benq the CSA (and the beliefs behind it) are a big factor in hindering people from moving on. You appear to be making the assertion that the comments so far are just about bitterness and an unwillingness to move on. Is that the case?

If so do you oppose the right's of people to try an change a system or organisation when they find it unfair and damaging? This is not just an historical harm is an ongoing harm which continues to hurt real people and perpetuate conflict between people who should be given every opportunity to sever as many ties as possible.

The experience of those dad's I've known who have been on both sides of the fence is that CSA is not even handed in it's dealings. I've come across women who were dissatisfied with CSA's efforts in pursuing money (I suspect that CSA focus on the easy cases) but few who have expressed a strong belief that they were actively discriminated against by CSA on the basis of gender.

Some men protesting CSA may be unreasonably bitter, some may be trying to avoid legitimate responsibilities but many are decent men who have legitimate reason to call for change. To continue to try and stigmatize all in the way you appear to be doing is grossly unfair.

R0bert

to the OP, I became Oz expert [apart from Di Bryant who became CFM and then CJ] on all things CSA and the greatest ever thorn in their side in the FCA and FMS.

The tale is woeful and lengthy hence I devote a long chapter to it in my book http://csacalc.com/book/

HINT - the discussions at this forum above are EXACTLY what this horrific CSA wants to keep it afloat, so all you are doing is feeding the kitty.

but as a coincidence your idea to disband it is simply the logical solution and no need to set up anything else as the FLAct simply goes back to Child Maintenance [as for my own case pre 1989] and everyone is better off.

ask yourself, if a CSA then why not a Spouse Support Agency or a Property Agency. The answer is there was never any need for a CSA as Child Maintenance worked just fine as seen in the leading case of Mee & Fergusen [1986]

It's all in my book so no need to reinvent the wheel

Naturally, anybody has the right to lawfully change or influence any organisation they choose, if they believe that the organisation is unfair.

It should be remembered that because someone has the honest **belief** that an orgainsation is unfair (whether or not it's based on their own personal experience), it does not mean that the organisation **is** unfair. People coming from experiences of bitterness and hurt resulting from decisions against them are probably least able of all people to provide accurate, unbiased and detached views regarding whether **true** bias exists against **only** men.

So yes, go ahead and try to influence and change things, that is the right of all people. But the act of trying to change things doesn't mean certain accusations are accurate, and it doesn't mean they are inaccurate.

Remember, because a verdict goes against a man, does not mean there is bias against men. Just as when a verdict goes against a woman, does not mean there is bias against women. There may very well be bias, and there may very well not be bias.

The man and woman who have had decisions against them, resulting in unbearable hurt and pain for them, are **the least** likely people to have a balanced, informed, accurate overall view. Their area of expertise is with their own case, and they were the bitter losers. But still, they have the human right to express their **opinions** on any public forum, even if those opinions are not accurate, or accurate: And even if those **opinions** are written as if they are fact - - - people have the absolute right to do that.

if they believe that the organisation is **unfair**

--

wow what a coincidence here - yo all listen up

the simple facts say that the CSA acts illegally and the main avenue is the dreaded COAT [Part 6A of CSAAct].

The issue is that the CSR is REQUIRED to consider if any departure from assessment is JUST & EQUITABLE, same as courts used to do before Howard zapped the courts [see leading case Gyselman].

To overcome the law CSA invented your very term of "fair" and made up their own "law" in The Guide.

as Effie would say, How Embarassment [and such illegality costs the lives of 3 good fathers every day of the year]

DD, you've just written that the CSA causes the deaths of 1095 fathers per year.

Prove it. **Real** proof, not opinion. Make sure you link every death directly to the CSA.

It also seems you know that all of these 1095 dead fathers are "good" (your term).

Prove it. **Real** proof, not opinion.

Yes depression is a major result of such things...

Some fathers might run off with the secretary and have a swag of money in offshore accounts, and not really give a hoot either way as long as they have all the money.

Some fathers might still desperately love their partner and children want to stay, but she's moved on and wants him out.

Some mothers run off with a blokes former best mate, and hound him relentlessly for money to waste on the new fellow.

Some mothers do a wonderful job, only to be thrown out like last weeks' leftovers.

Two reasonable and mature people separate amicably and dont need any outside help with their arrangements.

Thats just off the top of my head, every situation is different and has unique requirements. Just those few hypotheticals, I cant see one rule being fair for all. At a minimum, calculations should be on the NET income, and a sliding scale so if you earn more you pay a lower percentage... an incentive to work rather than a centrelink haven.