The case this week of Michael Cox, the lawyer who was jailed for 42 days for refusing to pay child support over a 12 year period shows the madness at the heart of the CSA and feminist fundamentalism.
The decision is a victory for the CSA robots (as described by a female lawyer on BBC Breakfast this week) who in their unthinking and unblinking fashion chose to push through this prosecution even though Mr Cox's former wife pleaded against it. It goes against all aspects of natural justice as Mr Cox looked after the children 50% of the time but because his wife is named as the responsible parent, the CSA ignored this. The CSA seemed to relish this prosecution as no doubt the civil servants involved wanted to show how tough they are before they are no doubt moved to the new organisation. They will be probably get a bonus such is the life in the Kafka-esque (the law is the law, no matter how mad) world they inhabit.
It is also a victory for feminist fundamentalism. They have successfully bastardised the use of language as Mr Cox is described legally as an absent parent/father, when he obviously is not. It also is a victory for those fundamentalists who do not trust fathers and mothers to come to a mutually amicable agreement without using the CSA. Any such agreement is a defeat. The fundamentalists have used the CSA to interfere in these arrangements and give them an element of control with the father always looking to be cast as the bad guy.
The fact that everyone is involved in this case is a victim is of no consequence to the CSA or the fundamentalists. Mr Cox, his new wife, his ex-wife (who now has to give up work to look after her children 100% of the time) and obviously the children are all victims. Not just personally, but they are pawns in the battle that the fundamentalists wage.
The one lesson for couples with children who break up amicably is to avoid the CSA at all costs.
Note : The issue was well covered in the media which is a good sign because it shows how extraordinary the case was. There were some good debates in The Times (link) and The Daily Mail (list). Other coverage is here :- (link), (link), (link), (link) and (link)
get this have just done CSA calulator
Found that even tho you have two childern to look after and the ex only has one (yours)
You still have to pay out £15 a week
How can that be correct???
Posted by: jodey fletcher | Wednesday, 05 October 2011 at 19:58
i forgot to mention that also i am looking after my son 6 mounths of the year
but the £15 a week still applies???? ) :
Posted by: jodey fletcher | Wednesday, 05 October 2011 at 20:00