Deadbeat dads dodge child support
Nothing can be further from the truth regarding the inaccuracy of the reporting in relation to 'child support'.
The majority of Australian's should be aware of the term 'child custody' in relation to your children.
This term is in relation to the parents being 'custodians' of their children, where the state actually owns them.
Another fact (deliberately?) omitted by the corporate media is that taxation the way that it is payed currently to the company called the ATO (Australian Tax Office) is
- totally voluntary
Inaccurate or misleading reporting is deliberate in order to perpetuate the fraud and cover up the fraud of the criminal elite.
The 'child support' agency CANNOT lawfully make anyone (father or mother) pay support or maintenance against that persons wishes.
Recordings of telephone conversations with staff confirm that the staff know about this.
Another organised crime racket by the business known as the government.
The full article is as follows:
Worrying examples of clerical errors, computer system problems, failures by staff to act on information and botched administration are laid bare in a submission to the Abbott government’s parliamentary inquiry into the child support regime.
Commonwealth Ombudsman Colin Neave, who received 1700 complaints about the system last year alone, has told the government he is raising these examples to “highlight areas for potential improvement, rather than to suggest that there is any large scale failure in administration”.
His submission details more than 20 examples where the Child Support agency has let down Australian parents, including;
• A failure by the Child Support to “take an active role” in establishing the correct income of a father who owed child support but failed to submit his tax return for ten years, resulting in his partner receiving lower than appropriate payments.
• The agency’s failure to set up wage and salary deductions on the repeated request of a mother who was owed more than $5,000 in child support payments, despite being provided with information about where the her former partner worked and his pay slip number, until the Ombudsman intervened in the case.
• A failure by Child Support staff to report for prosecution the case of an employer who was deducting child support payments from an employee but not transferring them in full to Child Support. More worryingly, the agency continued to keep the arrangements in place.
The report to Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews’ inquiry reveals the Ombudsman frequently receives complaints from recipients of child support payments that the figure used to assess their ex-partner’s income is too low, in some cases because parents are not submitting their tax returns.
While the submission notes that Child Support has no power to force a customer to lodge his or her tax return, it says, “we are concerned that Child Support does not appear to maintain an interest in the action that the Australian Tax Office takes in response to these referred cases.”
Mr Neave also write in his submission: “we consider that it is vital that Child Support is seen as effective, but fair in its efforts to assess and collect child support payments”.
“In our view, the integrity of the scheme will be undermined by community perceptions that people can readily avoid their responsibilities,” he says.
The number of complaints to the Child Support agency peaked at almost 3000 in 1996.