Civil Rights Routinely Removed From Absent Fathers

September 4, 2011

On the summons it clearly stated “ …the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission applies for a Liability Order under section 33 of the said Act to be made against you and you are required to show cause why such an order should not be made” (my italics).

In the event, this was a deceit. No ‘opportunity to show cause’ was allowed.

Now in a third-world tyranny you might expect that the state could say that you owe a sum of money and then without any right of challenge for a court order to be made ordering that it be paid. But this was British Justice – the Internationally Famous British Justice system at work.

I arrived at the court with evidence to show that the CSA had overestimated my income by £7,500 over 2 years and that their resulting Liability Order was overestimated on this basis. This inflated Liability Order was despite them being given:

  • my contract to show my working hours and projected income
  • 7 out of 10 wage slips from the first year (from which they selected the highest)
  • my P60 showing my annual earnings
  • 25 letters and notes and additional phone calls describing my income

The magistrates however, were advised, on the basis of Section 33(4) of the Child Support Act 1991 that they were not allowed to look at the evidence and that they should apply the order as it stood. They ignored Section 33/3 of the act which provides that the justices:

“shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.”

This decision, and all the others made in Magistrates’ Courts around the country in applying CSA / CMEC Liability Orders to absent fathers demonstrate British Justice as a Kangaroo Court. This is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding. The outcome of a trial by Kangaroo Court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defence at all. As such it is a disgrace to the British Justice System.


  • martin dell says:

    get in contact with dwp corrpution and show them your case

  • John says:

    I would say that this is worthy of investigation by the serious fraud office. Obtaining money by deception, and it could also be deemed to be Blackmail, as there are threats if you fail to pay. Worth consideration?

  • Craig says:

    Time for an uprising this corruption is getting out of hand

  • Craig says:

    That is also a violation of the Human Rights Act 1998 article 6 also a violation of the Fraud Act 2006 section 4.

    They are also violating the Magna Carta the law of the land. I would hate to be in their shoes when people start to retaliate God help them.

  • Nicola says:

    Hi there,

    Me and my partner are in the same situation. They have predicted he earnt well over his net income from years 2014-2015 and has slumped us with a 9,000 bill! My partner was self employed at the time and didnt earn next to that let alone having to pay it all to child maintenence.

    We have sent proof of his earnings for that year however they have stated this was handed in too late and we now have to pay £9,000 for that year.

    How is this possible when he didnt even earn half of this in the whole year due to been self employed! They stated they calculated their estimation by means of research….. How is this right when we have given proof, and exact readings of his earnings through hmrc.

    We will be taken to court and i can imagine because of section 33(4) of the child maintenence act we wont even be given the time of day to give our own statement.

    There goes our future & our home! Who has 9,000 stashed away?!

  • >