The CSA claims that Mr Karoonian owes more than £10,000 in child maintenance arrears but he denies this.Amongst other criticisms, Lord Justice Ward said the wording of court summons sent to the two men had wrongly implied that they bore responsibility for proving that they did not owe the money claimed, thereby reversing the traditional legal burden of proof, when it is up to the accuser to prove their claims.Some form of government intervention in the child maintenance process is unavoidable.
Men are far more likely to contemplate suicide than women.
Here’s a link to a guardian article, a left wing feminist publication not known for its fair treatment of men, bit even they recognise it is a gender issue: What the Guardian doesn’t appear to recognise is that divorce and separation, losing regular contact with children, losing the majority of your assets and being forced by the courts to start all over again at the age of 40 or 50 is one of the main causes of suicide in men.
And the onus has been on the parent to prove why he shouldn’t be sent to prison, which reversed the traditional burden of proof.
Th[is] ruling means the burden of proof, the serving of summons notices and disclosure of documents will now be improved to a level similar to criminal proceedings – which is only fair if people are threatened with the ultimate sanction of imprisonment.” No one will be surprised to hear that the Department for Work and Pensions is unhappy with the judgement.
The crap that we mothers have to put up with because of vindictive, twisted ex partners is horrendous.
I should be the one on sickness benefit, he gave me a breakdown. I wouldn’t be so quick to discount suicidal thoughts.
A spokesman said: “It is extremely disappointing that parents who have flouted their legal responsibility to financially support their children have invoked the Human Rights Act to seek to continue to do so.” Perhaps – but if this judgement is correct, hasn’t the CSA flouted its legal responsibilities too?
The spokesman added: “Regrettably, we need every enforcement measure at our disposal to ensure the minority of irresponsible parents pay for their children. It is important to stress that this judgement does not question the legality of bringing parents who repeatedly refuse to pay for their children to the attention of magistrates, who can then decide whether to send them to prison.
In a robust judgement sure to cause consternation, the Court of Appeal has condemned the Child Support Agency (CSA) for “obnoxious” and “unreasonable” legal failings in threatening fathers with jail without giving them the right to defend themselves.
Sitting with the Lords Justice Patten and Richards, Lord Justice Ward said: “The procedures adopted do not comply with the rights to a fair trial and were flawed.” This was a test case, brought by a group of solicitors and barristers to establish whether the standard working practices of the CSA breached the rights of fathers under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We will of course consider any other implications of this judgement carefully and take the appropriate action.” The department is now thought to be considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.