Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Children's Interests

I need to take some time and think. I am being a little selfish maybe.

This last decade I have been fighting for my children's welfare and safety have spent my life savings over $200,000 on solicitors and barristers to the point of bankruptcy, had won my children in the local court family matters, mother proved to be malicious(mms).

Mother appeals to the family court,all through this she was granted legal aid (dispute my complaints that she should not be entitled to it) i would say around $250,000 of taxpayers money yes I pay tax also.

For her to win and have my children taken off me completely. I then realised I was against a system that favoured women over men and had no interest in children whatsoever.

I gave up prayed and left it in God's hands. I ceased all contact this left me very close to suicide. (Spare a thought for the fathers not with us today.)

One year later my daughter turned up at my door step battered and bruised. It was the federal police seeking the help of the family court telling them the mother was a wacko, the court rang me told me my daughters case was unique - one case like this happened 10 years prior so they left her in my care  - too hard basket!

My friends I say again the system needs major reform and only the people that have had the misfortune of experience similar to mine truly understand.

To this day I cannot say I have met one judge in the family courts that has the children's interests at heart! (though I am hearing that there are now some fair FMs about).

the 50/50 rule is simply equal shared care and for litigants who made orders prior July 2006 this does not apply fore under Rice & Asplund they fail merit.

And who will pay for this? we should, have you heard of the domino effect - food for thought.

Hey monaro there is much in what you have shared to take into consideration and I don't think you are being selfish.

Thing had changed in the four years I was in the system as well as just after having care orders sorted out it changed again, much can be said about the cases that have gone before that have made these changes possible.

Also as sites like this one gain in momentum and sources are made available to the public it gives the average person resources to go to and prepare for their cases.

This is not to say that some cases do not slip through the system even now it simply means far less do than ten years ago.

Just because you hire representation this does not mean you will be better represented.

There are certain government agencies that are less than helpful and still remain bias to the best interest's of the mother and feel the mother is the only nurturer but this does not mean that they are immune to pressure to equalize their parameters. Many are working behind the scenes to change and overhaul the system, but personally I'm not sure a show of strength will negate the positive public and governmental perception that has been painstakingly achieved.

This is a topic that has come up on every forum I have ever viewed on these issues and it truly seems that many support what is being achieved and realize there are extraordinary risks associated with massing bodies on certain issues.

I agree totally that no child should have to suffer as yours has, and I'm glad to see you had the strength not only to save yourself but to save her as well.

These days I think there are a few judges and magistrates that actually assist SRL's by encouraging them to word their phrases and questions in a different manner to receive the reply they seek ( this is of course hear say on my part ) it's not what questions you ask so much it how they are ask pertaining to the desired response I should think added with an enormous amount of preparation.

And this is by no means an attempt to lessen your experience, I have known too many personal friends who suffered at around the same time in differing ways, but rather just to reassure you many are trying their best and working hard all over this country to achieve what you have mentioned and they are unsung hero's in my book.   
Monaro - you are not alone.

I don't believe that the system is good - I am not even sure its improving.

Until such time the government & courts MAKE A BIG ISSUE out of being fair, punishing stupid vexatious women and NOT treating men badly - WOMEN will continue to expect NO CONSEQUENCES for pushing for as much damage, money and distress they can get through the court system.

They know that they are historically on a winning wicket. Men KNOW they are on a losing wicket - because the judges and lawyers show them every day. The government shows them every time it fails to make sensible changes.

eg. The changes in CSA have DONE NOTHING to disabuse women of notion that they are entitled to cause as much damage as they can, financially, emotionally and any other way they see fit - fully supported by the government and their agencies.

The Magistrate in the above case CASE could have (instead of use Rice and Asplund) sat the two parties down and worked through with them a solution - using some sensible discussion and strong words. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FAMILY COURT. Instead magistrates retain their superiority and aloofness as they "TUT TUT" over the behaviour of the people in front of them. It only indicates their lack of insight into the human condition and their inability to CARE about anything - except their own workload, prejudices and desire for legal niceties and cleverness.

They ALL have reverted to being "Presented to" by barristers and lawyers so they can consider the relative legal merits (rather than sensible) merits of the case.

The system is failing,expensive and encourages women to go for the custody and money (as per their expectations and lack of consequences) and until such time that all those involved in the system change their ideas - your children and mine will experience this system and all its failings - if they ever chose to get married or have children.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Monaro we can all understand how upset you are. Not having contact with one's children can be emotionally devastating.

Since you mention 'ten years' the children would be of an age when their views play an important part in any Court proceedings.
monaro said
My friends I say again the system needs major reform and only the people that have had the misfortune of experience similar to mine truly understand.
Everybody says it needs change - but talking does not accomplish those changes - after all this time I presume you have joined an organisation that is trying to create change.
monaro said
the 50/50 rule is simply equal shared care and for litigants who made orders prior July 2006 this does not apply fore under Rice & Asplund they fail merit.
Sadly you are interpreting the Amended Act incorrectly. There is no 50/50 - there is 'equal shared responsibility' - not 'care'. In defended cases, when a Court accepts the 'equal responsibility' part of the Act, it must then move to 'consider' Equal or substantial time.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
The emotional devastation of fathers IS IGNORED publicly - instead the are categorized as ANGRY MEN. This is like the term - DEADBEAT DADS (a government sponsored term).

There will be NO government funded long running TV ad campaign aimed at showing the damage WOMEN CAUSE to men and children and advising them to stop it.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I agree totally with that Jon, our children who have become a captured generation forced to be influenced by only one parent when considering significant time and men quickly becoming the insignificant.

We know women don't get angry but just emotional, honestly though I wish they could do that less abusively and perhaps spit a little less. They go from tears to a face that expresses itself in a way that makes me glad there is nothing in reach that can act as a weapon.

The term " Dead Beat Dad " coined from father who actively seek to be unemployed and not pay maintenance for their children yet a woman can sit at home claiming single parenting benefits FTB A&B plus CSA use the money paid to benefit the children on whatever whim she choses yet is not referred to as a " Dead Beat Mum " yet she receives more financial help than a single unemployed person and spends a good portion on herself.

There will never be a campaign on damage women do because it is not in the countries best interest it would loose to much economically as well as reduce Australia's public work force by dismantling so many biased organizations.

But there are still people out there trying to implement change and do so on a regular basis.

I must also say that many women are not like the above comments but this does not mean bias is estranged from public opinion thrust by misguided advertising campaigns.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Jon isn't the problem far greater, in that Men are generally ignored (e.g. health issues such as prostrate cancer, suicide……..), that is unless they are being ridiculed. I'm not sure but I would guess that a change in the overall scene would likely ensure changes in the underlying scenes.
The CSA correctly portrays the difficulties imposed upon women and children by the deadbeat dad phenomenon, why does society only support one side?

I am a father with two children. Their mother pays me minimum child support. This has gone on for years. Child support has never contacted me about this!

When I was paying child support and lost my job, not one month lapsed before I had a dozen letters sent to me with all sorts of threats. Do not doubt it, the deadbeat mother also exists!

Google "malicious mother syndrome" by Ira Daniel Turkat Ph.D. Very interesting indeed.


Plan and Do - Paperwork and Process - Perservere

monaro said
The CSA correctly portrays the difficulties imposed upon women and children by the deadbeat dad phenomenon.
I disagree with your assertion.  I don't believe the CSA does mostly anything correctly.

I disagree there is a "deadbeat dad phenomenon".  Most fathers who have their children living with them are more than willing to support them.

Stealing those children from fathers, and the racket that accompanies it, is a whole different issue.
monaro said
I am a father with two children. Their mother pays me minimum child support. This has gone on for years. Child support has never contacted me about this!

When I was paying child support and lost my job, not one month lapsed before I had a dozen letters sent to me with all sorts of threats. Do not doubt it, the deadbeat mother also exists!
I don't know your situation and it may differ from the following.

However, typically, in general women have a greater sense of entitlement, and are a whole lot better than men are "paperwork and process" and complaining to 'authorities' to get what they want.  The whinge and agencies and departments act.  (Squeaky wheels get oiled.)  On the contrary, all to often, men sit back, do little to nothing and are surprised when nothing changes.

You say "Child support has never contacted me about this!" but how many times have you contacted them about it … in writing, on paper and via every avenue you have, including your local MP (generates a 'ministerial' - lots of govt activity), etc.  Maybe also, read up on the Act and your entitlements as a residential parent.  Looks like you're starting by posting here and asking questions.


Remember to always "tell it to the paper" (aka put it all down on paper and make sure it gets to those who matter and who can make changes).  Same applies with family law and the courts.  When writing (letters carry more weight than emails, and are a physical thing to act on and cannot be covered up/over as easily as a phone call (best to only phone call to clarify points for the letters)) try to CC (carbon copy*) other people (particularly managers, stakeholders, etc.) into your letter so that your addressee knows he is being watched and cannot just file your letter.

* Put their names at the bottom of the letter after "CC" and also send them a copy of your letter.
Are you basing this on your experience or have you met my ex?

I don't believe there exists a bigger whinger than her?

On a more serious note, I had tried this experiment: I called the CSA and made an enquiry and they gave me the run around with nil results. Then my partner calls and gets immediate results.

Men, women and whinging

monaro said
Are you basing this on your experience or have you met my ex?

I don't believe there exists a bigger whinger than her?
Not personal experience but experience watching lots of Dads talking at DIDS and seeing what they are and ARE NOT doing.  They need more to complain and to engage in the drudgery - for a lot of blokes - of paperwork and process.

I'm trying to avoid your ex, so haven't met her!  :P
monaro said
On a more serious note, I had tried this experiment: I called the CSA and made an enquiry and they gave me the run around with nil results. Then my partner calls and gets immediate results.
I have heard of similar experiences to this.  I've met one Dad's new fiancee and she was doing all the ringing around and getting a lot of help but she commented that she had the feeling that it was because she was a SHE and that if she'd been a bloke she would have met more brick walls than open doors.

On ya Paul!

I have recently been to DiDs and just want to say hello to Paul and commend him on the great job he does for all dads in distress.

On ya mate!

The CSA, although seemingly fair and balanced, was designed to take money from working men and give it to non-working (or underemployed women). The argument (justification) for this is: "it's all about the children". If it was all about the children governments would force non-working women to work (long hours) and earn big money.

If you implement a system which says - all people with money shall give people without money lots of money for 18 years - and YOU KNOW that most people who DONT WORK AT DIVORCE TIME are WOMEN - then it is OBVIOUSLY designed to KEEP WOMEN AT HOME, not working or supporting themsleves in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and take as much money from MEN as possible. It's designed that way.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Perhaps the demographic of the country when it was first introduced supported this reasoning but as times changed much of the infrastructures set up to suit the population of the time has been held back by previous social values.

My understanding is the system was developed from another country and adapted to Australia in a time when Australia was economically stifled and may well have used CSA on the premise of removing women from the work force to create more jobs for men and also giving a viable expendable income to help increase economical growth.

If this is so then CSA is doing exactly what it was designed to do, as it was not set up with the child in mind per sei. It does not operate to benefit the child so much as the mother because if it did both mum and dad would be treated the same and be responsibly financially for the up bringing of the child, also taken into consideration as far as payment goes would be the deduction off CSA for the time the child spends in education where neither parent has the responsibility of the child, this figure would then be halved and issued to both parents. At the moment the money goes to support the mother.

If you think about it in this manner there are many other such incidents that should be taken into consideration to evaluate where the money goes, making any parent who receives child support maintain records of moneys spent on a child should also play a part in the whole process, this would also include FTB A & B. True responsibility and accountability.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets