Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Guantanamo Dad

F4J campaign posterIn yet another example of the absurdities caused by the complete inflexibility of the child support system, barrister Michael Cox was jailed yesterday for non-payment, despite his ex-wife pleading with the court not to jail him because she would then be forced to give up work and go onto benefits. Cox owes £43,000 to the CSA but is refusing to pay because his three sons spend half of their time with him and accordingly, he argues, he should not be treated as an absent parent.

Cox apparently gives legal advice to fathers' rights group Fathers 4 Justice, who believe he has been made a scapegoat because of his involvement with them. They state: "In effect he has become a political prisoner jailed by the CSA in a secret court for discharging all his responsibilities to his children - He has become a Guantanamo Dad".


  1. A few questions here.

    I'm assuming CB is in the ex's name.

    1.We don't know whether the ex has ever been in receipt of income support.If she was then the CSA have to become involved and the arrears should go to the S of S.

    But it appears to me the news article implies she has always worked,so all payments should go to her.

    Therefore if they had such a hunky dory arrangement, why didn't they just come to a private agreement and wave bye bye to the CSA? The PWC could have written in and asked the CSA to waive the arrears.

    2.Why does she have to give up work now and go on benefit ie IS? I think the kids are aged 16 and 13?

    3.Will Mr Cox be able to continue practising as a barrister or is this an issue for the Bar Council?

    4. £365 for 2 kids. Seems very low, especially for a barrister.Just like someone else's child support is!

    Mr Cox - the new martyr for F4J.

  2. Correction - 3 kids.

    Another news article describes him as a clerk.

    This is the problem we have just having to rely on news articles.

    Fancy having 5 boys too. What a handful :)

  3. I have a different query. He has been termed 'Guantanamo Dad'. Is there any suggestion at all that he was a) detained without trial or charge for years or b) denied proper due process? I suspect not.

    Arguments for and against his position aside, I do think that liking his position to the poor souls at Guantanamo Bay is well, just laughable...


Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.