sub52

From: Kathy Moon

Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:11 PM

To: Family Responsibilities

Subject: Striking the Balance

To Whom It May Concern

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to respond to “Striking the Balance” particularly commenting on paragraph 2 Chapter 5. This letter is not “Confidential”; I want people to know about this situation.

I am a sole parent with two-thirds shared custody with the father of daughters aged 10 and 14. I left their father after witnessing him molesting them 8 years ago, then spent 4 years battling for custody in the Sydney Family Court. The 4th time he took me to court for full custody, I had to represent myself as I had no money to pay for lawyers and Barristers. I managed to keep the Orders the same as originally set down by the Family Court in 1998, but my ex-husband has never been put in the witness box to account for his behaviour, because he takes me to Court. The 5th time my ex tried to take me to Court, I found a sympathetic lawyer who put my letter to her letterhead, saying we would consider suing him for “vexatious litigation”, if he tried to take me to court yet again.

I qualified in Social Work in 1983, and have lived and worked as a Social Worker in Centrelink and Welfare Rights, prior to and since marriage and starting a family in the Illawarra in 1990.

My issue is mainly with the Child Support Agency, who’s recent decision regarding my Objection to their Assessment, strongly indicates that they do not value the role of Motherhood. In April 2004 I completed a 12 month locum, 7 day fortnight as a School Counsellor for Centacare the Catholic Welfare agency. Immediately prior to that I completed a 7 month locum, full-time on Maternity Wards at Wollongong Hospital. I loved these jobs, but struggled to deal with early mornings, without before-school-care being available in or around my daughter’s school, and consequently having to drop the youngest at school, with no supervision at 8am, in order to get to work on time. The stress from these emotionally demanding positions led to illnesses and motherhood was given second place, so that homework wasn’t done, we lived on fast food and communications broke down, particularly with my now 14 year old Annie. The financial benefits of working were minimal, as when I work my Housing Trust Rent doubles, my after-school care costs quadruple and I lose all the health, and benefits of having a Pension card plus I get taxed heavily on gross income.

During this time I paid thousands of dollars for her and I to receive professional counselling, in which Annie apparently spent her sessions talking about dealing with her fathers continued emotional and verbal abuse. In March this year Annie was caught and cautioned by the police for shop lifting; an event that finally swayed me over to thinking that I must stay home for them.

The Child Support Agency, Case Manager asked for proof of the police intervention, in order to give the argument that I should no longer be deemed as earning $35,000 p.a. when I was home on a pension actually earning $12,000 pa. Her recommendation that I be deemed as earning what I actually have for the past 18 months, was overturned by the Senior Case Officer who asked “how many Social Work Positions I had applied for in the last 12 months?” to which I replied “about a dozen.” Apparently that wasn’t enough, though I don’t know what would be enough, in a specific profession with the limitations of single motherhood, and I wonder what qualifications he has to know what enough is. He said I could still work in Social Work during school hours. To which I replied “I’d gladly take a job in school hours if it was available”

Meanwhile, my Ex-husband who set up a transport business while I supported him and ran the household was turning over $2,000,000pa when I left him in 1997. Child Support Agency do not have the powers to investigate his actual wage and profits so continue to deem him as earning $55,000pa, his taxable income, despite overseas trips for him and the girls, buying a second property with his partner and other indications of earning a lot more than this. The Senior Case Officer accepted that my ex-husbands business had retained profits of $59,279 and also accepted his explanation that retained profits are an essential part of operating a business. So the CSA’s SCO’s logic is that the retained profits in his business are more important, than the fact that my kids live under the poverty line, when they live with me.

I feel like I am being punished financially by choosing the right thing by my kids and ultimately society: motherhood.

Yours sincerely,

Kathryn Moon BSW, Adv Dip Fine Arts