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.