We have all been here, the dreaded child support. The government has decided that all parents should be responsible for financially supporting children. Centrelink will have you believe that if you do not apply to the Child Support Agency (CSA) you will not receive any benefit from them or a reduced rate. And this is the point where you know that you will have to apply for child support otherwise you know you will not be able to survive or feed and clothe your children. WRONG. You are entitled to apply for an exemption from applying for child support through centrelink especially if you are escaping domestic violence. Centrelink fail to advise you of this right and they force the issue without recognising the danger that this causes for many mothers and their children.
I was 20 years old sitting in the Centrelink office speaking with one of their workers holding my 10 day old baby begging the woman to not make me apply for child support. I was sobbing explaining that this man had raped me, he had stalked me, he was emotionally abusing me and this was another way he could abuse me further. This woman was heartless and told me I had no choice and she was the one to ring the child support agency while I was in the Centrelink office crying. I had no choice in the matter at all. And so the abused continued through the CSA.
For over 5 years I had to fight for the CSA to get the money which Centrelink took from me as my child's father was supposedly supporting the child. Each month I would ring only to be told they could not find where he was working and that I needed to tell them where he was working and which bank he banked with or whether he owned a car, a house or a boat or which company his super with. Ummm hello what is the job of the CSA if I have to find out this information, isn't that there job???? Then there was the change of assessments which I had to put in yearly as my ex does not put in tax returns and informed the CSA that he works full time but only earns 15 thousand a year. Stupid thing is CSA believe him. I had to prove this was not the case at all and in fact he was earning well over 60 thousand a year. His word was taken on face value and yet me I had to prove everything. Four times I had to apply for change of assessment to get the correct amount of child support and each time the amount was never back dated because otherwise he would have a bigger child support debt. I finally gave up with the child support and out of the blue I got a call from a case worker stating that she would in fact make my ex pay child support regularly and I laughed at her. She was not happy at all. I explained that I had heard it all before and I wouldn't hold my breathe. They then put a hold on my ex's passport and he was no longer allowed to leave the country without paying off his debt with child support. I started receiving regular child support which was shock horror but it never was a regular amount some months it was the base amount and then other months it was the base amount plus payment for the back pay as well.
This is where the problems started. Because my ex was now having to pay child support, he decided that he was going to go for custody of the child as this would mean he would no longer have to pay. He has always maintained that I use the child support money to buy diamonds and take my many boyfriends out to dinner. Truth is I have never brought diamonds and I wish I knew all these boyfriends I am supposedly sleeping with. My ex's thinking that if he has the child 50 per cent of the time he will no longer have to financially support the child and I will have to start paying him. You see I have the CSA and the government to thank for putting my child at risk because of the laws they implemented. I do not want his money at all, I would rather keep my child safe and support the child myself like I had been doing for the first 5 years.
You see my ex loves himself and his money. Nothing will come between him and his money so this is why he is applying to the court for shared custody of the child, to protect his most valued possession. The thing he doesn't realise is that caring for a child is more expensive then paying the base amount of child support per month. The $274 a month that he pays doesn't cover anything at all. He thinks that I will pay him child support, guess what I will purposely earn less then you so I will never hand money over to an abuser.
The thing my ex doesn't realise is that if you are going to attempt to hurt me using my child, then I will hit him where it hurts, in his pocket. I will go for 50 per cent of all expenses and that is a lot more then the $274 he pays now. I will do this through the court right at the last minute and watch him suffer as the judge rules in my favour about this. You see the ex still doesn't pay child support based on his income which has dropped from over 60 thousand down to 35 thousand. I have proof as I have every letter sent to me by the CSACSA and also that his earning capacity is in fact a lot higher based on his previous work and his occupation.
My advise to all mothers out there is DO NOT APPLY FOR CHILD SUPPORT. Go to Centrelink apply for an exemption and fight for the exemption. If I had known about this before now, I know I would not be in the situation I am i now. My child would be safe and I would not be kicking and screaming in the family court.
So thank you once again John Howard for putting my child at risk because of the stupid laws you implemented to attack single mothers and benefit single fathers. Thank you Centrelink for letting me and my child down and thank you CSA for being all about fathers rights and harming mothers and child with the lack of service you offer.
Saturday 15 October 2011
Friday 7 October 2011
So whats the ICLs job exactly???
The ICL is supposedly an independent children's lawyer.
I know it states that the ICL is in fact an independent lawyer to represent the child/ren while in the family court but what do they actually do???? I know my child's ICL did nothing in the court room and all she said was I think there is a trust issue. Hhhmmmm that is between me and my ex not my child. Excuse my ICL how is that independent and in the best interest of my child???
So how do the ICLs know what is in the child's best interest??? I know of some ICLs who have never met the child/ren that they are representing them in court, so again i ask, how does the ICL know what is in the best interest of the child??? These people are lawyers right??? So how do they know the best interest of any child??? DO they have to attend regular child development course as do teachers and early childhood workers???? Have they kept up to date with child development and how to interact with children??? Have they studied how to read children's cues????
How can a lawyer represent a child child when they have either never met the child or had a limited amount of contact with the child when they actually do not ask what the child wants??? I know my child's ICL did not once ask my child what they wanted. She did not discuss any of the issues which were raised like the changing of the child's name, where the child is to live or whether the child has to spend time with an abuser. I know this because my child refused to go in with the ICL alone. My mother sat there and listened. My child was questioned about whether or not they attend a wedding in Bali. If the ICL had of looked she would realise i was in court the date of the wedding so therefor could have not taken my child to Bali. When my child was asked about dad the child completely shut down. Did the lawyer see this as a huge sign??? No she didn't she continued to question the child about school and family. The fact that a child completely shuts down is a sign that should not be missed and would not be missed by a trained professional. My child's lawyer spent an entire 15 minutes with the child. SO how in 15 minutes does this person know what my child wants??? The fact is the lawyer doesn't know and probably couldn't care less. This annoys me as the ICL has a major pull in the decision of the best interest of the child during the court case.
I get that ICLs are suppose to be independent and thus can not speak with me or my ex for that matter, but why can't the ICL speak with the child's family, friends and even the school, the child's doctor and the child's psychologist??? Surely the lawyer can do something more then saying "i think there is a trust issue which will fade in time". Aaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhh no the trust issue will never fade.
Isn't the ICLs job to represent the child and put forward what the child wants???? That is what they want you to believe but the fact is that this is not the case, it is far from this. The ICL is a way for the child to speak in court without having to be present, aaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhh wrong. The child doesn't have a say in the matter at all, the ICL decides what they want for the child because they believe they know what is best for the child even when they do not know the child. I know for a fact my child's ICL was unprepared when she walked into the court room. She had not read the reports from the doctor or psychologist nor has she read the documents from my child's school or even the affidavits from me and my ex. How the hell do they get away with this??? She is not doing her job and I can not do anything about it until the case is over and then all I am allowed to do is make a formal complaint but the ICL can stuff up my life and the life of my child by not doing what she was employed to do.
SO why are the courts insisting on children having ICLs to represent them while the parents are in the family court???? The answer is money. You see ICLs are appointed through legal aid and thus are lining the governments pockets with more funds. An ICL is a way for the family court to further benefit from people who are forced into the family court. The ICL requires a $3000 deposit for fees and expenses which they may incur during the court case and then also charge for their time in court and an hourly rate. Do they provide an itemised bill of each hour and what they were actually working on???? I do not know, what I do know is that for the time the ICL spent in the court room and the 5 or 6 words she said, I will not be paying as the words out of her mouth was a load of crap. The ICL is just another way to make money off a bad situation.
I was misinformed by my lawyer that an ICL was what we needed as that way when my child said they didn't want to see the father the ICL could communicate this to the court. I now have been told by other mothers who have been down the same road as me who I trust, that the ICL is a bad idea and often does more harm then good. I know many mothers who had the ICL turn on them and their children because they were upholding the law of a meaningful relationship with both parents. How is this the best interest of the child when the child has told other on numerous occasions that they do not want a relationship with the father and that they are scared of this man??? SO do tell me ICL how this is in the best interest of the child when the child is in fact regressing every time they are forced to spend time with this man??? The doctor can see this and has had a relationship with the child since the child was 12 hours old, the psychologist can see it and has had a relationship with the child for over 6 months, but Mrs ICL why do you chose not to see this???? And ICL how do you know what is in the best interest of my child???? And ICL how do you know what my child wants when you did not ask them??? And ICL what recommendations are you going to make before the court when you are obviously too busy to read the information which you requested???? Do you believe that it is in the child's best interest to be forced and I do mean physically to spend time with someone they are scared of and who torments them in their dreams???? Please ICL wake up and do what is best for your client that after all is your job right?????
I know it states that the ICL is in fact an independent lawyer to represent the child/ren while in the family court but what do they actually do???? I know my child's ICL did nothing in the court room and all she said was I think there is a trust issue. Hhhmmmm that is between me and my ex not my child. Excuse my ICL how is that independent and in the best interest of my child???
So how do the ICLs know what is in the child's best interest??? I know of some ICLs who have never met the child/ren that they are representing them in court, so again i ask, how does the ICL know what is in the best interest of the child??? These people are lawyers right??? So how do they know the best interest of any child??? DO they have to attend regular child development course as do teachers and early childhood workers???? Have they kept up to date with child development and how to interact with children??? Have they studied how to read children's cues????
How can a lawyer represent a child child when they have either never met the child or had a limited amount of contact with the child when they actually do not ask what the child wants??? I know my child's ICL did not once ask my child what they wanted. She did not discuss any of the issues which were raised like the changing of the child's name, where the child is to live or whether the child has to spend time with an abuser. I know this because my child refused to go in with the ICL alone. My mother sat there and listened. My child was questioned about whether or not they attend a wedding in Bali. If the ICL had of looked she would realise i was in court the date of the wedding so therefor could have not taken my child to Bali. When my child was asked about dad the child completely shut down. Did the lawyer see this as a huge sign??? No she didn't she continued to question the child about school and family. The fact that a child completely shuts down is a sign that should not be missed and would not be missed by a trained professional. My child's lawyer spent an entire 15 minutes with the child. SO how in 15 minutes does this person know what my child wants??? The fact is the lawyer doesn't know and probably couldn't care less. This annoys me as the ICL has a major pull in the decision of the best interest of the child during the court case.
I get that ICLs are suppose to be independent and thus can not speak with me or my ex for that matter, but why can't the ICL speak with the child's family, friends and even the school, the child's doctor and the child's psychologist??? Surely the lawyer can do something more then saying "i think there is a trust issue which will fade in time". Aaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhh no the trust issue will never fade.
Isn't the ICLs job to represent the child and put forward what the child wants???? That is what they want you to believe but the fact is that this is not the case, it is far from this. The ICL is a way for the child to speak in court without having to be present, aaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhh wrong. The child doesn't have a say in the matter at all, the ICL decides what they want for the child because they believe they know what is best for the child even when they do not know the child. I know for a fact my child's ICL was unprepared when she walked into the court room. She had not read the reports from the doctor or psychologist nor has she read the documents from my child's school or even the affidavits from me and my ex. How the hell do they get away with this??? She is not doing her job and I can not do anything about it until the case is over and then all I am allowed to do is make a formal complaint but the ICL can stuff up my life and the life of my child by not doing what she was employed to do.
SO why are the courts insisting on children having ICLs to represent them while the parents are in the family court???? The answer is money. You see ICLs are appointed through legal aid and thus are lining the governments pockets with more funds. An ICL is a way for the family court to further benefit from people who are forced into the family court. The ICL requires a $3000 deposit for fees and expenses which they may incur during the court case and then also charge for their time in court and an hourly rate. Do they provide an itemised bill of each hour and what they were actually working on???? I do not know, what I do know is that for the time the ICL spent in the court room and the 5 or 6 words she said, I will not be paying as the words out of her mouth was a load of crap. The ICL is just another way to make money off a bad situation.
I was misinformed by my lawyer that an ICL was what we needed as that way when my child said they didn't want to see the father the ICL could communicate this to the court. I now have been told by other mothers who have been down the same road as me who I trust, that the ICL is a bad idea and often does more harm then good. I know many mothers who had the ICL turn on them and their children because they were upholding the law of a meaningful relationship with both parents. How is this the best interest of the child when the child has told other on numerous occasions that they do not want a relationship with the father and that they are scared of this man??? SO do tell me ICL how this is in the best interest of the child when the child is in fact regressing every time they are forced to spend time with this man??? The doctor can see this and has had a relationship with the child since the child was 12 hours old, the psychologist can see it and has had a relationship with the child for over 6 months, but Mrs ICL why do you chose not to see this???? And ICL how do you know what is in the best interest of my child???? And ICL how do you know what my child wants when you did not ask them??? And ICL what recommendations are you going to make before the court when you are obviously too busy to read the information which you requested???? Do you believe that it is in the child's best interest to be forced and I do mean physically to spend time with someone they are scared of and who torments them in their dreams???? Please ICL wake up and do what is best for your client that after all is your job right?????
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)