Fair go for Dads ( and my little brother)

Now I realise the contraversy I will cause with this and am prepared to justify it with a true scenario. But I applaud the changes envisaged for support payments of non custodial parents , I applaud them for several reasons. One is because of my brother and his situation with his son and the other because it catches up with deceiving nasties as my brothers ex. Do not get me wrong, I do not have a good relationship with my brother ,we have different politics and ideals , and it is a wonder we even have the same parents we are so diverse. And I do not hate my brothers ex, we had the greatest time together and our children are only 14 month apart so we cemented out relationship in that process too. She chooses not to stay in contact, I still send her birthday cards, Christmas cards and cards for the kids(even her new kids) birthday. So there is nothing more in this than what I have experienced and saw my little bruver go through.

My brother has custody of his son for school holidays and alternating Christmas and birthdays, his son lives interstate where his mother took him when he was 9 month old, without my brothers permission or knowledge. My brother worked 14/7 to pay for the investigator who located his ex and his son, 6 months later....In another state. He then applied for custody/visitations rights etc...He was denied custody and visits without the ex about as she was still breastfeeding him ( my nephew was 20months old by this time)!!! He finally got visits in the state only when his son was almost 2years old...Until then my nephew hardly knew who his Dad was. At 3, they went to Court to sort out interstate visits and support benefits ( up until then and after his ex was receiving benefits from Centrelink but was living in a defacto relationship with another guy) the solicitors advised my brother and her that as the agreement; was amicable and my brother was paying above the accepted amount of support for his income bracket plus was supplying his son with new clothes at each visit; that there was no need to have the agreement ratified by the Court. Over the next 4 years, my nephew came over for school holidays (alternating or when his mum and new hubby were holidaying and needed a babysitter) often the hols did not fit in with the holidays here so we would get together for the kids on weekends at the beach or the zoo or such. Meanwhile, my brother was paying for airfares to travel to collect his son, bring him back to Melb, travel back with him and then his return. Once my nephew was old enough and ok with it, he traveled back and forth alone in the company of a steward/ess...My brother still paid for these trips each and every time.
About 8 months ago, Ex decides that marriage no 2 ( my brother and her were never married but in a defacto, I still considered her my sister in law) needs more money , hubby has his own flourishing business which is franchising out, they travel OS biannual, she has a daughter and my nephew attends a private school ( fees paid for by my brother) but she needs a cash injection. SO lets apply to the Child Support Agency( CSA) for support, forgetting the in excess of a grand paid into a bank account in her name each month for support, the school fees, the clothes and the paid airfares when they need a baby sitter. CSA, in their wisdom, check nothing but send my brother a bill (calculated retrospectively) for in excess of $20k. Then then wipe out his bank account. They also place a garnishee order on his salary. He contacts them, telling them he has receipts for all payments made to her account since the inception for the agreement, plus the agreement signed by both of them and witnessed by the solicitors for each party. No , sorry , you can show it to us in Court, agreement?? Was it ratified by the Court? NO? Sorry, means nothing.
What has happened is that little miss ex has told CSA that she has received NOTHING from my brother ever...So they hand over his $20k to her. Plus ongoing garnished payments for the next 6 months. I can talk about his now as the matter has been through the Court and resolved.
Under advisement from his solicitor, my brother did the following:
Firstly, my brother contacted Centrelink to tell them she was getting benefits when she was living with someone and he supplied copies of receipts for all the payments he made to her( she told them she was not getting any support). He sent copies to CSA also. Centrelink went after her for overpayment and CSA adjusted the amount my brother "owed" by the amount she had be overpaid by Centrelink ( ain't it grand the way Govt dept. work together, NOT).
After the matter went to Court, it was found that my brother was paying well above the expected amount of support and another agreement (very similar) was drawn up and RATIFIED by the Court. CSA refunded my brother his $20k plus his garnisheed salary, inclusive of interest. This money come from a special fund for cases like this when they have to give the money back, as Miss Ex spent most of the $20k, she has to repay CSA...Shame this does not work in reverse!!! She also had to repay Centrelink for the 4 years ( we thought it was only 2 or 3) of claiming single parent benefit, inclusive of rent assistance. Her husband wrote a cheque that day in Court for the money ( over $30k)

So now you see?? I realise that for every one of these horror stories for Dads there is probably 2 or 3 for a mum. But it is just so you realise it is not always the Dad who is the deceiver, the recalcitrant payer, the one leaving the kids without ( which is why my brother pays the school fees direct to the school and buys the clothes for my nephew himself instead of sending the money to her)
This is just another side to the story, another piece and as I said; my brother is no angel but he loves his son and deserves to be part of his life for as long as his son wishes him to be. This issue should not be about money inso much as equality and rights, the rights of child to see their non custodial parent, the equality of the sexes to share parenting and the rights of the individual to have justice done.