Dads in Distress Inc

Phone: 1300 853 437
Email: didsadmin@bigpond.com
Internet: www.dadsindistress.asn.au
Postal Address: PO Box 2333, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450, Australia

30 April 2008
The Australian

Dangerous sex as state enters bedroom
By Janet Albrechtsen

IF you are a man, sex got a whole lot more dangerous. Consider this scenario.

A woman meets a man in a bar or at a party. She likes the man. He likes the woman. She may not normally be a sex on the first night kind of girl. But they have a number of drinks. Fuelled by alcohol, they put aside their inhibitions. The woman goes home with the man. She says yes to sex. In the morning, the man makes it clear it was a one-night stand. The woman is deeply offended and regrets her drunken decision. She claims rape. Under new rape laws introduced in NSW this year, that man is likely to be convicted as a rapist. He is likely to go to prison.

Rape reform in NSW means that post-coital regrets can now be refashioned into rape claims that send innocent men to prison. That's why Gold Coast Titans footballer Anthony Laffranchi is a fortunate man. He walked free from a rape charge last week after the prosecution failed to establish lack of consent. He and his then Wests Tigers NRL teammates met a woman at the Sapphire Club in Kings Cross in September 2006 and continued to party at a teammate's apartment. The footballer said he had consensual sex. The woman, who was "significantly affected" by alcohol, claimed she was raped. Had Laffranchi met the woman after January this year, he would probably be a convicted rapist facing a long stint in prison.

Let us be clear. Rape is wrong. It is a crime that calls for imprisonment. It can destroy a victim's life. But let us be clear about something else. Wrongful claims of rape are made. And they can destroy a man's life. No one knows whether a rape occurred that night when Laffranchi had sex with the woman. But under the old laws of rape, the defendant's actual state of mind was critical. If the accused had an honest belief that sex was consensual, the rape charge failed. And when the evidence became a simple contest between "he said, she said", a reasonable doubt would lead to an acquittal. Criminal law says that is as it should be; we are talking about a serious crime and imprisonment.

Not anymore. Now the rules have changed. Now, in a contest between he said it was consensual and she said it was rape, a jury may be forced to convict the man of rape without any further corroborating evidence.

The new laws say that if a woman is "substantially affected" by alcohol, she may lack the capacity to consent to sex even if she says "yes" to sex. More disturbing, even if a man honestly believes consent was given, his state of mind is now irrelevant. Now, the man is effectively deemed to have knowledge of lack of consent if there are no reasonable grounds for believing consent was given. And it gets worse. When asked to determine whether the man had no reasonable grounds for believing the woman gave consent, the jury must ignore the fact that the man was drunk.

In other words, the fact that the woman who says "yes" to sex is drunk is highly relevant: it may vitiate her consent. But the man's intoxication must be ignored when working out whether he had "reasonable grounds" for believing consent was given. It is a curious law that says alcohol only affects the cognitive abilities of women.

These new rape laws degrade women. They treat them as helpless victims, stripping them of the power to make decisions about sex after consuming alcohol. Down a few too many Bacardi Breezers, and the law says you are no longer responsible for your actions. Is this really the message we want to send to young women?

And for men, it's even more serious. As the President of the NSW Bar Association, Anna Katzmann SC, has pointed out, these new laws mean that the intoxicated man will be treated just like "the true rapist, the aggressor who inflicts himself on his victim, knowing they do not consent". There is no gradation of penalties.

Why is this happening? Lawyers point to the perfect storm. The intoxicated man is trapped between a strident but misguided feminist agenda and the law and order lobby driven by perceptions that rape conviction rates are too low.

In reality, the low conviction rates reflect nothing more than the reasonable doubt that arises when, absent other evidence about an alleged crime in private, a woman claims rape and a man claims sex was consensual.

Stephen Odgers, a senior Sydney silk who chairs the Criminal Law Committee of the Bar Association, told The Australian that, while we all want a civilised world where people treat each other with mutual respect in all walks of life, including sexual interactions, the new rape laws are a "very blunt and brutal instrument" to educate and civilise us about sexual relations. He fears that the new rape laws, in effect, can be used to criminalise those who merely treat others with disrespect after a night of sex. "And people will end up going to jail for long periods as a result." That is why his committee, made up of almost equal numbers of prosecutors and defence lawyers opposed the reforms.

So how does a man navigate the consent nightmare? Bring a witness into the bedroom? Perhaps bring along a lawyer to guide him through every stage of consensual sex from foreplay to orgasm to ensure that the final, breathless and drunken "yes, yes, yes" is genuine consent? Similar rape reforms in South Australia led independent MP Ann Bressington to suggest earlier this month that perhaps "parliament could devise a sex contract which men could carry around in their pocket, next to their condoms". Bressington is concerned that otherwise sensible rape reform has gone too far, leaving "very little room for a decent defence of a man who has been falsely accused".

False accusations are helped along, says Heather MacDonald in the winter edition of City Journal, by feminist victimology and rape industrialists intent on redefining drunken sex where a bloke wants to get inside a girl's knickers in terms of the classic case of domination rape by power-hungry men.

If you are a man, you are entitled to be frightened by the new order. While society is still committed to a 1960s model of sexual liberation, encouraging men and women to explore their sexual desires, the state is also entering the bedroom trying to educate us about appropriate sexual conduct. Unfortunately, we may discover that civility cannot be legislated by criminal sanction without innocent men going to prison.

26 April 2008
News Weekly

Paternity fraud punishes the blameless
By Charles Francis, AM, QC

Husbands have no protection from paternity fraud, thanks to legal rulings by the Family Court and High Court, writes Charles Francis QC.

At a public function where Sir Owen Dixon, then Chief Justice of our High Court, was present, a guest remarked to him that he must feel very proud to have administered justice for so many years. Sir Owen replied, a little cynically, "I don't administer justice, I administer law".

Sir Owen, probably our greatest jurist ever, knew that judges should determine cases in accordance with whatever our law was, and that did not always mean the decision was a just one.

If the law is permitting injustice in a particular area, it is for members of parliaments, not the judges, to rectify the relevant law. Sometimes they don't.

Widespread interest

The case of Magill v. Magill, first heard in November 2001 in the Melbourne County Court, illustrates how remote the final judgment of the High Court was from what most people would consider to be justice.

The case concerned paternity fraud and attracted widespread interest, both in Australia and overseas. It led to the publication in the United States of Lea Anna Cooper's book Days of Tempest: The Liam Magill Story, a compendium of the facts and matters surrounding the case.

Liam Magill was born in South Melbourne in 1950, the only child of Ralph and Phyllis Magill. The Magills were a very devoted and happily married couple, attending the Methodist Church regularly. Liam was brought up in what was a very happy Christian home. By the time Liam married Meredith McClelland in 1988, both his parents were already dead. He owned his own house and car, and held a good job with the Commonwealth Government.

Almost from its inception the marriage of Liam and Meredith proved a total disaster. Their first child, a son, Arlen, was born in April 1989. Two further children, Heath and Bonnie, were born in July 1990 and November 1991 respectively.

Unknown to Liam, Meredith in 1989 had commenced an affair with Derek Rowe, and Rowe was the father of both these children. In 1992 Meredith deserted Liam, taking the children with her and, in November that year, obtained an order for child support in respect of all three children. At a time which the Court found was probably 1995, Liam came to the opinion that Heath was not his child.

Subsequently, in 2000, DNA established that neither Heath nor Bonnie was Liam's child. In the County Court, Liam claimed damages against Meredith for monetary loss and for his psychiatric disorder suffered as a result of her conduct.

By the time the case was heard, this disorder had kept Liam off work for a period of three years. Liam had poor concentration, low energy levels, severe anxiety and depressive symptoms.

The case was brought on the basis that Meredith had committed the tort of deceit by representing to Liam that Heath and Bonnie were his children. One important matter, alleged to constitute the deceit, was Meredith's filling in of the two birth notification forms naming Liam as the father, which she gave to him to sign.

On November 22, 2002, Judge Hanlon found that Mrs Magill had had no genuine belief that Liam Magill was the father of Heath and Bonnie, or at the very least was reckless as to that belief. He awarded $70,000 damages in Liam's favour. Having regard to the evidence, the award seemed moderate. It would be difficult to assert that any injustice had been done to Meredith Magill.

However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that Liam Magill did not rely sufficiently on the notification forms for the purposes of the law of deceit. It overturned Judge Hanlon's award of damages and ordered Liam to pay Meredith Magill's costs.

From this decision, Liam appealed to the High Court. Three of the learned judges decided that the tort of deceit cannot be applied to marital conduct. The remaining three decided it could, but that Magill v. Magill did not represent such an instance. Consequently, the law relating to paternity fraud in Australia has been left in a totally unsatisfactory state and cries out for appropriate legislation. Liam Magill had a further order for costs made against him.

Cooper's Days of Tempest enables the reader to be taken right to the heart of the saga. The book includes interviews with Liam himself and his present partner, Cheryl King, and such items as the results of the DNA tests. It also includes the entire transcript of the County Court proceedings, copies of letters of support written to Liam, including a number from women, and newspaper articles analysing the issues. It enables the reader to become very fully informed and to consider what solutions there can be for paternity fraud.

DNA specialists estimate that 10 per cent of men in the wider community are unknowingly acting as fathers to illegitimate children. This raises the question of whether there should be routine testing of all babies.

A recent survey showed that 50 per cent of women said that if they had a child from an affair they would conceal it from their husband. However, there are sound medical reasons for an accurate genetic history for every individual.

Furthermore, children have a right to know who their biological parents are. It is inconsistent, when such rights are being granted to children born of IVF and donor gametes, that such rights are not available to all children through DNA-testing at birth.

No-fault divorce has led to a situation in which moral behaviour has been largely eliminated from all family law discourse. For the damage done to Liam and the three children, Meredith has in no sense been held accountable.

Neither the court nor the Child Support Agency properly addressed the parentage of a child when making a determination. As Janet Albrechtsen said: "By denying men the right to know and by not penalising the mother for deceit, we end up giving women the right to deceive." (The Australian, March 23, 2005).

Lionel Murphy's Family Law Act of 1975 was intended to reduce bitterness between the parties when a marriage was terminated, but we may well think we have created something far worse.

The Magill case emphasises the need for us to rethink much of what we do today, but the nature of the amendments which the legislature must make to the Family Law Act can hardly fail to be a very divisive issue. Inevitably, feminists in parliament and in our community will fight against any attempt to give men the traditional Australian "fair go".

- Charles Francis, AM, QC, is a barrister and former member of the Victorian state parliament.

23 April 2008
Fatherhood Foundation
Media Release

2020 Summit - a Failure for Working Families - Call for Fatherhood Summit to Help our Children

The Fatherhood Foundation first raised the need for a National Fatherhood Summit to turn the tide of fatherlessness and family breakdown in 2002.

The Fatherhood Foundation has renewed the call for a National Fatherhood Summit in the light of the dismal failure of the 2020 Summit to provide a voice for the working families of Australia.

Warwick Marsh from the Fatherhood Foundation said, "The outcomes of the Summit prove our earlier assertion that the 2020 Summit held last weekend was fatally flawed. Seventeen key leaders (including two professors) from the men and father's movement were excluded whilst Labor-friendly politically-correct activist group 'GetUp' had 118 of their members included in what proved to be a stacked deck for summit delegates. Those that suffered from gender disorientation pathology were well represented as well as many other fringe groups such as president of the prostitutes group 'Scarlet Alliance', but where was the voice for ordinary Australian families and more importantly a voice for our children."

Families are in meltdown with one in two marriages breaking up. Defacto breakdown is even worse. It is ironic that research has shown that many of the problems listed on the background paper of the 2020 Summit are related to fatherlessness.

The increased levels of domestic violence, drug addiction, gambling addictions, alcoholism, psychological problems, homelessness, sexual abuse, child abuse, rape, violence, crime, poverty and the declining birth rate are directly related to the epidemic of fatherlessness that is afflicting our nation.

The very groups that could make a significant contribution to the issues being discussed were excluded from participation.

Warwick Marsh continued, "The serious crisis in men's health was not even considered at the 2020 Summit and no mention was made of the ALP's promise at the last election to fast track a national Men's Health Policy. According to Professor Freda Briggs, even the subject of ending child abuse did not get any traction at the 2020 Summit. If there is a big idea in Australia today it must be ending child abuse. The fact that the pressing problems that working families face were overtaken by subjects such as a republic, bill of rights and a treaty shows how out of touch the 2020 Summit was with the needs of ordinary hardworking Australians."

It has been reported in the national press that 2020 Summit facilitators were forced to meld their recommendations in line with ALP policy. This is nothing more than political opportunism by a government bent on bipartisan fraud.

The new government has squandered a wonderful opportunity to advance the cause of working families. The Fatherhood Foundation renews its call for an urgent Fatherhood Summit.
How much longer must our children wait?

For further information please contact:
Warwick Marsh
Fatherhood Foundation
www.fatherhood.org.au
04 1822 5212 or 02 427 2667

21 April 2008
The Mail on Sunday (UK)

Damaged children: Family breakdown and too many tests take their toll on mental health
By Laura Clark

Children are suffering an epidemic of mental health problems due to family breakdown, body image worries and too many school tests, a report warns today.

Under far greater pressure than youngsters a generation ago, they are increasingly falling victim to depression, anxiety, eating disorders and severe anti-social behaviour, it claims.

The report, based on an inquiry by the Children's Society, reveals 10 per cent of boys aged 11 to 15 and 13 per cent of girls have mental health problems - some 300,000 children in total.

Official estimates suggest more than a million youngsters between five and 16 have a "clinically recognisable" mental disorder.

Today's report - compiled from the evidence of hundreds of parents, children and experts - paints a worrying picture of a generation forced to grow up too quickly, with mental health problems "on the increase".

It carries a stark warning from an un-named expert who gave evidence to the inquiry.

It says: "There is a mental health epidemic in this country, far worse than in comparable countries and children are suffering the brunt of it.

"A growing proportion of UK children suffer from severe emotional and psychologist distress."

Causes of mental health problems include poor family relationships, rampant marketing leading to pressure to look attractive, binge-drinking and over-testing at school, the report says.

It also singles out poor parenting, either by a lack of affection or the failure to show authority and set boundaries.

Children's growing inactivity and their failure to take physical exercise or play outdoors is another concern.

Two-thirds of parents surveyed for the society's Good Childhood Inquiry believed TV and computer games stopped children being active while a similar number said schools were failing to recognise the importance of exercise.

The adults polled also said family breakdown and conflict had the biggest adverse impact on children's well-being - followed by peer pressure and celebrity culture.

More than half - 55 per cent - of respondents thought youngsters were unhappier today than their parents were as children, with just 9 per cent saying they were happier.

Children themselves cited family expectations, school pressures and anxieties over their appearance as well as bullying and peer influences, with a quarter saying they often feel depressed.

The report warns: "Children are increasingly subject to influences which require them to consume, behave and achieve like adults."

The Children's Society, who will issue its full conclusions on the research next year, said youngsters must be warned about binge-drinking and helped to take exercise to head off ill health.

It also suggests more generous maternity leave subsidised by the state would help tackle the root causes of mental health problems.

This latest indictment of the state of childhood follows a UNICEF survey which claimed Britain was among the worst places in the developed world for a child to grow up.

Spurred on by the bleak assessment of childhood, ministers last year produced a ten-year Children's Plan aimed at improving children's lives and preventing problems before they arise.

But MPs on the Commons children's committee say the plan risks becoming a mere "wish list" because it lacks clear priorities and a timetable for implementation.

Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of the Children's Society, said: "There is a growing recognition of the true cost of neglecting children's mental health and wellbeing.

"We now need to translate this growing concern into action and investment in the necessary support services."

20 April 2008
The Age (Melbourne)

"Courts fail fathers" in custody breaches - Enforcement of contact orders

Australian proposal to scrap existing court system and replace it with a simpler way of dealing with breaches of orders immediately

Many divorced men are being denied access to their children by their former wives under a legal system failing to protect parental rights, according to a inquiry by the Federal Government's advisory body on family law.

The Family Law Council found that some men have been forced to give up seeing their children because their former wives have repeatedly disobeyed Family Court orders on contact arrangements.

Contact orders were often breached on Friday afternoons or weekends. But the inquiry found the legal system was unable to deal quickly with breaches whenever they occurred. The law requires non-custodial parents to apply for a court hearing each time their former spouse breaches an order.

Parents were spending thousands of dollars on legal fees to get their contact order enforced by the Family Court. About 71 per cent of applications were dealt with within three months, but a quarter took longer.

The council's interim report on its inquiry said the system had created a power imbalance between the residence parent who has custody of children, usually the mother, and the contact parent, usually the father.

"Some contact parents, because of the cost factor or simply to avoid the conflict involved, are either rarely seeing their children or are losing contact with them altogether," the report said. "Some who are paying child support but are unable to see their children feel that the system is unjust and has let them down."

The report said the Federal Government should consider scrapping the present system and replacing it with a simpler way of dealing immediately with alleged breaches when they happened.

Costly, time-consuming or delayed court hearings were not the best way to deal with such disputes. "The cost and relevance of a court hearing in cases which often involve petty personal bickering between parents might be questioned," the report said.

18 April 2008
Australian Financial Review

Technical hitch puts pre-nups in doubt
By Matthew Drummond

The validity of pre-nuptial agreements has been thrown into doubt by a court ruling that could thwart attempts by men and women to ringÐfence their assets from their spouses.

Family lawyers are so concerned about the ruling by the full Family Court that they are preparing to lobby the federal government to have it overturned.

Ian Kennedy, head of the Law Council of Australia's Family Law section, said the ruling had given people a way to have their pre-nuptial agreements cancelled by a court.

"This ruling has the capacity to invalidate many agreements that people have entered into. Many people will look at their agreements and say: 'Is there some way I can get out of it?'"

Pre-nups, known more accurately as "financial agreements", can be entered into before, during or after a marriage and are an increasingly common way of avoiding a relationship breakdown ending up in court.

Once signed, the terms of a preÐnup are binding and courts are barred from interfering in a divorce settlement. But judges have long been suspicious of pre-nups, which can leave some parties substantially worse off. When courts split up assets, they look at what is "just and equitable". After weighing up factors such as a party's limited career prospects after taking time out to raise children, "equitable" can be a far cry from "equal" and even further away from what parties agreed to when they got married.

The ruling made earlier this year that has alarmed family lawyers was in a case called Black and Black. Three Family Court judges declared that an entire pre-nup could be cancelled if it was found to contain any errors in its drafting, even if that error appeared to be technical or immaterial.

The Law Council's family law section resolved last week to take the ruling up with government on grounds that it undermined policy objectives of getting people to settle their own affairs out of court. A submission to federal AttorneyÐGeneral Robert McClelland is being prepared. In the meantime, family lawyers are urging worried clients to get their pre-nups double-checked.

To be effective, a pre-nup must satisfy certain criteria. Each party must obtain independent legal advice on whether the agreement is prudent, fair and reasonable. Each side's solicitor must affix a certificate confirming that such advice has been given.

In the case of Mr and Mrs Black, the advice was given and the certificates were affixed. But one party's solicitor forgot to prepare a fresh certificate when, two days after the pre-nup was signed, the parties made a small amendment to one of the agreement's clauses.

The Blacks had been married for just 13 months. Their pre-nup specified that they would buy a house in Tasmania with the proceeds of the sale of Mr Black's South Australian home and Mrs Black's compensation payout from a personal injury claim.

In the event of divorce, the house would be split equally.

The sale of Mr Black's home netted $180,000. But Ms Black's compensation claim was less valuable than she had thought. Instead of the $200,000 she had expected, she received only $41,000.

The house in Tasmania was worth $278,000. When they divorced, Mr Black sought to have the agreement terminated and the house split 80/20 in his favour, reflecting his higher contribution. He argued that his lawyer's failure to affix a fresh certificate following the amendment rendered the entire agreement invalid.

The argument was rejected by judge Robert Benjamin, who warned that if courts began striking down pre-nups simply because of technical errors they would cost more to prepare and would become outside the financial means of the general community.

"Courts should not make the legal practitioners and the parties cross all of the t's and dot all of the i's to enter into and give effect to financial agreements," Justice Benjamin said. "The form should not defeat the substance."

But on appeal, the Deputy Chief Justice, John Faulks, and judges Joseph Kay and Julienne Penny disagreed. If parties were able to prevent a court from intervening to decide how to split assets, "strict compliance" with all the statutory requirements was needed.

The entire pre-nup was deemed ineffective and the matter has been returned to the original judge for a retrial. Ms Black's lawyers have decided not to appeal to the High Court.

Many family lawyers are now concerned that they will be sued by their clients should a small defect render pre-nups they penned ineffective.

"It does not seem reasonable that parliament should place the onus on the legal profession to carry the insurance for technical defects in drafting," Mr Kennedy said.

But not all family lawyers agree. Charles Cooper, a family lawyer based in Queensland's Southport, said a big "hoo-ha" had been made of the Black decision at a conference of family lawyers held last week. But the case should not be overturned, he said. Complying with the strict terms of pre-nup laws was simply a "tick-a-box exercise".

"Why should we not be accountable for our mistakes? We should be responsible for them," he said. "If we stuff it up, we get sued. We're lawyers. We're supposed to be smart."

While no data is available, Mr Kennedy said pre-nups had become increasingly popular. They are mostly used by people going into second marriages with separate asset bases or people who are marrying for the first time but with inheritance prospects they want to protect.

Mr Cooper said many people who sought advice on a pre-nup were turned off once they heard what was involved. A dampener was the requirement to make full disclosure of all one's assets to the spouse.

11 April 2008
Child Support Agency

Child Support Scheme reforms

www.csa.gov.au/schemereforms

With over 700,000 separated families and 1.4 million separated parents now in Australia, the Child Support Scheme is undergoing significant changes to ensure it:

• better reflects community values around shared parenting
• better balances the interests of parents and children
• treats both parents' incomes and living costs more equally
• treats children from first and second families more equally, and
• helps separated parents to maintain contact with their children.

• how, when and why the Child Support Scheme is changing, and how these changes will affect you
• detailed information about the changes to child support and family assistance
• the Child Support Ð Family Assistance estimator. You may be able to use this resource to estimate what your new child support or family assistance payments might be. This will apply from 1 July 2008.
• worksheets, tables and examples to help you estimate what your new child support assessment might be
• the new Guide, contains legal and policy information about CSAÕs view of the new Child Support Scheme and its administration
• details on the new formula that will be used to calculate child support
• frequently updated questions and answers based on feedback from customers
• fact sheets, brochures, newsletters and eBulletins with information about the new scheme
• advertising materials about the new Scheme and the Child Support Agency (CSA).

The new Child Support Scheme and changes to Family Assistance

www.csa.gov.au/schemereforms/introduction.aspx

From 1 July 2008, the Australian Child Support Scheme will change. All parents who pay or receive child support will be affected, even if you work out your own private payment arrangements.

This information explains how changes to the Scheme will affect your child support payments and family assistance from 1 July 2008.

Also available as a PDF (3MB):
www.dadsindistress.asn.au/downloads/scheme_reforms_2008_information.pdf

The new formula: Changes to how child support is calculated

www.csa.gov.au/schemereforms/formula.aspx

Each parent's income will be considered in exactly the same way and combined to work out the costs of the children. Each parent's share of the total income will show how much of the children's costs they should meet.

Broader range of incomes used

A broader, simpler range of income amounts will be used to work out your child support and family assistance payments, for both parents. These amounts are:

• Your taxable income will be used
  This is the income shown on your tax return. While the new formula will continue to use taxable income, the change to how it's used is reflected in how we work out the costs of children - the impact of tax on your disposable income is taken into account.


• Gross reportable fringe benefits total will be included
  This is the value of gross reportable fringe benefits total for the income year, which is reported on your payment summary. Or ask your employer to tell you the expected amount for the year. A fringe benefit is a benefit provided to you because of your employment. Examples may include using a work car privately, low or no interest loans for employees, or a living away from home allowance.


• Target foreign income will be included
  This is any foreign income you receive that is not taxable income or a fringe benefit.


• Net rental property losses will be added back on
  A net rental property loss is where you have a rental property and the costs outweigh the income. We will add any loss back on to your taxable income for child support and family assistance purposes.


• Some tax-free pensions or benefits will be included
  This includes disability support pensions, wife pensions and carer payments. It also includes the following payments from the Department of Veterans' Affairs:
  • invalidity service pension
  • partner service pension
  • income support supplement
  • Defence Force income support allowance

• For every dollar you earn over the Income Free Area, currently $41,318, your Family Tax Benefit Part A will reduce by 20 cents until your Family Tax Benefit reduces to the minimum rate.
• For every dollar you earn over the Higher Income Free Area, currently $91,542 plus $3,650 for each child after the first, your rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A will reduce by 30 cents until no Family Tax Benefit Part A is payable.

The Guide

www.csa.gov.au/guidev2/TheGuideMaster.aspx?Content=Home
Information in this version of The Guide applies from 1 July 2008

The Guide is the Child Support Agency's legal resource, setting out CSA's policy and view of the child support scheme and its administration.

The Guide is produced and edited by CSA's Child Support Legal Services section.

CSA staff are expected to follow The Guide except where it would result in an anomaly. Staff are expected to report any anomalies to CSA's Child Support Legal Services section so that corrective action can be taken.

Feedback is always welcome. CSA can not guarantee that all suggestions will receive a response or be acted upon.

Note: External users should not use The Guide in place of independent legal advice. The Commonwealth accepts no liability for any loss suffered as a result of reliance on any material in The Guide.

Publications

www.csa.gov.au/schemereforms/factsheets.aspx

These publications explain the changes to the Child Support Scheme in detail.
You can order copies of these publications by calling 1800 040 972.

10 April 2008
Parramatta Sun

Dads in Distress
By Clare Bruce

Western Sydney project coordinator of Dads In Distress Phil York and supporter Teddy Hart. The group is looking for a facilitator.

Seven people in NSW commit suicide every day and five of those are men. Phil York could have been one of them.

Depressed after a family ordeal, he attended Dads In Distress meetings - a safe haven where men can openly express emotions about divorce and separation.

It helped him get back on track and now, five years later, he is still with the group but on the other side.

As Western Sydney project co-ordinator, Mr York is now helping other men to look at the positives and plan for their futures.

With help of a Federal Government grant of $210,000 over 22 months, he is helping to start up six new groups in western Sydney.

A group is expected to open in Parramatta soon, with other groups planned for Penrith, Hawkesbury, Richmond and The Hills. A Springwood chapter opened last month.

The group conducts meetings where every male holds a symbolic rock of strength while he speaks of his emotions.

After he speaks, the group gives him a minute's silence to respect his grief.

Mr York said traditional separations were a difficult time for everyone involved but men often did not seek help.

He said the organisation was aware the separated dads in community were doing it tough.

"There are plenty of professional programs which are fantastic but none of them addresses feelings on a week-to-week basis what's keeping these guys alive," he said.

"They obviously are dealing with their own grief and/or guilt and also miss their children.

"They're used to coming home to laughter and love and now they are coming to an empty home - by this simple service we are helping to decrease male suicide related to family breakups."

01 April 2008
Dads on the Air

Back to the dark ages?

Back to the dark ages? (mp3 file 30,4MB)
www.dadsindistress.asn.au/downloadsmedia/Dads_on_the_Air_2008-04-01.mp3

With Special Guests:

Warren Farrell, world renowned author
Warwick Marsh, Fatherhood Foundation
Kay Knight, from Thanks Dad Photos competition.

For all their fence sitting, prevarication and cruel failure to properly reform either the Family Court of Australia or the Child Support Agency, at least the previous conservative government headed by John Howard acknowledged that fathers existed.

But the inclusion of a divisive single mother's advocate such as Kathleen Swinbourne in Kevin Rudd's massive 2020 Summit talk fest, supposedly bringing together the country's 1,000 brightest brains, while totally ignoring all the highly intelligent and hardworking figures in the fatherhood movement, shows exactly where their heads are at. That Swinbourne from the Sole Parents Union is regarded as one of the country's brightest is a tragic farce. Figures who were overlooked and who would have leant much needed balance to the debate include Tony Miller from Dads in Distress, Professor John MacDonald from the University of Western Sydney, Warwick Marsh from the Fatherhood Foundation, and the list goes on - and on - and on.

Instead the government has decided to put together a list that reads more like an Australian left wing feminists' who's who than a genuine list of people who could contribute to the debate on families. Believe it or not, they have the audacity to use the word "social inclusion" while ignoring every single figure in the fatherhood movement from coast to coast. In announcing the Summit, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared that they wanted to hear ideas from across the spectrum, ideas that could suprise and unsettle them. Nothing, it appears, could be further from the truth.

While professors and doctors clutter the list, the inclusion of an even more divisive figure than Swinbourne, the former chief justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson, shows that the academics who organised the conference have no idea of the real world. Surely if anyone had been aware of the low esteem with which Nicholson is held by hundreds of thousands of separated dads and separated families they would have passed over him for someone much more worthy. Critics argue that on his retirement Nicholson left the court in a shambles and its reputation at an extremely low ebb, both in the public eye and within the legal profession as a whole. His inclusion is a disgrace.

What makes the choices in the Summit under the family and social inclusion section so questionable is that this is the Summit which is meant to set up the paramaters of the debate and propose an agenda for the next decade of the Rudd government. Kevin Rudd declares at www.australia2020.gov.au that: "The Summit will help us shape a long term strategy for the nation's future - covering the economy, the nation's infrastructure, our environment, our farmers, health care, indigenous Australians, the arts, national security, how we improve our system of government, and how we strengthen our communities and ensure nobody is left out of Australia's future. It's a big agenda, but we need to think big."

That agenda clearly doesn't include fathers or anyone from the fatherhood movement; and thus we as a nation are sentenced to yet another cycle of despair amongst broken families. Ultimately the country as a whole will pay the price for the left's continuing contempt for fathers and their vital role in bringing up children.

John Howard blew a rare historical confluence of public and professional opinion when he balked at introducing proper shared parenting and opted for a meaningless notion of "shared responsibility" for separating families. Now, with the left in power from coast to coast and alternative and progressive views from the fatherhood movement ignored by the reactionary elements within the massive family law industry, we are all paying the consequences for his timidity, fence sitting and courting of the feminist vote.

But there are some positives. One of them is that we have on our show this week Dr Warren Farrell, world renowned author of countless books on gender, including The Myth of Male Power, Why Men Earn More and Father and Child Reunion.

With women's and gender studies courses dominating our universities; where the next generation of leaders learns contempt for men and their traditional roles and are taught to hate males and fathers and the so-called patriarchy, Warren Farrell has set out to address exactly this audience with his new book, produced by leading academic publishers Oxford University Press, Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?

Here is the book's promotional blurb: "Does feminism give a much-needed voice to women in a patriarchal world? Or is the world not really patriarchal? Has feminism begun to level the playing field in a world in which women are more often paid less at work and abused at home? Or are women paid equally for the same work and not abused more at home? Does feminism support equality in education and in the military, or does it discriminate against men by ignoring such issues as male-only draft registration and boys lagging behind in school?

The only book of its kind, this volume offers a sharp, lively, and provocative debate on the impact of feminism on men. Warren Farrell - an international best-selling author and leader in both the early women's and current men's movements - praises feminism for opening options for women but criticizes it for demonizing men, distorting data, and undervaluing the family. In response, James P. Sterba - an acclaimed philosopher and ardent advocate of feminism - maintains that the feminist movement gives a long-neglected voice to women in a male-dominated world and that men are not an oppressed gender in today's America.

Their wide-ranging debate covers personal issues, from love, sex, dating, and rape to domestic violence, divorce, and child custody. Farrell and Sterba also look through their contrasting lenses at systemic issues, from the school system to the criminal justice system; from the media to the military; and from health care to the workplace. A perfect book to get students thinking and debating, Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? A Debate is ideal for courses in gender studies, sociology, psychology, economics, feminist philosophy, and contemporary moral issues. It is also compelling reading for anyone interested in the future of men and women."

Next up we will talk with Warwick Marsh and Greg Andresen, who organised the recent Men and Fathers' Health Forum in Canberra. Here is Warwick Marsh's report on the Forum: "Wednesday 19th March 2008 will go down as a milestone event in the men & fathers' movement in Australia. This was the day when almost 30 key leaders, representing men's, fatherhood and family groups, academics and health professionals, met in Federal Parliament to discuss forward motion on the Labor Party's proposed National Men's Health Policy.

On the 5th of November 2007 in the lead up to last year's federal election, the Labor Party announced that it was going to formulate a National Men's Health Policy. This announcement was greeted with acclaim by Australia's men and fathers' movement. Many within the movement were pleasantly surprised because the Labor Party has sometimes been rather anti-male. No doubt it was this pre-election announcement, along with Work Choices that caught the attention of many men across Australia. The announcement of a National Men's Health Policy certainly contributed to the 5% swing, allowing the Labor Party to win government. Men at 49.2% are the largest minority group in Australia today, and have been waiting a long time for a National Men's Health Policy.

Men are falling behind in the area of health. Indigenous men's health is even further behind. Take for instance the following facts:

• The average life expectancy for men is 4 years and 10 months below women (83.5 years for women and 78.7 years for men).
• Men commit suicide at 4 times the rate of women.
• The average life expectancy for Indigenous males in Australia is 59.4 years of age, 19.3 years less than non-Indigenous men.
• The Australian male mortality rate (the rate of deaths from all causes) is 50% higher than the female rate.
• The death rate for men from injury in NSW is about 3 times the rate for women.
• Overall Indigenous males die at 3.2 times the rate of non-Indigenous men from injury - this includes motor vehicles, accidents, falls, homicides and suicides.
• Men die from ischemic heart diseases at 1.7 times the rate of women; from lung cancer at 2.1 times the rate of women; from chronic lower respiratory diseases at 1.9 times the rate of women and from diabetes at 1.5 times the rate of women.
• Indigenous men die from diabetes at 6.1 times the rate of non-Indigenous men.
• In 2005 1,657 Australian men committed suicide whilst the road toll came to 1,636 deaths.
• Divorced men are at least three times as likely to commit suicide as any other group.
• In rural and remote areas the rate of suicide for males aged 15-24 is twice that of similar aged men in capital cities.
• Suicide rates for Indigenous men are 70% higher than for non-Indigenous men.
• Rates of homicide for Indigenous men are 7 to 8 times higher than for non-Indigenous men.
• Expenditure on health care is 34% higher on women than men. In 1993-94, 13.4 billion dollars was spent on men's health care compared to 18 billion dollars on women's health care.
• More men die annually from prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer.