Isn't amusing to me though, i recorded in family court that sort of behaver and they took no notice, supported a part other than spouse to kidnap our children, designated buddhist temple, breached section 41 and 42 of constitution, deprived a party of his lawful business chucking him in the cutter
I advise i have copied link this thread to family court support services to see if they got the balls to stop fleecing australian families and do something constructive about that sort of conduct
robplum: sadly its not the kids you got to worry about
I never had a problem with the family court as truth always bubbles to the top but as for the IRD and child support and their "reviews" you can stick them . What was fact had nothing to do with reviews . Not just my interpretation of the facts . But the acceptance of big things like where did the flats end up and who owned them after settlement . Run by little people with little minds .
yeah but australian family court is run by dishonest peps backed by lot of misguided gunslingers, first thing i met was lying solicitors and a fed offering violence
robplum: yeah but australian family court is run by dishonest peps backed by lot of misguided gunslingers, first thing i met was lying solicitors and a fed offering violence
Rob, you must understand that the Family Law Court (FLC) was established for very good reasons. A father could walk out at any time and ignore the plight of his children. It did make fathers take some responsibility for the children they had brought into this world.
However, the Child Support Agency (CSA is commonly know as the Collection Suicide Agency) is a different being. Its aim is to minimise Govt handouts on the Single Parent Pension by taking as much as they can from the departed ex. No matter how little that leaves him to try and survive.
"Your Honour, my client claims that her ex-husband is not willing to take his children every 2nd week, let alone on other occasions. I contend that he has no interest in his children and therefore he should have 27% of his wages (before the 25% Income Tax) forwarded to his ex-wife for the benefit of his 2 children."
"Your honour, my client loves his children very much. He has been, through financial circumstances, is currently living in a converted car garage which does cost him 25% of his current wage. This luxurious abode he currently occupies comprises of 1 bedroom separated from his kitchen/living room, and the bathroom facilties are shared with others."
"As such, my client humbly requests that consideration be given that my client does seek to have 50% custody. Howver, this would mean that my client would have to be able to acquire alternative accommadation where he could get his daughter and son to occupy separate bedrooms when he does have custody of them. Surely it is not expected that his son and daughter share the sole bed that he currently has?"
"Decision is that your client has managed to survive on what he currently is undertaking in relation to his children and is unwilling to have his children and therefore it is the status quo."
I agree that the solicitors are misguided. They look at jurispudence and what has happened before. Unfortunately, the Family Law Act (introduced by Sir Lionel Murphy and hence called Murphy's Law) was rushed through Parliament in the early 70s and has not had a major review since.
To this day, solicitors do not understand that the FLA is able to over-ride the CSA by its decisions. Unfortunately, many solicitors still do understand the relationship between FLA and CSA.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Watch the eyes