Fathers’ rights campaigner is jailed in child support battle | the Daily Mail
June 26, 2007
|
Posted by ANCPR
Fathers’ rights campaigner is jailed in child support battle | the Daily Mail
Last updated at 11:41am on 26th June 2007
A legal clerk who refuses to pay child support to his ex-wife because their three teenage sons spend half their time with him has been jailed.Michael Cox, 43, a prominent member of Fathers for Justice, has failed to pay maintenance for 12 years because he claims the system is “oppressive, unjust and discriminatory” towards men.
One of his 13-year-old twin sons burst into Southampton magistrates’ court to plead for his father not to be jailed.
Mr Cox’s ex-wife, Lesley Peach, also begged the court not to lock him away because in his absence she would have to give up her job in a taxi office and look after her children full time.
More follows…
But a 42-day suspended prison sentence was activated because he refuses to pay a £45,000 backlog. The magistrates’ chairman Christine Smith said: “We are satisfied that the interest of the children have been considered.”
Mr Cox, who has two more children with his second wife Beth, is paid nothing for the time he looks after his three teenage boys, but the Child Support Agency demands he pay their mother £365 a month for the time they are with her. He said: “It is outrageous that people are released early from prison for serious crimes and yet I’m being locked up, as a caring father.”
Michael Cox with his three teenage sons
The court heard Mr Cox, from Hythe in Hampshire, split from his first wife in 1994. Apart from the twins they have another boy of 16.
Since his 40-year-old ex-wife, who has remarried, receives child tax credits she is considered to be the official parent, or “registered parent with care”. This status means she also is entitled to child maintenance.
In cases where one parent is absent this arrangement is useful because it helps work out who should be paying.
But Mr Cox, a trained lawyer who advises Fathers for Justice on legal matters, claims it is unfair in his case because it does not take into account the fact he looks after his children half the time.
Mr Cox, who represented himself, told Southampton magistrates: ‘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 CSA 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. My ex-wife is not a little old lady living in a shoe, reaching in the back of a cupboard for the last tin of beans.
“This is not about the law. According to the law I’m dead in the water, I’m bang to rights.”
After Mr Cox was led away in handcuffs his 32-year-old second wife, a junior school teacher, said: “It just defies all logic and sense. The sentence has impoverished two families, on both sides – both him and his exwife.”
Mrs Peach said: “The boys are in tears and very upset about this. The CSA are not looking out for their interests at all and are just damaging the children.
“I am happy with the arrangement between my ex husband and myself and at the moment don’t want any money from him.
“We both help each other out and compromise: right now he is having the children an extra night a week so I can work. It’s fine.
“Now he’s been jailed I may have to stop working and go on to benefits because I can’t work and look after the kids at the same time.
“It’s ridiculous.”
The hearing was attended by a dozen Fathers for Justice members.
The group’s founder Matt O’Connor said: “It is utterly disgusting to jail a very courageous and brave individual and a loving father who cares for his children.”
The CSA, which is currently being reformed, said: “We cannot comment on individual cases.”
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: Courts and Legislatures, News, Protests and Groups
|
Leave a reply
The CSA and the judge would make Hitler proud.
NOW, trendy Airing of Politically Correct Dirty laundry facilitates the hiding within and propagation thereby of the more concerning Dirty Laundry Wrapped within – i.e., open discrimination and incitation of Hate.
NOW, lobbying organizations for such endeavors work legs of which the otherwise the more silent guardians to Ms. Liberty apparently cannot compete.
God Bless America/(where-ever),
The land of opportunity,
Where Prostitution is legalized,
Parenthood criminalized,
For money idolized.[1]
– just adad
——————————————————————————–
[1] Simultaneously with the banning of a book (corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts) in Massachusetts by a Massachusetts’ Judge, which book had been authored by a High School Physics teacher out of concern for justice, individual liberty rights and our legacy for our children; in another region of the country (Nevada), a judge was (perhaps still is) directing a company in the distribution of “sex” how-to’s for recruits unto the “sex” trade/union/business/whatever, which was under then tagging of “Air force, Amy, Inc.” efforts to procure from the United States Patent and Trademark Office a registration for the Trademark “Hooker Boot Camp.” Hence, the coined phrase – “Sometimes, Truth IS Stranger the Fiction.” See, US Trademark Application Serial Number 78839344, filed March 16, 2006 (such as à Word Mark HOOKER BOOT CAMP for Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Electronic publications, namely, books, magazines, newsletters featuring classroom and personalized instruction about legal prostitution recorded on computer media. FIRST USE: 20060207. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060207; (ABANDONED) IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Educational publications, namely, training manuals in the field of legal prostitution and self improvement. FIRST USE: 20060207. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060207; (ABANDONED) IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Developing educational manuals for others in the field of legal prostitution and self improvement. FIRST USE: 20060207. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060207)
Government gone awry…
political and bureaucratic automatons that cannot “judge” but simply apply a formula..
no courage to think for themselves…
don’t fool yourselves, this happens here in the good ol USA all the time. Rise up people, this is absurd!
I’ll tell you the truth of the matter. The CSA does not care about the well-being of the children or the family. All they care about is the money. Here, you have a mother telling the CSA from her own mouth that “at the moment she doesn’t want any money” and the system completely disregards her request. The mother doesn’t need the money the system does. They must keep the funds rolling in order to collect on the interest. There comes a time when compromising, caring and communication means more than just financial gain. Mr. Cox and his ex-wife have reached that point. Mr. Cox is absolutely right, “IT’S OPPRESSIVE” and down right ridiculous. This is a case where harmony has been established within the family and the system has brought about confusion. Keep them in your prayers!
In the USA the courts don’t care and NO it’s not, and never has been in the “best interest of the children”. In the USA the states recieve sixty-six cents on the dollar for every dollar that is accounted for through the system. The USA system prefers that the “through the system” be wage garnishment. The courts and let’s not forget the lawyers that keep the system running smoothly want all fathers to not be involved with the children and only considered as a source of funds because this forces the courts “to take into consideration” reducing the amount of extortion if the father is with the children 35% of the time or more than 58.8 hours a week which rarely happens. So when the USA courts encounter a father that prior to divorce was involved far more than this or the mother actually allowed far more than this there is spmething terribly wrong with father in that “he is not being a man” and “taking care of his family”; the courts neglect to include that the “family” referenced are the judges, attorneys, case workers and everyone else that directly benefits from the flow of money; a jailed father does not generate money for HIS children, just the system because while his life is suspended in prison, the extortion debt keeps on accruing.
It is nice to see a guy do the right thing.
The reasoning behind child support enforcement laws are illogical and therefore unethical, and I must add it has less to do with gender and more to do with its reasoning which is, the law is right because it is right. In the US the Bradley Amendment impedes citizens rights to argue this faulty reasoning which is a breach of the First Amendment (as well as the Fifth Amendment). The real issue here and the one upon which a logical argument can be made is the imposition of an illegal law.
The Bill of Rights was written to protect citizens from government impositions like these. It is imperative to utilize these rights not just for Fathers but for all who are effected by these illegal laws. It is unfortunate that the ‘Father’s Rights’ (discrimination against fathers) platform is viewed in an unsympathetic light by most and although indeed valid has not been effective in appeal or exercise. I would like to reiterate this wisdom – Einstein said, ‘A problem cannot be solved from the same level upon which it exists.’ In this instance I would apply that to the argument for sympathy based upon traditional family gender roles, it is from this viewpoint, economic and sexist discrimination, from which these current laws were originated. I believe a neutral platform must be maintained and where one can currently be found is with the appeal of the Bradley Amendment so further redress can be ensued.
Also it would be most helpful to begin to appeal to society for a rethinking of these issues. Exercise rational reasoning of these laws in the public and legal forums. Refuse to comply with illegal illogical laws. Compliance equates to acceptance and acceptance perpetuates the illogical rational which make these laws acceptable to the general public and therefore sustains them. Refuting child support in itself is not an ethical action, but if ones wages are not currently garnished, pay directly to the custodial parent because you want to support your children and you have the means to do so keeping sound and verifiable records, but refuse to pay through a third party or if you do not have the means to support yourself and/or your nearest duty because in doing so you would be breaking your own constitutional rights and it would be unethical for yourself and all Americans who rely on the protection of these rights. I imagine one can come up with their own non-compliant code of conduct based along these lines.
Libertymom:
“Compliance equates to acceptance and acceptance perpetuates the illogical rational which make these laws acceptable to the general public and therefore sustains them.”
Well said. I’ve been trying to make that point on this message board for about two years now. As long as we continue to go along with the program, there is no reason for them to change anything.
“Refuting child support in itself is not an ethical action”
I have to disagree with you there. It seems to me the unethical action is the kidnapping of millions of children from their fathers for the obvious reason … child support …
“but if ones wages are not currently garnished, pay directly to the custodial parent because you want to support your children and you have the means to do so keeping sound and verifiable records”
Sure, paying the support directly to your ex-spouse is fine as long as you are happy with the arrangement. However, if you are not happy with the arrangement and feel you are being denied appropriate access to your children, then you are hurting every non-custodial parent out there by paying.
“but refuse to pay through a third party or if you do not have the means to support yourself”
I think most people pay through a third party because that’s the way they are able to get the matching federal dollars. It’s pretty hard to pay anything when you can’t support yourself. I agree people need to stop paying … no matter what … the sacrifice.
“your nearest duty because in doing so you would be breaking your own constitutional rights and it would be unethical for yourself and all Americans who rely on the protection of these rights. I imagine one can come up with their own non-compliant code of conduct based along these lines.”
I couldn’t agree with you more on this point. By paying the extortion, you put all Americans at risk for loss of liberty.
Thanks for the intelligent input.
Take Care
Kevin Merck