I see where the proposition has been put that a child's father not have to contribute more than an average taxpayer. Nevermind that the resident parent (whether female or male, but most often female) continues to put in the time, energy and expense, delay careers and other goals (alone) - in fact to shape their life around raising the offspring ahead of whatever their personal wants may be. Meanwhile the departing father can "get on with his life". Alongside that, no doubt there are some fathers who will still expect to have a say in what's happening or to see his children at his convenience - as long as no body expects him to pay a lousy bit of cash that wouldn't equate with a car payment or a few tokes and a carton.

Anyone who objects to paying child support or who wants to have freedom over personal time and energy, is going to feel they've been hard done by when these things are required of them.

Not all separated, non-resident parents are griping over meeting the sorts of requirements of anyone mature enough to be a parent:

<"During 2006-2007 the CSA received only 9,151 complaints representing only 0.63 per cent of its 1.45 million customers. This compares favorably with 2004-2005, when 12,274 formal complaints were lodged, which is 0.9 per cent of the 1.36 million customers.

A nationwide survey of customers in August 2007 found that 74 per cent of parents receiving child support and 60 per cent of customers paying child support agreed that the CSA is improving its service delivery to customers. Further, 59 per cent of receiving parents and 48 per cent of paying parents also agreed that CSA is now communicating better with parents, the community and stakeholders and overall 99 per cent of parents are satisfied with CSA's new communication products like its regular newsletter, self help products and guide for new customers.">

http://www.csa.gov.au/media/building-a-better-csa.aspx

hi,

Firstly i am quite amazed at the amount of time that some people have to post to forums such as this. With regard to a bias against men within the CSA I can categorically state that this is simply not true. Based on what has been posted here there seems to be an assumption that decisions by the CSA are always found in favour of women. I am a woman, the CSA was supposed to collect child support to help with the costs of raising a child as per the legislation. However the other party managed to create a situation where a decision was made in his favour that went completely against the agency's own policies and procedures. I have the proof and it is the basis for a compensation claim against the agency - a claim the agency has no defence against. The actions by the agency were a result of corruption perpetrated by the other party. So please stop crying that the CSA is biased against fathers because it simply is not.
Tired

Divorce Doctor, is there a reason why you write as you do?

It might help you if you write in clearly understood English. You're mostly ignored here, and that's because your English composition and syntax are a nightmare.
--

This is a legal matter and in fact a matter where the "law" is simply being ignored. The solution is to put CSA "before the law" and get "reform". My posts are therefore in "legal talk", and if you non comprennez then obviously you have no chance of any reform action.

But seems you don't WANT reform, do you?

Any questions?

Divorce Doctor,

I concur that your posts are lacking complete sentence structure and syntax. You state it is because you are writing in legal terms, unfortunately this is not correct as even in legal documentation you will find correct sentence structure and syntax.

You seem to believe that reform is necessary and possibly that is true, but while you fail to structure your correspondence in a legible way, you will be ignored or brushed off by most people.

Tired

OK droogs please give specific instances where you don't follow my parley vous and I will explain word for word

I can do no more than that [save for you simply go to my book - for sure Howard/Parky understood perfectly].

eg HCA is High Court of Australia - it's not all that hard

DD I have to add that I don't have any trouble reading your posts.

I like unusual language use and of course your terminology and rhythm is very Anthony Burgess (A Clockwork Orange).

Interestingly, while CO gave the impression of being deconstructionist etc.; in the summing up it conveyed a quite conservative world view. Which sok mind.

I get the impression that your fundamental message and the way it is packaged is somewhat the same sort of combination.