FAMILY LAW SERVICES AND REPORTS [and Amanda Vanstone Fan Club]

You can sing along with Amanda by clicking here Stop Clip - or scroll down to Video

Or go to The Book A Bloke's Guide to Family Law


Who out there, with compassion, could forget this image of the basket case we took on in 1996. To think that the person about to take over as Prime Ministeress of Oz could have been in such Kennet/Brogden "beyond blues" before we, at this site, set her on her path to recovery. We turned the Wright family into the Wrong and SNAG families [and took out a couple of kids added by mistake], through the Skasie years and the "boat" problems to her latest venture exporting Mail Order Terrorists [see below]. Take a bow Amanda, you are our Hero! Your time will cometh!


The sad news is Amanda has been sacked - but as in Life of Brian "Do not be downhearted Brothers" "and Sisters", " ... and Sisters". If you think back to the Rodent vs Peacock "bike-offs" in Days of Yore, The Rodent had more trips to back bench than most people have had hot breakfasts [or cold ones even, going forward]. So Brothers/Sisters the Kafkaesque aspect of this horific action is that this very site [], in suggesting Amanda's bling bling should bling her to be PM has seemingly backfired by putting too much doubt in Rodent's mind about an Amanda led Recovery from Howard's WMD [oy oy oy], going forward.

Please read all about how this happened


However, even in her darkest hour, this modern day Hatshepsut has written a song to cream on that stupid durge about a sheep in a pond [later called BigPond]. We present it here with the help of her own group Van Stone, which is similar story to Goff and the group The Whitlams, 'cept this group has more attitude - bit like Whitlams with bling bling. So yo all sing along.


Here is the latest abuse where the government has no comeback to those trying to exercise their rights in child support in the courts, so he axes the courts.

Nuremberg [Nurmburg] Revisited


Hot on the heels of the Rodent's "Custody" TalkFest [sic - hey there John, Paul threw the nasty word "custody" overboard in 1996] and subsequent "new law with Rebutterballs" we have a TalkFest by the good old Family Law Council. Remember their useless effort in the 1994 JSC headed then by Michael "House & Garden" Watt, now Watt J. Well now they have "well known Sydney legal identity" Gazza Watts, now also Watts J, hot on the case of such inponderables as should the word relocation be defined in the FLAct? Here is my short submission.

Another Talkfest - now on Relocation


A new Shock & Awe revelation has surfaced with the new look Pascoe Federal Magistrate Service where Rimmer FM [Brisbane Broncos] has copied a judgment from Walters FM [Melbourne Storm] in a virtual re-run of the 1994 Hairy Legged Lesbian case [Parramatta Eels].

Plagiarism in the Federal Magistrate Service


If you are a family law victim you will surely be amazed at the pussy attitude of the Rodent to REAL terror suspects ARBITRARY ARREST IN FAMILY LAW


Apart from a photo opportunity as he fled from the Bali Bomb Mk2, the Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott's previous soap opera [apart from the Clayton's Dad soapie] was when he attributed the words "mail order bride" to his "colleague" John Brogden [who promptly tried a Claytons suicide]. What the DNA Kid was talking about with mail order brides is the multi million dollar SHAM MARRIAGE industry mainly carried out by his lawyer mates. But in these times of Wars on Terror are we not talking of MAIL ORDER TERRORISM? What do you think? MAIL ORDER TERRORISM


Since the release of The Amazing All-Singing All-Dancing CSA Calculator it seems some folk have been so gobsmacked that they have turned up the toes. So please use with care. Read about this amazing killer calculator


The CSA Taskforce has released its Report with a new formula, but there is no facility on the internet for you to test your own scenarios to see if you likada or no likada the new deal [yet to be fully examined by gummt so of course yet to be passed as law]

But wait - YES THERE IS ONE, right here from the Divorce Doctor The Amazing All-Singing All-Dancing CSA Calculator


After the recent Weapons of Mass-T-Bation admissions by the rulers of the "White Man World" it is now open slather to lay one's soul bare and I can now own up to "doing a Watergate" [or BillyGates?] by bugging a Billy marketing meeting back in 1995 at the very nexus of the end of computing as we knew it - at the end of the day - going forward and with closure.

Please enjoy this original archive footage from 1995 BillyGate


I have just found CSA Facts & Figures 2004, and they finally are running scared - "I can feel an ATSIC comin' on". Have a read of LIES, TERRIBLE LIES & FRAUD BY CSA - 2004


This one takes the cake - have a read Family Law Faggot Lawyers Demean our Glorious Dead ANZACs


I have just found CSA Facts & Figures 2003, hidden in a dark corner of the CSA website. Have a read of



There is a new case regarding lawyers and so called trust funds. Have a read of

Lawyer Trust Funds - the Ultimate Oxymoron


There is a new case regarding the so called superannuation reforms. Have a read of

Court gets in a JAM trying to CONSERVE superannuation


In my line of (volunteer) work, things can get a bit hairy. Security experts tell us to lodge a Stat Dec with your Will, identifying those you fear may have designs on your life, and send them a copy. I say simply plonking such on the www is a better way. And to kill 2 birds with one stone, I am doing it as an update letter to my local Federal MP Warren Entsch.

The history is that, like most MPs, the number one complaint at his Office concerned CSA/Family Law, meaning that he was more than happy to simply refer the people to us for assessment/action. In fact he advised/assisted us to set up an incorporated entity under which to do our volunteer work.

The surest sign that the other side knows you are doing a good job is that they try to eliminate you. Initially the combined forces of the local parasites and Domestic Violence women simply tried to kill me. When that didn't work and I stood up for the Ozzie Forces in East Timor against the CSA, I even got an ASIO file (while Rome/Bali? burned) - so what!! So latest is that Amanda is trying to starve me out by ending our classification as a group doing volunteer work for the Dole. Now read on.

Update Letter to my MP - Warren Entsch


I have just done this assessment (nothing to do with CSA assessment) on new Federal Magistrate Service

Freud Slips over in Family Law Court

And an interview I just had with Mr Howard

PRESS RELEASE - Howard sends CSA to Iraq


The remainder of this site was created at various times from early 1997 to late 1998, but is mainly still topical, at least in a historical manner. By this I mean that most folk say the Government never takes any notice at all of suggestions made by taxpayers regarding matters the Government has "got wrong"

I'm not so sure! Consider what Amanda Vanstone has done by way of picking up her act since the Wright family debacle I described hereunder, with my suggestion via Mr Wrong and Mr Snag. Since then Amanda has, as Justice Minister, taken my suggestion to place herself on Grassy Hill at Cooktown to scare off Indonesian fishing boats and boat people alike from Queensland, chasing them over to WA along with their nasty tactics of throwing kiddies overboard. And then she got rid of Scasie once and for all, as I suggested, following which she took over from Jocelyn in her old job as "Chief Justice" of Centrelink.

The 2 new articles below describe the final task to be done along with those already done by Amanda, as described herein, which is to repeal the Child Support Acts (if the High Court does not beat her to it) and sack the CSA. If Amanda can pull this one off (and I know she can), then forget Costello - it's Amanda for PM. Enjoy!

  1. Lies, statistics and the CSA
  2. Summary

End of new entries as of February 2002


Only 5 months later, the CSA HAS come up with the 2000/2001 update on "Lies, statistics and the CSA". Alas the meaty part (as investigated by the spreadsheet in the article above) is only for June 2000, meaning that this update report is for one year later and not two. It would seem the reason is that the news got SO much worse in one year that they are still thinking of ways to explain 2001. Here are the update facts, together with a wild new plan to help Amanda out again in the budget.

  1. CSA Update 2000
  2. Wild new plan for Amanda

End of new entries as of July 2002

Go straight to Child Support Bureau Service

Property share calculation discussion

Utilsing the Budget Standards Report - UNSW SPRC

This web site provides professionally researched and published articles by Brian Hogan BEng, MIEA, CPEng detailing the social implications and uses of data on the "costs of children" (or more correctly "expenditure on children") recently completed (and now published/released) by the Budget Standards Unit of the University of NSW (UNSW). Articles are :

  1. (Preamble)
  2. The Wright Family - as a Preview
  3. The Proper Determination of Child Maintenance
  4. Mr Snag Loses his Job
  5. Cost of Children Study - Enalysis
  6. Comparisons of Studies
  7. Update of Studies

The author hopes to expand on these articles depending on the level of interest shown by interested parties. Once the UNSW figures are released/published (and the author would be most grateful to also receive an advance copy of the non food studies recd with thanks to Warren Entsch MP Member for Leichardt) he intends to set out a draft tabular format of the algorithms used by the computer to provide equitable child maintenance, in the same form used by public information brochures from Centrelink or the TaxPac from ATO.


return to menu

Application of this initial article and the software modules upon which the article is based is mainly aimed at family law applications. However the social security (and ATO concessions/implications) use of the software modules will prove to be self evident, both stand alone and in conjunction with family law issues.

The article/software development is unique in several ways. Firstly it is the first attempt, as far as the author is aware, to combine modelling not only for DSS and ATO (including CSA - Child Support Agency), but also the family law industry in general. Secondly it is unfunded (at present).

It goes without saying that these two unique events are self evident, for funding to be approved for models/investigations, there needs to be an "owner department" with specific interest in the results of such. So while both the DSS and ATO (but probably not the ATO agency of Child Support) would most probably have such models set up (one would hope), but for their own areas only, there is little likelihood the family law industry would do the same.

The reason is that DSS and ATO provide a public service to customers and it is most difficult to imagine a single person in Australia (a hermit hiding in the bush?) who is not at least indirectly affected by provisions of DSS or ATO. So there is no need for officers of these departments to "market" for customers and in general, these officers do a good job in a courteous manner. Also, laws are in place to sanction those officers not doing a "proper" job.

On the other hand, family law impacts on about 50% of the once married category and such a high participation rate is mainly attributable to the intense marketing of the industry to promote inequity as the assured outcome, and it is not the intention of this article to explain the methods used to achieve these ends. In fact it is neither the intention of this article to provide anecdotal evidence as to abuses of the family law industry but merely to provide facts/data and logical extrapolation or interpolation via the models.

Somewhere in the middle of this situation sits the government agency the CSA, supposedly a public service but seemingly looking over its shoulder at what its big brother the family law industry gets away with and deciding to become a quasi discretionary sub judiciary - but risking sanctions once articles such as this explain their true "pecking order".

One particular area of "soft fraud" against the taxpayer to the previously thought extent of 1 billion dollars pa (but this new research suggests > 2 billion) is the failure of the court to specify capitalised maintenance (both child and spouse). This initial article does not deal with this issue but a category (aptly designated by the colour dark grey) will be observed in the graphics for later articles. Also it goes without saying that the various associations/societies/councils/commissions set up to sanction the "dismal failure" (ref p 509 JSC report 1994) of the family law industry (to observe s 79 (4)(g) of FLA and continue with "double dipping") amounts to no more than a slap on the wrist with a wet tram ticket. Therefore the ongoing issue of not specifying that portion which caused the property dip of the double dip via s 66R/s 77A, also goes without sanction (though not as yet tested in the high court).

Those involved in this soft fraud and the ultimate cover up (eg Moss J) when it became too big to handle should not fear reading this site as following a letter to Newman/Vanstone and the explanatory paper "the Dole Diary of B Frank", bupra, is seems the DSS is simply ignoring the recalitrance of the family law industry and deeming the capitalised maintenance for the purpose of s 1116 apportioning. Further, as explained by example of the Wright family, most of the formerly lost funds can actually be clawed back as will again be seen in the example of the Snag family, bupra.

The term bupra is one invented by the author as an internet preferred term to supra. As the reader/surfer could be accessing the material by any array of linking "cliks", bupra means "as defined somewhere else on this site", below above or sideways. Naturally one could use the Austlii approach of actually doing a reference link but the author feels that in such an article, that can break the continuity of the argument/information.

Introduction to the Initial Article via the Wright Family

return to menu

The initial article is entitled "The Proper Determination of Child Maintenance". In order to understand the use of the computer modelling techniques to provide a proper solution to this and other scenarios, it is seen as appropriate to introduce the model at this stage in brilliant technicolour as well as introduce an appropriate family scenario as an example.

The author has determined it to be appropriate to call the family the Wright family as an extension to modelling methods used by the present government. However, similarly to the case with the Lee study to be discussed shortly, the family needs to become separated to be part of the "family law" model required.

Now the (former) minister for the appropriate Wright family scenario department, Amanda Vanstone stated that the Wright family did in fact exist as detailed but she simply "added a few kids". It is therefore felt justified to simply "remove a father" in order to obtain a representative separated family of 3 children 13, 14 and 15 with the father earning an average wage of $35,000 and the mother at home with the children.

The results of the various acts as applicable to this scenario and others to follow are depicted by 3 graphical representations (2 column and one pie) as well as 2 tabular representations of the results/input data. Internet wise, a single GIF file of about 40K has been devised to contain all of these in the one graphic which can be observed by clicking on the link when prompted.

For those not familiar with linking, the internet does not provide the convenience of windows to view 2 or more documents at once but a simulated window can be obtained by clicking on a link, scrolling through the linked graph and then using BACK at the top of the browser to return to the text. The added advantage is that the main file can be quickly opened without waiting to open all the graphics files

You are invited to do this now by clicking the Wright family. Please just take a quick look, as all will be explained below, and come BACK to here.

The first graph has 2 lots of 4 columns. The 4 on the left pertain to a proper (to later definition) solution to child maintenance, the 4 on the right to an administrative assessment via the CSA.

In each lot there is an income and expenses column for the husband (H) and also for the wife (W)

At this stage it should be pointed out that while the acts are non gender specific, the author has adopted the popular "court commentary stance", for convenience, that party #1 is the payer husband (H) and party #2 is the payee wife (W). Please take another look and BACK to here. It will be noted that the same link was "described" by different words. Also if your cache is properly set up the second viewing of the graphic should be from your HD and thus almost instantaneous.

You will by now have the idea of simulated windows (see anyone can make 50 million a day, not just Billy) and additional links will be provided as you scroll down the page.

Last of all by general explanation, this preview will skip over all the detail as it is simply designed to acquaint the reader with the format of the presentation.

Although the author feels he has thoroughly researched all the material, any advice by other researchers as to the correctness of the results would be accepted and acted upon. The 50 odd variable parameters in all the algorithms are as applicable up to 31st December 1997. Therefore small differences will appear as of 1st January 1998 to the DSS parameters which will not be reflected in this (Dec 1997) site, although the source software will be updated.

It should also be noted that testing income of children as required for many of the benefits has been initially discounted as simply confusing an already totally confusing array of requirements and cross requirements that the author hopes to have made understandable by the "big picture" graphics. Also the added complications of children 16 and 17 have been avoided for similar reasons, especially as all the Austudy type benefits are to be replaced within 6 months by a single "Youth allowance". Therefore the children in the Wright and Snag families are < 16.

The starting point is the cost of children - the yellow. The access/contact of H is 2 days per fortnite and 4 weeks holidays per year which the module determines to be 21% of the time. The total (provisional) cost of the 3 children is $70 per week each so you will see there are yellow segments for both W and H in these "contact" proportions in the first graph. It should be noted that while the CSAA uses a "cliff effect" approach (and the 40% cliff was broken into 2 lesser molehills of 30% and 40% following Nicholson CJ's judgement in Gyselman, bupra), the author simply does the calculation (21% in this case based on 2 days per fn and 4 weeks pa) and it is delightful to see the ATO does the same for the new Family Tax Assistance - once you get past the 30% molehill that is.

So is it to be regreted the CSAA is not updated by such logical amendments? The answer is that it is just one more piece of logical evidence which a person can use to plead under s 66 E that an assessment is not proper, as we will see bupra.

please take a look and BACK to here

Get the idea, you may want to get more adventurous and find the actual "time as resident parent" (21/79%) by scrolling to the bottom of the graphic into the tables?

please take a look and BACK to here

So it is probably best to continue by concluding the expenses of the parties, hoping that this does not put the cart before the horse and confuse the reader. Please refer to the green segments, you will notice that whatever expense the H is required to pay via regular child maintenance (proper on LHS or CSA on RHS), the W gets an equal amount as an income item. Unfortunately, for those who do not simply pay directly, party to party, there can be a time delay via CSA/DSS path.

please take a look and BACK to here

Finally for expenses, the black segment is the "residual" and represents the balance amount for each party as "disposable income" or whatever is may be termed. You will note the parties have almost equal residual via the CSA path and the H does considerably better via the equitable path.

please take a look and BACK to here

Now we move to income. In this example the W has no separate income so please refer to the H situation where the light blue is the non liable income which will be explained in detail later. The red segment is the total income minus the non liable, minus tax and having got adventurous, you are invited to check the graph and then scroll down to the tables if you wish to ascertain the exact value of these items.

please take a look and BACK to here

If you did not fully understand all that, you will later. As far as income for the wife is concerned, the purple segment is the sole parent pension (plus associated benefits) and the dark blue segment is the family payment (plus associated benefits) as well as the parenting allowance.

please take a look and BACK to here

Finally the white segment is the ATO benefit via family tax payment, medicare and general tax rebates, as applicable.

please take a look and BACK to here.

Now please scroll down the graphic to see the total and breakup of the benefits to the W. Please confine yourself for the present to the CSA figures on the RHS. The total benefit is 240% of the actual (provisional) cost of children of which 164% comes from the government and 76% from H.

please take a look and BACK to here

Further scrolling will provide the breakup of the 164% in which even further scrolling will reveal that the maximum family payment of $206 per week has been maintenance income tested to $141 by dint of the CSA payment of $160 by the H.

please take a look and BACK to here

Last of all the pie charts reveal that had Mr Wright been allowed by the family law industry to remain (s 43 happily) in the bosom of his beloved Wright family, the total payment from the government would have been only $79 per week rather than $344 per week. And prior to the parenting allowance of 1997, this benefit from the government would have been only $47 per week.

Although this concludes the "non confrontationalist" tutorial on how to access the results of this computer module, it will be evident that, unless the cost of children data used is totally wrong, the government is totally over-compensating separated parents, this comment being made independently of the aspects of child maintenance via the parents of the children which is the specific investigation of the initial article in this series.

but before moving on, two more graphs are instructive (or should be). In the first graph Mrs Wright's options for a separate income are demonstrated up to the point where her child support would start to diminish.

please take a look at Mrs Wright's options and BACK to here

You will observe how her Sole Parent Pension begins to decline at $4,000 and becomes zero at $24,000. Her Family Payment is already somewhat diminished by virtue of the child support from Mr Wright and it too starts to decline further at $24,000. Her ATO benefits are fairly stable.

Then this analysis is transposed into the broader picture to give the earning options of each party up to $100,000.

please take a look at both party's options and BACK to here

In order to interpret this graph, the green plot shows Mr Wright's options assuming Mrs Wright earns zero and the red shows Mrs Wright's options assuming Mr Wright earns $35,000. Naturally the number of children etc is as before.

please take a look and BACK to here

You will note Mr Wright does not get relief until his income gets to $95,000. As for Mrs Wright, the same "bumps" will be seen as explained in the last graph but there is the additional decline above $40,000 as her "disregarded" income cuts in until child support reduces to a minimum 25% at $70,000. At $75,000 the new Family Tax Payment (Part A) cuts out. At $100,000 she still has 25% child support and her ATO rebate.

Without wishing to enter into controversy at this point, it will be evident from this unique "cover all departments" analysis that the combination of benefits to Mrs Wright as opposed to Mr Wright's treatment (and that of the taxpayer) is somewhat improper.

For example, the cost of the children to Mrs Wright is $8,500 pa, however she receives some $25,000 after tax to stay home with the children. Admittedly $10,000 of that is for her own support (non liable income). For Mr Wright to get $25,000 after tax he needs to earn $65,000.

Similarly Mr Wright gets one third of his wage ($33,000) when he earns $100,000, whereas Mrs Wright gets $33,000 in the hand if she actually earns $15,000, ie more than double.

The alarming part is that the "soft fraud" of the taxpayer via non maintenance income testing of capitalised maintenance of perhaps an average $5,000 pa per "Mrs Wright" is not considered (as yet) in this analysis.

However it will be evident from the graph that the ever escalating child support in the above summation is the main culprit and it is with a view to making this element "proper" that the initial article is directed.

return to menu