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

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.

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.

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

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.

“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