I think that with all the Hoo-Haa and feigned concern issuing forth from the corridors of power and the Children`s Services regarding the non-payment of outstanding child maintenance payments by errant "alleged" fathers/husbands and ex partners, it is time for the whole situation to be examined carefully!

The Governments past and present have wilfully and wantonly encouraged the female population to breed, in the policy of populate or perish, resulting in an unprecedented incidence of extra-marital relationships and births.

The sanctity of marriage has been classed as a non-event and has never really been an issue with the promiscuity of society in general!
The inevitable result has been that every Tom, Dick (sic) and Mary have bred like rabbits to procure some of the short-term rewards paid out (by the Taxpayers) in the way of Baby Bonuses and Child/Family Benefits.

We now have a situation where a lot of the "alleged" fathers of some of these babies are being persued mercilessly around the country in an effort to compel them to honour their "alleged" responsibility! In some cases the "alleged" fathers are NOT the biological father of the subject child, which sometimes has occurred as a result of a an undeclared "dalliance " on the part of the mother! She does NOT have the moral intestinal fortitude to admit the "error" at the same time not wanting to lose the mealticket that is presented in the way of maintenance payments/child support on the occasion that the couple part ways ( which seems to be very commonplace today!)

I would suggest that in light of this monstrous technicality,....all babies, their mothers and the alleged fathers should automatically be DNA tested at time of Birth and prior to the Registration of the Birth! This would ensure that in the event of a dispute as to the paternity of a child, the true facts are available and an unwitting victim will not be compelled to accept the responsibilty that rightfully belongs to someone else!

Cuphandle while I agree with you about the problems of overpopulation, it takes two people to breed as you so delicately put it.

Do we really believe that in most of these cases the "errant" fathers are not the biological father? If they are not then the matter can always be resolved as I believe that anyone can ask for a DNA test under the law. If they are proven to be the father at least we can get rid of the term "alleged" from the equation and get on with the important business of how the interests of the children are best served.

Why not go full big brother. If we are going to make DNA testing mandatory, it should be a national database so that when DNA is listed it be crossmatched to see if there are any other children out there that might be related (after an amorous affair perhaps) and then those men can be forced to pay child support for a child they did not know about. That will solve any issues of biological fatherhood and ensure the right person is paying child support.

The saddest situation would be when a man finds out he is not the biological father of a child he has bonded with and feels in all other aspects, the "father".

Pelican, "I believe that anyone can ask for a DNA test under the law"

Asking for and getting are two different things. I chased this issue some time back. I'm not sure what has been implemented in law but the proposal from the Australian Law Reform Commission at the time was that without a court order DNA paternity testing would only be legal if the mother consented. To get an order you would have to pay the legal costs associated with getting one as well as demonstrate the likelyhood that you were not the father (not just be suspicious).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96/_5_Executive_Summary.doc.html

"DNA parentage testing should be conducted only with the consent of each person sampled, or pursuant to a court order. In the case of a child who is unable to make an informed decision, testing should go ahead only with the consent of both parents, or pursuant to a court order. In those cases in which agreement cannot be reached—for example, because a mature child or a person with parental responsibility withholds consent or is unavailable—a court may authorise testing, after taking the child’s interests into account. In order to ensure high ethical standards and technical competence, DNA parentage testing should be conducted only by NATA-accredited laboratories, operating in accordance with the specific accreditation standards in this area. Information about the availability of genetic counselling should be provided to the parties."

Right or wrong the person seeking the test runs the risk of that being used to turn children against them.

The justification boiled down in part to a concern that the mothers privacy would be breached if she had had an affair and did not want a partner or former partner to know.

From the material I've seen the rates of false paternity are high for those tested but the tests are generally conducted in situations where there is already suspicion about the paternity of the child. I've not seen anything that looked like reliable material regarding general levels of paternal accuracy.

R0bert

RObert you bring up some good points. It is probably not as simple as first thought.

Difficult like most of these issues to do with gender and families.

'The justification boiled down in part to a concern that the mothers privacy would be breached if she had had an affair and did not want a partner or former partner to know.'

Haha. Yet another instance of women being protected at any cost to men:-)

Child support has always been a problem, 50 years ago men went on the road from country town to interstate to avoid it.
The bit about DNA is true men have battled for years to find out if doubts they hold are true, but it is hard to get those tests.
It is also true that some pay for others children, and like it or not some single mothers produce kids for the money.
I am no woman hater but we must know some do lie about who is the father and just maybe DNA should be used at every birth.
But are we aware of the impacts?
Sorry pure Aussie humor but true, in some country towns the say the definition of confusion is fathers day.
All true all sad but some kids are to some parents just a cash cow.
To think in fact children are to most of us the greatest treasure we will be honored to hold for a time in our lives and to others?

Pelican:
I am NOT being a "male chauvanist" but simply pointing out a simple but very dangerous problem existing with current procedures to compel "some" males to honour their "alleged" responsibilities!

I have the utmost sympathy for a mother who is deserted by an irresponsible father of her child, and I am NOT simply advocating mass DNA recording, as I myself am stongly opposed to these veiled methods of tracking the population, ....however when the current system allows an innocent/gullible sexual participant to be persued endlessly to provide a financial meal-ticket to an errant/deceitful/lying mother who should realistically be supported by the system that has encouraged her to procreate, instead of passing the buck!

The issue of establishing paterity at this time can involve a lot of expense to the "alleged" father, as he is required to "foot the bill" for the tests, ....that is if the mother of the child is prepared to present the child for examination/testing ( which in the case of her being an "errant" mother is highly unlikely, as she would have too much to hide!)

I am suggesting that something needs to be done to deter this attitude of (in some cases) irresponsible copulation and UNECCESARY pregnancy resulting in a further burden on society by some individuals that are either promiscuous or simply looking for an easy meal-ticket!

I myself have been happily married to my wife for 51 years and we have produced 4 children all of whom have gone their own way in life!
We have had our bad times too over the years, however we were taught that life has it`s ups and downs and if you make your bed you have to lie on it!....During all those years we got very little from "the system", and from memory I think that the best we received was about 4 pounds a quarter for Child Endowment!

It is time we stopped pandering to selfish indolent younger generations and made them accept responsibility for their own actions, instead of them looking for somebody else to blame for the situation they have created themselves!

Cuphandle I am in agreement with you on personal responsibility. I was being tongue-in-cheek about the national DNA database and I know that is not what you were advocating.

It is a problem and I don't know the answer. I tend to shudder at the idea of mandatory DNA testing but obviously if fathers were able to access it legally in the case of child maintenance payments it certainly would solve the issue of paternity. I would ask why a father would suddenly raise doubts over his paternity later rather than sooner and only when money was involved.

"It is time we stopped pandering to selfish indolent younger generations and made them accept responsibility for their own actions, instead of them looking for somebody else to blame for the situation they have created themselves!"

I agree. Both the mothers and fathers have to take charge of their responsibilities.

Perhaps we need to perform a reality check with the paternity fraud hysteria which currently abounds. One paternity fraud (Magill) in Australia does not make for a tsunami, though I have not yet learnt of the DNA results for the nineteenth century Australian statesman (allegedly a lady's man) who was recently dug up.

Professor Michael Gilding, Director of the Australian Centre for Emerging Technologies and Society, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne has stated that despite the rampant exaggerations, misattributed paternity is occurring at about 1% and no more than 3% in the Western world.

“The problem with these (exaggerated) figures is self-evident. They come from a small, self-selecting part of the population .... By definition, the clients of these laboratories have grounds to question the biological paternity of their children.... unmarried mothers who want to enforce child support from reluctant fathers ... men who have doubts about their partners or ex-partners.

“There are at least three parties that have promoted this particular urban myth or pseudofact. First, there are the fathers' rights activists.... Fathers' rights activists have mobilised around DNA paternity testing as part of a broader campaign against what they regard as an unjust socio-political system biased in favour of mothers in disputes about child support and custody.”

Until the advent of the Family Law Court, the majority of non-custodial parents were defaulting on child support. Perhaps the legislated corrections have now swung too far the other way, however during the early ‘90s, nearly half of Australia’s lone mothers and their children lived in poverty – second only to the US.

An official census during 2002 revealed that 83% of Australian lone parents remained female. That figure may have reduced somewhat since then, nevertheless, the Herald Sun on June 23, 2008 reported there is currently a billion dollars outstanding in child support.

This revelation, in my opinion is not something defaulting parents can be proud of and is clear evidence that the child has been and continues to be the pawn.

It appears that: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Dickie: "83% of Australian lone parents remained female. That figure may have reduced somewhat since then, nevertheless, the Herald Sun on June 23, 2008 reported there is currently a billion dollars outstanding in child support."

That $1 billion figure is for the entire life of the scheme, all 20 years of it, so it is really about $50 million per year. Given that a number of those cases are uncollectable for various reasons including death of one or more parties, a further portion are due to miscalculation by the Agency, a further portion are due to deliberate manipulation of the system by custodial parents (as you rightly point out, those are mostly mothers), I reckon the figure is relatively trivial at less than $2.50 per Australian each year. Why is there such a hue and cry to collect it, given the triviality of the amount?

Just a little thought. If the uncollected amount is only $50million per annum, that means that the previous Government's commitment of $143 million over 3 years to the enforcement of collections is only $7 million less than the total that would have been uncollected if no one had bothered.

In fact, given the conspicuous failure of the previous National Compliance Manager (Angela Tillmans, now CEO of the CP League of Qld) to actually get anyone to comply I have to wonder whether the new one (Bruce Young, formerly Qld State Mgr, soon for the chop, no doubt) will do any better. Therefore, the $143 million is a total loss to be added to the $150 million that would have been uncollected anyway. Must make Joe Hockey all proud-like to have come up with that one.

What a shame the new Joe, Mr Ludwig, is just as incapable of using a calculator as the old one.

That's some creative accounting you've done there Antiseptic. Here's what Joe Ludwig said (verbatim):

"The latest numbers are concerning.

"Examination of the compliance statistics since the 2003/2004
financial year shows that just under half of child support payers
whose payments are collected by CSA fully met their obligations.

"According to the Child Support Agency’s estimates, in the past four
financial years there were more people who didn’t pay up and fully
meet their obligations than those who did.

"Child support debt is growing. In the past two years it has grown
by over $50m a year, at an average annual rate of 5.6%.

"Total child support debt has just reached a billion dollars. About
one fifth ($231m) relates to overseas debt.

"$255m, over a quarter of this debt, is over 4 years old. Some debt
dates back nearly 20 years to the start of the scheme. By any
commercial standard, that is now debt which is very hard to
recover."

The following Daily Telegraph commences with:

"THE amount of unpaid child support owed by 254,000 deadbeat dads has cracked $1 billion and the Government is employing private investigators to get it back."

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23912830-5001021,00.html

And excerpt from the following link: "In the 10 months to May 22, investigators from the agency's minimisation program found 4186 parents - mainly fathers - who were not paying the right amount of child support because their incomes had not been calculated correctly."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/more-parents-try-to-evade-child-support/2008/05/25/1211653847228.html

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1666732.htm

I'm not yet aware of any reports which support your claim that:

"a further portion are due to deliberate manipulation of the system by custodial parents (as you rightly point out, those are mostly mothers)"

Could you supply me with a link please Antiseptic?

Dickie: ""Child support debt is growing. In the past two years it has grown
by over $50m a year, at an average annual rate of 5.6%."

Creative accounting, Dickie? It seems that my figures are similar to Mr Ludwig's.

So, why are we bothering when the uncollected amount is only about $5 per taxpaying citizen per annum?

What really, really, really busts the crank out of my V12 diesel is the misnomer "Child Support Agency".

The sooner an open, invasive and thorough enquiry is established on this portal of misery - the better!

I was censored and had my account suspended not long after this site (OLO) went on line - so my views are easily seen about this subject. Suffice to say as a 'male' sole parent, regarding the situation I have observed over the past 15 yrs, there has recently been a very slight shift in shop front attitudes (for want of better description) back to the pre 1994 days. Surprise surprise Labor is back in power!

Misandrist spin doctoring? It lies couched and imbedded in the labrynthine acts of parliament, bills and submissions. Who can tell just yet, but the unmistakeable attitudes towards men (whether Custodial Parent or Non Custodial Parent) are once more rearing their ugly shaven heads again.

And as for Dead Beat Dads, check out the stats on Dead Beat Mums (if you can actually find them that is), for the agenda does not allow for this to be disclosed openly.

Dickie and Antiseptic:

The Family Law Courts and the DOCS are making some wrongful decisions and are indirectly causing tragedy to occur!

If an "alleged" father of a child has his name placed upon the Birth Certificate as the "Father of the child" and later is presented with evidence that he is not in fact the paternal father of the subject child, he has no other option than to pay up, run and hide like a common criminal, or seek the co-operation of the child`s mother in procuring a DNA test to prove paternality......It is highly unlikely that any "aggrieved" or "dalliant" mother would co-operate with "alleged" father of the subject child, as it could lead to the loss of her regular Child Maintenance payment ( which today can involve many years until the subject child reaches the age of around 20 years, depending on the individual circumstances!)....The "alleged" father of the child has no option but to pay the full cost of the DNA testing and generally after having utilized the services of a private solicitor to apply the appropriate pressure!

Because of the cost involved in procuring the DNA test, invariably the "alleged" father has no option but to drop the action and continue paying this seemingly endless bill, regardless of the situation the mother may have achieved for herself (e.g: living with another man)....this situation means that an innocent "rail-roaded" man can be paying for years to support the child of another man, simply because he tried to do the right thing or was gullible enough to place his name on the Birth Certificate!

I wonder why a man faced with this disasterous situation and seeing no easy way out, suddenly may make the dicision to end his life ( and in some cases the lives of others involved in this shameful situation!)

This is the very reason why every new-born child, mother and father, should be identified by the use of DNA to establish the true situation and possibly save a lot of trauma and actual ives in the long term!

pelican, you ask "I would ask why a father would suddenly raise doubts over his paternity later rather than sooner and only when money was involved."

My two cents on the issue.
- at the end of a relationship we are more willing to consider things we may have been in denial about previously. If you take time to stop and look back you might notice patterns that you had refused to consider before. Suspecting a partner of cheating seems like a breach in itself, suspecting an ex is a different thing.
- sometimes things get admitted to in the heat of arguments during a breakup that people would not otherwise have admitted to. Things said with a goal of hurting the other.
- seeing what a former partner is capable of during the divorce process can be an eye opener.
- if you are an honest and responsible person C$A is structured to not give you a break. Some of this may be changed under the new rules, I've not seen how they work in practice yet so I'm speeking from how it has been. If you work extra to try and recover from the damage the divorce did you get stung with additional child support responsibilities. If you don't cope well with the turmoil and end up earing less you are deemed to have a capacity to earn and assessed at the same level. The system can be crippling and is often blatently sexist and unfair, any payer who can find a legal means to get C$A out of the picture would be well justified in doing so. If they feel a responsibility to support children who are not their offspring it would be better done without the involvement of C$A.

It's a messy area and putting aside the paternity issue for a bit I've previously expressed the view that keeping parents who are already in conflict tied together financially is not in anybodies best interests. That's any almost sure fire way of perpetuating the conflict and increasing the harm done to children.

R0bert

Hi All.

Looked at an interesting article earlier - titled:

"Walking Wallets and One Stop Sperm Shops" by Leslie CANNOLD.

It gives some recent cases regarding the legal aspects in Australia & UK in paternity testing and the CSA conundrum. Some good links in the footnotes of this worth checking out to get another perspective.

Cheers...Albie.

From Leslie Cannold's article: "The new child support laws, which would coerce men into taking fiscal responsibility
for the fruit of their loins, were lauded by politicians as a boon to women and children.
In fact, they were largely designed to solve a more pressing political problem: the
spiralling cost to taxpayers of single-parent pensions. By sheeting home to individual
men the financial cost of keeping women and children out of poverty, lawmakers saw
themselves as killing two birds with one stone. They could keep women and children
off the breadline while at the same time keeping the cost to the ‘general public’ of
such ‘charity’ to a minimum."

I am very surprised to find myself in complete agreement with the words of Dr Cannold.

Instead of mandatory DNA testing at birth, why not just make it compulsory for where parentage is disputed for child support. Mother can refuse if she wants, but cant then claim child support from disputed dad. Fair to dad, fair to mum, and doesnt rock the boat unnecessarily (eg child may have been extra-marital, but mum and dad never split up so not contested). The issues with making it compulsory at birth are:
- big brother
- unnecessary grief (and could cause relationship breakup - generally not in best interests of anyone)
- inequality - mum's fidelity can be tested, but not dad's.

I agree that people having to support children that they didnt contribute their DNA to can be an issue. But it shouldnt be if they have a father-child relationship. Eg adoptive parents are just as loving as "real" parents. You dont have to have the same DNA to be a family, and I think that it the point that is being missed here.

Its thorny, I know and I believe at the moment is unfairly swayed towards women. That said, I have been on the receiving end of allegations from my husband that the kids arent "his", including a drunken request for DNA testing. There is no question that they would match (even if he wont take my word for it, our daughter in particular is strikingly similar to his sister), but its just annoying to have to deal with allegations at all. If it came down to a crunch, I wouldnt agree to have them tested (I dont need his money anyway).

"In fact, they were largely designed to solve a more pressing political problem: the
spiralling cost to taxpayers of single-parent pensions."

sounds good but totally false

the LOP [Little Ozzie Pension] has not been effected by child support since 1993 - like 15 years ago my friend

it then morhed to Parenting Payment in 1999 and Costello killed it last year and it is now "Enhanced Newstart"

it would be good if people actually got facts before pathos

Country Gal, I pretty much agreed with the last post except for the following "inequality - mum's fidelity can be tested, but not dad's"

If dads been silly enough to stray and start kids with someone else he may well cop a child support bill with no protection from a partner finding out. Mum and dad's fidelity are both testable if there is a pregnancy.

On the broader topic

Perhaps the mid way point in this is to only issue child support assessments where paternity is established or where the "parents" have clearly and specifically accepted parental responsibility knowing the paternity of the child. If not across the board DNA testing before C$A assessments then at least a binding statement of paternity by the mother as part of the initial assessment process.

Acceptance of a committment made under false pretenses should not be binding. If the relationship is not biological or was not established based on truth then it should not be the place of a government department to allocate financial responsibility. An individual who has such a relationship may choose to provide support but it's not up to the government to decide.

R0bert

country gal said:

"Instead of mandatory DNA testing at birth, why not just make it compulsory for where parentage is disputed for child support. Mother can refuse if she wants"

So you are one of the 99.9% that get taken in by the hype & spin, but would not simply read the Act to know the truth. and it was for that very reason that Howard got his Cash for Comment freaks to PIRATE my book A Blokes Guide to Family Law, in the lead up to the election.

So the web is awash with pirated copies and please just read from 6.34.6 to understand what Howard did not WANT you to understand when he had his Henchman Prof Parkinson bleed to the Telegraph

"Professor Patrick Parkinson, a family law expert at Sydney
University, has raised concerns about the ethics of DNA tests
without parental consent."

the trick is the FLAct says

s 69Z(2) The procedure or act must not be carried out in relation to the
child under the order without the consent of:
(a) a parent of the child; or

now the bloke IS a [legally assumed] parent at that point of the legal
process, or he would not be in court in the first place

so he gets order for DNA, almost automatically, simply by asking

it's all KISS as long as you keep away from spin and blood sucking lawyers

Here is something about the exploitation, deception and prevalence among many women (at least in the US) on this subject that I have posted a couple of times:

--=-=
http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-truly-believe-men-need-to-be-wary-of.html

My guest today on my radio show was Carnell Smith, an expert on paternity fraud. He claimed that 30% of men who went to blood banks for paternity tests found that they were not--as the child's mother claimed--the father. Smith went on to say that in most states, DNA evidence, in many cases, is inadmissible. He estimated that, currently, one million men are paying child support for kids they did not father.

Of course, it's outrageous that 30 states would enact such unfair-to-men laws. But why would a woman falsely claim that a man is the father of her child when he isn't, thereby forcing him to unfairly pay many thousands of dollars in child support, and manipulate him into spending 18 years involved in raising a child he didn't father? Smith says that these are the major reasons:
-- He had the deepest pockets among the men she slept with
-- She was trying to chain him to the relationship
-- She thought he'd make the best father
-- She was trying to lash out at the man"

CountryGal > "but its just annoying to have to deal with allegations at all"

Priceless. Whining about something so trivial....

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2008/03/tracy-brooks--1.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004291649_false19e.html

"Of course, it's outrageous that 30 states would enact such unfair-to-men laws."

I just checked and I am in Oz, this topic is about Oz law and Judge Judy does not apply

Keep it KISS mate

If you are Oz bloke and have doubts about a putative "offspring" [for whatever reason] then Oz law is totally equitable and non invasive of privacy

but as I say you MUST keep clear of blood sucking lawyers

the very first bloke I helped on this issue already had had the DNA test done [at 6 grand to "his" lawyer, who of course MoonLighted as a CSA COAT]

it was doom and gloom as lawyer's letter said Lab said he WAS the father

So I checked the Lab and they had said he was NOT the father

get the picture

The surest way that a man will not be required to pay any maintenance for a child, but still wants to have sex with women: have a vasectomy.

Remain childless. Simple really

Excellent points countrygal.

It is a thorny issue as you say; like walking through a minefield of competing rights and responsibilities.

I first liked your idea of DNA testing in the case of child support ie.the mother's right to refuse = loss of financial support. In theory this sounds good but if the child is in fact the father's (biologically) does it mean he is denied access if no child support is paid.

I can see another minefield in the making. Do we assume that if the mother refuses a DNA test, that her husband is not the child's father?
This may not be the case.

"I first liked your idea of DNA testing in the case of child support ie.the mother's right to refuse = loss of financial support. In theory this sounds good but if the child is in fact the father's (biologically) does it mean he is denied access if no child support is paid."

but you are not listening [to me as Oz expert on these matters] nor educating yourself independently

read my lips - the mother does not HAVE any right to refuse a DNA test

... well except permission from Germaime Greer, Adel Horin and Elsbeth McElsbeth of the Lonely/Greedy Mother's Federation

We have a Constitution which says one obeys the law, not the newspaper

I am sure, even if you are a feminist, you are capable of going to austlii and reading the L-A-W LAW

Judge Judy only applies to Oz TV, not to Oz Law

ie Get Real Dude

yvonne you can do far better than that last post. Unless I've completely missed your point it seems about the equivalent of telling women they have no need for access to abortion. If they want to have sex with men have their tubes tied.

Adults engaged in consentual sexual activities both have a choice in the matter, if not it's rape and a different issue. If the issue boils down to vasectomy's for men then tell me why the abortion debate does not boil down to sterilisation for women (with some exceptions for rape and genuine life threatening medical conditions)?

People of far less compassion and intellect to yourself might think that simplistically but I don't think that is you.

For the record very little of the cost of a vasectomy is covered by all the various health related "protections". My understanding is that it's about $1,130 directly out of pocket (plus any follow up visits, medications etc) even with private hospital and extra's cover.

R0bert

DD, you may be corect about Oz law, but don't pretend that feminists here in Australia are not seeking these sorts of changes. My comment showed far more than technicalities though, as there is a revealing psychology behind exploiting law and deceiving men about paternity.

DD: "the LOP [Little Ozzie Pension] has not been effected by child support since 1993"

And the scheme commenced in 1988. Do try to maintain some grasp on reality, mate.

Country Gal,

'unnecessary grief (and could cause relationship breakup - generally not in best interests of anyone)'

Hahaha. That's hilarious. Yes, if your wife has had an affair and the children are not yours, it's better not to know.

Divorce Doctor, did you actually read any of the previous threads properly? Read them again before going off on some diatribe please.

The irrational anti-women bias by some on OLO is a real concern.

"Hahaha. That's hilarious. Yes, if your wife has had an affair and the children are not yours, it's better not to know."

- better for the man financially: a two-parent family is cheaper to run than two single-parent families
- better for the kids: have a father figure in their lives and reasonable emotional stability
- better for mum?? questionable - there's having to live with the guilt which cant be healthy in the longer-term, or anxiety that she will be found out and left destitute.

My personal ethics say - DONT CHEAT in the first place. But trying to provide a balance to the argument about truth no matter what the consequence. Personally I've told the truth in many situations with the potential to leave me much worse off, but I recognise that this isnt black and white and the truth isnt always in the best or even in anybodies interest. It all depends on individual circumstance, which is why I am against mandatory testing except where a financial claim is made.

DD not all of us have the time to read every piece of legislation - we give opinions (OLO) and rely on self-appointed experts to correct the line of debate if needed.

Steel, I am busy. I have much more important things to deal with than false allegations. If you wanted to act on an allegation against me, then fine I'll defend it, but have no time for whining finger-pointing when there is no intention to actually do anything about it.

Divorce Doctor

Please check your information before posting - you're giving incorrect information:

You said:
"the LOP [Little Ozzie Pension] has not been effected [sic] by child support since 1993 - like 15 years ago my friend" (Posted by Divorce Doctor, Monday, 30 June 2008 2:01:39 PM)

This is an abridged quote from Centrelink's website - Family Tax Benefit Part A (which most single parents receive)

"If you receive more than the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A, child support received above the maintenance income area will reduce Family Tax Benefit Part A by 50 cents in the dollar, until the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A is reached."

The link is here: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/fpr006_0807/$file/fpr006_0807en.rtf

You really must get your facts straight, it must be embarrassing for you when you're an 'expert'.

“This is the very reason why every new-born child, mother and father, should be identified by the use of DNA to establish the true situation....”

Cuphandle, there's a small problem with that advice. If a DNA test reveals paternity fraud, the process still does not identify the biological father. As a result there needs to be some regulatory enforcement to ensure that the child’s biological father meets his financial commitments to the child. Why should the taxpayer or an innocent partner incur the cost of child-raising whilst the errant father remains off the hook?

Divorce Doctor. Let’s remember that not everyone is capable of being a father. History has proven this over the centuries where millions of single women have been ostracised and forced to give up their babies - "illegitimate children" or "bastards", as they were then so cruelly called.

In a past patriarchal society, an unmarried pregnant woman was scorned, because she was a threat to the “established order.” Therefore, in the days of secret adoption practices, an unmarried pregnant woman was relegated to the very bottom rung of society, just in case she was entertaining any ideas that a woman had any worth without a "gentleman" to legitimize her, and her baby.

Broadmeadow Babies Home was an orphanage in Australia up until 1970 and these orphan babies were used to test vaccines. This is confirmed at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

Statistics reveal that since 1970 adoption has become increasingly rare. In 1971-72, ten thousand children were adopted. Since then the number of children adopted each year has dropped steadily to just 561 in 2001-02.

Yet the errant fathers continue to get their ends away before “shooting through,” abandoning the young unmarried mother who often lacks sufficient money to provide for herself and child.

It is not without shame that the State (despite its flawed legislation) must now provide for women to keep their children and enforce the proper financial provision from the current "254,000 deadbeat dads."

Therefore, Divorce Doctor, could you please stop ya sookin' and reflect on this unprecedented dilemma?

"DD: "the LOP [Little Ozzie Pension] has not been effected by child support since 1993"

And the scheme commenced in 1988."

PROPER pensions [ie Aged, who worked all their life] started in 1901 with Constitution

the LOP started in 1968 - we just "got" it as a package deal with Greer and by 1972 we had no hope of adopting all mums kept thier babies, funded by J Doe

all that is social security [whatever your slant] but the 1988 CSScheme is totally different and is NOT social security

so back to my book, everyone has been conned by Secret Wimmins Business in 1987 to think either dad OR taxpayer support Buttercup [via the kid]. So I have a learned article at "8.5. Their Honours are Confused" to explain how even the full court was similarly confused

best to read the whole Centrelink chapter as all is explained, and don't feel bad that you did not follow as the deceit is very clever and goes to the very bowels of secret wimmins business

that chapter [and child support one] was very reason Howard had his Cash for Comment goons pirate the book [soon to be contested "in a court near to you"]

Country Gal,

That reminds me of that Chris Rock joke about the difference in magnitude of male and female white lies.

A man's lie: I wasn't at the pub.
A woman's lie: The baby's yours.

On the balance of things, I think it's always better to know that the person that you love and trust has absolutely no respect for you. Who says if the guy would rather keep the two incomes he doesn't have the option to forgive.

Oh well, I hope you also think it's better not to know if your husband is having affairs and visiting prostitutes and has an STD.

DD: PROPER pensions [ie Aged, who worked all their life] started in 1901 with Constitution

Wrong again DD. The aged pension was introduced in 1908, workers compensation in 1912 and maternity allowances in the same year. At the time the payment, known as the 'Baby Bonus' was roughly equivalent to two weeks' wages to the MOTHER on the birth of her child.

My source? A well respected text I use for teaching school students in Year 9 history.

You are entirely wrong that payments to women is 'Secret Wimmins Business'. It is a but one of the long-standing Australian traditions of recognising the hard work of all Australians in developing the next generation.

Again I say to you, please tell the truth. You are doing no one any favours by perpetuating myths and lies about women and their place in society. We are not second-class citizens. The parliamentarians of 1912 recognised that - why can't you?

Melanie Phillips wrote an article "Saying the unsayable" basic jist of it was that as governments legislated to improve the standard of living for single mothers, the more single mothers there are.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=471

Basically what began as good intentions, has created greater demand for social services.

There are perhaps thousands of variations on the theme of child support, from dads or mothers who pay very little if any child support, to situations where the custodial parent denies contact to maximise the child support amount.

Another variations is where dads having lost a significant amount of joint assests then have to try and reestablish themselves whilst paying a significant portion ot thier income in child support.

Another is where the custodial parent repartners to a wealthy person, so in reality childsupport then becomes petty cash for the custodial parent.

There is an idea that the children should not experience a fall in the standard of living, so by default the custodial parent must not experience a fall in the standard of living. So someone has to pay in order for this to happen, and it is the payers standard of living that suffers.

Dickie: “Cuphandle, there's a small problem with that advice. If a DNA test reveals paternity fraud, the process still does not identify the biological father. As a result there needs to be some regulatory enforcement to ensure that the child’s biological father meets his financial commitments to the child. Why should the taxpayer or an innocent partner incur the cost of child-raising whilst the errant father remains off the hook?”

Exactly. I presume you are advocating for women to keep sex diaries and be able to accurately identify the men they sleep with. If there’s no DNA match with the “resident father”, how many further tests would you propose to adequately identify the biological (and therefore fiscally responsible) father?

DNA tests are relatively cheap. Then there’s abortion. If women must have their infidelity protected, let it stop at abortion. Otherwise, let’s face it, we are supporting something other than privacy. Medical science has made it safer for women to choose so why should fatherhood be prescribed by their residency status. Healthcare should be about more than safe births, PC baby tagging supplemented by false birth certificates. In the 21st century, one is inclined to expect a mother handed the wrong baby at the hospital, would be no worse off than her partner, if she was to bring a child home fathered by someone else. Why should his residency determine his responsibility if it was not a factor in her pregnancy?

There is already in Australia perhaps enough information contained in the centerlink data base as to the rate of non-paternity amongst single women in Australia.

It is a requirement to accesss centerlink payments that the father of the child be named. I understand that at times a large number of men have to pay for their own DNA tests to prove that they are not the father of the child.

However getting access to the data would be highly resisted as it is a can of worms that nobody wants to open.

Wrong again DD. The aged pension was introduced in 1908, workers compensation in 1912 and maternity allowances in the same year. At the time the payment, known as the 'Baby Bonus' was roughly equivalent to two weeks' wages to the MOTHER on the birth of her child.

My source? A well respected text I use for teaching school students in Year 9 history.

yes I cover all that in my book, but I give credit to Helen Garner for exposing this form of feminism in The First Stone

we are talking here to the Costello "baby factories", an exact model of Hitler's, cept now it is for the Motherland and not FatherLand

the great concern is that these people indoctrinate school kids in the way you detail and then your sisters at the Cash for Comment site detail how 17 year 9 girls at one school all made a pact to get pregnant together

the article ended as how could this happen tut tut boo hoo, another reason why my book was pirated

but to return to the OP issue, I have recently done an article at

http://csacalc.com/book/priv2.pdf

and will be expanding on it soon

Seems Ludwig is courting political suicide if he keeps going with this one

I get the impression he is simply way out of his depth in this portfolio so is simply asking the CSA and Cash for Comment freaks, and indeed they were the only ones invited to his little Canberra pow wow

as someone mentioned Tillmanns has already been thrown overboard as the CSA sarificial lamb, and the voter threw Brough [pronounced Bruff as in Gruff] overboard.

This could be worse for kevin than Belinda Neal [dissenting]

This is one toppic that just won't go away.

Perhaps all CM payments should go into a collective fund and all receipts should be produced when money is spent on the children. Much like how our medicare system runs.

No receipt, no refund!

To go further, maybe a set amount per week per child depending on thier age with this money allocated for 'food only'. Then all other monies spent on a child can be refunded through this system.

That would take care of the 'public school V private; debate.

To All:
I think that this whole problem of Child Maintenance payments by whoever, should be simplified by deterring the avoidable pregnancy, unwanted child, and overactive procreative glands!

In today`s society there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy ( short of the result of rape!) but we seem to have a major problem with so many young women who become mothers for whatever reason and expect somebody else to pick up the tab for the maintenance and upkeep!

I am NOT one-sided on this issue! I do believe that any young stud who wants to exercise his sexual prowess, should be prepared ( and compelled ) to accept the cost of the consequences of his actions should he fail or refuse to wear the appropriate "armour" when commencing the "adventure"!

The same thing applies to a woman who wishes to play the mating game,...she should we equip herself accordingly and if not partaking in contraception, maybe for religious reasons, then the onus is on her to refuse to participate in the "adventure'!

The authorities have to take a different attitude toward this "get paid to breed culture!" We need to be looking at the world population as a whole and maybe apply China`s policy of one child and then apply some form of penalty for over and above!

Sounds barbaric you might say!....but if we do NOT slow our breeding rate we are going to fornicate ourselves off this planet, which itself has limited resources, as we are only too obviously seeing the evidence of right now!

what is strange here is, just as Howard chose to use the word "custody" [deleted by Keating in 1995] in a type of "legal copout" to make his draconian "equal parenting responsibility" amendments for the benefit of lawyer mates, this thread [and now Ludwig] are resorting to the same copout by using the term maintenance.

child maintenance [normally called Stage 1] has existed in Fam Law Act side by side Child Support Assess Act since 1989, but by mathematical impossibility it became a dead parrot in 2007 when s 66E said ALL poeple now must use CSAAct

this is NOT semantics folks, as the so called $25 per week per kid [CPI inflated to $50] attributed to "maintenance" WAS the very reason for CREATING the CSScheme.

but 20 years down the line it has failed dismally.

I started, for example, http://csacalc.com/divorce/revenge4.htm in 2000 using the CSA OWN FIGURES to reveal their KPI of just $24, which was the main reason Howard went ballistic and called in the Nutty Professor Parkinson

for more reading see the home at http://www.amandaforpm.com and I will continue later

US, that's why its a joke. One's worse, but a damn sight less frequent.

You keep missing the point. The truth is NOT always best, particularly not at a point that is excessively charged with emotion anyway. Who's to say that a euphoric first-time dad wouldnt be devestated enough to commit suicide after such a revelation within days of baby turning up. Still think its in his best interest all the time?

With regards to my husbands fidelity and STD's, I submit to you if I was dependant on his income to keep myself and kids above the poverty line and as long as the STD was not HIV, I might very well be much better off NOT to know. Again, engendering resentment, powerlessness and poor self-esteem is not in the best interest of anyone in particular. If my husband was to engage in such activity constantly, different kettle of fish. HOwever, I am not dependant on my husband for financial security or stability, so for me it comes down to a matter of emotional impact. If it were a once-off affair, it might be better for me (and for the kids sake), not to know, because I would leave him.

If a husband passed on an STD to his wife, whilst she was going through her baby-producing years, she would find out. Standard medical procedure is to run a full gamut of STD tests on confirmation of pregnancy, so that action can be taken to stop anything that might harm the baby. If the wife has been faithful, then there is only one explanation.

Country Girl,

I do understand your point, but I cant agree. I would much rather live in the real world than inside the matrix.

'If it were a once-off affair, it might be better for me (and for the kids sake), not to know, because I would leave him.
'
You're a funny one. It seems you would much rather live a lie than face the truth.

Actually US, I prefer to deal in the truth. But I am very hardline on what I accept and dont accept - once that truth came out that would be the end of it. And possibly for our kids that might not be the best option (I suspect it would be fine for them eventually, but am not close-minded to the idea that what is in my best interest is not always in everyone elses). 5 years ago I would have given a completely different answer - age is slowly mellowing me!

well I think this thread is badly drifting from the point, which is the hoo haa of Ludwig's claimed $1 billion "debt", which is a total lie [but good enough to pass muster with the mushrooms that have yet to read my book]

all of this to try to prop up the CSA, which except for the political might of the 2,000 lawyers employed by CSA should have been axed when UK axed their own CSScheme.

the implications for our economy are huge because it would also allow the 380,000 men on the dole CSA identifies to return to the workforce [another $15 billion back into hospitals, roads etc]

Country Gal,

'But I am very hardline on what I accept and dont accept - once that truth came out that would be the end of it.'
Same here. Once the power balance of the relationship is skewed it's over really. If you'll accept cheating, you're telling your partner you'll accept any behaviour, and that you don't respect yourself.

I think kids can smell a lie though so it's a waste of a life staying together for the sake of the children. The best thing you can do for your kids is lead a happy life yourself. I also think people without the courage to leave their comfort zone often use their children as an excuse. It's not a nice thing for your children to be made to feel they are responsible for your misery.