I've just been looking over that earlier thread that I mentioned. I hadn't realised that a couple of the less intellectually-capable posters, including pynchme, Suzeonline and Benq had continued the thread after I left, accusing me of everything from mental illness to delusions of grandeur.

Benq said:"Maybe he's been in court getting screwed by those awful, horrible women that are all out to "get" him. Ha ha." No, but he'll soon be in Court screwing all those awful, horrible women who were all out to "get" me. Would you like an invitation?

I note that none of those posters have bothered to turn up to this thread except Suzie, who showed yet again why the nursing "profession" is required to defer to doctors when the issue becomes more complex than sponge baths. Injected anyone's spine with chlorhexidine lately, Suzie?

And where is Benq/JW? S/he said:"I'm more than happy to admit that the CSA is biased against people specifically because they're 'male', if that claim can be proven".

We're waiting...

What of Pynchme? She said:"People with clinical experience couldn't help but suspect that we're seeing a manifestation of narcissistic personality disorder and/or paranoid psychosis or something in that spectrum "

You'd best get on to the Ombudsman's office and tell them that Mr Brent is suffering from NPD and/or paranopid psychosis. I'm sure they'll give your advice all the attention it deserves.

Never mind, you can console yourself with the thought that noone can "prove" (yet) that the undue rate of suicide among the cohort of men who the CSA targets for special attention is due to that special attention. After all, "how many is "many?".

I seem to recall you claim to be involved on a professional level "counselling" men. I strongly recommend you consider another career - you're obviously quite unsuited to the current one, which one would presume demands some professional, unbiased capacity to analyse data presented. Perhaps a cleaning job would be more your "thing"?

nairbe:"My position is very different because i am the custodian of the children."

I have 50:50 shared care of my children, but over the past year or so my daughter has preferred to live mostly with Mum, because the Housing Commission house she lives in is nicer than the accommodation I can offer. Fair enough, I don't blame her for that, but I do blame the CSA for putting me into the financial position that has brought that about. My son continues to live with me about half the time.

What most irritates me about the whole situation is that I have been trying very hard to get this mess sorted out. The ex, however, knows that she need do nothing at all and the CSA will continue to harass me, so she refuses to even discuss the subject. Over the past 12 months I have sent her no less than 16 requests to sit down and discuss the matters extant and I have received not one reply. In the same period, the CSA has garnished my bank account twice and made serious threats over the phone, including one to falsify my file if I did not "cooperate". That one will be subject to a Federal Police complaint if I do not get a satisfactory response to my complaint to Geoff Mutton, the Chief Operating Officer.

I have told them on several occasions that I am perfectly willing to pay a correct amount. I have told them what I believe such an amount to be. I have received no response whatever to any of those letters, except another abusive phone call and garnishment order.

I'm now in the position where my only option is to take the ex to court to seek a resolution. Yet more wasted money that could be used to support the kids, not to mention the time I will have to spend away from my business.

You're very wise to stay away from the CSA. The organisation is badly broken.

The entire child support sytem could be simplified if they would just evaluate each and every child as 'equal'.

Why does it matter how much one earns?

I have said this many times that a 'child' is a 'child' and if a set amout per week were determined as per the 'common needs' of the child, denending on thier age, many problems would be solved.

Sure, some kids life styles would improve, while others would deteriate, but hey, that's what happens when two people bring a child/children into the world then separate.

All kids should be treated as equal. After all, they never chose to be born.

Rehctub:"The entire child support sytem could be simplified if they would just evaluate each and every child as 'equal'.

Why does it matter how much one earns?"

That is why I have proposed the introduction of an ATO-administered levy on all taxpayers and a Centrelink-administered endowment on children. Kids cost a certain minimal amount. By making that payable as a tax/benefit it breaks the direct link between parents that causes so much of the trouble and it spread the load. An average of $5 per week per taxpayer would replace the entire sum that is currently transferred, according to the CSA. It would also get rid of the $500million or more that is spent on the CSA annually. The additional amounts that are spent are then entirely up to the parents,as they would be if the family was intact.

Antiseptic, While I agree with you in principle, it should not be the tax payer who contributes to this fund, rather, it should be each and every parent of a separated child who pay for this equally, dependent on the number of children they have fathered/mothered and the childrens age.

Why on earth should joe blogg, the tax payer fork out for something he/she did not cause.

I say to all separated parents with kids, your kids, your relationship, your mess. You lot clean it up.

BTW, I have two now adult children and my wife and I are still married after 25 years, some of which have been very tough.

My wife and I have done our bit and look forward to supporting our grand kids one day, not yours.

[Deleted for excessive use of capitals].