If Conservatives are truly committed to social justice, 
then one of the issues they must tackle is the unfairness some fathers face during divorce and separation.
A father who cared for his children, and had the support of his ex-wife, has been jailed for 42 days for failing to pay a £45,000 backlog in maintenance over 12 years, but he cared for them in his own way and had the support of his ex-wife.
I understand that the law is the law, but surely each case should be decided on its own merits. Jail is meant to be the last option. Will he face a further jail sentence if he continues to flout the CSA requirements.
It appears that Michael Cox, a lawyer, equally shared the child care for his three sons, which enabled his former wife to work. He pleaded with Southampton magistrates to show discretion and spare him jail so he could continue to earn money to pay for the care of his children. His plea fell on deaf ears:
“I have been referred to as an absent father, but that’s not what I am. I’m a father who well knows the obligation to his children and I discharge that obligation. I feed all of my children, I clothe them, I house them – that’s what I spend my money on. The Child Support Agency gives me no assistance for that and requires me to spend the money twice.
“I say that makes it oppressive, unjust and discriminatory in its action. In this case you have two established families living in equilibrium.
“My ex-wife lives a mile away from me and the children pass easily between the two households. They spend half of the time with me and half of the time with their mother.”
I do wonder why Michael Cox and his former wife didn’t apply to the CSA to waive the maintenance payments in view of their circumstances, the reason why they were compulsory in these circumstances.
It certainly seems ludicrous that our prisons are releasing criminals early because they are full to make room for someone like Michael Cox for failing to conform with the CSA, but not causing anyone any suffering. His imprisonment is likely to cause hardship and an unnecessary financial burden on the state.
The CSA is a failing organisation. And last year Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton stated that he wanted to “come down like a ton of bricks” on absent parents who “are not discharging their duties legally or morally” in supporting their children.
That was not the situation in this case, Michael Cox was a supportive parent. I hope he appeals and wins his case.
And as a father himself, surely David Cameron knows the importance for children to have a loving father in their lives, he should ensure the law is fair to them too. I confess I do sympathise with Fathers4Justice, and with grandparents too who are denied access because of warring parents.
I think you are right here.
The siuation you desribe here sems not uncommon.
Most of the time I hear the words CSA, it’s in a negative light. I’m sure they do make a positive difference somewhere, but I think that the fathers who they harrass most are in fact the reasonable ones.
I have no answers, but I think the whole issue does need looking at.
Not an expert on this but the CSA does seem to have created a system that penalises “good” parents who are financially supporting their kids, etc while doing little or nothing to pursue those who contribute sweet FA to the maintenance of their kids. Apparently the CSA’s replacement- the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission – would have more powers to force reluctant parents to pay. We shall see.
Of course, fathers should fully support their children financially and emotionally following the break-up of a relationship. At the same time, Mothers should encourage contact with fathers and not use their kids as meal tickets, bargaining chips or sticks to beat their errant partner’s back.
Hi Elle, always a difficult one this.
What the court needs decide, is what is best for the child.
Too often what is at stake is the issues between the parents wanting to thrash out their differences or impose their will on the estranged partner, ie: she won’t give him access just to be a bitch – or – he demands access just because …
I think judges nowdays have little chance to use judgement, having to follow prescribed law, but in these instances one would need all the wisdom of king Solomon.
Though how many uk judges or judges in the US & EU posses such wisdom is hard to fathom.
I think there should be a set of Judges specifically appointed to deal with these cases, and not just to pass a (final) judgement on a given day, but to review the situation on an on-going basis.
I’m up for it, if Gordon is nominating new Judges for Family Courts, and or if any future Conservative Government is interested.
Courts in Canada remain fully weighted in the direction of the mother, regardless of how inadequate she might be. Unless she’s an axe murderer, she’ll get the kids.
Ian
This does, indeed, seem crazy. And they’re releasing “real” criminals!
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr Bumble,…”the law is an ass—- an idiot. If thats the eye of the law,the law is a bachelor;
Charles Dickens.
This seems to apply just as much today as it did then. He could very well be talking about these decisions.
I am not convinced this is as it seems. If the ex-wife was so supportive, why were the CSA involved in the first place?
It all smells fishy.
btw – am back from the brink.
I agree Ellee. It`s awful how some really great fathers get the short end of the stick.
tea
xo
Michael Cox, it appears is a lawyer. How could the situation get this far? Surely something could have been done earlier.
“I am not convinced this is as it seems. If the ex-wife was so supportive, why were the CSA involved in the first place?”
Alan,the CSA HAVE to be involved; if a mother claims income support their involvement is mandatory, and parents are in effect not allowed to make their own arrangements. The arrangement Michael and his ex-wife had was mature and responsible but invalid in the eyes of the law. Under the new system to be administered by C-MEC this will change, and parents will be allowed to make their own agreements. Some of the C-MEC arrangements are already in place, for example naming and shaming, so it seems particularly unjust that this case ever came to court, and the claim that it was politically motivated is probably justified.
What further insanity can the government of England or the United States where I reside foist upon children and mostly fathers? Here is but one example of an epidemic of oppression of the people. For some reason the government refuses to examine and right itself. Does the government suffer from addictive behaviors?
Well I don’t sympathise with fathers4justice at all. Even the chap who started it all has admitted it was a mistake. You get one crass abuse of the system by the government and everyone should feel sympathy for ALL fathers?? No. Sorry. There are just too many bastards out there whom the long suffering wife and kids cannot rid themselves of because of HIS rights, never mind the poor children. The government agencies are enforcing unsupervised access with schedule 1 offenders (that’s convicted peadophilies) and having police literally drag screaming children away from their mothers to be put in the care of abusing fathers. No no no. This is just another case of crass injustice on the part of the government and their substantial failing in these matters for ALL involved. I sympathise with this family. It is just an excuse for the government to get money, that’s all the CSA ever was.
This is unbelievable, isn’t it? Since they have joint custody and she also works why don’t they take that into account. As Eurodog says, he’s a lawyer, how come it wasn’t sorted long before this stage?
[…] coxDM2606_228×332 If Conservatives are truly committed to social justice, Michael_Cox_181053a then one of the issues they must tackle is the unfairness some fathers face during divorce and separation. A father who cared for his children … …more […]