Missed The Point?
People, causing the current internecene arguments for and against the DPB was not the point of my mailing ‘Says It All’.
The whole point was to bring attention to three seperate but vitally connected issues.
Issue 1. DPB offers a solution to the often morally moribund who simmply cannot be bothered getting out of bed to earn their daily bread.
Issue 2. The only way (mostly female recipients) can get it is to gain custody of the children involved.
Issue 3. The prospector of DPB (mostly female) are able to tell almost any lie and have such accepted by the Family Court to then gain DPB.
I believe, for better or worse, that in many cases the fleeing woman would be quite happy if the departing male was allowed complete and free access to the kids and to help manage them. But unless the prospector can demosntrate ‘she’ ‘must’ be the main guardian of the kids, not 50/50, then she won’t get DPB.
And so, in order to get DPB ‘she’ must demonstatrate that ‘she’ is the only fitting guardian. And to do that she ‘must’ throw the father under the bus.
There is a fourth point…and is probably the most iniquitous in Jane’s dialogue.
That was the advice she received from her lawyer that she must ‘not’ make a federal case out of her claims because, in doing so such would go to the District Court (at the very least) and in that environment, real proof is required. Whereas, as she says, in the Family Court, anything goes.
Further, Jane’s income of a grand a week was made up of sundry benefits, I gather totalling about $450 pw, plus accommodation benefit of $200, plus all of her little sidelines plus the income she got from her new live-in.
But this seemlessly immoral woman made the point which I find the most insufferable. She said she didn’t realy care about the kids, she just wanted her life-style and that the kids were just a part of the building blocks for that life-style.
And so we come full circle to my mail from The Shower. We have to find a way to make the Family Court require real evidence, not hearsay, opinion, feelings, crap, etc.
I ask you. How could legislators water down common principles of law (Innocent till PROVEN guilty) in the Family Court, then stand in the light of day and assert the new rules are fair and just?
The answer is, they cannot.
Surely, it is this issue, not the afore mentioned internecene arguments about DBP which MUST be our focus.
All I ask is that the FC be required to require proof positive before acepting any allegation. Simple as that.
And lastly, I say again. There are some genuine cases of serious need for DPB. I don’t have a problem with being a part of the funding for them (as a tax-payer). My problem is, I want the recipients to ‘prove’ beyond reasonable doubt that they are so entitled. And surely, if the partner is a genuine bad-arse, proof must be readily available.