You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login
etter_Future_Ahead_01

Welcome to the Crimes Against Fathers Forums

Minimize
 
ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...UK Child Support Agency routinely breaching the human rights of fathersUK Child Support Agency routinely breaching the human rights of fathers
Previous Previous
 
Next Next
New Post
 3/18/2013 11:54 PM
 

-----Original Message-----
From: lfant@terrorbyte.com.au [mailto:lfant@terrorbyte.com.au]
Sent: 03 November 2012 03:35
To: 'Simon'; undisclosed-recipients:
Cc: 
Subject: RE: UK Child Support Agency routinely breaching the human rights of fathers


Hi all     -           BUT WHO EVER QUESTIONED THAT CSA WAS NOT OVERCHARGING ?  Like they are here like some of my clients by $1,200 pa to $30,000 pa and another ‘pensioner’ $370 pa to $5,000 pa.  Fools never question the integrity of the Government Officers doing the ‘calculation’ if it is by the law or the unlawful gender biased ‘feminists template’ of ignore the family facts and do just as the mother ‘alleges’?

 

Child Support is as well legislated as any geometric of arithmetical formulae to fluctuate with income and be ‘affordable’ but not with the feminists template.  Especially self employed’s that CSA regard as all cheats and then discard ‘the law’ and ‘make it up’ that sends any of them bankrupt in about three years.

 

If one does not know how child support is ‘calculated’ then whoever has no idea whatsoever if there is an overcharge ‘inbuilt’ of how much it is.  And does not know how to argue their case against the Commonwealth Officer WHO DID NOT COMPLY WITH THEIR “PUBLIC SERVICE CODE OF CONDUCT’  to do as The Legislature decreed or they simply took all of the mothers false allegations as the ‘alleged facts’.  Most mothers’ 6A change of assessments are false and should be immediately rejected.  But the feminist template is to use by CSA as the case facts and so ‘women win’,

 

Fine the English solicitors won on CSA ‘malpractices’ but what were those malpractices that have to be changed?  No one raised them and identified them to be wholly corrected.  So we are left with ‘fathers’ (where did the paying mothers disappear to?} to be ‘fined’ $500 for refusing or being unable to afford the ‘overcharge’.  Still a double jeprody.

 

I cannot understand the now about four thousand cheated Australian fathers each with an arsenal of information that combined would sink CSA.  But cannot join themselves into a ‘class’ action.  I have been calling and offering and have an experienced barrister to run both (a) administrative and (b) court class actions that would sink CSA.  But they will not even sign a formal complaint at the primary level.  Because “Nah it will upset them” {CSA}.  Well that is nothing more than surrender to feminism taking over and running a whole Government Department to their own anti male agenda.

 

So many overcharged fathers sadly protest absolutely alone by suicide with a CSA demand in their hands.  So CSA has the highest suicide cliental of any Australian organisation if instead of suicide these demoralized overcharged fathers joined in a class action – I am offering to run – then CSA would have long ago been brought to order to comply with the template of The Legislature.  While about four thousand duped father sit back as a ‘group’ and do nothing then that is their vote they prefer it the way it is rather than how it should be.  This is a democracy and that is their collective choice.  Fools.

 

 Robert

 


From: email.hunt@gmail.com [mailto:email.hunt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Simon
Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2012 6:09 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: UK Child Support Agency routinely breaching the human rights of fathers


This is an up shot. Solicitors did this !

"test case, brought by a group of solicitors and barristers to establish whether the standard working practices of the CSA breached the rights of fathers under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights."


Marilyn Stowe Blog : Where Family Law Meets Family Life - November 1, 2012

 

 

http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2012/10...

 

In a robust judgement sure to cause consternation, the Court of Appeal has condemned the Child Support Agency (CSA) for “obnoxious” and “unreasonable” legal failings in threatening fathers with jail without giving them the right to defend themselves.

 

Sitting with the Lords Justice Patten and Richards, Lord Justice Ward said: “The procedures adopted do not comply with the rights to a fair trial and were flawed.”

 

This was a test case, brought by a group of solicitors and barristers to establish whether the standard working practices of the CSA breached the rights of fathers under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time frame, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven and similar legal rights.

 

The appeal was focused on two fathers under scrutiny by the CSA for alleged non-payment of child maintenance: Christopher Gibbons who was appealing against a prison sentence of 21 days, suspended for 11 years and Kambiz Karoonian of Ormskirk, appealing against a suspended sentence of 42 days. The CSA claims that Mr Karoonian owes more than £10,000 in child maintenance arrears but he denies this.

 

Amongst other criticisms, Lord Justice Ward said the wording of court summons sent to the two men had wrongly implied that they bore responsibility for proving that they did not owe the money claimed, thereby reversing the traditional legal burden of proof, when it is up to the accused to prove their claims.

 

The Latin expression sometimes used to define the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies).

 

Lord Justice Ward said the ruling had been made with “considerable reluctance” and in the full knowledge that it could “emasculate” the CSA’s ability to extract money from recalcitrant fathers.

 

Stephen Lawson, a child support specialist who helped to bring the test case, welcomed the ruling:

 

“I hope this ruling will now end the unjust practice of non-resident parents, usually fathers, being jailed or threatened with jail without the opportunity to defend themselves properly. Parents may have heard nothing from the CSA for many years and then suddenly out of the blue they receive a demand for thousands of pounds. Many are simply unable to pay and are met with an application to put them in prison or disqualify them from driving.”

 

He added:

 

“In another recent case, a father was arrested, taken to court and sent to prison all on the same day, with no opportunity to challenge the evidence against him. The CSA has been sending summons notices through the post, often to an old address, so this has led to some parents being tracked down and arrested, knowing nothing of the court proceedings. And the onus has been on the parent to prove why he shouldn’t be sent to prison, which reversed the traditional burden of proof. Th[is] ruling means the burden of proof, the serving of summons notices and disclosure of documents will now be improved to a level similar to criminal proceedings – which is only fair if people are threatened with the ultimate sanction of imprisonment.”

 

No one will be surprised to hear that the Department for Work and Pensions is unhappy with the judgement. A spokesman said:

 

“It is extremely disappointing that parents who have flouted their legal responsibility to financially support their children have invoked the Human Rights Act to seek to continue to do so.”

 

Perhaps – but if this judgement is correct, hasn’t the CSA flouted its legal responsibilities too?

 

The spokesman added:

 

“Regrettably, we need every enforcement measure at our disposal to ensure the minority of irresponsible parents pay for their children. It is important to stress that this judgement does not question the legality of bringing parents who repeatedly refuse to pay for their children to the attention of magistrates, who can then decide whether to send them to prison. We will of course consider any other implications of this judgement carefully and take the appropriate action.”

 

The department is now thought to be considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

This result is bound to please fathers’ rights groups as well as many readers of this blog. We receive receive hundreds of enquiries every year about the CSA.

 

The picture painted by Stephen Lawson is an undeniably unpleasant one. The casual reversal of that most fundamental of legal principles , the burden of proof, suggests that the CSA has occasionally behaved more like the secret police in a dictatorship than the arm of a parliamentary democracy. And clearly the Court of Appeal found the arguments convincing.

 

Nevertheless, as much as many would like it, we must resist the temptation to paint all non-resident fathers as victims. As any family lawyer will confirm, there is no shortage in this world of fathers who cannot or will not do the right thing by their children, nor of single mothers in need. Some form of government intervention in the child maintenance process is unavoidable.

 

Ironically, this judgement comes just as the government begins to wind down the CSA and transfer its responsibilities to the new  Child Maintenance Service. It seems the CSA is destined to die as it lived: in the midst of controversy.        

Child maintenance powers 'emasculated' after court ruling

UK Telegraph : By John-Paul Ford Rojas - 6:00AM GMT 31 Oct 2012

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...

 

Absent parents who fail to support their children may no longer be threatened with jail after a court ruling against a Government body set up to pursue them.

 

Senior judges said that the loss of powers would leave the chid maintenance enforcement regime “almost completely emasculated”.

 

The Court of Appeal ruled that “muddled” procedures used by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in the separate test cases of two fathers had breached their human rights and said it should take urgent steps to correct them.

 

Lord Justice Ward said the ruling, which lifted the threat of jail from two men who were said to owe almost £13,000 in arrears, was made with “considerable reluctance”.

 

He acknowledged that it threatened to “draw the teeth” from the powers which can be used to threaten imprisonment or driving bans as a “last resort” to make recalcitrant parents pay.

 

“Without the carrot – or the stick – of commitment (to prison) the chances of recovering arrears of child support are very significantly reduced, if not almost completely emasculated,” said the judge.

 

 “This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.”

 

But the judge, sitting with Lords Justice Richard and Patten, said the “muddled” methods used by the commission had wrongly given the impression that it was for absentee parents to prove their innocence.

 

Ruling that the fathers’ rights to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached, they concluded: “The procedures adopted do not comply with the rights to a fair trial and were flawed accordingly.”

 

One of the cases involved 44-year-old Kambiz Karoonian, from Ormskirk.

 

In February last year, Mr Karoonian was handed a 42-day suspended jail term by magistrates. He was ordered to pay £1,000 a month of the almost £11,000 arrears he was found to owe or go to prison.

 

Mr Karoonian, the father of two sons aged under ten, insists that he does not owe any arrears, and that he is a responsible father who is also in regular contact with his three teenage daughters from two previous relationships.

 

Lord Justice Ward said that the wording of court summonses issued to him and to a second father in a linked case had wrongly implied that they bore the burden of proving that they did not owe the arrears claimed.

 

The failure to provide material evidence against them and the “muddling up” of issues relating to their means also contributed to the conclusion that they had not been given a fair hearing.

 

Mr Karoonian’s barrister, Richard Gordon QC, said absentee parents were being dealt with by magistrates by the hundred in cases brought by the commission, without being given a fair hearing and on the basis of flawed calculations of their arrears.

 

The court heard that between 2005 and 2011, the number of suspended jail terms imposed for non-payment of child maintenance rose by 449%, from 225 to more than 1,000, while there was an 800% increase in parents actually going behind bars.

 

The Department for Work and Pensions said 30 were jailed last year.

 

Following today’s judgment, a spokesman said: “It is extremely disappointing that parents who have flouted their legal responsibility to financially support their children have invoked the Human Rights Act to seek to continue to do so.

 

“Regrettably, we need every enforcement measure at our disposal to ensure the minority of irresponsible parents pay for their children.

 

“It is important to stress that this judgement does not question the legality of bringing parents who repeatedly refuse to pay for their children to the attention of magistrates, who can then decide whether to send them to prison. We will of course consider any other implications of this judgement carefully and take the appropriate action."

 

The work of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission was taken over by the Department for Work and Pensions earlier this year.

 

It had previously succeeded the failed Child Support Agency, which struggled to calculate how much money it should claim from absent parents, and with computer problems.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

·         Absent fathers to be fined up to £500 for missing child support - 13 Jul 2012

·         Spanish doctor ordered to pay child monthly maintenance after botched abortion - 24 May 2012

·         Child benefit cuts could prevent people working overtime, experts warn - 30 Oct 2012

 

 

Absent fathers to be fined up to £500 for missing child support

           

UK Telegraph : By Rowena Mason, Political Correspondent, Comments20 Comments, 7:08PM BST 13 Jul 2012

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalist...

 

Absent fathers will be hit with up to £500 in fines for missing child support payments under tough new rules raising the cost of divorce.

 

Under the new system, parents will be contacted by the authorities within three days if they fail to make a single payment for their children Photo: ALAMY

 

Ministers plans to fine all parents if they have to be chased for at least two payments or pursued through the courts.

 

The fines come on top of controversial plans to charge parents extra fees for using the new Child Maintenance Service to settle their financial disputes after a break-up.

 

Under the new penalty system, parents will be contacted by the authorities within three days if they fail to make a single payment for their children.

 

If a second one is missed, they will have their salaries or bank accounts docked, plus a £200 fine.

 

A further £300 fine will be imposed if the Government has to take an absent parent to court to recover more money.

 

Maria Miller, a work and pensions minister, said the new system would offer “great fairness to the taxpayer” when it comes into force in October.

 

The Government currently spends £500 million per year chasing payments from absent parents – of whom more than 95 per cent are fathers.

 

Until now, it has been unable to impose fines on parents who break the terms of their financial settlements with their ex-partners.

 

The Department for Work and Pensions also confirmed it is pressing on with controversial plans to charge mothers and fathers for relying on the new Child Maintenance Service.

 

The new body will replace the much-criticised Child Support Agency, which has been accused of “failing children, parents and the taxpayer”.

 

Under new charges, absent parents will be charged an extra 20 per cent on top of their child maintenance for using the taxpayer-funded service.

 

Mothers owed payment by absent fathers will see the amount they receive docked by seven per cent for going through the Child Maintenance Service.

 

Ministers say the new rules are designed to encourage parents to make their own arrangements, rather than relying on the state to cover their costs.

 

Mrs Miller said the Government will provide an extra £20 million to pay for mediation, counselling and online advice for parents thinking of settling their disputes between themselves.

 

“The scheme will still be heavily subsidised for those who are unable to come to their own arrangements, but the changes we are proposing will offer greater fairness to the taxpayer and a financial incentive for parents to work together,” she said.

 

Fiona Weir, chief executive of single parent charity Gingerbread, said the service would penalise single parents for their ex-partner's failure to pay up when it is "utterly out of their control".

 

RELATED ARTICLES

·         Divorcing couples to use 'divorce app' during separations - 25 Jun 2012

·         'Civil partnerships should have been called marriage' - 18 Jun 2012

·         Judge: Hello! couples soon end up in my court - 30 Apr 2012

·         Divorce: The warring couples who fight for the right to a frying pan - 06 Apr 2012

  


Previous Previous
 
Next Next
ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...UK Child Support Agency routinely breaching the human rights of fathersUK Child Support Agency routinely breaching the human rights of fathers