Family law underclass
04.08.2001
GAPING anomalies in family law court determinations have created a massive underclass of impoverished and desperate people in Australia -- principally supporting mothers and children.
The system -- introduced in the 1980s and designed in marriage separations to force fathers to provide financial support for their children -- is just not working where that father is obdurate. In too many cases, the nastiness of the circumstances of the marriage breakdown is maintained and used as a weapon against the supporting mother who has very little with which to fight back.
A letter I received last week from a woman I know well, who has been through a traumatic divorce where she retained custody of her three children, sets out the ineffectiveness and unfairness of the system. And hers is not the only case.
There is a Queensland-based former member of parliament who divorced his wife and left her with two children. He gave her $20,000 from his superannuation payout which was more than $900,000 and agreed to pay $300 a week for the support of the two children.
However, because his only private car is a super sports type with two seats, to visit the children each week he declared he had to hire a sedan -- at a cost of $100 a day. The child support component was reduced by that amount. Legal advice to the woman is that she cannot claim against or garnishee her former husband's massive superannuation because section 72 A of the Commonwealth Superannuation Act read in conjunction with section 24 of the Parliamentary Superannuation Act sets out that such action cannot be taken against politicians. How wrong is that? How very convenient for our lawmakers.
Estranged husbands will scream about articles like this singling them out as villains, but the truth is the vast majority of the wronged in these cases are the women. There are exceptions, but they are comparatively rare. Too often the former husband seems to extract some perverse pleasure through making every possible thing difficult for his former wife -- and therefore for his children. To act in such a callous way towards people who have so little with which to fight back is the essence of cowardice -- and probably demonstrates something of why he was an unworthy partner in the first place.
Back to last week's letter. The woman involved is a most intelligent person who works part-time as a teacher to make ends meet. The former husband forced a divorce hearing which cost her (and him) $12,000 each, even though the legal advice was that he would get nowhere. That was correct advice. This bloke has refused to pay his child support, which was set at a miserly pittance in any case. The Federal Child Support Agency told the woman they could not help until she could provide evidence that he was working -- and name the employer.
The former husband in question does not put in regular tax returns -- the most recent was a couple of years ago -- so the assessment on his payment is based on out-of-date, dishonest records. He is a chef and works for cash, and does not declare his earnings.
In the split-up of assets, the bottom line was that the wife was allowed to keep the matrimonial home but had to pay him some $8000. Her solicitor told him she was not able to deduct the $4000 he owed in child support, but that information was corrected at the eleventh hour by an officer from the Child Support Agency.
However, the CSA said the amount owed was now $2968, not $4000 because it was based on his outdated tax return. And the amount to be remitted to the former wife was just $2100, as the CSA was keeping the balance for ``outstanding fees''. How on earth can a government instrumentality justify keeping money from child support payments as ``fees''?
To the greedy, not the needy, go the spoils. The avalanche of paperwork this woman -- and obviously the thousands like her -- has to cope with to get any justice at all under the system is mind-blowing. The system is not working.
It is all well and good for a husband to go off and start a ``new life'' with his latest trophy bride but in a civilised society his first responsibility is to the children he has left behind.
Rather than have the CSA set a formula on what he has to pay based so loosely as it is on his ``ability to pay'', the courts might be better having a formula on just what it costs to raise a child, and set the fees for everyone. That would mean the errant father would have to find the money somehow, and if it cut into his new lifestyle, so be it.
There is another case I know well of a former Brisbane architect, a very successful man, who flitted off to Byron Bay with his latest acquisition in tow, leaving a wife and two small children. He grew the mandatory pony tail, dropped out of professional work, and managed to convince the CSA that his liability for his two children was $9 a week. Even at that rate, he does not keep up to date.
Women -- and some men -- and the children in these circumstances are treated very badly. The system, designed to cater for separation and support, is not delivering and is further devastating the lives of so many people.
The fact that the media is excluded from all family court matters plays no small part in the mess. If more of the injustices were published, the subsequent public outrage would ensure politicians acted to put a stop to it.
In the meantime, too many nasty husbands are being allowed to rip off their former partners and children -- and it is being done with the sanction of the government of the day whose job it is to ensure that such victims get the protection they need.
