MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Aussie Child Tax Paternity Update

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 12:35 pm Sun 18th April 2010

Australian men reclaim child support through DNA tests after law change

Australian fathers are reclaiming thousands of dollars in child support payments after a change in the law allowed them to demand DNA tests on children

Peter Dunne(Nothing) could have followed the Aussie lead instead of doing nothing about Paternity Fraud. (Re-spun by academics as Misattributed Paternity)

These children have a fundenental human right to be assured of their Paternity and the rich heritage that is their paternal family.

Come on Peter Dunne Nothing  DO SOMETHING – implement the same law in New Zealand.



6 Responses to “Aussie Child Tax Paternity Update”

  1. Phoenix says:

    Hmmmmmm. Is this another reason to move to Australia?

  2. tren Christchurch says:

    They can’t and will not. IRD’s function is to gather funds for the republic of lifestyle solo mums.

    Child support is seen as a means of offsetting the generous benefit the children and their solo mums get from the state.

    First the scheme of 30 per cent of your salary is clearly extortion money.

    When you have your children with you, you spend the amount you can afford and that is necessary for the child. That can be 10 Dollars per week , 20, 30, 40, or 1000. Up to you. No one is legislating how much you spend or save for an other purchase, say a bike, that computer game or what ever. You are sovereign! Just as your country is sovereign. With the 30 PER CENT of your salary, you have no control for what your contribution is used for. You work (slave away) and they take 30 % from you.

    A workable scheme is one that imposes these conditions:

    1 The money goes for the rearing of the children and only.

    2 The amount a parent is obligated to pay if parent has access to funds should
    be equal to the amount the government would contribute if the child has no
    parent. Any extra is up to the parent.

    3 child rearing contributions are conditional on inhibited access to that child.
    4 All state agencies to work towards discouraging divorce.

    I am told the that lifestyle solo mums are on a hunt for that sperm that will guarantee them a salary for the next 6 years. The last child is soon to reach 6 and the law will require them to do ‘some’ work. So watch out for a sudden outburst of ‘affection’

  3. amfortas says:

    It is still stacked against duped fathers.

    Australian Government Remains Silent on Judicial Fraud
    Thursday, April 15, 2010

    By Ash Patil

    The 7th of April 2010 marked the fourth anniversary of the Magill v Magill paternity fraud case in Australia, effectively creating two remarkable precedents in terms of the perpetuation of fraud in this country.

    According to Anti Paternity Fraud Advocate Cheryl King, “Paternity fraud was effectively endorsed by Australia’s highest court, the High Court, denying the plaintiff Mr Liam Magill any legal recourse against the woman who fraudulently deceived both Mr Magill and two of his three children into believing that he was their father.” King further stated that “this deception continued even after separation, involving financial fraud which the Court deemed need not be re-paid”.

    King alleges that in the second, another type of fraud was exercised by one of the presiding judges, Justice Crennan.

    King states that “in this case, Justice Crennan, who had previously herself misled her own de facto husband into believing that their two children were fathered by him, refused to step down from the High Court hearing of the Magill case, in response to the undeniable Conflict of Interest given her own personal history.”

    King continued; “This bizarre act of judicial mis-representation by Justice Crennan raises serious questions about the administration of justice in Australia, from its highest Court and on a matter of significant public and community interest.”

    Ash Patil, President of Shared Parenting group Fathers4Equality adds that “What is even more remarkable is that the Australian government has been complicit with this judicial fraud, refusing to investigate this most serious of allegations against this judge.

    Patil adds that “The silence from the Rudd government, and especially from the Attorney General, Robert McClelland, on the issue of judicial misconduct in the Magill case has been deafening.”

    Patil states that “Given the recent Chisholm review of Family Law practices, of which many people believe was nothing more than a political stunt by the Attorney General and a waste of public funds, the question has to be asked as to why there is such resistance by Robert McClelland to simply investigate a matter which could otherwise seriously undermine the foundation of credibility that the High Court of Australia bases its decisions on. ”

    King has stated that she has “officially written to the Rudd government repeatedly over the last few years, requesting an investigation into this judges behaviour.”

    King adds that “I challenge Kevin Rudd, given that it is an election year and the importance that he claims to attach to proper checks and balances within our schools and hospitals, to explain why there has been no investigation into this most serious case of judicial misconduct. ”

    Cheryl King
    Anti Paternity Fraud Advocate
    Box 685 Deepdene 3103
    Ph-0416 031 145
    Int 61 -416031 145

  4. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    THe Aussie law in relation to Child Tax and the right to have a paternity test is a bloody site better than what we have in New Zealand where the legal system is toothless.



  5. Scott B says:

    Don’t forget that the 30% is just the start, you are then expected to pay for so many other things too!

  6. noconfidence says:

    Unfortunately it may get even worse too.
    My information is that a P Dunne Nothing is planning to introduce a new bill for income splitting. So anyone out there who receives child support (40% care or more) may find their ex partners quitting work to avoid paying child support and gaining tax wise from the income split of their partner.
    Keep your eyes out for this one….

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar