neither of you answered I take that to mean no.

I am not for 50/50 in all cases. As I have stated in previous posts if a man wants 50/50 after separation he should have it before. That is the only way that it can be fair.

Otherwise it is a huge disruption for the child and an insult to a mother who has sacrificed her career to look after the child. For the man that’s having his cake and eating it—it is an enormous advantage to have a fully developed career, it is unfair not to acknowledge that. I am all for 50/50 when there was that prior to split up or something close to 50/50. Otherwise at least there should be a transition phase.
Posted by Aziliz, Monday, 30 October 2006 9:11:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I appreciate that at the moment in a case where there has been close to 50/50 the courts will still decide to place the child with one parent or the other. I am not against bringing in a 50/50 presumption in these circumstances.

I am against 50/50 before a child is weaned. A man cannot breastfeed and bottle-feeding breast milk has far too many drawbacks. A man should not even get every second weekend during this period (up to 8-10 months old) but only daytime access beginning with 2 hourly and increasing slowly—otherwise a common outcome will be the failure of the breastfeeding relationship. Maybe you and Chez put your children on formula from birth and don’t care that physicians feel breastfeeding is in the best interests of the child. Biology does make a difference. Next you will be demanding that the baby be given shared access from conception.

The best place for the solution to custody is to stop the marriages breaking up in the first place and I have already discussed some solutions for that in previous posts.
Posted by Aziliz, Monday, 30 October 2006 9:19:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL Aziliz! Calm down, stand back and have a look at what you are saying.

Aren't you lucky to be the only perfect mother on the planet?! And how lucky the rest of us are to be on the receiving end of such BALANCED INSIGHT.
Posted by atticus, Monday, 30 October 2006 11:10:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz's statement that she is "not against bringing in a 50/50 presumption" but is "against 50/50 before a child is weaned" is one of few she has made that I can stomach. I have avoided this discussion because of her dominance.

The original shared parenting bill included the word 'rebuttable' which also implies flexibility to suit the parents' and child needs. Temporary arrangements are fine so long as the father / child relationship is preserved.

(I refer to the father / child relationship because that is the one normally at risk - but not always)
Posted by silversurfer, Monday, 30 October 2006 5:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What 'drawbacks' of the bottle are you talking about, Aziliz? The fact that maybe a father has an opportunity to bond with his child during feeding?
By your logic, a mother has the right to exclude the father for as long as she is breastfeeding, which can be up to 2 years, or longer.
How is that in the 'best interests' of the child? PLENTY of healthy children have been raised on the bottle, whether it be filled with formula or breastmilk. Physically, they're going to be fine. Emotionally, they have to deal with their mother's emotions regarding HER separation with the father
Posted by atticus, Monday, 30 October 2006 8:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor Silver surfer can’t get a word in edgeways even if I leave the discussion for eight days. :(

He also doesn’t read my posts properly as I am misquoted

Atticus—first of all the word ‘wean’ means when a baby is introduced to solids, not when the breastfeeding relationship is over. I said in my post that was 8-10 months (transition commences at approx 4 months is complete by 8-10 months) after that breastmilk is additional rather than the main source of nutrition.

Drawbacks of the bottle:

1. You are in complete disagreement with all the experts when you say that formula is as good as breastmilk. I think you should do a bit of research into this before you give your medical opinion. If you want your children disadvantaged so men can ‘bond’ with them from birth then you are the one that doesn’t have the welfare of the child in mind.
2. Not all women are successful at expressing milk (assuming you work out breastmilk is better than formula)
3. Bottles have a tendency to let milk out more easily than a breast which can cause the baby to refuse the breast in preference for the bottle
4. (This is the real cruncher) If the breast isn’t suckled on then the milk production stops. Nature thinks if the baby isn’t there then it better dry up the milk supply—the breast pump is not a good enough substitute for suckling as it does not give the right stimulation.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 1:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most women take at least 3 months off before going back to work in which time they can establish breastfeeding and even if they express for the day they still get to suckle the baby in the evening. Even so they're far more likely to fail at breastfeeding than women who stay home. Having six months off is better and one year better still. The older the child the easier it is to express milk and the child can eat other foods by then.

Have you ever had children atticus? If you had you would have taken the effort to learn what was best for your baby wouldn’t you? You are extremely ignorant on the subject of breastfeeding for someone who has such strong opinions on it.

Men do a terrible disservice to the baby and the mother in their complete inability to accept that because the women carries the baby and breastfeeds it she is more important to the baby *at this stage of life*. It's nature that sets men up here--not women.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 1:44:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's one for the pro feminists of this country.
The injustices against Liam Magill are so great that the Edith Cowan University in WA-The School of Law & Justice has recently requested and was given permission by Liam Magill to use his situation as a ‘case study’ by its students in their new compulsory unit of Criminology and Justice Degree hence exposing the inadequacies of the law and the treatment of Liam Magill. That is quite a big step for a University with pro feminists views. We are now aware that most of these victims like Liam Magill have people in their lives who are also severely effected and these people are also women -wives-sisters-neieces-mothers-etc.

Cheryl King 35 Moselle Street Box Hill North Vctoria 3129 Email kingcems@alphalink.com.au Ph 0416 031145
Posted by chezzie, Sunday, 5 November 2006 1:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am currently breastfeeding my second child. So, yes, I know all about it. What I object to is women like you attacking other mothers for their choice in feeding their children. Its none of your business.The way you're throwing around 'you must be a bad mum/dad if..' makes me wonder about YOU. This is not the place to start a debate on bottle/breast.

You have consistently shown in your posts your narrow-minded and bitter attitude.
Posted by atticus, Sunday, 3 December 2006 8:34:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you read my posts at all atticus? If you do you certainly don't understand them. Since when did this have anything to do with attacking women for their choice?

I was talking about the difficulties of establishing breastfeeding if you are forced to have a 50/50 share with your ex from birth, there is NO CHOICE for the woman in that. You know marriages do break up during pregnancies and this discussion has been about the compulsory 50/50 share.

Now which week would you give your partner if you broke up during pregnancy? The first week after birth or the second? And shouldn't he have the right to choose which week too?

You are narrow-minded if you continually have to make up what the other person says so you can be angry with them (how emotional you must be when you cannot follow what others say?).

What is wrong Atticus? Was what I said not offensive enough for you so you had to make something up?

And that is very sad news Chezzie.
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 5 December 2006 10:29:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Sunday Herald Sun-3 December 2006 shslettters@sundayheraldsun.com.au

Editor's EXTRA OPINION

Paternity Deceit

The Liam Magill paternity case, which famously went to the High
Court last month, can be seen as both a farce and tragedy.
It is a tragedy because the emotional security of the Magill Childrenis at stake. But it is a farce because there is unfinished business here-and neither the court nor government agencies appear interested in bringing the matter to its natural conclusion. Mr.Magill,of Melbourne rightly feels aggrieved. The High court overturned the $70,000 County Court award made to him for supporting children who it was later discovered through DNA testing, were the offspring of Derek Rowe of the Gold Coast. To add to his distress, Mr. Magill was required to pay his former wife’s legal costs. The six High Court judges said that the County Court had been wrong because the law of deceit does not apply to personal relationships. Mr. Magill believes he should be at the very least reimbursed for the $20,000 he paid in maintenance following the breakdown of the marriage. But Mr. Rowe rejects the argument that he has an obligation to compensate Mr. Magill for supporting his children, the result of an affair he had with Meredith Magill. As the Sunday Herald Sun reports today, Mr. Magill and Mr. Rowe are exchanging angry statements. Nothing will be resolved this way. It seems what is needed at this stage is a determination by a government department that Mr.Magill, the deceived party is entitled to be relieved of any further financial obligation. Further it seems that child support payments should be officially transferred to Mr. Rowe, the real father. Given the certainty of DNA testing, which removes doubt from the equation, a change to
the law of deceit as it affects paternity is overdue.
Posted by chezzie, Tuesday, 5 December 2006 10:52:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 5 December 2006 1:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by chezzie, Tuesday, 5 December 2006 3:37:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aziliz, Thursday, 7 December 2006 1:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by chezzie, Thursday, 7 December 2006 3:25:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 December 2006 8:42:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aziliz, Sunday, 10 December 2006 7:49:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz, I'm not currently paying (by mutual agreement), at the moment my ex is being fairly reasonable.

What I do have is a C$A letter claiming that I have an obligation to pay and a difficult path is I want to protect my self against a change of mind by the ex.

The obligation is there because of the "formula". Theoretically my ex will have my son 2 nights a fortnight plus some of the holidays, at the moment she is choosing less. That level of care plus a significant difference in gross income leaves me as a potential payer. From what I've been told by C$A there is no way for us to get a binding agreement for less than the assessed amount (other than the process of a reassessment).

That kind of stuff is part of why C$A is a customer relations nightmare.

If I care to expose all my finacial detail to C$A and my ex again (and spend hours preparing paperwork) I might be able to get a reassessment based on what I'm spending on out of hours care and the like but that put's my ex and I back in an adverserial position again.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 10 December 2006 12:18:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What has happened to you is wrong Robert but as the primary caregiver you are in the same boat as most women not most men. Its wrong to treat the two days per fortnight of a non-custodial exactly as the rest of the fortnight for the custodial in assessments.

Weekends are different to weekdays in regards to work and school. There are only a minority of custodials who can arrange work every second weekend so they can take the opportunity of free childminding, while the non-custodian has the ability to carry on a normal career and usually manages to avoid all school expenses, medical expenses, and other extra expenses not related to a fun weekend with the children. The lack of childminding can either kill or greatly limit the custodial parents career or mean they have childminding expenses as well as having the stress of juggling career and children in many cases alone.
Posted by Aziliz, Thursday, 21 December 2006 8:16:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alby Schultz positioning himself as a lantern of mens rights surely raises suspicion and can only bring discredit to mens rights organisations.

A thug. Someone wbose media attention is drawn to disrespectful and abusive behaviour of anyone who disagrees with his theories.

I think possibly the media might begin linking the type of personalities that are involved in the '10%' of men who contest custody scenarios.
Posted by Liz, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 8:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy