http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=2960&start=20#first_unread
Mike you really need to check out what is written and what has been said before you post and provide damaging advice! You are obviously bitter that you missed out on a job with the CSA!
This is so typical of what goes on at FLWG.
Then today we get Matrix/Dad4life/Nuance/Manumit/Linsday posting a story about a politician who was accused of domestic violence but the DPP did not proceed on the case. Lindsay then makes the statement that it was a false allegation. It didn't say that at all Lindsay, it said the DPP were not proceeding on charges. Get it right and actually read what you are cutting and pasting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A message for MikeT and overcsa
We sense a pattern in the thread about payment of child support beyond
the age of 18.
First Mike makes the usual assumptions
1. The mother is the payee. Wrong! She is the payer!
2. The injustice was done to the payer. Wrong again! The injustice was
done to the payee as it most often is!
The thing is, this case just shows yet again that CSA is in fact very
reluctant to create a debt for the payer, even where they have lied about
their income, and the injustice overcsa complains of is a very common
occurrence for payees.
Second, nobody notices and corrects him because it is not the party line
to admit payees get a hard time too and that CSA bends over backwards for
the payer.
Mike even said that CSA is likely to ask the payee to agree to dismiss
the arrears. That is what often happens, but nobody bothered to point
out they do that in the interests of the payer, not the payee or the children.
Oops, can’t let on that a payee has not had justice. That is just not the
image FLWG wants to project at all!!
Lucky debraesq eventually weighed in with yet another example of the
payer getting preferential treatment over the payee. Still no comment
from the ususal ‘dads/payers as the only victims’ players, but at least
the story was not deleted.
The real tragedy comes in Mike’s advice to overcsa – he keeps on and on
about the application not being signed by both parties.
Again, nobody notices his error or corrects him. Shame really! Mike is
well meaning, speaks very respectfully of his ex despite the FLWG
culture but he often gets the details wrong and always assumes the payer
gets the raw end of the deal.
For the record, so others will not be inconvenienced by this very poor
advice, here is what the CSA actually said
An application to extend the child support assessment (made orally or in
writing) should include:
• the name of the child;
• the name of the school or college;
• whether the child receives full-time secondary education;
• the last day of secondary school for that year; and
• if the application relates to a child support agreement, the
application must be in writing and signed by both parents.
The application only needs to signed by both parents if there is a
current child support agreement in place.
Come on!
Look again!
Overcsa did not say there is a current child support agreement in place.
Even the usually pedantic bigred missed that one.
Overcsa, it is a pity you characterised payees as ‘riding the wave of
wealth in the guise of parenting’. Sure you only meant the one in
question, but you should know by now what dad’s army does with those
kinds of comments.
You want justice for when your partner was a payee and for now when he is
payer?
Well then, play nicely!
We might have steered you in the right direction if you had played nicely.
Instead, just a few hints.
Forget the blah blah blah about the signature unless there was a child
support agreement – it is irrelevant.
Think about private schools versus state schools, final assemblies etc.
Think about why you did not object when you got the notification in August.
Forget compensation. It is another red herring if you did not object on time.
Could be you can do something with those.
Could be you blew it.
As for Mike, will someone please back him up!
How about checking what he says very carefully instead of just running with it.
Post a Comment