Issues with the Child Support Act 1991
This was a list of issues with the child support tabled with David Cunlifee, the Minister Responsible for child Support in 2004 on the steps of Parliament.
I would like to seek suggestions for further issues to pass onto Peter Dunne.
Please keep them concise.
MEN’S CONVOY 2004
Men on the Move for
Child Support Reform
1. A “one size fits all” formula assessment.
2. The objects of the Child Support Act 1991 focus on “benefit recovery” and not the best interest of children.
3. The formula assessment is based on gross (before tax) income.
4. Voluntary agreements can be replaced by a formula assessment at any time.
5. No account is taken of Student Loan commitments when calculating the formula.
6. The living allowance of the formula assessment takes no account of the cost of access for liable parents.
7. The departure order process is fundamentally flawed, with Administrative Review Officers and Judges trapped in a system that is locked in a set of precedents from the early 1990’s.
8. There is no accountability that the money collected actually goes to support children.
9. Administration and application of the Child Support Act by Inland Revenue favours the custodial parent at the expense of the paying parent and child.
10. The living allowance takes no account of any extra necessary payments made by the paying parent.
11. Ability of the Commissioner to create a Child Support income that defies Standard Accounting Principles to inflate paying parents income to unrealistically high levels that do not reflect the real income of the parent.
12. A reciprocal agreement with Australia that subjects New Zealand Parents to Australian Legal process and Law.
13. A ballooning debt crises that points to a fundamental failure if the “simple formula” ” approach of the Child Support Act 1991
Regards
Scrap
Posts RSS 2.0
Tell him we stand upon his doorstep with neither forgiveness nor forbearance.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 12:05 am
Comment ONE = BOTHERING
Onward - Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 10:40 am
Add 14 - Any Bureaucrat seen to damage a Childs relationship with any part of their **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY** without due process, will be dismissed and proscuted.
Onward - Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 10:46 am
Scrap,
Here are some items you may wish to add to the list.
1. There is absolutely no recognition in the Child TAX Act or by our political “leaders” that, when a Family separates, there are now TWO complete households to support and [generally] the same or a lesser amount of money.
2. There is no allowance for the cost of maintaining a home where I am able to see my Team of 3. If it were just me on my own, I may manage with only one bedroom, but when my 3 arrive this becomes untenable.
3. There is no allowance for the ABSOLUTE right of every Child to be raised by BOTH parents, whether or not they reside in the same household. Instead, our political “leaders” extort Child TAX at a level where many Parents are forced to choose between seeing their children and being able to subsist/survive.
4. General taxation (Income Tax or PAYE and GST) pays for ALL benefits. Taxing some Parents based on the number of Children they have in order to “recover benefit payments” is simply unlawful double taxation. In reality, the approx. $170 million they collect to offset the $2,400 million DPB bill is ridiculous when you consider it costs nearly $70 million to collect it.
5. The “Child Support Agency” are responsible for the administration of the Child
SupportTax Act. However, at the direction of the government, they have deliberately put aside their duty of care to ALL the people (Mums, Dads AND Children) who are affected by the law to become a group who:exist solely to collect Child Tax;fail to follow their own processes and procedures;knowingly give out improper and untimely advice;actively create alleged “debt” to provide [through the punitive penalties system] revenue for the crown;If our political “leaders” had even one ounce of integrity between them, this law would never have been passed. Every politician including Davis (nee Clark), Cullen, Dunne, Brownlee, English, Cunliffe, Palmer and Lange are all guilty of nothing less than VIOLENT CHILD ABUSE.
It has to change. The politicians are accountable and we will hold them responsible.
Comment by Mark Shipman — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 12:16 pm
This is great stuff MEN,
I commend those working on these issues that currently tear our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILIES** apart as Mark-S has so HandsOnClearly illustrated.
I am priveleged to know Marks Kids and can assure you he is a dearly loved DAD and FATHER.
Dare I suggest that NUMBER 1/One and 2/Two must be after **Equal** Parenting is the governing foundation of ALL Family Law and Social Policy
Preferably HandsOnEqualParenting so that Kids have the opertunity to be HandsOnEqualParented by their own Mum and Dad and the Whole extended Family NOT Village which opens the doors to the Anti-Family brigade
Where Govts are bound to support BOTH Parents **Equally** as they FATHER/MOTHER their Kids in or out of Happy Families.
Preferably no more than 30/40 hours a week out of the FAMILY, working, and most certainly always having one Parent at home when Kids are out of school and even then Parents being easily able to return home should there be kids days off for sickness or fun.
Whereby Govts encourage Parenting not OUT-of-Home working and thus Kids bring themselves up, or others bringing them up or tied Parents for that matter.
ALL other issues which many of you have wisely added over the years since the conference, MENS-Table and of course our MENS-Convoys etc are **Child Support refinements after **Equal**Parenting.
Onward - Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 1:23 pm
“Child Support” should be calculated on the total household incomes, in both parent’s households.
This would then be consistent with the way government benefits are calculated. It would also ensure that financial support paid between households is not able to be manipulated by whether the mother=custodial parent works or stays at home, which is essentially irrelevant to the support that should be paid between the parent’s two households.
The “Child Support” should also be based on the relative time that the children spend in each household, without the 40% step, which results in most “non-custodial” parent’s costs being simply ignored. It also gives incentive to custodial parents to deny access, for financial “reward”. In my experience, familycaught judges turn a blind eye and a dishonest empty head to these situations.
Child Support should be based on the costs of bringing up children, not simply as a % of income, up to a limit far beyond the honest costs of raising children.
Child Support should only be paid when the custody of the children has been agreed between the parents and this agreement is being honoured. In other words, the present practice of the familycaught in rewarding-abductor mothers with custody and child support payments, should be stopped. This would be in line with civilised societies, such as USA. NZ is fully a generation behind and still showing no signs of catching ethically up.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Hi Murray,
I agree wholeheartedly that CS needs to be based on the essential needs of children as described in the Donkin Method.
However, anything that ties CS back to income(s) just makes it a Child TAX.
The whole system (child tax + the Matrix of Family Law + boshier & crew + the Family Caught) is completely f***ed. It needs to be thrown out on its thinly feathered little arse before we start again from a basic presumption of EQUAL parental rights AND responsibilities as described in Jayden’s Law.
Any person (especially a public servant) who supports any part of the existing regime is practising violent child abuse by actively impeding EVERY child’s absolute right to be raised by BOTH their Mum AND their Dad.
There are currently over 400,000 Mums, Dads and Children afflicted with the current regime.
The current regime FAILS all of them in some way.
All of the current regime must be thrown out and replaced by a system based on equal parental rights and responsibilities that is backed up with financial support based solely on the essential needs of children.
This will happen. It’s just a matter of when.
Comment by Mark Shipman — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Mark,
Think you have made a typo,700,000 is IRD supplied figure.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Oops!
Comment by Mark Shipman — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 3:40 pm