In the real world the one we all live in such folk as that painted fool Rechtub talks about exist.
Put your self in the bosses shoes,let me play that roll.
First thought? no way I want this bloke working here.
Now do I start him, let him fail report him and face endless unpaid hours explaining myself?
Do I send him away as unsuitable and receive a visit from the painted fools avoiding work legal team? charged with discriminating against painted fools?
May be fined!
Best say sorry bloke jobs gone.
Ring the Church that sent him, we farm it out now, sorry no good to me think I will run an add send no more thanks.
Or we could actually re think the whole system, start to understand ALMOST EVERY PERSON wants a job.
And almost every taxpayer wants a return for welfare.
In defending our personal opinions,fighting against ANY CHANGE we let every one down.
In the end even inflicting pain on the few idle for life we are better served by the safety net being work.
PS Belly would give painted fool a few days, to prove himself he may well be the best worker I ever had.

"I believe that if there is any reasonable basis regarding a question of inproprietory visa vi how your hard earnt child maintenance is being spent then that would constitute grounds for a family court action. " - that is dream on material.

The point though that's relevant to this topic is that my income is being quarantined, that's after a long history of proving that I'm willing and able to support my son. On the other hand a mum who has consistently chosen not to financially support her son is given uncontrolled access to around double what it should be costing to keep him (state high school, no significant extra-curricular activities, no special medical needs).

I'd like to see the so called child support scheme dumped, I chose not to use them when I had the care of my son because I really think the scheme is destructive. On the other hand I'm more than happy to support my son, two different issues. I've got some similar sentiments to parts of welfare, I'm more than happy to support those who can't help themselves but object strongly to being forced to give to those who chose not to support themselves.

R0bert

"to me, a person who is on long term benefit, gets a job start, turns up with crap in their face, purple hair, that's if they turn up all, then looses that job, on purpose, is as much a welfare fraud as any other."

rehctub
No, they will be turning up in the stripped pajamas with a shaven head they got from 'tent city.'

I don't see why there is all the fuss about 'undesirables' applying for jobs. A simple job application form is all that is need to weed them out.

After asking

Question 1: Are you non white?
Question 2: Are you Jewish?
Question 3: Are you a homosexual?
Question 4: Are you a member of a trade union?
Question 5: Have you ever voted Labor?
etc etc

Question 497: Do you have purple hair?

It so easy to weed out the undesirables.

Ah yes, keep up the good work *Paul* I do so enjoy a good giggle first thing in the morning, in this case courtesy of your well placed anti-redneck sarcasm. <snicker, snicker>

..

*Belly* you big chicken. What's really going on inside the ALP re: the intervention and this associated welfare issue? Surely you can titillate us all further with your insider's acumen?

..

*RObert* oh come now, a little legal action is not so difficult is it? And there may even be a simpler remedy direct with the department. Of course, any action against your ex may have repercussions for your son - ie destabilise mum and there may be knock on effects. Thereafter, I am wondering how it is that you know your ex is misusing the funds that you provide for your son's maintenance? One hopes that you have not been cross examining your kid, which in my view is a terrible thing to.

I know from personal experience, and suffice to say that I have less than zero interest in having anything to do with my biological father as a consequence of those experiences when I was a young-ling.

In fact, there is an outstanding court order against him for payment of maintenance more than 20 years old which he has to date treated with contempt. Unfortunately, it was issued under an earlier legal framework such that the current department purports to not be able to do anything about it, but I look forward to a future day and private legal remedy if possible (I may not have standing) to jam the proverbial hot poker right up him with much relish.

As said previously, there are legal circumstances whereby you can be compelled to provide financially against your will, as is the case with child maintenance. One of the historical issues is of course that some individuals would get there partner up the duff and then just walk leaving her dependent on the state and thereby on other people.

It is of course a common catch cry of some who seek to obviate themselves from responsibility that their ex partner is misusing their funds. That is not to cast aspersions upon you though,as I simply do not know the facts of the case, but nonetheless, if not in your case, there certainly are plenty of people who need to be coerced into doing the right thing. Of course, if your ex re-partners and you consent to your son's adoption, then you are off the hook, but also likely to be cut out of his life. That though of course, is entirely a matter for you.