MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

One of the major barriers to achieving presumptive shared care is a fair and reasonable child support system to support the presumption.

There is no doubt that the current Child Support Act 1991 was designed at a time when shared parenting was a “rarity” and the assumption was one custodial parent and one liable parent was the norm.

Talking to a number of people it is obvious that very few people actually understand how the variation of the child support (TAX) for shared care actually works.

So how does the Act cater for shared care?
- By adjusting the living allowance, the percentage applied or both.
- Here is a summary and some examples.

Remember the formula is (a-b) x c = Child Support (TAX) payable

Where:
a=gross (before tax) income
b=living allowance
c = the child support (TAX) percentage

Where parents share care (40% of the nights, 146 night a year) shared care exists. Under this situation both parents can claim child tax as both parents are effectively custodial parents.

Many parents have disputes over this and IRD ignore court orders as having little relevance.

A parent may have a Family Court ordered parenting agreement that states care is shared 50/50 and IRD will not act on that alone as they maintain they want to “know what the real situation”.

It is also possible to have less than 40% of the nights but have “substantially equal shared care”. The same formula application would apply.

How much does the Percentage Change?

Let’s look at a family where one parent is in receipt of the DPB and the other with an assessable income in a range from 30-80K and has shared care of a single child and has not re-partnered.

Note: Figures are generated using IRD 150 and are for the tax year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. Living allowance is $24,919.

So what’s that produce? Many would argue a blatantly unfair result.

Remember the entire Child support collected will go to “recovering the DPB” and no money will pass directly to either parent for care of the child.

The DPB recipient will stand to loose $730 for sharing care with the other parent.

Note, if the other parent is not receiving a benefit they can choose not to collect any money from the DPB recipient. This of course increases their payment by $730 per annum as no offset occurs.

Note how the more the working parent earns the greater the contribution required.

The formula serves well to recover a benifit but actually discourages shared care, the best outcome for children, by :
-Costing the DPB a significant ammount of their income
-Attempting to equalise income between households (effectively spousal maintenance)

Have a look at the figures above and for a 50/50 share of care and answer this question : How on earth is the result fair or reasonable.

I will publish more examples of how shared care works and the anomalies if requested.

Regards

Scrap

N.B. Comments on this thread will be moderated and any off topic will be deleted.

Copyright James Nicolle 2007

From Stuff….(link)

I don’t believe I have just read this; please just let NZ drop off the bottom of the planet – save us the embarrassment.

“In recent time we had a recruit (NZ Police Recruit) being taught by a consultant, literally, how to write letters of the alphabet by drawing within bubble letters in the same style as a five-year-old.”

With comment from the girl’s brigade (Annette King, Lyn Provost, Greg O’Connor)

2007�

Hon. Annette King

Minister of Police

Parliament Buildings
Wellington�

RE: CRN 4090040820/1�

Dear Ms. King,�

I refer to my correspondence of 2^nd & 14th March 2007.�

You have failed in your duty as the Minister of Police to address the concerns that I have raised, being of a significant nature in the processes and policy of Policing in West Auckland.�

You have further declined to nominate any preference for the receipt of Service Documentation initialising a lawsuit against the New Zealand Police.Neither have you sought any mediatory action, therefore I will use my laymen’s best practice to progress the complaint, under judicial advocacy. �

The anti-male bias of current Policy and Procedures have been further highlighted on national television for which I provide you with a link as follows �

http://menz.org.nz/2007/police-10-7-video-of-callout-for-female-offender/�

The information given out by your sworn Officer is discriminatory and has no basis in law.�

It is regrettable that the New Zealand Police Force has gender biased policies built into its structure that creates the framework for this type of peripheral Systemic abuse.I would prefer to engage in constructive dialogue, enabling resolution and a path forward that remedies the current situation, rather than litigating to have punitive measures against the Police achieving the same. � � � � � �

I am further providing the following link http://familycourtnewzealand.bravehost.com/policepersecution.html � to provide you refreshment of the atrocity that I suffered and the actions undertaken by the Constabulary.� � �

Yours Faithfully

Paul Catton�

Fathers Coalition
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families (09) 940 6236

http://policewatch-nz.blogspot.com/

During a domestic argument, you head-butt your partner in the face; breaking their nose and spraying the children with blood.

You would expect the police follow their mandatory arrest policy, lock you up overnight, take out a domestic protection order, and charge you with assault. You might be seen to jail, or depending where you live, a Living Without Violence programme run by men if you are lucky, or one run by feminists if you’re not.

You only see your children at supervised access for the next year or so, at the end of which time it is obvious to everyone that custody should go to the primary caregiver ie: mum. You spend the next decade or so as an indentured servant to IRD Child Support, perhaps seeing your kids a few days a month. Right guys?

Well no, not if you’re a woman…

Video excerpt from Police 10-7, broadcast on NZ TV2 on 22nd May 2007.

To be fair to two of my local policeman, they acted pretty compassionately and used their discretion quite sensibly in my opinion. (more…)

Police today released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act which comes into force this Friday. They have had a difficult time figuring out how they will enforce this law because “Non Consequential” is vague as well as other definition of words.

this is the law

New Section 59
(more…)

I came across tonight while perusing STUFF:
Drink driving mum with kids in car hit truck
Female counsellor had sex with girl
Drunk Christchurch girls worry police
Further remand for woman accused of murdering toddler
Mum admits hitting her children with hammer
(wait to see what this woman gets sentenced, due up on 27 Augus, compared to the sentence a man-hammer-woman just got: 7 years)
Hammer-attacker jailed for seven years

God bless New Zealand.

Palmerston North Family Court Lawyer Penny Clothier throws in the towel.

Family Lawyer throws in the towel

Well worth a listen

Regards

Scrap

Hi there,

I have just recieved my second child support bill? in the mail. It is $450 per month for a child that I have never seen or been able to see. The boy in question was born 3 years ago yet the child support demands only emerged last month through the IRD.

Imagine the following circumstances….
- As a horny 19 year old I met a cute girl of 24.
- We hooked up and she told me she was on the pill and refused to use condoms.
- It turns out that she miscarried twins three weeks prior to meeting me.
- She lived with her divorced, alcoholic mother and the 5 year old son of her sister who is in prison for GBH.
- She fell pregnant.
- She told me all she wanted was a child and would not abort.
- Said that she wanted never to hear from me again and not to try and “find” her.
- I dealt with this by considering myself a sperm donor and got on with my life.
- 3 years on and the child support bill comes through and I have no idea where my son is and how to contact her and why suddenly I have to pay even though she “never wanted to hear from me or see me again.” I had considered a relationship with the child but she refused me this and I had to get over it and carry on…

I feel like I was tricked into giving her a child and she manipulated me when (as I said) I was nothing more than a horny young man, drunk on the attention that she gave me. Now I feel that I am paying to support her and whatever habits she has…and have got nothing in return except for a lousy shag.

Do I have any options? I’d really appreciate someone to talk to about this as I have just paid them and put them out of my mind and it’s killing me inside.

The-Milky

I swear I could have been reading about NZ……….

Law, Culture, and the Marriage Strike

A huge concern for those advocating the marriage strike (myself included), is the inequity facing men in Family Courts. Many of the sites say something like, “Until the law changes, men are increasingly refusing to get married.”

I would say that it should take a lot more than a few changes in the law to end the marriage strike.

I have been convinced for some time now that cultural norms shape everything that happens in society. That’s why liberalism is called “social engineering”.

Many men say that no man should marry an American women at all. Ever. There’s a reason for that, usually unspoken.

One of the best pieces of wisdom I ever received was from a friend who said, “We all breathe the same air.” It is one of the most useful rules of thumb I have ever used.

American women, no matter their station in life, background, family upbringing, or religious background, have been exposed nonstop to the feminist poison for 30+ years. It’s in the air (literally, if you consider the ubiquity of television).

What is happening in the law courts is a function of this. Law is, in large part, a product of culture. A new, cancerous counterculture has entered into a section of the previous culture that is incompatible with it, because it runs counter to the previous cultures fundamentals. Therefore, a system of law posited on old values - and old culture - has become dysfunctional.

Before the law and the courts can be fixed, the culture needs to be fixed. Barring that, we must either withdraw from the feminist culture, or establish our own strong subculture. The increasing number of men’s right blogs and websites is an attempt to build a patriarchal subculture.

So, for you reading this that think, “MY American woman is different,” I have a thought for you. I will assume for the sake of this argument that you are 100% correct, and grant that, yes, your woman does NOT suffer from feminist infection.

That is…she does not suffer from it…today.

You see, it is like saying, “I’m healthy.” There is always the chance for you to become unhealthy, and much depends upon your lifestyle and environment. The fact is, we do not in the United States have a culture that is healthy and conducive to the preservation of traditional families.

The fact is, every women lets up a bit after she gets her man. Moreover, if she is traditionally-minded, she will then stay home while you go to work. She may begin by keeping a spotless house.

But you can bet that television is going to get turned on. And she’ll start talking to the other women in the neighborhood. And she’ll meet other American women while doing her shopping.

And of course, YOU as her husband will be a topic of conversation. They’ll tell her that you’re not making enough money. They’ll tell her that you don’t spend enough time with the kids. They’ll tell her you aren’t home enough. They’ll tell her you’re a monster. They’ll tell her she deserves better. NO MATTER WHAT!

You will be helpless to protect yourself and your wife from this onslaught, because you will be busy working.

And they’ll start getting inside her head, poisoning it with feminism - because THAT, unfortunately, has become the dominant culture here.

After she’s accepted the feminist world-view, the death trap for men awaits - Family Court. It is the tool the feminists have forged to bludgeon men into submission and extract material resources from them. Divorce is the engine for women to have children (satisfying “baby rabies”) and at the same time be independent of men’s influence and rightful claims. It does this by confiscation of the man’s wealth and disposing of the man. Yes, American women say we can’t handle an independent woman. That’s because the independent American woman is independent at the financial and emotional expense of the American man. They are independent because they take and give nothing in return. Few can handle that.

That’s why the marriage strike is happening and is important. It is our best chance to save ourselves from this fate and at the same time redefine the culture. How? By refusing to participate in the dominant, feminized culture, and either withdrawing (expatriating) and/or forming a strong, well-defined subculture with strong taboos and social ostracism for violating those taboos. The best of both worlds is to expatriate with a critical mass of men who share the same vision, marrying foreign women and establishing a strong subculture there.

Is there any hope in America to prevent the feminazification of your wife, American or foreign, from happening? Only slightly.

Your and your wife have to agree to belong to a particularly strong subculture. Immigrants (especially ethnic churches) where the members live close to each other are good. I can’t think of any others.

Go here to catch some of the spirit of father’s day.

I’ll add my own message to the above too……..

Happy Father’s day Dad. You’ve supported me tremendously…..and thinking of your example you continue to. I love you Dad.