some CS videos

Carol Rhodes on Child Support (US)

CSA admit mistake (UK)

Hamilton Pizeria Protest (US)

Dads on the Air at Lone Fathers Conference 2007 - Part 1

1:32 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Hooray for the Federal Ombudsman / stuff the CSA
Category: Blogging

After approaching the Federal Ombudsmans Office with regards to my Objection placed November 05 (yes, 2.5 years ago) with the CSA, the ombudsmans office has ordered the CSA to consider my objection. This means that the CSA did not follow due legal process by

a) sending a copy of my objection onto the other party
b) allowing the objection in part or whole or disallowing the objection

The CSA’s decision (thats Matt Miller, the CS Registrar) to find my objection "invalid" and "no further action will be taken on your objection" is outside the legislation. It left me with no legal course of appeal as outlined in the CS Acts.

In an email from the Ombudsmans Office, the ombudsmans representative clearly agrees that the CSA can not find an objection invalid as there is no legal scope under the CS legislation. Best in their words....
"There is no scope under the child support legislation for an Objection to be disallowed because it is "invalid"."

why do I now feel like I have just hopped onto the merry-go-round at the start of the ride again?

follow this subject at Dads On The Air (DOTA)

7:47 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Erich Schultz 2007
Category: Blogging

Erich S 2007

With sadness I read near the end of oh' seven

That our friend Erich had chosen heaven

Less than two weeks before

We discussed downfalls in law

The courts ill deeds

And your ex wife's greed's

You've left us all confused and grieving

But I can't help the feeling

There are two young boys

Whose hearts must be heaving

I'm feeling a bit angry at you

But I know all too well

We don't think about others

When on the verge of hell

I guess just like me

You were all about helping others

Not releasing your own pain

Or burdening your DIDS brothers

As we gather around

In our men's group a circled

We'll leave a chair vacant

For you to remind us

None of us is immortal

Nor immune to the pain

And asking for help

Might seem futile and vain

Just call on the phone

"I'm in pain", "I'm alone"

I know where you were at

I've been down there before

The deepest darkest depths of life

The smallest of things

Looms like trouble and strife

The life leash feels release

Looking for some kind of peace

Ross M

5:11 PM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

RIP Erich Schultz
Current mood: sad
Category: Blogging

I read with sadness on the Dads On The Air website that Erich had suicided, I first met Erich about a year ago, after attending the Newcastle NSW DIDs meeting, he struck me as one the few who had overcome every obsticle thrown his way and endured, a survivor.

Despite all Erich had endured, he spoke proudly of his two boys, he was a dad, first and foremost. I know he held on too much to the hatred of those who had harmed his relationship with his sons, however the times I spoke with him, I felt he had these things in check, which makes his passing all the more confusing.

I've asked myself more than once over the last days, what was the straw that pushed Erich over the edge, was he carrying the burdens of so many other dads problems and his own problems? I know he spent one of his last days with us helping a newly separated dad move. Was it the prospect of yet another Christmas not seeing his sons? Was it something as simple as getting a traffic ticket?

Erich had at his disposal all the help DIDs can offer, yet he chose not to utilise those rescources. The greiving process has begun for those of us that called him a friend. It will be a hard Christmas for his sons, and not a very happy new year.

9:33 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Heroes Victims and villains
Current mood: Devils Advocate
Category: Devils Advocate Blogging

In this world there are heroes, victims and villains, and today I became aware of a story with all 3, a story that should disgust even the lowest of criminals in the dirtiest of jails.

Its the story of ten year old Jordon Lyon, who drowned saving his younger step sister in the UK in May this year, here is our hero. I would be proud to call him my son, wouldn't you. But for the tragedy of Jordon drowning, why did this story get up my goat enough to bring it to my blog.

For months now, it seems everyone in the UK has differing opinions on the behaviour of two PCSOs (police community support officers) who aparently arrived on the scene shortly after Jordon disappeared under water. Their actions (or inactions) have been supported by the UK police and the coroner who investigated Jordons death, you can read all about their actions simply by googleing Jordon Lyon, but they are not the reason I raise this subject matter.

So far it sounds like a fairly mundane story, kid drowns, public servants dont get their feet wet, that is until we read at Jordons memorial website
-----------------------------------------------------------------

..> ..> ..>..>

WHY DID NOBODY TELL ME	22nd Sep 2007
JOHN PRESTWICH from BLACKPOOL relation: FATHER
You gave your life to save another. I couldn't be more proud of you son. Hero at 10 year's old. 'If I went to heaven and you wern't there, I'd write your name on a golden stair.' 'I'd give the angels back there wings, golden harps and other thing's' Just to prove my love is true, I'd go through hell to get to you'. Tracey!!!! Contact me!!!!

-------------------------------------------------------

I found this via the dadsontheair.com website, copied from the disenfranchised dad blog, so I went searching on this amazing information highway and found an Interview with John Prestwich on BBC's 5live callback program.

Here is our victim, and what, I hear you ask, made my stomach churn, well, aparently John had not seen his son in 8 years and no one bothered to tell him his son had died.

WHY NOT? John, bless his heart and despite all he has been through, wont criticise Tracy. From my experiences with separated dads, this will be out of fear of loosing contact with his surviving son! I listened to his BBC interview and it raises questions, questions that need answers.

If John had disapeared with the boys 8 years ago, the police would have been involved and tracked him down, yet his ex, Tracey can do this and no one can find her.....

and people were criticising John for not doing enough to find his sons, right..... even if he had obtained a court ordered address, do you think Tracey would have been there, no, she would have moved on again. Here is the crap she fed him after he found out his son was dead
"I lost your contact details"
I for one would like to see published by the UK CSA her application for child support. I would bet $100 that his address is on it in her hand writting.
she also claimed "she moved to get away from someone else"
You couldnt contact John before you moved, you didnt even try did you, your lies dont cut it here honey, you may be able to sucker John, with the overhanging threat of doing it all again, but not me.

What a twisted tale, the villain playing the victim, the victim playing the "cover the villains tracks game" and the hero dead.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

Here is what gets me going, this woman has failed to notify CSA of the childs death, that is obvious because John would have found out months earlier. Here she is saying "I asked the police to find and tell John" yet the police claim that is the duty of the next of kin (the mum in this case).

I am sure had she contacted someone at CSA and said "our son is dead, I need to contact his father urgently" they would have co-operated. John contacted the CSA after he realised it was his son, and they refused to give him contact details. They didnt even pass on a note. Not their job, aparently! Given the circumstances, I think they had a moral duty as public servants....

So, if you meet a woman named Tracey Ganderton and she opens her mouth, presume its to spout bullshit

The sadest part of this story for any other dad in the same situation is that if Jordon had not drowned, John still would not have the slightest inkling of his sons whereabouts, and he would still be searching for his boys. None of us would be any the wiser to his situation. Most of the world couldnt care less for men in Johns situation. It wont happen to me! Perhaps the name John Prestwich should be in our marraige vows,
"I have read and understood the John Prestwich story and understand that it could be me"

Rest In Peace
Jordon Prestwich
the world is now aware of your fathers plight
your work here is done

6:05 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Strike 3 your out
Category: Blogging

I have resent the email below to Jim Arneman 3 times and no response, sorry Jim but you have lost my vote.....

9:05 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Could this happen in Australia
Category: Blogging

The little hitlers in Cincinatti CSEA are missing the point of BIC, it's not just BIC of children from a previous relationship, It's BIC of all children.

http://dunes.cincinnati.com/pubnews/story.aspx?id=117017&siteID=1

Hamilton County CSEA Steals Support from Four Year Old
Contributed by D O
Wednesday, August 22, 2007


Posted By Cindy Cox
August 18, 2007

How would you feel if the government took over half your income and left you
with close to nothing to care for your family? And what if they took your
drivers license and car so you couldn't get to work? What if they made sure you
didn't have any credit, so you can't get a loan or a credit card? If that's not
enough, how about taking away your ability to keep a bank account? No way to
cash a check, save money, or pay bills. No income tax refund checks... you
can't have those, either. What if you couldn't own anything, like a home or a
car? Would you be able to live like this?

This is the plight of four-year old Nathan's family.

Nathan Thomas is a four year-old who loves his father. But Nathan is hungry and
soon to be homeless because of the excessive abuses and harrassment that his
father receives from the Child Support Enforcement Agency. For years the CSEA
has taken a gross amount of Nathan's support by withholding over half of his
father's paychecks, leaving him with less than $1000 per month to care for his
family. Nathan's father does the best he can on his meager take-home pay, and
has managed to continue struggling through over ten years of CSEA torture and
abuse. But this week the Hamilton County CSEA in Cincinnati wants to leave
Nathan without a home, food, and much more by taking the family's rent and bill
money.

On Monday, August 13th, the Hamilton County CSEA seized Nathan's mothers bank account- which held over $550 worth of the family's bill and rent money for August- because Nathan's Dad was listed on the account to help his mother pay the bills to support the four year-old.

Nathan's father works full time, and has been for years. Nathan's father pays
heavily in child support every month, including an amount specifically to back
child support owed from over ten years ago. But the Hamilton County CSEA and
State of Ohio decided that taking half of Nathan's support this month wasn't
good enough. So they took another 25% of his father's income, leaving the
family with $500 for the entire month to eat, pay bills, and attempt to live.
The monthly payment on the four-year old's home costs his mother $765 per month.
The actions of the Hamilton County CSEA have also left Nathan's mother's bank
account in the negative, so now she will have to face stiff bank charges,
overdraft fees, and penalties as well.... there goes the $500 the CSEA left the
family with this month to live on.

Nathan's father has been victimized for more than ten years at the hands of the
Hamilton County CSEA. Although Nathan's father has always tried to work honest,
earn a living, and support both his new family and his children from prior
involvements, the CSEA continues to make living life more difficult for him and
countless other fathers and families.

Hamilton County CSEA, in a supposed effort to make fathers pay, take drastic
actions such as suspending driver's licenses and professional licenses for
anyone who owes back child support, regardless of how recent or how much. How a
person is supposed to get to work and pay child support without a driver's
license is anyone's guess. How are a doctor or lawyer going to work to pay
child support if their licenses are revoked and they cannot work? No one in
seems to have any answers to these questions.

Furthermore, fathers at the mercy of the CSEA are prohibited from ownership.
They can't own a car, a home, or any personal property of value... if they do,
CSEA files liens and siezes the property. Apparently it doesn't matter to CSEA
if your car is your only transportation to work. The only way for victims of
the CSEA to protect themselves is simply not to own anything.

CSEA prevents fathers who owe child support from having credit of any kind.
They post negative credit ratings to their credit reports, making it impossible
for them to obtain loans, credit cards, or any other type of credit.
Interestingly enough, however, the CSEA officially maintains that owing child
support is not a "debt" and therefore a jailable offense (it is unconstitutional
to imprison someone for a debt so they have to find a way around it being a
"debt"). Whether they officially consider it a debt or not, they ruin the
credit of fathers who owe, ensuring they can never get ahead in life and better
themselves and their families.

And now the CSEA wants to ensure that fathers who owe support cannot have a bank
account, either. They also are now harrassing anyone associated with a father
who owes support by freezing their bank accounts as well. To the CSEA, it
doesn't matter that another child will suffer. When asked about the other
minor child in this situation who could be left homeless and hungry, the CSEA tells us they don't care and that Nathan Thomas doesn't matter.

Everyone who loves kids- and hates to see them suffer- should write and call
anyone who will listen about the plight of desperate families left barely able
to survive after the onslaught of CSEA intervention.

Contact your public servants with your outrage. They are enacting on your
behalf. If nothing else, do it for the truly innocent victim... four year old
Nathan Thomas.

4:59 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Michael Randell A/g Director, Child Support Unit Commonwealth Ombudsman
Current mood: absolute contempt

This is my response to my previous blog post

Mr Randell,

A few corrections, I stated clearly that the CSA had not followed the legislation nor Australias international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it does not matter to me what their policy states, unless that policy specifically follows the legislation to the letter and our international obligations.

Their letters should be regarded as private and confidential, have CSA now also breached my privacy by forwarding these correspondances onto your office?

What hope is there if your decision doesnt investigate but just takes the CSA at their word. Even after all this, your office manages to get the date of my objection incorrect (note 5/11/2005, not 3 Nov as your response states).

I alleged maladministration by CSA staff, you never even mention that word in your response. Try this question, Has the Ombudsmans Office ever charged any Australian public servant with 'maladministration', malfeasance or misfeasance?

A magistrate/judge plaigurising anothers findings is misfeasance, have you acted on that government employee? How about another magistrate/judge speeding and DUI and trying to blame it on a dead female friend, what is that? Malfeasance?

6:20 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Fob off by Ombudsman

Theres an old saying that you look after your own, apparantly the same goes for government employees, and here we are being misled into thinking the Ombudsmans Office is independant......

The original complaint
_________________________________________________________
22 June 2007

Ross M
[address edited]

Professor John McMillan
Commonwealth Ombudsman

Dear Mr McMillan,

I have some rather complicated questions and requests about the actions of the Child Support Agency and the Child Support (assessment) Act 1989 (the Act), in my children's child support case. I have been a "payer parent" since June 2001 when I walked away from my marriage because the children's mother cheated on her family. I know that is basically irrelevant because we have no fault divorce here in Australia, but I have included it for information only. I strongly believe that parents should support their children, and I have always paid my obligations as assessed by CSA. I have never put myself in the situation where the children's mother has had to raise any concerns with the CSA about my payment history or actions.

Unless I specify, I am referencing the Child Support (assessment) Act 1989 as it stood in November 2005.

I have 3 daughters, and I fail to understand how Australia can treat its children so badly through legislation when in one parents care. I have been more than fair in my child support case and all I have ever asked for is the same back, nothing more, nothing less. The issues I raise here, I view as maladministration by the Registrar with regards to his /her obligations to comply with the obligations laid out under s98K of the assessment act as it stood. The agencies Kumar, Petryk and Leary are far more guilty of this crime, than Matt Miller who, despite being the factual CS Registrar, probably does not even know my family exists.

From where I stand, the act at s98K places obligations on the Registrar, once I placed my objection and the CSA decided that it was not valid, to make a determination under s117. The failure of the agency to follow s98K can only be viewed as maladministration (s26(1)(a)Ombudsman Act1974). To further delay that obligation meets other standards under the Ombudsman Act 1974 for maladministration.

Child Support Case history.
My concerns stem from 02 August 2004 when we changed around care arrangements, moving from what is considered the normal 80/20 care split to equal shared care, and the child support periods immediately following that through to November 2005. I advised CSA of the change in care arrangements on 06 August 2004. I will note here that care actually changed from 29 July 2004, however that weekend would normally have been a weekend spent in my care so I treat the 2nd August as the date care changed.

So, from 2 August until 5 August, I was still assessed at the old 32% rate and the old exempt income level, and my 02/03 income, as though my children were still in their mothers care 80% of the time and nothing had changed. I was advised on 6 August when I notified CSA of these changes, that care change notifications (ss74A)can not be backdated, and that CSA "policy" meant they could not accept my notification without confirming the date with the "carer parent". The Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 ss34, also states it is the "carer parents" duty to notify CSA (the registrar) of changes in care arrangements. I have, since the day I notified CSA, complained about this fact.

I am of the opinion that Part 6A division 3, section 98K gave the registrar the discretion to over-ride the legislated ss74A to give effect to making a just assessment of that period. ie: changing the rate to 24% and adjusting the exempt incomes of both parents.

Late in August 2004 I placed an income election with CSA for an accurately calculated amount that was 14.7% reduction of the Income CSA were using as opposed to the legislated 15% reduction. For this reason CSA could not accept my election until 01 September 2004 when a new CS period was due to commence. At the time of placing the election, no one at CSA advised me I could be out by 10% and not face any action, and if CSA had been using the correct "relevant income", which they didn't have as I hadn't placed my ITR for 03/04 as at that date (25 August), either way I could have adjusted that amount to the 15% legislated reduction and had it apply from 25 August. In my mind, at that time I was placing an election for 04/05 financial year, and it should have at the very least applied from the change in care if not 01 July 2004.

I am of the opinion that Part 6A division 3, ss98K gave the registrar the discretion to over-ride the legislated ss60(3) to give effect to making a just assessment of that period. ie: accepting the election from 2 August 2004.

In November 2005 I placed an Objection with CSA after receiving a new assessment, that showed my ex wife's income as $0 for the previous period when I knew that she had been working almost full time since August 04, that assessment showed my election for 04/05 offset against her $0 income in 03/04. Initially CSA viewed that objection for being based on the 05/06 later period and said I did not have a valid objection. I received an apology for this error in interpreting my objection, but that did little to alleviate my concerns about the unjust methodology used in assessing this period.

When CSA finally looked at my objection correctly, they said I still didn't have a valid objection and that I should have used the intrusive Change of Assessment process. Now, in my opinion, in a shared care situation both parents have similar expenses, so there should be no need to lodge any intrusive information, and if anything, my having a mortgage would have meant a $0 assessment which I didn't see as fair either. Further to this, CSA failed to follow the legislation at ss98ZB(now only under Registration/collection Act) in notifying the children's mother of an objection, because they determined that the objection was invalid. The legislation makes no mention at 98ZB of validity of the Objection, and from reading ss98XC(3) and the objects of the Act, I am of the opinion that the objection was valid.

At the time of my Objection, Petryk tried to reference parts of the Registration/Collection Act that were totally irrelevant as this was an Assessment matter.

I am of the opinion that Part 6A division 3, ss98K gave the registrar the discretion to over-ride the legislated Division 1 Basic Formula to give effect to making a just assessment of that period. ie: offsetting like financial year incomes and that the registrar could have initiated a departure, and worked on the basis that both parents have like income and expenses, or demanded both parents supply certain information for the making of a "just" determination, making my objection valid.

I have been continually arguing with CSA to no avail for justice, and in August 2006 the children's mother prompted me to "hurry up and get my tax return in" as it was delaying her obtaining the "held" part of FTB's. This prompted me to ask CSA when they received the mothers ITR for 04/05 only to be told early 18 August 05. My ITR for 04/05 was placed 23 September 05. This means my election should still have been valid until 1 November 05 and that CSA should have issued a new assessment at 1 August 05 based on the mothers ITR. I requested that CSA review how they determined the end period of 1 Sept 04 through 1 November 05 and found that it was based on my ITR.

The changes made because of that do not follow the legislated ss34A wording "as soon as practicable" when you consider that all data from ATO to CSA is transferred electronically, directly to CSA systems that should be able to issue an assessment the next day. CSA policy does not follow the legislation in that ITR's received post the 16th of the month do not commence a new assessment in the next calendar month but the month following that.

To top that off, the changes made by CSA used my 04/05 income when my election was still valid, and only started from 01 September through 30 September 2005, and did nothing to change either August 05 or October 05. CSA have since told me that they are using the most recent available income, but that does not follow ss34A in the legislation.

I have had meetings with a representative of my local MP, the Hon Bob Baldwin, and CSA personnel, where I have raised these issues, and also the decision in the Ah Hin Teoh v Minister for Immigration, only to have no support from my local MP, and to be told that decision refers to immigration, where it actually refers to how a Government agency or decision maker must act when making decisions affecting children's welfare ie: their parents finances.

It appears to me, that this agency is incapable of following its own legislation, and from my involvement over 6 years, I can honestly say at times I have been emotionally abused by CSA staff, and my involvement with other men I can say that CSA policy reeks of discrimination, and they unable to make a fair decision where children's welfare is concerned. The registrar Matt Miller, and his nominated "registrars" including Mina Podberski, at CSA get away with the maladministration because they are protected by the Acts, which is absolutely disgusting.

The use of the word "proper" needs to be looked at in the legislation, the sole purpose of the act tends to look like "claw back" of government support for children, whereas a true proper determination would mean correcting the amounts paid to either parent by the FTO.

I have requested innumerable times prior to the changes in legislation at 1 January 2007 that the aforementioned matters be dealt with, and every step is a fob off by CSA, to the extent they now tell me I have to apply to a court for the earlier periods to be looked at instead of dealing with them as the legislation stood at the time.

Here is what I have asked CSA to fix, and now request you to look at their actions, as an independent party who has the ability to ensure CSA act accordingly with Australian and international laws and obligations (see footnotes), that the periods 02 August 04 through 31 July 2005 be assessed as one period, not 4, at the legislated 24% with both parents having the same exempt income, and using both parents like financial year incomes (04/05). Following that, the period 1 August through 30 October 2005 be assessed as per the legislation.

I no longer care about the financial effect, I have debt built up over that period on a line of a credit, that technically the CSA by not implementing ss98K of the act under international obligations to my children should be responsible for. CSA have to make the determination in following the legislation, on a principal basis so as to set a precedent for any future parents who may be involved in child support, including my 3 children, should that ever happen. If the determination means the mother or I, owe the FAO money, that could be recovered over time or on payment of the "held" $600+ for the next financial year. The CSA have shown me that they are incapable of looking after our children's best interests and welfare when in either parents care.

These matters can not be looked at by SSAT, as they all occurred prior to 01 Jan 2007. To take the matter to court, I would have to take the children's mother to court with "child matters" which restricts my legal right to deal with by the administrative authority(CSA) via the courts, and as a low income family, it probably wouldn't be financially viable.

Family Assistance Office
I am including this for information purposes at the current time, I have objected to Centrelink's decision.

I now have to tackle the FAO, forcing me to register a CSA case against the children's mother, when the legislation states that I have to be taking reasonable action to be obtaining child support, which is done automatically as the mother has a CS case registered against me and we have shared care.

This month, Centrelinks FAO office at Gosford contacted me, 3 and 1/2 years after becoming a "carer parent" to tell me I "have to" have a registered child support case against the children's mother. Why has it taken 3.5 years and why is this now the case when, as explained above, its automatic process as per the legislation and I do not need to have a registered CS case, as I am still the one paying CS to the mother.

Here is what the FAO website says at page 5
Maintenance income test for Family Tax Benefit Part A

To receive more than the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A for children of a previous relationship, reasonable action to obtain child support must be taken.

The Family Assistance Act at Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 2 ss10 says
10. The FTB child rate for an FTB child of an individual is the base FTB child rate (see clause 8) if:
(a) the individual or the individual's partner is entitled to claim or apply for maintenance for the child; and
(b) the Secretary considers that it is reasonable for the individual or partner to take action to obtain maintenance; and
(c) the individual or partner does not take action that the Secretary considers reasonable to obtain maintenance.

It would appear that what the Secretary considers reasonable action to obtain maintenance does not follow the legislated Child Support (assessment) Act 1989 where parents are in a shared care situation already have one CS case registered, which would mean doubling up on the workload of CSA personnel. From my point of view, allowing my ex wife to have a registered CS case for our children is reasonable action. This would also apply to any parents splitting the FTB part A supplement from prior to Jan 1 2007.

I also consider that part of that reasonable action must be trying to get those aforementioned CS periods assessed accurately and fairly.

Neither parent in this matter has the available finances to take on CSA or FAO via the AAT or any form of legal action.

Regards
Ross M
[contact details edited]

Footnotes:
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep6727.html?query=Teoh
Black CJ said (emphasis added)
16. Counsel for the appellant did not contend that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australian became a party in 1990, had become part of Australian domestic law or that the decision-maker was bound to take its provisions into account when making a decision that might affect children. The Convention does however form part of the general background against which decisions affecting children are made, in that it is a statement of what the international community, including Australia, regards as appropriate behaviour by nations with respect to children within their jurisdiction. It reflects the standards to which Australia is seen by the international community to aspire as a mature and civilised nation.

Black CJ went on to reference this to immigration, but it must also apply to financial decisions made by the state that could affect the children, at a state or federal level. Though I think Lee J seemed to have a far better grasp when he says after quoting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Lee J
23. By an instrument of declaration made 22 December 1992 the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth declared that the Convention was an international instrument relating to human rights and freedoms for the purpose of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act 1986. Other than that declaration there has been no adoption or incorporation of the terms of the Convention in the municipal law of Australia. However, Executive or Parliamentary ratification of a Convention may allow the terms of the Convention to be used as an aid to resolve uncertainty or ambiguity in the common law.
24. In the present case it is unnecessary to determine to what extent the common law of Australia has been affected by ratification of the Convention. The question is whether the exercise of decision-making powers of an administrative kind import cognizance of the provisions of the Convention by reason of the Executive's ratification of the Convention.(case references edited)
25. In my opinion ratification of the Convention by the Executive was a statement to the national and international community that the Commonwealth recognized and accepted the principles of the Convention. That statement provided parents and children, whose interests could be affected by actions of the Commonwealth which concerned children, with a legitimate expectation that such actions would be conducted in a manner which adhered to the relevant principles of the Convention.
_________________________________________________________________

The Reply
_________________________________________________________
Dear Mr M

I am writing in relation to your complaint about the Child Support Agency (CSA).

It is my understanding that you complain that CSA has not acted inaccordance with
legislative and policy requirements, with regards to: the date that has been utilised to register
the change of care for your children to shared care: the incomes that have been utilised to
calculate relevant child support payment assessments: the decision to reject your objection
of 3 November 2005 (on the basis that it was invalid): and your concerns regarding the
change of assessment process.

In response to enquiries from this office, the CSA has provided copies of correspondence
provided to you regarding these issues: please find copies of these attached. I have
examined these and am of the opinion that they do not raise any decisions by CSA or
interpretations of the relevant legislation that would be regarded as inappropriate.
Furthermore, I do not believe that I would be able to contribute an explanation as to the
reasoning for CSA's decision making that would enhance what you have already been
provided.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that CSA has both responded and accurately conveyed its
decision making to you and I do not consider that any further investigation of this matter by
our office is warranted. If you wish to comment on my decision, you are welcome to contact
me on (02) 9218 or at the above address. I can also provide you with further
information about your right to review at that stage.

Yours sincerely

Michael Randell
A/g Director, Child Support Unit
Commonwealth Ombudsman

6:12 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Swat Team Takes Down F4J at Lincoln Memorial
Category: Blogging

Dateline: Washington D.C., USA
By: Fox News
From: Ragnar at F4J
Via: The Honor Network

Swat Team Takes Down F4J at Lincoln Memorial
Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?c..4104783&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.4.1

Two British Fathers 4 Justice activists have been arrested at gunpoint by a Swat team at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

Jolly Stanesby and Mike Downes scaled the statue as the tourists gathered around were warned to put their cameras down and stop "encouraging them".

A "support crew" of four other campaigners was also held as the memorial was evacuated by US authorities.

The men, who wore Captain America and Batman costumes, were being held in custody in Washington and could be deported or put on trial.

The group - which campaigns to ensure divorced fathers are given access to their children - warned that this was the first of "many, many more" similar protests across the States.

Matt O'Connor, founder of Fathers 4 Justice, said: "Yet again Fathers 4 Justice in the UK has led the way with an audacious protest to raise the global profile of fatherlessness and the social catastrophe it is causing in first world countries.

"Given the problem is not one that is unique to any one country or culture, a first world problem requires a first world, international response.

"This is our response to the inaction of the US authorities. There will be many, many more to follow.

"Now we have lit the flame, we can begin the struggle to make equal parenting a reality in the United States, and combat the insidious gender apartheid that separates children from their fathers in the family courts."

The group plans to run its first national awareness campaign in the US during the presidential elections.

Stanesby and Downes unveiled their Captain America and Batman costumes after first scaling the memorial dressed as tourists and unfurled a white banner which read: "For the Fathers of the Nation: Fathers 4 Justice has arrived www.f4jusa.com."

The memorial, which is on the National Mall in the US capital, was built to honour the 16th US President Abraham Lincoln and has been the site of many famous speeches, including Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream", delivered on August 28 1963, during the rally at the end of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

Fathers 4 Justice has staged similar stunts in the UK including scaling Big Ben, York Minster, Westminster Abbey and the Royal Courts of Justice, as well as throwing purple powder at then Prime Minister Tony Blair in the House of Commons

12:01 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment