Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Another CSA Botch Up: Mum in fear after CSA revealed address to ex-husband

A woman tried to keep her address secret from her ex - only to find it was given to him in documents from the Child Support Agency.

I understood (from legislation, etc.) that threats of violence are a ground for discontinuance of 'child support'.

So perhaps 'Mum' is being greedy and bloodyminded and/or the CSA is being officious and bloodyminded.

And how is Dad having contact with his children if he doesn't know where they are?!!  Hmmm?
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
18 February 2008

Mum in fear after CSA revealed address to ex-husband
By David Barrett and Kim Arlington

A mother of four says she has been living in fear since a government agency gave out her address to her allegedly violent ex-husband.

The woman had repeatedly moved house and fought an expensive legal battle to keep her address secret from her ex - only to find it was given to him in documents from the Child Support Agency.

The bungle is the latest in a string by government bodies, with the NSW Department of Community Services mishandling confidential case files three times in recent weeks.

The 36-year-old woman, who asked not to be named, has been involved in a dispute with her ex-husband over support payments for their two children since the couple divorced in 2002.

Her security was shattered when her details were released without her permission in July last year.

She said that just days after she and her ex-husband were sent the same paperwork by the CSA, she received an anonymous letter warning: "You can't hide anymore . . . Your (sic) history."

"I went through the paperwork and my address was listed," the woman said.

"When I realised he'd been given my address I just froze. I had goose bumps and I was in total shock."

Since then, pornography has been delivered to her home address and she believes her ex has visited her house.

In an email seen by The Daily Telegraph, her ex-husband writes: "I couldn't believe my luck when I saw your address in the CSA stuff . . . finally CSA gave me something for once".

The woman, who has two children with her new husband, is considering moving again from her North Coast home. She no longer sleeps at night or feels safe, fearing her ex-husband may harm her or the children.

"It's just been the most stressful time of my life," she said."I finally felt safe and they (CSA) just ruined that through negligence.

"You move on with your life, (then) a government agency gives your address away. It's just shocking."

The woman said she never gave the CSA permission to release her details and had gone to great lengths to stop her ex-husband from finding out where she lived. She has moved to two different towns and spent $10,000 on legal fees to twice block his attempts to obtain her address.

CSA general manager Matt Miller declined to comment yesterday.
Maybe she could opt out of CSA - take no money. This might reduce her fears and remove her from the CSA system? Just an idea to help her with her fears.

áMaybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of both parents supporting the children? Although in this case I highly doubt the father has contact.

Even though there is that clause about collecting child support of violent ex's, the CSA don't particularly care about it - even death threats won't stop them taking child support.

And if there are full Centrelink benefits involved, where the mother has no choice but to apply for CSA, it's impossible to have that waived due to family violence.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.

Immoral Racket

Jadzia said
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of both parents supporting the children? Although in this case I highly doubt the father has contact.
I also doubt the father and children have contact.

So given that, that both the mother and the government have conspired to remove the man's fatherhood, he has no children to support.

As an issue of fairness and justice, it is just morally wrong to take something OR SOMEONE from a person and then force him to pay for it.
Funny enough Jadzia when I met my X she was on full PP and benefits for the kids her then estranged husband paid private child support and she had him sign a document to say he was financially controlling, so for one year he did not have to pay child support because of this reason (he did voluntarily but a lot less) and she had full benefits. There was no violence involved and it was suggested by an employee of SS.

It was some years ago but under ten.

Obviously there is some contact via email otherwise he could not have received the email address.

The other thing that is not told is weather she requested CSA not to send out details of her address, it's OK to sook about this happening but what precautions did she take to prevent it, and why does she use the defense "I did not give my permission" this sounds like she didn't take the precaution and use the foresight to prevent details being sent.

It sounds to me a little like "it's always someone else's fault. Not mine."
True, If I remember correctly (and this was some 17 years ago) when I first became involved in CSA I had to specify that I didn't want any information that could identify my whereabouts going to my Son's natural father.

Also dad4life it is also morally wrong to bring a life into existence then ignore it completely. I know there are a lot of cases where Fathers have been denied contact with their children by Mothers but there are also a few out there who are quite happy to procreate and then absconde leaving the responsiblity with the Mother completely. And yes I know all about the arguments of contraception etc - but that should not be the womans sole responsiblity either. If a man wants to make sure a woman doesn't get pregnant he needs to make sure his tadpoles aren't going to hit pay dirt!

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Jadzia said
Also dad4life it is also morally wrong to bring a life into existence then ignore it completely.
The cases I was referring to, and which tend to be those amongst whom we meet (here on FLWG, and at DIDS, etc) and work, are those where there is no 'ignorance' but rather a deliberate exclusion by the mother and the State.

I have no time for men or women who abandon their marriages, families and children.
Jadzia said
I know there are a lot of cases where Fathers have been denied contact with their children by Mothers but there are also a few out there who are quite happy to procreate and then abscond leaving the responsibility with the Mother completely.
In the cases to which I refer and work with the issue is not one of paternal abandonment but of maternal entitlement and 'ownership' - leading to child abduction and alienation re the father.
Jadzia said
And yes I know all about the arguments of contraception etc - but that should not be the woman's sole responsiblity either. If a man wants to make sure a woman doesn't get pregnant he needs to make sure his tadpoles aren't going to hit pay dirt!
From what I see and read over the past ten years the emphasis (certainly feminist and women's groups) appears to be dumping all the responsibility on men, while avoiding or minimising ("dismiss and diminish") female responsibility.  (From a principled perspective I would suggest the higher or ultimate responsibility lays with the person most affected, and in the case of congress (fancy old fashioned term for "doing it"), I would have thought that that was the person who was at 'risk' of getting pregnant.

That said, with the 'risk' of being financially liable nowadays, men would be - and are - stupid if they don't take precautions.  Especially given that they have no (legal) rights, only (legal) responsibilities, in terms of deciding the fate of a pregnancy leading to a birth or otherwise.
Hmmmm…. well in my trial I mentioned to the judge something about the 750k non-custodial parents and the judge claimed that most of them didn't want to care for their kids! So what is the reality with NCP's do they want to care for their kids or not? Are there any stats on this?

Guest said
Hmmmm…. well in my trial I mentioned to the judge something about the 750k non-custodial parents and the judge claimed that most of them didn't want to care for their kids!
Why did you mention that to the judge?  What was your purpose for mentioning it?
Guest said
So what is the reality with NCP's do they want to care for their kids or not? Are there any stats on this?
They do but are excluded by mothers, in the main.

Separation anguish leads some fathers to eventually lose contact, mainly because they cannot bear the fortnightly re-opening of deep wounds (and having salt poured into them) when they have to part with their children.  That parting/separation is deeply distressing and leads to much depression.  For such dads to survive it is better to 'move on' so that they are not regularly pushed to the brink of suicide.

There are few stats because the AIFS generally prefers to study mothers, grandparents, lesbians, etc … anyone other than fathers.
dad4life.

I fully agree with what you were saying, just adding in other variations on the theme. There are so many facets to the issue and it seems to me that the one thing that stands out is selfishness and lack of responsibility. The woman who has a child and denies the father, the man who fathers a child and offers no support to parents who are hell bent on alienating the other out of the child's life all exhibit the same selfishness and irresponsibility. The other thing that is apparent to me too is that the child in the middle of all this is not seen as a person in their own right, but as a pawn in some crazed war between adults.

I can see why some parents walk away too to not only stop their own pain but to stop that of the child caught between two.  

It puts me in mind of the old story where two women fight over a baby, and the emperor rules that he will split the child in two. I wonder how much fighting over kids would occur if a judge was to rule that neither parent care for the child full time, put them into boarding school and split the holidays accordingly, forcing both parents to pay. (I'm not suggesting this as a solution b4 someone jumps on me - just pondering the question!)

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Much better than chopping the baby in half.

I guess in a lot of the scenario's you start at the most popular and work backwards but you must accept all for balance.

Mum and Dad come to an arrangement they are both happy with would have to be the top one would suggest.

Then all the way down to child being removed from both parents for care and safety reasons, you would hope this would be the bottom.

There are a myriad of reasons in between, some have merit some have bias but you have to admit they exist and do play a part in all of this.

This can be easily forgotten when prolonged exposure to the top percentages of disputes, this does not mean that a father who abandons his responsibility toward the child/ren does not exist because they do perhaps not in as high a percentage as mothers denying contact but they do.

My theory is to start at 50/50 with children and work backwards, this enables a more focused negotiation on both parties and reduces conflict. With this would come support for those who bite off more than they can chew and the possibility of new orders being submitted if one can not cope with the arrangement. Once it is realized that both parents have the same responsibility to the child and have the same option of care the fight loses it's teeth.

Never the less fault can be found with this as well.

I am how ever extremely interested to the guests response to D4L's although in the past when I've ask guests to respond I am usually talking to shadows that do not respond, it would be nice to see a reply and perhaps educational.
   
Interesting debate. One thing about babies - despite the ethical and moral objections (which tend to mean nothing really today) the consequence for a female abandoning a baby is generally the man and the government pays. The consequence of a man abandoning a baby is the man and the government pay.

áMaybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Actually in your scenario Jon the one who "pays" the most is the baby to be child to be adult.

Using 50:50 as a base is an excellent idea however in most practical cases possession is 9 tenths of the law.

Again it comes down to education - lets educate children about the responsibilities of parenting and consequences of relationship breakdowns.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
If there was no money involved in getting children, and if people were forced to support them themselves - would they?

I did not (and still have not) taken a cent from my ex in 12 years. That's just me I suppose. Other people can chose differently - but then CSA makes it so easy to get money - fill in a few forms and it just rolls in.

As a man I have different expectations on the idea of supporting my children and a general reluctance to take government benefits - I have no sense of 'entitlement'.

áMaybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I won't wade into that one Jon. I'm on DSP and don't have much choice.

Jadzia interesting phrasing as we are trying to get out of the mind set of possession including children.

You could class it as forced education that empowers both parties equally and a win, win for the child.

If dad wants to keep 50/50 and sacrifice work to do so then more power to the child, the only to lose is control over that child.

On the odd occasions that one or other of the parents uses 50/50 for revenge I have no doubt that they could not keep up the fašade to long.

And yes it does come down to spreading the good word of parenting, consequence and responsibility.

My daughter 6 sees her siblings not see their father and hears the loathing in the voice of her siblings and their mother, then she hears the aggression of her mother's boyfriend's situation and his rejection and over disciplining of his own children who have no safe place in his domain.

She has 50/50 and it saddens her that they don't have what she has, she also suffers for the same reason at their hands ( emotionally ) perhaps because possession is 9/10ths of the law.

This off topic but relates to it as 50/50 also will include financials, it is a basic simple solution perhaps too simple.
I deliberatly chose those words as all too often we see one parent (usually the mother) take on the role of sole carer which then puts them in a position of power in terms of allowing the other parent access.

Also in the past, although we seem to seeing a change recently, Judges were unwilling to change the status quo and remove a child into the care of another parent. So ensure you have the child to begin with, ergo to have possession, even if NOT viewing the children AS possessions.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
They would do better for the child if they used a three month program to build a relationship up with the NCP rather than status quo.

I'm lucky to have experienced 3 sides of the equation first hand  ( even maybe 4 ) the only one who pursued contact being myself.

The X considered the children hers and CSA as her salary, she inflicted PA which I was left to clean up a lot of the time ( steps ) and she used alienation between me and the steps.

I personally can not sing high enough the praises of dads staying in the kids lives lets hope the powers that be wake up soon before they have to say sorry in another 50 years to the possessed generation.
OK.  Just don't ever stress if you do need to say something, I'm not that easily offended and I will respect your point of view.  I still haven't finished learning just yet so my mind is always open.

And whatever it was is not worth your concern.

Take care, D4E
Hey LifeInsight,

The only support group I know between South West and Perth is in Mandurah and is a DID's group. I think from memory there is also a group in Albany that I have spoken to but I can't remember their name.

The guy who runs it is Paul and I touch base with him when we can just to see how things are going.

I live in one of the oh so familiar small satellite towns in the south west just over an hour away from any major ( or minor ) big place.

I did change my profile because I'm some ways from Bunbury but people know where that is and can relate it to area.

Because of the lack of groups in close proximity my weapon of choice is the web and of course " have a chat " if I meet anyone who may be doing it rough.

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets