Most people agree that " Deadbeat Dads " should be pursued vigorously to recover dodged child support payments, but it seems that a legal loophole allows " double dipping " that can prevent a visiting overseas parent from returning to their country - and becoming a virtual prisoner in Australia.
It seems that our Department of Human Services Child Support programme does not recognise overseas court decisions which settle child support in divorce cases. Different laws apply and in some instances the share of mutual assets is the basis of settlement and that can become the factor that compensates in child support matters.
In one recent instance, a couple who divorced in England arrived at an amicable settlement and some time later the wife remarried and moved to Australia with her new husband. She then applied to the Australian Human Services department for child support - and this was granted against her former husband.
When this man visited Australia to maintain contact with his children he was presented at the airport with a " no fly " ban issued by this department - for non payment of child support in Australia, despite his English divorce having already settled that matter to that courts satisfaction.
Basically, he became a prisoner in this country, prevented from returning to his job, home and new family on the other side of the world by what he must surely have thought was an act of treachery. It seems a legal position in one country can be arbitrarily overturned in a foreign jurisdiction - and this order required him to remain here until the money was forthcoming.
It seems that this is becoming a familiar problem between jurisdictions in Britain and New Zealand - and former partners that now either live in Australia, or visit Australia on access visits to maintain contact with their children.
We obviously need a law change to sort this matter out. The obvious solution would be an agreement between the governments involved to accept as final the decisions of each countries divorce courts on child support matters. Divorce is an unfortunate reality, but when a court applies finality that should be the end of the matter as far as future liability is concerned - and both parties should be free to get on with their life without the threat of " unexpected consequences " !
No comments:
Post a Comment