Just For Ross Mitchell

Hi Ross, Seeing as you keep hanging out here and searching on your name constantly we thought we'd post this for you so to avoid your disappointment.
Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell, Ross Mitchell,

PS Have you done something about the mullet yet? You might have more luck in the adult personals if you chop that nasty piece of grey hair off the back. We women will let you know a secret, it's downright creepy and considered very unattractive.

Off to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 02 Sept. The Child Support Agency (CSA) are relying on some very ambiguous legislation in s98K of the Child Support (assessment) Act 1989, where the word may is used.

I shall be relying on the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 at ss15AA where it states

Regard to be had to purpose or object of Act 
             (1)  In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object.

and ss33 where it says
Exercise of powers and duties 
             (1)  Where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed from time to time as occasion requires. 
             (2)  Where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty on the holder of an office as such, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed by the holder for the time being of the office. 
       (2AA)  In subsection (2), office includes a position occupied by an APS employee.

and also the precedent setting case Smith v Watson 1906 where the use of the word may was discussed in great detail
Griffith CJ said
So far, therefore, as that Act applies, whenever the word "may" is used in conferring a power, it must be read as if it were "may at their or his discretion." But it cannot be disputed that the particular Act conferring the power may, from its general scope, show that the duty must be exercised, and that there is not an arbitrary discretion. In that respect the Interpretation Act does not alter the general rule of construction, which was much discussed in the case of Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford. In that case Lord Selborne said:—"The language, (certainly found in authorities entitled to very high respect,) which speaks of the words it shall be lawful, and the like, when used in public Statutes, as ambiguous, and susceptible (according to certain rules of construction) of a discretionary or an obligatory sense, is in my opinion inaccurate. I agree with my noble and learned friends who have preceded me, that the meaning of such words is the same, whether there is or is not a duty or obligation to use the power which they confer. They are potential and never (in themselves) significant of any obligation. The question whether a Judge, or a public officer, to whom a power is given by such words, is bound to use it upon any particular occasion, or in any particular manner, must be solved aliunde, and, in general, it is to be solved from the context, from the particular provisions, or from the general scope and objects, of the enactment conferring the power." In the present case, therefore, since the passing of the Interpretation Act just as before it, the meaning of the legislature is to be ascertained from the whole of the language used.

Barton J said
Earl Cairns L.C. was no less explicit. He said:—"The question has been argued and has been spoken of by some of the learned Judges in the Courts below as if the words it shall be lawful might have a different meaning, and might be differently interpreted in different Statutes, or in different parts of the same Statute. I cannot think that this is correct. The words it shall be lawful are not equivocal. They are plain and unambiguous. They are words merely making that legal and possible which there would otherwise be no right or authority to do. They confer a faculty or power, and they do not of themselves do more than confer a faculty or power. But there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so." Lord Penzance in his speech pointed out that in some of the cases cited, although the Statute in terms had only conferred a power, the circumstances were such as to create a duty, and he said:—"I entirely agree with what has fallen from the Lord Chancellor as to the proper and legitimate way of stating the question here involved. The words it shall be lawful are distinctly words of permission only—they are enabling and empowering words. They confer a legislative right and power on the individual named to do a particular thing, and the true question is not whether they mean something different, but whether, regard being had to the person so enabled—to the subject-matter, to the general objects of the Statute, and to the person or class of persons for whose benefit the power may be intended to have been conferred—they do, or do not, create a duty in the person on whom it is conferred, to exercise it."

Despite all of the above here is the small part of the Acts Interpretations Act 1901 that csa are relying upon
ss33(2)          (2A)  Where an Act assented to after the commencement of this subsection provides that a person, court or body may do a particular act or thing, and the word may is used, the act or thing may be done at the discretion of the person, court or body.

Well its been a while since I blogged, so I best update.

May: CSA commenced objection process

June: CSA illegaly allowed ex to place verbal response to objection
note: CS Acts say must be in writting

June: CSA disallowed Objection

June: SSAT application filed

Carol Rhodes on Child Support (US)

CSA admit mistake (UK)

Hamilton Pizeria Protest (US)

Dads on the Air at Lone Fathers Conference 2007 - Part 1

After approaching the Federal Ombudsmans Office with regards to my Objection placed November 05 (yes, 2.5 years ago) with the CSA, the ombudsmans office has ordered the CSA to consider my objection. This means that the CSA did not follow due legal process by

a) sending a copy of my objection onto the other party
b) allowing the objection in part or whole or disallowing the objection

The CSA’s decision (thats Matt Miller, the CS Registrar) to find my objection "invalid" and "no further action will be taken on your objection" is outside the legislation. It left me with no legal course of appeal as outlined in the CS Acts.

In an email from the Ombudsmans Office, the ombudsmans representative clearly agrees that the CSA can not find an objection invalid as there is no legal scope under the CS legislation. Best in their words....
"There is no scope under the child support legislation for an Objection to be disallowed because it is "invalid"."

why do I now feel like I have just hopped onto the merry-go-round at the start of the ride again?

follow this subject at Dads On The Air (DOTA)

Erich S 2007

With sadness I read near the end of oh' seven

That our friend Erich had chosen heaven

Less than two weeks before

We discussed downfalls in law

The courts ill deeds

And your ex wife's greed's

You've left us all confused and grieving

But I can't help the feeling

There are two young boys

Whose hearts must be heaving

I'm feeling a bit angry at you

But I know all too well

We don't think about others

When on the verge of hell

I guess just like me

You were all about helping others

Not releasing your own pain

Or burdening your DIDS brothers

As we gather around

In our men's group a circled

We'll leave a chair vacant

For you to remind us

None of us is immortal

Nor immune to the pain

And asking for help

Might seem futile and vain

Just call on the phone

"I'm in pain", "I'm alone"

I know where you were at

I've been down there before

The deepest darkest depths of life

The smallest of things

Looms like trouble and strife

The life leash feels release

Looking for some kind of peace

Ross M

I read with sadness on the Dads On The Air website that Erich had suicided, I first met Erich about a year ago, after attending the Newcastle NSW DIDs meeting, he struck me as one the few who had overcome every obsticle thrown his way and endured, a survivor.

Despite all Erich had endured, he spoke proudly of his two boys, he was a dad, first and foremost. I know he held on too much to the hatred of those who had harmed his relationship with his sons, however the times I spoke with him, I felt he had these things in check, which makes his passing all the more confusing.

I've asked myself more than once over the last days, what was the straw that pushed Erich over the edge, was he carrying the burdens of so many other dads problems and his own problems? I know he spent one of his last days with us helping a newly separated dad move. Was it the prospect of yet another Christmas not seeing his sons? Was it something as simple as getting a traffic ticket?

Erich had at his disposal all the help DIDs can offer, yet he chose not to utilise those rescources. The greiving process has begun for those of us that called him a friend. It will be a hard Christmas for his sons, and not a very happy new year.

In this world there are heroes, victims and villains, and today I became aware of a story with all 3, a story that should disgust even the lowest of criminals in the dirtiest of jails.

Its the story of ten year old Jordon Lyon, who drowned saving his younger step sister in the UK in May this year, here is our hero. I would be proud to call him my son, wouldn't you. But for the tragedy of Jordon drowning, why did this story get up my goat enough to bring it to my blog.

For months now, it seems everyone in the UK has differing opinions on the behaviour of two PCSOs (police community support officers) who aparently arrived on the scene shortly after Jordon disappeared under water. Their actions (or inactions) have been supported by the UK police and the coroner who investigated Jordons death, you can read all about their actions simply by googleing Jordon Lyon, but they are not the reason I raise this subject matter.

So far it sounds like a fairly mundane story, kid drowns, public servants dont get their feet wet, that is until we read at Jordons memorial website
-----------------------------------------------------------------

..> ..> ..>..>

WHY DID NOBODY TELL ME	22nd Sep 2007
JOHN PRESTWICH from BLACKPOOL relation: FATHER
You gave your life to save another. I couldn't be more proud of you son. Hero at 10 year's old. 'If I went to heaven and you wern't there, I'd write your name on a golden stair.' 'I'd give the angels back there wings, golden harps and other thing's' Just to prove my love is true, I'd go through hell to get to you'. Tracey!!!! Contact me!!!!

-------------------------------------------------------

I found this via the dadsontheair.com website, copied from the disenfranchised dad blog, so I went searching on this amazing information highway and found an Interview with John Prestwich on BBC's 5live callback program.

Here is our victim, and what, I hear you ask, made my stomach churn, well, aparently John had not seen his son in 8 years and no one bothered to tell him his son had died.

WHY NOT? John, bless his heart and despite all he has been through, wont criticise Tracy. From my experiences with separated dads, this will be out of fear of loosing contact with his surviving son! I listened to his BBC interview and it raises questions, questions that need answers.

If John had disapeared with the boys 8 years ago, the police would have been involved and tracked him down, yet his ex, Tracey can do this and no one can find her.....

and people were criticising John for not doing enough to find his sons, right..... even if he had obtained a court ordered address, do you think Tracey would have been there, no, she would have moved on again. Here is the crap she fed him after he found out his son was dead
"I lost your contact details"
I for one would like to see published by the UK CSA her application for child support. I would bet $100 that his address is on it in her hand writting.
she also claimed "she moved to get away from someone else"
You couldnt contact John before you moved, you didnt even try did you, your lies dont cut it here honey, you may be able to sucker John, with the overhanging threat of doing it all again, but not me.

What a twisted tale, the villain playing the victim, the victim playing the "cover the villains tracks game" and the hero dead.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

Here is what gets me going, this woman has failed to notify CSA of the childs death, that is obvious because John would have found out months earlier. Here she is saying "I asked the police to find and tell John" yet the police claim that is the duty of the next of kin (the mum in this case).

I am sure had she contacted someone at CSA and said "our son is dead, I need to contact his father urgently" they would have co-operated. John contacted the CSA after he realised it was his son, and they refused to give him contact details. They didnt even pass on a note. Not their job, aparently! Given the circumstances, I think they had a moral duty as public servants....

So, if you meet a woman named Tracey Ganderton and she opens her mouth, presume its to spout bullshit

The sadest part of this story for any other dad in the same situation is that if Jordon had not drowned, John still would not have the slightest inkling of his sons whereabouts, and he would still be searching for his boys. None of us would be any the wiser to his situation. Most of the world couldnt care less for men in Johns situation. It wont happen to me! Perhaps the name John Prestwich should be in our marraige vows,
"I have read and understood the John Prestwich story and understand that it could be me"

Rest In Peace
Jordon Prestwich
the world is now aware of your fathers plight
your work here is done

The little hitlers in Cincinatti CSEA are missing the point of BIC, it's not just BIC of children from a previous relationship, It's BIC of all children.

http://dunes.cincinnati.com/pubnews/story.aspx?id=117017&siteID=1

Hamilton County CSEA Steals Support from Four Year Old
Contributed by D O
Wednesday, August 22, 2007


Posted By Cindy Cox
August 18, 2007

How would you feel if the government took over half your income and left you
with close to nothing to care for your family? And what if they took your
drivers license and car so you couldn't get to work? What if they made sure you
didn't have any credit, so you can't get a loan or a credit card? If that's not
enough, how about taking away your ability to keep a bank account? No way to
cash a check, save money, or pay bills. No income tax refund checks... you
can't have those, either. What if you couldn't own anything, like a home or a
car? Would you be able to live like this?

This is the plight of four-year old Nathan's family.

Nathan Thomas is a four year-old who loves his father. But Nathan is hungry and
soon to be homeless because of the excessive abuses and harrassment that his
father receives from the Child Support Enforcement Agency. For years the CSEA
has taken a gross amount of Nathan's support by withholding over half of his
father's paychecks, leaving him with less than $1000 per month to care for his
family. Nathan's father does the best he can on his meager take-home pay, and
has managed to continue struggling through over ten years of CSEA torture and
abuse. But this week the Hamilton County CSEA in Cincinnati wants to leave
Nathan without a home, food, and much more by taking the family's rent and bill
money.

On Monday, August 13th, the Hamilton County CSEA seized Nathan's mothers bank account- which held over $550 worth of the family's bill and rent money for August- because Nathan's Dad was listed on the account to help his mother pay the bills to support the four year-old.

Nathan's father works full time, and has been for years. Nathan's father pays
heavily in child support every month, including an amount specifically to back
child support owed from over ten years ago. But the Hamilton County CSEA and
State of Ohio decided that taking half of Nathan's support this month wasn't
good enough. So they took another 25% of his father's income, leaving the
family with $500 for the entire month to eat, pay bills, and attempt to live.
The monthly payment on the four-year old's home costs his mother $765 per month.
The actions of the Hamilton County CSEA have also left Nathan's mother's bank
account in the negative, so now she will have to face stiff bank charges,
overdraft fees, and penalties as well.... there goes the $500 the CSEA left the
family with this month to live on.

Nathan's father has been victimized for more than ten years at the hands of the
Hamilton County CSEA. Although Nathan's father has always tried to work honest,
earn a living, and support both his new family and his children from prior
involvements, the CSEA continues to make living life more difficult for him and
countless other fathers and families.

Hamilton County CSEA, in a supposed effort to make fathers pay, take drastic
actions such as suspending driver's licenses and professional licenses for
anyone who owes back child support, regardless of how recent or how much. How a
person is supposed to get to work and pay child support without a driver's
license is anyone's guess. How are a doctor or lawyer going to work to pay
child support if their licenses are revoked and they cannot work? No one in
seems to have any answers to these questions.

Furthermore, fathers at the mercy of the CSEA are prohibited from ownership.
They can't own a car, a home, or any personal property of value... if they do,
CSEA files liens and siezes the property. Apparently it doesn't matter to CSEA
if your car is your only transportation to work. The only way for victims of
the CSEA to protect themselves is simply not to own anything.

CSEA prevents fathers who owe child support from having credit of any kind.
They post negative credit ratings to their credit reports, making it impossible
for them to obtain loans, credit cards, or any other type of credit.
Interestingly enough, however, the CSEA officially maintains that owing child
support is not a "debt" and therefore a jailable offense (it is unconstitutional
to imprison someone for a debt so they have to find a way around it being a
"debt"). Whether they officially consider it a debt or not, they ruin the
credit of fathers who owe, ensuring they can never get ahead in life and better
themselves and their families.

And now the CSEA wants to ensure that fathers who owe support cannot have a bank
account, either. They also are now harrassing anyone associated with a father
who owes support by freezing their bank accounts as well. To the CSEA, it
doesn't matter that another child will suffer. When asked about the other
minor child in this situation who could be left homeless and hungry, the CSEA tells us they don't care and that Nathan Thomas doesn't matter.

Everyone who loves kids- and hates to see them suffer- should write and call
anyone who will listen about the plight of desperate families left barely able
to survive after the onslaught of CSEA intervention.

Contact your public servants with your outrage. They are enacting on your
behalf. If nothing else, do it for the truly innocent victim... four year old
Nathan Thomas.