They post to all new users and even instruct all new users MUST read this page before proceeding:
"If you are looking for information on family law the you've come to the right place. The Family Law WEB Guide is Australia's leading Family law WEB Portal, helping to empower separating couples, especially those with children. The portal provides a vast amount of information on Family Law and the legal process, Child support, Parenting Plans as well as many online Forums which provide an area where users can interact with questions, answers and discussions on a given topic. We are non-sexist, non-sectarian and non-political. "
And yet by the copious amount of submissions to Government enquiries and by Monti's post as follows, this a balatant lie!
"One Ring Rules also forgot to mention that as well as trying to get this site ready, we have to help people with their court cases, preparing their paper work, affidavits, case law, cross examinations etc We then have a political side, which One Ring was very recently involved in, as well as others. What you see on this site is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much going on in the background it makes me wonder if we are all in danger of hitting the wall! '
Hang on, we thought you were non political? Liars!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
MikeT said
One concern I have is the reasoning behind the addition of dropping the 7.1% change of care level restriction when the change crosses the 35% barrier (prior to this amendment it was only the 14% barrier). This I suspect is due to the massive number of requests by lives with/custodial parents to reduce care levels and thus allowing such parents to grab FTB that would, without this change, otherwise go to the has time with/non-custodial parent for the care they provide. It would surprise me little if the CSA then convert this into monies transferred to better their reporting and apparent standing.
There again perhaps this could be counter productive as such parents would find it a little easier to claim financial hardship, in which case, they may then be able to pay reduced payments which would then result in a lowering of the monies transferred report and also the respective increase in FTB payments. Furthermore as the lives with parents would be receiving more they would be less likely to be able to claim hardship so some may lose this thus reducing what they are get paid with the same double edged losses to the CSA and FAHCSIA. Perhaps a quadruple edged sword. One wonders what homework has been done.
Gaia responds
But Mike, take another look at the forums. This is something Sec SPCA promised to lobby for because has time/non custodial parents object to the 7.1% barrier.
It works both ways, but SecSPCA promised to get exactly this outcome.
SecSPCA is having an identity crisis so we think he might be tied up for a while!
Post a Comment