BlokesLine Australia

... or sorta like Family Law E-Bay -

please Register YOUR service below and help your mates

Groups/Resources Books Articles Suicide E-Learning Tool

This site is a non funded alternative to the failed MensLine web site [see History below] and as such has the same aim as MensLine HAD in 1999 or whenever it came on line, which was a REGISTER/LIST OF SUPPORT GROUPS to assist those blokes sucked into family law and child support disputes who would simply prefer the model offered by Mr Levarche the then Attorney General on 8 Jan 1996 "There will be ACCESS to JUSTICE in family law, lawyers will be relegated to the sidelines"

Email to Register Your Service




After Labor [return to menu]

No sooner had Levarche uttered those superb words than Howard won the 1996 election, so there was breathing space for the new government to do nothing for a while - so it did. But in any case governments don't TELL lawyers to stop blood sucking so family law continued to prosper, now well beyond the $10 billion pa level.

But by 1998 Howard decided he needed to make his first "custody reform" to keep the blokes happy. At that time funding for women was $2.3 billion dollars pa and zero for blokes, so Howard saw that it would be a cheap exercise to throw a mere $16.5 million [over 4 years] "at" the blokes.

The DV Ladies [return to menu]

A goodly part of the womens funding was to provide "DV Ladies" throughout Australia who coached Buttercups on how to fill in their DV Application and on DV Day these same DV Ladies would [and still do] snap around the heels of the bewildered blokes in the court like a team of blue heelers saying "Just sign, just sign, it won't hurt you, just sign", and most blokes did, of course setting themselves on that long downhill slide to poverty and, for many, suicide.

The Counter Attack [return to menu]

Of course there had to be a flip side and many of those who suffered after getting smart way too late, but not topping themselves for good measure, started to also attend DV Day in court [but NOT paid like the blue heelers], running around behind the blue heelers saying "don't sign, don't sign".

But such methods were very much hit and miss and besides the brave new world of the Internet was just firing up so web sites were emerging to offer advice on avoiding the pain of family law in a more pro active manner, including some early "Registers" of support services.

The Howard Plan [return to menu]

The main initiative of the Howard election carrot for blokes was the MensLine Phone facility, and as far as we know that works to some degree in providing that instant support for a bloke who is 100 miles further down The Yellow Brick Road than the DV Ladies and is about to top himself.

However the second leg was pure Howard genius. Hundreds of mens groups were crying out for the same funding as the blue heelers [based on equality] but not only would that have cost a few more billion but at the ballot box it would have negated the whole of the billions already spent on the blue heelers. So what he did was to appeal to the male ego [always works in family law] by saying "you blokes really have your act in order with your advocacy but obviously it is expensive and time consuming to keep a Central Register of all the resources in this big [brown] land so WE will set you up with a web site with your own web master to keep an up to date record of resources.

The Plan Goes off the Rails [return to menu]

Perhaps the fatal "mistake" was in naming the web facility also as MensLine [and not MensWeb]. It started as planned with open lists of resources and no restriction on those who took the time to register their offering, for indeed the whole purpose of the site was to provide a NON DISCRIMINATORY list, but WITHOUT any endorsement, or "grading" of any service.

But you don't need us to tell you that the "Pain Industry" quickly hijacked the facility, simply making it a leg of the phone counselling service. As such registration was limited to Shrinks, based on the assumption of the well worn joke that whatever question/problem a bloke might have in family law [like being illegally deemed & destroyed by a COAT at CSA] that he will be asked up front "now when did you first start beating your wife?"

The site even invented a new derogatory male term of "toxic masculinity" and as a final insult to blokes was put under the power of The Minister Advising The PM on The Status of Women, with another 20 million funding to keep the blue heelers in voting mode. For all intents & purposes it is WomensLine but because there IS no person Advising the PM on the Status of Men, nothing was done until I complained to my MP about the abuse of MensLine and as a result, it would seem, Kay Patterson got the chop. But of course for legal reasons [of admission] MensLine will have to take a very gradual path to "reform", if at all, so will probably remain as the same lame duck for some time.

Back on the Rails? [return to menu]

Unfortunately BlokesLine will suffer from exactly the same problem Howard initially "tried" to solve with MensLine, ie lack of funding means little time can be spent by the web master to keep the site updated. However we hope the addition of an open forum may make the task easier and more efficient.

The Bottom Line [return to menu]

The bottom line is that while Howard's 1998 and 2004 "custody reforms" WILL do nothing [and in fact were never INTENDED] to keep lawyers out of your Privacy and Access to Justice in family law, it is hoped that this site will enable blokes to emerge from the Dark Nazi days of suppression of information and access to justice, and allow them to get Proper and Genuine help along The Yellow Brick Road. Because the flip side of governments can not regulate blood sucking lawyers is that NOBODY is required to use one, and if NOBODY did then there would be NO lawyers

As Predicted [return to menu]

This Update in early 2008 reveals that the "men's movement" never did get back onto "men's type" rails. In fact such was the "cleverness" of Howard [which finally saw him out of office] that he effectively morphed the men's movement into a Sub Branch of the Sales Force for the Family Law Industry, or if you will, a Sister organisation to the so called "Wimmen's Movement".

Cash for Comment [return to menu]

So how could it be that men of integrity, claiming to be fighting for justice and American Apple Pie, would jump ship to the other side. Well it's the same old Fistful of Dollars that seems to have swayed most people from the beginning of time. As we know Howard was prepared to throw big bucks at his dying chances of getting re-elected in 2007, so that's what he did, effectively tying together all the waring "peak body" factions into a conglomerate at a new internet site called familylawwebguide [or some such].

Of course it was done in a devious way whereby AG Ruddock posted a Notice on his site to say any applications for funding of greater than $80,000 would involve the most stringent "character testing". Of course that is code for any red neck ratbag can actually get $80,000, as long as they abide by the Cash for Comment Rules. And so it was that Ruddock handed out these grants with gay abandon [no pun intended], accompanied by more flapping noises than a gaggle of Plain Brown Paper Envelopes changing hands at a Law Society Annual Dinner.

Not a Men's Group [return to menu]

At a first glance the site looks, feels and smells like a normal men's site, complete with glove puppets served by a team of moderators, each with their own axe to grind. So it comes as a bit of a shock to suddenly realise that nowhere does the site actually CLAIM to be for the benefit of blokes. Obviously Ruddock did that "for legal reasons" as a devious "hidden disclaimer" so that when dawn breaks and a mob of blokes claim they were "Dun Over", the site can simply say business as normal, why did even think it would be otherwise?

And Dun Over You WILL Be [return to menu]

So, as seen, Ruddock had each group or individual who received their $80,000 firmly by the balls whereby, if they wanted to keep living at six times their former income on the Dole, they had to shelve all their previous "baggage" [especially dreams of "justice & equity"] and toe the line with the Minders that came with the $80,000. And Minders there are in abundance, more than Arthur [in the TV series Minder] could have dreamed of.

To use the words of Apocalypse Now, Ruddock plugged this web site directly into Family Law Industry Marketing Central.

Kafkaesque Situation [return to menu]

So with the Howard Government falling so soon after the funding of this Cash for Comment regime, there is a Kafkaesque situation where those funded remain willing to make the Comment required, as long as they keep getting the cash, but the provider of the cash has been thrown overboard. So those funded [for a short time?] as well as those benefiting [the $20 Billion pa Family Law Industry] are both keen for the whole show to continue.

But the new Government surely has a mandate to end all Howard rorts, for example roll-back of WorkChoices, and one would logically think [or at least hope] there would be a return to the unfinished business of 1996 with "There will be access to justice in family law, lawyers will be relegated to the sidelines". The nervousness of those funded is most evident, but one would think that the longer they stick like glue to the failed Howard dogma, the shorter their time remaining as a drag on the public purse.

It is humorous to note that the CSA is in a similar position, but have been a little bit more smart in their own operation. The main issue is they dropped the "DeadBeats to the Grave Initiative" [which was totally forbidden under the Privacy Act] and Angela Tillmanns [who was The Grim Reaper in that caper] has been put out to pasture.

But there is a Legal Problem for NEW Government [return to menu]

But there is an immediate problem left over from the Howard regime of Piracy of my E-Book A Bloke's Guide to Family Law [and Child Support]. This is a Forum item from this Cash for Comment site, saved on 16 November 2007.

With less than 2 weeks to election-2007 Howard was desperate and the then recent release of my book, lifting the lid on all his nasty devices, was an extra nail in the coffin that he didn't need. So the Cash for Comment freaks were given 007/Apocalypse Now Type "Licence to Terminate with Extreme Prejudice".

History now tells us that my book did have some effect in "Removing the Rodent", and for that I am most proud. But the crime remains that my book was pirated, and I now plan to litigate. As to my litigation abilities, the Full Court of the FCA in 1996 said "and he is very good at it". Twelve years later and over 400 victories I think the Full Court might say "and now he is even better at it".

But the main issue here is that by the "buck stops here" principle, I would not be suing Conan and the huge team of "mods" at the site, but those who pay him. Or to put it another way, by those who have not as yet TERMINATED this TaxPayer funded bullying. But if funding was terminated, I would then be back to suing Conan [who I assume is the same bully, Lindsay Jackel, who presided over MensLine for Kay Patterson, prior to her getting thrown overboard by Howard].

So in effect we have gone full circle where Kay Patterson used CentreLink and their NGO CentreCare to do what is termed "targeting", but is simply bullying. When that failed and Howard was forced to throw her overboard, the new plan was to throw cash at the "men" themselves to "sub-contract" the bullying, but carefully selecting those known as "femi-men" to do the hatchet job.

As seen, the funding even came with "funny names" [possibly from the new Ministry of Funny Names at the new Family Law Court which generates "this is not the real name" for published court cases]. Or rather, the names are "power names" like Conan, Matrix etc to complement the bullying operation, as well as the same type of "creature of its own creation" titles invented by the CSA, eg Senior Case Officer for those doing Deem & Destroy at the COAT.

Is this just Sour Grapes? [return to menu]

To play the Devil's Advocate, the Cash for Comment freaks will be screaming out [as Conan says] that I too am just after an easy life on Government Funding. Nothing could be further from the truth. This whole issue started in Leichhardt in 1998 when Fed MP Warren Entsch [Wozza] had a huge problem with complaints about CSA, and after attending one of our Public Meetings [the now defunct Child Support Action Group] he simply handed over all cases to us.

Wozza, not being a lawyer, was keen to clean up the lawyer top heavy dominance of CSA and approached the new AG Williams for funding [after we approached Wozza]. But with the funding virtually assured Wozza levelled with us that we would be advocates with both hands tied behind our backs if we were Govt Funded, and to show his good faith dipped into his own pocket to incorporate us as a Non Profit Advocacy Entity.

And Wozza was 100% correct as we saved hundreds from the evil CSA indulgences, with no fetters on our advocacy. The proof of the success is that by 2006 Howard was so worried about the prospect of compensation [same as the "sorry" deal] that he called in "The Cleaner", Prof Parkinson, who had a track record as a Cleaner, saving the Catholic Church from compensation [because of pedophiles] via his Towards Healing Protocol.

The main issue was that in 1989 the Parliament recognised that "nasties" might take over in the CSA, so they included s 110 which simply said "this is the Yellow Brick Road to Court to Appeal any dirty deeds by CSA". So we simply used s 110 to save many victims of the CSA [mostly by out of court settlements]. So Parky simply decided to Repeal s 110 so people couldn't appeal. Furthermore he Substituted a new s 110 that put an 18 month limit on even "appeals" under Division 4.

But there was one more problem. Parky knew that we [but probably no one else] knew that courts have Inherent Jurisdiction, even without such as s 110 "invitation to appeal". That much is clear from our victory over the CSA where Bryant CFM simply agreed with us that CSA had acted contrary to the legislation, and Gonged them [see W & C [2002] FMCAfam 166 (17 May 2002)]. So Parky made an additional device via amending s 116 to make it appear that access to courts was totally blocked.

Then, as a diversion, he added a quango called SSAT, totally outside the Constitutional framework [see Brandy case in High Court], same as he had done to save the Catholic Church. Howard then bulldozed this all through Parliament, same as for WorkChoices, and as seen, set up the Cash for Comment site with instructions to sing from the Parky songbook [or lose funding].

So to conclude, the recommendation in 1998 by Williams/Entsch to Howard was to provide funding for the formation of a web site [with a WebMaster] to provide a list of men's organisations, to allow those helping other men to simply do the work without needing to waste time on formulating and maintaining websites. Howard allocated the funding but as seen the site got hijacked soon after birth.

Now what I am looking for is not to revisit that idea [as the same thing will happen] but simply to remove the impediments to sites such as this. To explain, the $80,000 funding has attracted many of the so called I.T. Professionals that pulled off the $200 Billion Y2K fraud, and they are very skilled in "hacking", and all that goes with it. As seen hereabove they had no problem at all breaking into my PayPal system and pirating my book. Similarly they have obviously been involved in "certain acts and things" which are totally esoteric to those outside their field [including myself]. As such I have never ever received an email from anyone wanting to register their group, and in fact it seems that email link has been "cobbled".

All I ask is that the funding be removed, so people like myself are not hindered in helping others. The Family Law Industry itself is a big enough hurdle, without government funded femi-men siding with them. And most of all, I can't imagine that after defeating Howard based upon a pledge to "a fair go" that Kevin '07 and his Team would want to associate themselves [especially financially] with such devious people and devices.


























Child Support and Family Law Notes

Child Support Assessment

The Formula

The Child Support Scheme was introduced in 1989 via the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 , which provided for Administrative Assessment of Child Support to an Administrative Formula under Part 5. The formula was based on the Child Support Income of both parents and the Number of Children. Further aspects of the formula allowed a "credit" for the Exempted Income of the Payer and the Disregarded Income of the Payee as well as recognition for Categories of Care for both parents, based upon any Court Orders in Child Matters in the Family Law Act Part VII under such expressions as Access, Contact, Residence, Custody, Visitation, with further terminology such as Shared Care, Substantial Contact, Resident Parent, Contact Parent, Carer being used.

Child Support Agreement

Part 6 of the act allowed for parents to be able to Consent to a Child Support Agreement, albeit that the Child Support Agency and Centrelink claim [but not supported by the Legislation] that if the Payee is on a Pension, Allowance, Payment or Benefit the Child Support Agreement must be the same as an Administrative Assessment

Departure

If a Payer or Payee seeks to Depart from the Formula, Part 7 of the Act provides for an application to a court by a payer or payee, who need to establish a Departure Ground in the Special Circumstances of the Case under s 117 of the Act. If that Threshold Test is satisfied the court then must decide if it is both Just and Equitable and Otherwise Proper to Depart from the Formula.

Part 7 also allows for other Appeals against Assessment, including the making of a declaration that a Mother is not entitled to Child Support because the Payer has convinced the court under the Family Law Act [normally by DNA Parentage Testing] that he is not the father.

Change of Assessment Team [COAT]

Part 6A was introduced in 1992 to give the power to the Child Support Registrar to make a Determination to assist parents considering seeking a Departure from a court. The CSA has "enhanced" Part 6A from "Advisory" to "Executive" whereby a Senior Case Officer makes a Notice of Decision which the CSA claim to have the same power as a court order, and they term this Change of Assessment. They claim that s 75 provides a Head of Power to do so, despite several instances of Obita Dictum by the courts to the contrary. The CSA re-write the provisions of s 117 changing Grounds to Reasons and Just and Equitable to Fair. The process is distinguished by a large number of Deem and Destroy Decisions which can create a Phantom Debt of up to $25,000, from this process in which there are no Rules of Evidence, thus making the process an official Kangaroo Court

Child Support Collection

The Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988

This Act, along with the establishment of the CSA itself, was introduced in 1988 as the first part of the Child Support Scheme, whereby Payees for an Order for Child Maintenance made under Part VII or Part VIII [prior to 1987] of the Family Law Act or an Order for Spouse Maintenance made under Part VIII of the Family Law Act could be Registered for Collection by the CSA. In 1989 Child Support Assessments were added to those Registerable Liabilities, but not Child Support Agreements not registered in court [albeit the CSA has illegally collected many such agreements].

Collection Methods

Upon the election of the Payee, the Payer of a Liability legally Registered under the Collection Act is required to either pay directly to the CSA or his Employer is required to employ Employer Withholding [aka as Garnishing]. If a payment is not made a Debt to the Commonwealth builds up on the Child Support Register [with Penalty Interest] and as a first recourse the CSA may intercept any monies due to the Payer via his Tax Return.

Enforcement Summons

If a debt remains after the above devices the CSA may ask a court to issue an Enforcement Summons under the Family Law Rules and by this action may recover the debt from the Property of the Payer [albeit that certain items such as cooking stoves etc are excluded under Order 33 and its later versions]

Enforcement from Suicide Victims

The CSA and Family Law in general is said to be responsible for some three Male Suicides per day and if such an Ex Payer has been COATed or otherwise been Deemed to have a Phantom Debt the CSA employs Legal Aid Solicitors to recover the Phantom Debt from the Estate of the dead Payer.