Try contacting Belinda Neal [dissenting] and her partner John De Labotamy.

They have long experience in kicking little girls in the crotch playing soccer and similar tactics with waiters

they should be able to kneecap your deadbeat

DivorceDoctor

What a glib reply to a very common problem. I'm not the only one who has this situation - I know at least 6 other people at uni who've been disadvantaged by their ex's behaviour. I'm not seeking these people out, unlike you it seems, these women are often really embarassed over their inability to afford things like school shoes and new uniforms when their kids need it and go without things themselves to make sure their kids have what they need.

Think about it - what you're doing is blaming the victim (not the Della Bosca-Neal's) and not proposing a co-operative solution that will work for all parties and benefit the kids.

dear retro,

but for the sake of a call to the CSA you have at your service the most abusive Agency that we have ever had in Oz ready to mash yout ex into little bits

EVERYTHING is on YOUR side my lovely in this deal

just get off ars* and call CSA

they have a 007 Licence to Kill [3 fathers a day]

well that may change after my court action this last week under Privacy Act

stay tuned

RetroPastiche,

I am really glad that you posted. There is a very vocal group of posters on OLO who continually highlight the very real inadequacies of the CSA - about which no-one could argue. However, as they are all fathers the perception seems to be that CSA is unfairly biased towards mothers.

In my own case the husand/father was overseas so my only dealing with CSA was to be told that in my case I didn't qualify for help from them. However, amongst my female friends, acquaintances and fellow-students were numerous examples of the inadequacies of the system: women whose (working) husbands paid $5.00 per week child maintenance, many who, as you described, kept ducking and diving to escape completely from their responsibilities. I met a women who was living in a tent with 5 kids while her ex was living comfortably in suburbia with the new wife; another good friend who had to go to a shelter where she was separated from her kids though her husband owns an entire hotel.

For every horrific story of unfairness that is posted here from the male side one can counter with stories from the female side. In vain one tries to be reasonable and point out that the system sucks. Full stop. Both fathers and mothers get shafted. Continually being presented with only one viewpoint here has even led to claims that the whole organisation is a female-run conspiracy! None of the women I have mentioned above are into conspiracy theories but, if they were, an equally valid case could be put for there being a patriarchal conspiracy to keep women and children in poverty.

So your words are valuable as proof of the fact that the whole damn edifice needs not just to be reviewed and have new policies put in place, but completely dismantled and begun again on an equitable footing.

Romany,

'For every horrific story of unfairness that is posted here from the male side one can counter with stories from the female side'

The difference is that the system was originally set up to persecute deadbeat dads and help women in the situations you describe. Men are 'expected' to shirk their responsibilities, and all men in the system are treated under this prejudice. So there's no news in your post, just men being men and not all of them being caught.

But it's not politically correct or popular to explain how some women have taken advantage of a system set up to protect them. That is news, women the virtuous nurturers putting financial gain above their childs relationship with their father, or the victim battlers rorting the system.

Women's horror stories just reinforce the historical assumptions the system is based on, men's horror stories expose flaws in these assumptions and the system.

' fathers the perception seems to be that CSA is unfairly biased towards mothers.
'

For historical reasons, I think this is an accurate assessment.
The system exists based on the prejudice that ALL men need to be forced to contribute to their children after a breakup, and has holes in it based on the prejudice that ALL women will put their children first and not exploit the system for financial gain, and even that any financial gain will be spent on the children anyway. I'd call that biased.

Though with roles of men and women changing, the bias towards the custodial lower paid partner will not be so much more likely to in effect be a bias towards women. When that happens the feminists will decide the system is unfair to women and rally for it to be changed, but when doing so they will be free from suspicion of really just being a deadbeat dad.

Retro, thanks for posting and don't be dismayed by male whining that there also women behaving poorly.

At the end of the day, it is quite immaterial whether the care giver is the mother or the father, it is the child who is disadvantaged when a parent defaults on their financial responsibilities.

Paying men often feel very resentful that they are still 'paying' the ex forgetting that they wouldn't be paying anything if there were no children.

My ex is onto his third marriage and family. Funny how the 'new' family becomes the focus and children from previous relationships are seen as a drain on his finances.

The child support formula should always be in favour of the child, which inevitably means that it will appear to favour the care giving parent. The fact that the vast majority of full-time parenting is done by the mother it would seem that it favours mothers.

Some of the vile comments made by men, who are fathers of children, should remember that once upon a time they freely entered into a sexual relationship with the mother of THEIR child. It is not the child's fault that you stuffed up.