Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Search – Forums

Your search gave 7 results:

Post #8401 by criticalmass on April 20th 2008, 6:17 PM (in topic “Father's Desperate Search for Son Abducted by the Mother”)

Father's Desperate Search for Son Abducted by the Mother: Abusive family members only make matters worse

Looks like Vyv Rodnight has had to put up with sustained campaign of alienation and abuse from not only his partner, the mother of his son, but also from her daughter (presumably from a different father).

The response of the daughter here is a strong indicator of the abuse that Vyv must have experienced in his family, and working to take his son away from him.

There is obviously a deliberate and sustained campaign to separate the boy from the father, that involves the daughter.  This is evidenced by the posting here and the inclusion of a photo of the mother, boy and sister (daughter), posted with the intent of garnering sympathy for the mother.

Perhaps this daughter should be brought before the court and forced to reveal the location of the boy - and held on contempt of court until she does.

Go to post

Post #8057 by criticalmass on April 9th 2008, 4:46 PM (in topic “Bank Accounts”)

Bank Accounts: Ideas for Child Support Management

What then do you propose/suggest LifeInsight?

My suggestions will slow the CSA down.

Both here and elsewhere I read about the overburden of work at the CSA and Centrelink, so my suggests may buy time, if not solve the problem.

Better to work at it than give up and die.

Go to post

Post #8052 by criticalmass on April 9th 2008, 3:42 PM (in topic “Bank Accounts”)

Bank Accounts: The CSA can and does take money from bank accounts without telling you

Over the past 12 years I have heard several stories of the CSA cleaning out bank accounts.

These were not joint accounts.  I believe joint accounts are more problematic (for the CSA), however, I cannot speak authoritatively on that issue.

The CSA have been known to and will direct and threaten a bank for the removal of money from an account.

As part of the CSA theft, the bank is told not to notify you - their customer - about the demand until AFTER the money has been taken.

If you have money in the bank, carefully consider how much and which bank it is in (and if that bank has been advised of your Tax File Number (TFN), thus making it easier for the CSA to find you via the Australian Taxation Office (ATO)).  If you money is in a bank known to your ex consider changing banks.

When changing don't electronically transfer, as you will be leaving a 'paper' trail.

If there are large amounts only deposit amounts of $9,000 or less (check this as I believe that banks are required to report transactions above $10,000 to the Federal Government).

If you receive money from the government or work consider having a separate bank and account for incoming transactions and deposits from your savings.  Again consider transferring the money manually and not electronically so as to leave a 'paper' trail.

If you have pay going into an account/bank consider splitting it at source - your employer - so that half goes to one account and half to another.  The object being to minimise your loses.  Learn and know when you work pays money into your account so that you can retrieve it ASAP, or move or transfer to a safe place.

If you have someone you trust consider parking money in their account, though that my have interest and tax implications for them.

Putting money away in accounts for your child is not safe; the CSA do not consider you a real parent with the best interests of your children at heart and will just mercilessly gobble up that money to pay to your ex (who of course can spend it how she likes ie. not on your children!).

Go to post

Post #7904 by criticalmass on April 3rd 2008, 11:48 PM (in topic “2020 Summit”)

2020 Summit: Request for information on the economic benefits of involved fathers

Colin George said
Request for information on the economic benefits of involved fathers

The Fatherhood Project will be represented at Prime Minister Rudd's Australia 2020 Summit on 19 and 20 April by one of our newly elected board members Margot Cairns, a brilliant mind. She will be on the economics committee and we need to show the economists and financiers why and how fatherhood has a massive impact on our economy.

I am compiling a dossier to aid her presentation on what economic benefits accrue from supporting actively engaged fathers and fatherhood organisations.

If you have any hard evidence about…

1. The real costs to government of fathers being separated from their children

2. The real costs to the corporate world of fathers being separated from their children

3. The economic impact of fathers staying connected with their children

4. The economic benefits to the nation both corporate and government of programmes for fathers, support for fathers in all its myriad forms and how that economically impacts on family

5. Any other aspects of this discourse that will assist those working with fathers to be funded

Please let me know ASAP.

Highest regards,

Colin George
The Fatherhood Project
Unit 9, 6-8 Burringbar Street
Mullumbimby NSW 2480
Tel 02 6684 2309
Email Colin George

Go to post

Post #7903 by criticalmass on April 3rd 2008, 11:43 PM (in topic “2020 Summit”)

2020 Summit: 2020 Summit Participants - Unfriendly to Fathers

There are a number of 2020 Summit participants who are decidedly unfriendly to fathers - actually they are toxic to fathers, especially separated fathers.

Interestingly, they are not balanced by any known people who are father friendly.
Dads on the Air said
Dads on the Air

For all their fence sitting, prevarication and cruel failure to properly reform either the Family Court of Australia or the Child Support Agency, at least the previous conservative government headed by John Howard acknowledged that fathers existed.

But the inclusion of a divisive single mother's advocate such as Kathleen Swinbourne in Kevin Rudd's massive 2020 Summit talk fest, supposedly bringing together the country's 1,000 brightest brains, while totally ignoring all the highly intelligent and hardworking figures in the fatherhood movement, shows exactly where their heads are at. That Swinbourne from the Sole Parents Union is regarded as one of the country's brightest is a tragic farce. Figures who were overlooked and who would have leant much needed balance to the debate include Tony Miller from Dads in Distress, Professor John MacDonald from the University of Western Sydney, Warwick Marsh from the Fatherhood Foundation, and the list goes on - and on - and on.

Instead the government has decided to put together a list that reads more like an Australian left wing feminists' who's who than a genuine list of people who could contribute to the debate on families. Believe it or not, they have the audacity to use the word "social inclusion" while ignoring every single figure in the fatherhood movement from coast to coast. In announcing the Summit, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared that they wanted to hear ideas from across the spectrum, ideas that could suprise and unsettle them. Nothing, it appears, could be further from the truth.

While professors and doctors clutter the list, the inclusion of an even more divisive figure than Swinbourne, the former chief justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson, shows that the academics who organised the conference have no idea of the real world. Surely if anyone had been aware of the low esteem with which Nicholson is held by hundreds of thousands of separated dads and separated families they would have passed over him for someone much more worthy. Critics argue that on his retirement Nicholson left the court in a shambles and its reputation at an extremely low ebb, both in the public eye and within the legal profession as a whole. His inclusion is a disgrace.

What makes the choices in the Summit under the family and social inclusion section so questionable is that this is the Summit which is meant to set up the paramaters of the debate and propose an agenda for the next decade of the Rudd government.

Kevin Rudd declares at www.australia2020.gov.au that: "The Summit will help us shape a long term strategy for the nation's future - covering the economy, the nation's infrastructure, our environment, our farmers, health care, indigenous Australians, the arts, national security, how we improve our system of government, and how we strengthen our communities and ensure nobody is left out of Australia's future. It's a big agenda, but we need to think big."

That agenda clearly doesn't include fathers or anyone from the fatherhood movement; and thus we as a nation are sentenced to yet another cycle of despair amongst broken families. Ultimately the country as a whole will pay the price for the left's continuing contempt for fathers and their vital role in bringing up children.

John Howard blew a rare historical confluence of public and professional opinion when he balked at introducing proper shared parenting and opted for a meaningless notion of "shared responsibility" for separating families. Now, with the left in power from coast to coast and alternative and progressive views from the fatherhood movement ignored by the reactionary elements within the massive family law industry, we are all paying the consequences for his timidity, fence sitting and courting of the feminist vote.
Another feminist nutter has surfaced as a participant in the forthcoming Ruddfest 2020 Summit.

Her name is Robyn Slarke, from WA, and she is a member of the misandrist, feminist nutter group Global Sisterhood Network (GSN), who REALLY hate men. She is also "a video producer from Perth. who has worked for many years with women" and "an advocate for women's and indigenous rights in Australia".

Slarke has been assigned to the "Australia's future security and prosperity in a rapidly changing region and world" subgroup.

She is in addition to:

- Alastair Nicholson (ex-boss of the FCA and decidedly anti-father, who is assigned to the "Options for the future of Indigenous Australia" subgroup)

- Kathleen Swinbourne (separated and single mothers' rights activist [Sole Parents Union], who is assigned to the "Strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion" subgroup)

- Joan Kirner (ex-Victorian premier, feminist socialist founder of Emily's List designed to elect more ALP-only feminist socialist women to parliaments, who is assigned to the "Strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion" subgroup)

- Freda Briggs ('academic' specialising in children and allleged 'child abuse', and cellmate of Elspeth McInnes, who is assigned to the "Strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion" subgroup).

- Ms Zoe Scott Rathus (Senior Lecturer and Director Clinical Programme, Griffith Law School, Qld, feminist and associate of Alastair Nicholson via the so-called World Congress on Family Law & Children's Rights and background in a Women's Legal Service and lecturing in family law, who is ALSO assigned to the "Strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion" subgroup)
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
Zoe Rathus

Legal Aid Queensland - Governance and control - Board member since November 2001

Zoe Rathus is a senior lecturer in family law and professional practice, and clinical program director at the Griffith University Law School. She made the move to academia in 2005 after 15 years as Women's Legal Service coordinator. She is admitted as a solicitor and holds a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Hons) from the University of Queensland. Ms Rathus was the chairperson of the Queensland Domestic Violence Council from 1991 to 1994 and deputy chairperson of the Taskforce on Women and the Criminal Code in 1999. She has worked on the problem of violence against women in South Africa and is deeply committed to making the legal system accessible and relevant to the community.
Ramona Koval is in there too ("Towards a creative Australia" subgroup).  She was an ABC presenter some time back, with strong feminist leanings.

No doubt there are more.

There are no known fathers' group participants, especially in the "Strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion" subgroup.

See the attached spreadsheet showing the participants in the "Strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion" subgroup. It reveals that 62% of participants are females.  And quite a few of the blokes are 'academics', clerics (religious) or ethnics (not that there's anything wrong with that; just noting the facts).

Attachment
Percentage of Women to Men in Family Subgroup


I understand that a Margot Cairnes will be attending and that she has some association with Warwick Marsh and the Fatherhood Foundation. However, she is participating in the "Future directions for the Australian economy" subgroup.  I have posted details, of a request for information for Margot, in a separate post below.

Go to post

Post #7205 by criticalmass on March 16th 2008, 12:26 AM (in topic “CSA Bluffs: Tricking People into Providing Medical & Financial Info”)

CSA Bluffs: Tricking People into Providing Medical & Financial Info: What CSA Friends?

What a beefy response by the Secretary SPCA!  It's so different to his many other responses and comes across as having a defensive (in its robustness) feel to it.  I wonder why?

Perhaps I should have used the word "accounts" instead of "records", though the comments from BB do clarify that. My apology for any confusion.
Secretary SPCA said
criticalmass said
CSA Bluff Tricks: Seeking Medical Records from Practitioners & Financial Information from Partners

The CSA is known to try on (bluff) official looking, but not legislated, requests for information and action.

This bluff is called the "I'm from the Government, you can trust me, so just give me what I want" Trick (shortened to "I'm from the Government").

The CSA often gets away with the bluff because people know the CSA is part of the Federal Government and assume it must know the law and is to be trusted.  Wrong!  They don't realise that the CSA typically uses various 'tricks' to elicit information they have no legislated right to demand.
Are you speaking from personal experience, with some factual example, or is this just a view you hold with some qualification? Or is this something from the "Chaos Theory"? You also mention that CSA are seeking "medical records from Practitioners." Which Practitioners, who and when? Why do CSA need "Medical records? and How do they get medical records? CSA practitioners do not hold medical records, Dr's hold medical records and my Dr certainly wouldn't be releasing medical records.
Wow … a barrage of assumptions and questions, with a twist of aggro.

What is this "Chaos Theory" are so fond of and introduce and speak of?  I've never heard of it and wonder why you bring it up here.  Crazy stuff man!

Who are "CSA practitioners"?  I've never heard of them.

And why the aggro?: "or is this just a view you hold with some qualification?"  Stop and consider your blood pressure bro!

I have an a friend who is a medico and he receives demands from the CSA for details of patients accounts from time-to-time.  In my first email I did mention accounts and a clearer reading on your part would have seen that.  But you approached it with pro-CSA blinkers.

Nevertheless, because I'm a top bloke, I have added a clarification to my original post.  We could argue the toss on whether account documents held by medios are "medical records" but at the end of the day the fact is the CSA is demanding personal information about medicos' patients, such documents are likely to include details (listings) of procedures and treatments.
Secretary SPCA said
criticalmass said
…It is important to check the legislative and regulatory basis for all requests.  The CSA should be able to provide relevant sections of Acts and Regulations.  If they cannot (or will not - a possible ground for an SSAT appeal) then you know that they don't have the right.  Maybe check with lawyer re legislation.
Firstly in relation to the last part. Most lawyers in general practice are completely ignorant of the detailed CSA legislation. I spoke to one of the senior Federal Magistrates during the week who in fact made that comment. You are probably better off posting a question on the Portal here to get an authoritative answer and check that against the CSA officers. Or make a submission via the "Have your say" icon on the home page which will be sent on to FaCSIA or other department for response.

In respect to CSA providing sections of the relevant Act's that is definitely something they should be able to do.
Lawyers work with the law.  There are qualified lawyers out there.  One just has to find them.  The CSA and Federal Magistrates may be just a tad biased, don't you think, to get advice from, particularly if that Federal Magistrate was Grant Reithmuller, a one time lawyer contracted by the CSA to introduce Change of Assessment nasties against fathers.

I don't think it's wise to trust those extorting money from you. Or to endorse them.

It's great that this Portal is trying to help but it needs to be careful to be 1) Independent, and 2) Not just a funded branch of Federal Government eg. FaCSIA and the CSA.

I'm glad you can agree that it's a good idea that the CSA back up its demands with the relevant legislation.

In the absence of CSA provision, people might otherwise look at www.austlii.edu.au or www.commlaw.gov.au for the two Child Support Acts and related regulations.
Secretary SPCA said
criticalmass said
NB. The CSA "The Guide" doesn't count because it's their own CSA internal document and is not, and does not, have the authority of an Act or Regulation. (They try another bluff on their 'clients' by referring them to this "The Guide" as being authoritative.
"The Guide" is the authoritative document used both by internal CSA officers and available to external Payers and Payee's. There is no secret document here. It is the authoritative interpretation of the ACT for purposes of implementation of the legislation and a guide. There is a new Guide coming in April to reflect the new legislation.
Steady on there… "Secret document"?  What "secret document"?  I didn't say anything about a "secret document".  You introduced that one out of left field - as our American cousins would say.

You need to learn the difference between exegesis (reading out of a text) and eisegesis (reading into a text what you want to see and say).

"The Guide" has no legislative standing.  It is merely a CSA internal agency document.  At least that is my understanding to date.  I stand to be corrected if you can show me the Act or Regulation that directs the CSA to produce a Guide and gives it some legislative grunt.  Can you say that it does have legislative standing and power, and provide the references?  Please.

Otherwise my observation and comment are correct and the promotion of "The Guide" by the CSA (and yourself?) is little more than bluff designed to tip the scales in favour of the CSA - given that the CSA have convinced you to take their interpretations as authoritative … when they are not the law (legislation).  Blokes might falsely get the impression that "The Guide" was the law and not just an internal CSA document for their procedural use.

The CSA itself, on it's "The Guide" website, admits that "The Guide" is essentially an internal document and not authoritative:
The CSA "The Guide" said
Note: External users should not use The guide in place of independent legal advice. The Commonwealth accepts no liability for any loss suffered as a result of reliance on any material in The guide.
I'm not saying it is, but to me your response sounds like a spirited defence of "The Guide" and the CSA.  Which puzzles me given that I understood this site was designed to help victims of CSA abuses, excesses and injustices.
Secretary SPCA said
criticalmass said
Elsewhere LL said
It is not hard to imagine the CSA/FCA/FMC axis of evil having, or presuming they have, the same right to access Medicare records, as they do Motor Registrations, Land Titles, ATO, TAB, employer's records…
To which BB said
Several times I have had CSA request records. eg Who paid this child's account and how much?

I photocopy and send to the father, and write to CSA: "Good try!"
You really got me here. Who is is LL? and What posts are you referring to? I did a site search for LL and BB and there are no users with those site names. The only LL I know of is a very highly respected poster in one of the Yahoo Groups and who's details I will not disclose here. If these posts are not posted here where are they posted?
You're pulling my leg, right?!  I did use a convention to indicate this quoted material was from another source: "ELSEWHERE LL said" (emphasis added). I find it difficult to believe you spent time searching for them here on this site.

LL and BB are not on this forum, hence "elsewhere".  I am not prepared to breach their privacy and name names or the exact branch of 'medicine' BB practices.  I do not want to provide the CSA with any identifiable details from which they can hassle anyone.

The point is the principle of CSA trickery, not the personal details of persons quoted.  I am not going to divulge their details here to you and to the CSA.  That would be breach of confidentiality and is not required by your or anyone else regarding the principle expounded.

If you want to make it that then I look forward to seeing you applying the same diligence to many other posts on this site whose details and story are not known and verified.

The feeling I get is that the level of diligence of enquiry is related to my criticism of the CSA.  And that may be related to me pointing out tactics of CSA malfeasance.
Secretary SPCA said
criticalmass said
Another use of the "I'm from the Government" Trick is to request partner financial details.  If given they will be used against you.  What the CSA will do is not take any money from your partner - it cannot do that - but it will twist matters to say that because she has assets and income, she can provide you with some support, so therefore you have money freed up that the CSA can take!  Logical, isn't it? NOT!  It's called the "Subsidy" Trick
Are you sure you are in Australia? Are you sure you are not smoking anything illegal while dreaming about the Child Support Agency? Have you read the new Act? I pay child support, I have a great partner and she has never heard from the Child Support Agency in all the time I have been paying.
What an odd question: "Are you sure you are in Australia?" Similarly your insinuation on me being under the influence of drugs.

Yes, I'm in Australia. I have over 12 years exposure to family law and child support, though I do not claim to be an expert in either.  What I discussed is sufficient for an intelligent person to realise that I am Australian and discussing the Australian CSA.

Good for you and your partner.  You're fortunate, if not blind to the realities.  I have heard numerous complaints over the years from people where the CSA has verbally (never in writing, that's part of the trickery, so they won't get caught) demanded details of partners' incomes and finances.  They do do this (during Change of Assessments) and they do it to offset additional gouging from the father with his partner's income.  So they are not touching her income directly, but they impact it by taking more from him than they would have if she were not there and not provided any details.  Of course they do not ask for nor take into account a payee's partner's income!
Secretary SPCA said
criticalmass said
Again:

1) Ask for the legislation (sections of Acts and Regulations) that authorise the CSA to request this information; and

2) Consider Privacy Act considerations.  Does the CSA have the right to request information from non-clients?  No.

(NB. The CSA DOES have the legislated ability to suck money from your bank accounts and to threaten the bank not to tell you until after it has been done.  Lesson: If you're vulnerable (money in the bank), remove your money and keep it in a safe place.  Consider other financial options.  I've heard of home refrigerators and work filing cabinets being used to safekeep thousands of dollars.  Subsequently used for the children's benefit!)
Why would CSA being requesting anything from Non-Clients. I have never heard of that. You got me there as well. There are three categories of payers.

CSA collect (47.4%)

Private Collect (52.6%)

Self Administered (around 10%) are included in the Private Collect group.

I am not really sure what you are getting at in this post. I absolutely agree that you should not blindly go along like a lemming reaching the cliff and you should have an understanding of the sections relating to the payments you are making and how the formula works. That is why the guys here, with the help of MikeT have designed and built a pretty impressive calculator which you have probably already used to check off against the CSA estimator.
All I can say is that you've lead a sheltered life.  I've explained the reason why the CSA does request information from non-clients above.

It is abundantly apparent you don't know what I am talking about.  You showed that by your response.  That doesn't mean others don't know what I'm saying. What I do suggest is that you learn to ask nicely initially, rather than launching into such a controlled aggressive 'response' first up.

Go to post

Post #7198 by criticalmass on March 15th 2008, 6:28 PM (in topic “CSA Bluffs: Tricking People into Providing Medical & Financial Info”)

CSA Bluffs: Tricking People into Providing Medical & Financial Info

CSA Bluff Tricks: Seeking Medical Records from Practitioners & Financial Information from Partners

The CSA is known to try on (bluff) official looking, but not legislated, requests for information and action.

This bluff is called the "I'm from the Government, you can trust me, so just give me what I want" Trick (shortened to "I'm from the Government").

The CSA often gets away with the bluff because people know the CSA is part of the Federal Government and assume it must know the law and is to be trusted.  Wrong!  They don't realise that the CSA typically uses various 'tricks' to elicit information they have no legislated right to demand.

Once an innocent 'client' has provided the information to the CSA it's too late - it is likely to be used against him.  The CSA comeback is to deny breaking the law, because technically they haven't, and just say "we asked, you provided, so there!"   (Any other time they just say "We are only obeying orders (legislation).  The trick mentioned here demonstrates that they are not just obeying orders; they are creative in pursuing their prey.)

It is important to check the legislative and regulatory basis for all requests.  The CSA should be able to provide relevant sections of Acts and Regulations.  If they cannot (or will not - a possible ground for an SSAT appeal) then you know that they don't have the right.  Maybe check with lawyer re legislation.

NB. The CSA "The Guide" doesn't count because it's their own CSA internal document and is not, and does not, have the authority of an Act or Regulation. (They try another bluff on their 'clients' by referring them to this "The Guide" as being authoritative.

Read, study and learn about the Privacy Act and know what your rights, and those of your partner and other family members, are.
Elsewhere LL said
It is not hard to imagine the CSA/FCA/FMC axis of evil having, or presuming they have, the same right to access Medicare records, as they do Motor Registrations, Land Titles, ATO, TAB, employer's records…
To which BB said
Several times I have had CSA request records. eg Who paid this child's account and how much?

I photocopy and send to the father, and write to CSA: "Good try!"
Another use of the "I'm from the Government" Trick is to request partner financial details.  If given they will be used against you.  What the CSA will do is not take any money from your partner - it cannot do that - but it will twist matters to say that because she has assets and income, she can provide you with some support, so therefore you have money freed up that the CSA can take!  Logical, isn't it? NOT!  It's called the "Subsidy" Trick.  They don't do this in the reverse: they don't ask mothers for the income of their partners or play this subsidy game with them.

Again:

1) Ask for the legislation (sections of Acts and Regulations) that authorise the CSA to request this information; and

2) Consider Privacy Act considerations.  Does the CSA have the right to request information from non-clients?  No.

(NB. The CSA DOES have the legislated ability to suck money from your bank accounts and to threaten the bank not to tell you until after it has been done.  Lesson: If you're vulnerable (money in the bank), remove your money and keep it in a safe place.  Consider other financial options.  I've heard of home refrigerators and work filing cabinets being used to safekeep thousands of dollars.  Subsequently used for the children's benefit!)
Clarification: Arising from the Secretary SPCA's robust and vigorous response, below, I want to clarify that typically what the CSA are, on occasion, demanding from medical practitioners is financial details associated with accounts paid for treatment, typically of children.  Associated with these accounts would be details of the medical procedures and treatment provided (aka medical records).  And that's how the above should be read.

Go to post

Enter the words you wish your result to include, with spaces between them.

Advanced…

The template search will find all entries matching the criteria. For example, a search with a criteria of ‘Manhattan’ in the field named ‘Description’ (assuming there is one) would find any entries containing the substring ‘Manhattan’ in the ‘Description’ field.

If there are additional categories available underneath a category then there will be a clickable ‘plus’ icon shown to the left of it. Choose your selection by clicking the label (you will see it get highlighted). Hold the ctrl key to expand all child categories also.

Recent Tweets