Miriam Long - Admistrative Review Officer
Miriam Long is an IRD Administrative Review Officer based in Wellington. It has become increasingly apparent that Miriam Long appears to hold a grudge against male liable parents. I have dealt with a number of Dads who have been at the reciving end of Miriam Long’s administrative review decisions.
I am in the process of coordinating a complaint to have Mariam Long stopped from hearing administrative reviews.
If you have experienced the Long hand at an administrative review please leave a comment and I will contact you back.
If you are a dad taking part in an administrative review of Child Support Tax and you are told that Miriam Long is your Review Officer demand another Review Officer.
Regards
Scrap
Posts RSS 2.0
Well done Scrap
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 26th June 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Surely she cannot be half as bad as Mark Miller from North Shore?
Could we perhaps have a link to a photo of this Miriam Long so as to have someone to focus our contempt on?
I had another shocker from Napier whose name escapes me but will come back with it.The files are so huge that it will take some time to find.
If you can do this kind of thing then I am going to have a crack at getting Mark Miller removed too.
So you just get some complaints together and write to the head of IRD Child Support then keep ringing every day till they get sick of you and do something.Is that the process?
I have been studying your guys Republican Party website.
What kind of percentage of support do you have?
Is there any hope of getting sufficient proportion of the vote to get some representation in the beehive?
Most of my friends do not know of your policies.Looking at them they do not seem unreasonable.
All being fair and equal any men with any sense would be voting for you.
A vote for any party with Helen Clark,Judith Collins,Sue Bradford or Peter Dunne in it seems suicidal so you guys are a good option.
Good luck.You have my endorsement and support for what that is worth!
Comment by whanga — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 12:23 am
Does Miriam live at [address removed by moderator at request of IRD]
She was only paid $8,000 or so in legal aid in 2006 and 2007 respectively.So not busy in that field.This does not include her payments from IRD.
Does she specialize in doing Admin Reviews?
Why would someone want to get involved in that kind of work.Consider their mindset if you will?
Must be desperate for the paltry $150 or so per hour(including travelling time) that IRD pay out so these “people”
Being banned may hurt her and have some bearing on the standard of Restaurant she eats at in Brooklyn every night.
Comment by whanga — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 1:03 am
Careful - Bureacrats and there contractors need to be taken to task as I do in the WINZ area however its those who have created the system that need the hardest knock while most certainly riding the system of the sick that follow there decrees.
Good on you James - Go Hard my friend
Onward
Ration Shed - Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 8:18 am
It never ceases to amaze me….the systems that IRD and WINZ have in place and the lengths they go to get every last cent they can from a father, while there appears to be the flimsiest (if any) systems in place to prevent, investigate or prosecute for DPB fraud.
How many fathers who are being tortured by IRD and WINZ, have complained and provided evidence to WINZ and IRD about thier X-partner defrauding the government, with no or neglible action taken?
Shouldn’t the resources and staff allocated to preventing, investigating and prosecuting fraudsters be at least equal to the resources and staff allocated to torturing liable parents, who are essentially being forced to cover the costs of their X-partner’s fraud. Extortion!
Comment by xsryder — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 10:25 am
Hi guys, I am sorry for changing the subject but i think it is real bad seeing these police officers getting aqquited of their charges after bashing a poor helpless young man in his cell, when you need the police they are nowhere to be seen and when you dont need them they are in your face, sad isnt it?
Comment by Hadi Akbari — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 11:28 am
Please keep on subject. If you want to discuss this then post yourself.
regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Miriam Long is a review Officer I refuse to have. She did two for me and they are bad. I understand hers to be the case where Mummy earning $197,000 is assessed to pay the mimimum of $775 a year. In several areas UoF have collected reports on Review Officers and blackballed those whose decisions are peculiar (read anti-male if you so wish.)
Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Dare I suggest reading - Woman: Not in Her Place? - at the Ration Shed for a few clues here - Onward
Ration Shed - Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 7:46 pm
I see the spies have been watching us again, that’s how they spend all the Child support money obviously, tossers !
Comment by Martin Swash — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Yeah,awesome joke ay!I published her address which was so ridiculously easy to find just by googling her name.
It was the first thing that came up.
She complained about someone building something in her neighbourhood and did not use a PO Box as an address for service.
I did it just to see if it would be removed or not.
I was not trying to suggest that anyone bother Miriam or anything like that.
As Jim so rightly says it those who create the system that need the hardest knock.
At least it shows the pin-headed sexists at the IRD Child Support read this site.Maybe,just maybe one or two of them will take notice and instigate some change from within their appalling department.That really would be the best for change to come from within.
I really have no idea how those “people” go to work every day and/or sleep at night.
It will probably bring me another audit.I have had them before because I am a male who will not be shafted without standing up for myself.Bring on your audits you sad tossers.Last time they audited me I got a great accountant and got a $17,000 retrospective tax credit.It was about 3 years ago and still they have never advised the result of their audit.It was such a joke.Lots of officers and cassette tapes and the same questions asked again and again in different ways.
I really fear for the future of NZ if this IRD child support department and the laws they discriminate by are not radically cleaned up.
Comment by whanga — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 9:07 pm
There is more about Mark Miller and some other sad stories on the blogspot
NZ Child Support Truth.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=555682811619136661&postID=7327933824780553276&page=1
Comment by whanga — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 9:30 pm
So IRD have requested the removal of the address.
Given that the address is public domain one wonders why they waste taxpayer money doing so. (Search the PDF and the address will pop up)
What IRD should be doing is having all Miriam Longs decisions that have crippled male liable parents reviewed and her conduct investigated.
I will lay money that IRD cannot find one male parent who earns $197,000 paying the minimum. Miriam Long’s decisions against male liable parents continually see their assessments increase.
Just this week I am aware of a decision by Miriam Long where a father who is unemployed and cannot find work has been assessed as having the “potential” to earn over $80,000.
This is a common experience of male liable parents who experience the
Long hand of maid Miriam.
Maybe IRD will supply figures of how many male liable parents have ended up in debt after a review decision by Long. I know a few!
Child Support believe it or not will become child support truth before the election. Officials are responsible and will be held to account as will politicians.
What really scares them is they have no idea of what is going to happen and don’t realize that the campaign has already begun.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 9:52 pm
I had a Miriam long decision this week from another unemployed Father who she deemed should pay child support on a salary of $55,000. He doesn’t have it and is flat broke but Ms Long wants him bankrupt but of course he looses everything and still keeps his Child Support debt which survives even bankrupcy.
Perhaps they wonder why guys dissapear overseas.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Miriam Long clearly likes to see men commit suicide. Perhaps someone will do it at her home; we all know the address now. But the problem isn’t just this one man-hating psychopath. She is allowed to do what she does by the legislation that was designed to enslave men in the service of women.
Comment by blamemenforall — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 1:10 am
Hi Martin, you are right, the spies are watching, cypfs social workers copy these blogs and use them in court, they tried that with another blog i was on but what they dont know is we are good friends with all the people on that blog
Comment by Hadi Akbari — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 11:08 am
The changes to child support recently made in Aus sounded interesting. Does anyone have any information about how liable fathers are finding the new regime there?
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 10:05 am
Too early yet for getting a feel for the Aussie changes. Lots of squeals from custodial parents (mainly women) and the changes are pretty bureacratic and yet to find out how much a nightmare that is for the CSA (IRD) themselves and non-custodial parents.
Word in NZ IRD is they like the changes but won’t venture there till have been well bedded down and shown to work in Aussie. Also Dunne will never allow the research money that went into the developments there which were backed with a default concept of shared care and fat chance of that coming in here in the current political climate.
Allan
Comment by allan Harvey — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Have had M Miller and have to say he was not the worst one I have had, Edwards (12 Admin reviews in total from this one) would be the worst and is very one sided but did have the pleasure of making her inforce the same punishment on my ex when I was the custodial parent but she did not like it only little bit but enjoyed putting her through the discomfort. The best review office I have had over the years would be R Webb was a fair a just officer compared to most.
Comment by SNMP — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 10:27 pm
Unfortunately Roger Webb isn’t doing any admin reviews at the moment. He is now working full time for IRD on other matters and has almost nothing to do with Child Support. Roger was fairly unusual as he doesn’t have a Family Law background. His area of expertise was in employment law but he did a lot of Child Support reviews to offer some balance to his practice. His departure has left a big gap in Tauranga admin reviews. I liked him so much I once choose to have my review heard in Tauranga which is 500kms from my home base.
Roger’s decision were not only fair and reasonable he was able to explain very well how he came to his decision and outlined at the initial interviews matters he would need to weigh so people understood where he was coming from and felt that the decision he would reach would consider both sides in a balanced way. “Just” isn’t a word that can be appklied to Child Support in my view. While it sits to allow one parent to repeatedly attack another therre is no justice in that. The very crude 40% of nights for shared care is unjust by definition. Thankfully both the UK and the Aussies are working on changes tro these areas in their CS reforms.
Comment by allan Harvey — Thu 3rd July 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Comment by bull en a china shop — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 10:14 am
Our superior Australian friends are considering moving to an Income Shares approach, which more fairly takes into account the costs to the non-custodial parent.
The paper may be downloaded, from the bottom of the following page:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1128023
Look particularly closely at page 14 onwards.
This material could perhaps be used as supporting evidence, for a Departure Review taken from IRD to the familycaught, particularly when the custodial parent has a high income or asset level?
Where a parent feels that the existing child support formula is quite unfair, the use of this material may support a case for retrospective changes to assessments, possibly resulting in refunds running to many $thousands.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 2:17 pm
The Aussie system is now in place and a happening thing over there,
Income sharing formula as you say, shared care from 25% of time and at a sliding scale based on contact and other good idea is that overtime and second jobs are not liable for CS while a guy rebuilds after separation.
Allan
Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Hey SNMP, which “Edwards” are you talking about? I just had a Christine Edwards do my review and yet to see the decision. I had Stewart Benson last year… I felt he was very fair.
Comment by GM — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 9:39 pm
At #22 above I gave reference to an Australian paper, by Patrick Parkinson.
A much longer paper, giving the background to these proposals (now implemented - says Allan Harvey) is available at:
http://www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/via/childcare/file/best_interests_children_summary.pdf
Both of these papers are dated 2005.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 11:16 pm
At #22 above I gave reference to the summary of an Australian paper, by Patrick Parkinson.
A much longer paper, giving the background to these proposals (now implemented - says Allan Harvey) is available at:
http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/via/childcare/file/best_interests_children_full-%20report.pdf
Both of these papers are dated 2005.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 11:22 pm
Australian Child Support Re comments above at 17-18-23
I have contacted several Australians re their knowledge of the effects of changes to Child Support - I have had the first reply and have posted it the Ration Shed E-Group
Onward
Ration Shed - Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 11:27 pm
Hi GM.. Yes Christine was the one I had as well. I would be expecting it not to go your way especially if it was the custodial parent that asked for the review. My last Admin Review where I was the liable parent I ended up paying 47% of my income for two children.. So it did not go well for me and almost sent me bankrupt.
Comment by SNMP — Sat 5th July 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Can anyone provide me information about Christine Edwards? I have a guy I’m supporting had a review with her last week. Rude, arrogant, intimidating were three words he used. She refused to disclose her qualifications or location. He is a bit green but he was told by IRD she was a “specalist” they used for difficult cases. I couldn’t find her listed on the Family Law Section of the Nz Law Society.
Allan Harvey
You can reply directly to me on allan@uof.org.nz if you choose.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Allan, The best information I can give you is don’t be male… His comments are mild compared to my own thoughts and all I can say is thank god my kids are all grown up now and left home so I don’t have to deal with pieces of work like that lady again.. Have had 12 decissions completed by her and none have gone well even when one of them I was the custodial parent. She is not to be trusted and her decissions are boarding on illegal, if you are left with little more than the dole from your take home pay you are doing well. By no means are her decissions “fair and just” as directed by the act..
Happy to share my filing cabinet full of my details and her decisions if it will be of any help.
Comment by SNMP — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Hi SNMP and others,
If you or others have paperwork to share about Reviews or Court decisions UoF is happy to accumulate and study them. You can forwad stuff to me at allan@uof.org.nz .
Under s124 of the Child Support Act we are probably “Advisors in the sphere of Relationship Counselling” as well as personally I am a bona fide social worker and public servant. (This last sentence was a party political broadcast for the snoops on this list who are most welcome and also most welcome to check my credentials.)
If you e-mail me I can give you address details for a posted submission or courier as well. Sounds to me that collecting data on Christine Edwards would be a service to men. She would not be the first review offiver who shows open bias, nor the first review officer blackballed for their bias.
Allan
Comment by allan Harvey — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 9:34 am
Although presenting some practical difficulties, it may be possible to trip up those Admin Review Officers who cannot resist shafting men and enriching women at every opportunity. It would require two similar sets of parents working together. Both could “separate” for a short time and engage the CS system (unless they were couples that had already separated). One couple would have the mother in the liable parent role while the other couple would have the father. Both custodial parents then apply for admin reviews on the same grounds with very similar cases involving only minor differences in figures. If the Review Officer then favoured the woman in both cases, this would be used as the basis of a formal complaint to the Officer’s professional organisation (they are usually lawyers). With publicity, the complaint would draw out numerous other cases that would be added to increase the strength of the complaint.
In the meantime, please, those men who have been shafted in either the custodial or liable parent role, make formal complaints to the officers’ professional bodies.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 3:28 pm
The difficulty is the Colonel Secret Squirrel of the IRD says thou shall not tell about your Admin Review decisions on threat of torture, further Tax investigation and further contact with your ex.
If taken at the exact wording used when posted your decision you get into shit even showing it to your solicitor or local UoF advisor in “Marriage Guidance”. Absurd those trusted and noble advocates should be barred from helping people out with advice.
IRD will argue around s124 of their act but hey write to me; I’m a very public spirited servant, a bone fide social worker and a well respected and trusted advisor in the sphere of relationship counselling. My contact details remain allan@uof.org.nz
Allan
Comment by allan Harvey — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Dear Allan and Hans,
Section 124 deals with Court Proceedings and the Courts requirement in trying to maintain secrecy.
Administrative reviews are a rung lower and not priveleged to the same.
Kind Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09)271 3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 6:32 pm
I absolutely agree Paul,
However IRD staff led by Colonel Secret Squirell think secrecy is paramount and that we must never know that some CS staff are normal humans and might fart or harbour emotions like empathy etc. They are by the letter of the law they dream up even if it is way beyond the legislation.
You will see by my posts I’m openly inviting them to have a crack at me if they so wish. We need some test cases and I feel very secure.
I normally keep a copy of the Act beside me when I need to phone them as their knoweldge of their own Act is appaling and their interpretatioin of legislation shocking.
Comment by allan Harvey — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 7:10 pm
GM (#24)
Stuart Benson is a poisonous little queer with an inferiority complex and, based on my experience, an issue with being dealt a hand in life that includes a penis.
The a*se-wipe threatened to throw out my support person even though I had confirmation in writing from the CSA that I could have someone present.
Then threatened to remove my living allowance etc etc etc. and then magically set my income at $60,000 and instantly created a “debt” of over $2000 on which the CSA merrily levied 10% (for doing abso-f***ing-lutely NOTHING).
You have to love living in New Zealand and being TAXED for having children :-((
Comment by Ethos — Thu 24th July 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Hi Scrap,
Great to see you are still busy with all of this on top of your other responsibilities.
The only real answer to NZ child TAX is to throw out the baby and the bath water.
Take the 2.4 BILLION dollars paid annually as “sole parent social security benefit” (or the “DPB” if you are a Sue-the-slapper follower).
The CS Act apparently exists to facilitate “benefit recovery”.
This means that the “child support” you pay is given to the government if you EX is on a benefit like the DPB: your kids see NO MONEY FROM YOU!
But we (every working NZer) pay TAX to cover ALL benefits. And we have laws that prevent “double dipping” (Government taxing us twice for the same thing).
???????????????????????????????????????
Hang on, they ARE taxing us twice for the DPB.
Here are the numbers so you can understand how worthwhile it is to collect “benefit recovery”.
It costs about $75 million a year to run the CS agency part of IR.
Each year they collect (approx.) $150 million in “benefit recovery”.
So this means there is about $75 million recovered after costs out of an annual DPB bill of $2,400 million….and that’s way less than 5%.
WHAT A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY!
Why are we paying so many people to polish their bums on taxpayer-funded seats when they are so TOTALLY UNPRODUCTIVE?
Your guess is as good as mine, but until the current system is replaced (reform will never do it and tweaking something that is so FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN is another complete waste of time) Clark, Carter, Cunliffe, Dunne and Sue-the-slapper will keep on TAXING US FOR HAVING CHILDREN.
Comment by tweedledumb — Thu 24th July 2008 @ 2:41 pm
how do ird put a caveiet on someones house, my partner was a bit behind in child support and without any further ado, no previous letter telling they had done so they threatened to sell his house in 10days,, how can his ex push them to do this……..by the way I went and sorted it with the ombudsmen in Christchurch, ( i had to be pushy to get a appointment) and she sorted it in 24 hours and returned the $1200 they claimed he was behind and took out of his business account, and then his ex was stopped from applying for reviews for two years,,,she has made up for it since though, has this happened to anyone else
Comment by Karen — Thu 24th July 2008 @ 3:45 pm
All the Family Caught and CSA crap is designed to maximise income for the government to pay for the massive amounts of womens DPB/Social Security payments. It is best for Men to leave the country where the wife is, under current legislation. You will always be completely screwed by the government agencies.
The government wants you out of your kids’ lives, but the future consequences of gangs and delinquency will one day show that families needed fathers and the government were only interested in money and let society rot
Comment by Perseus — Fri 25th July 2008 @ 12:44 am
I am sorry you (and others) take this attitude Perseus.
Kids need Dads. To leave is to opt out and contibute to a completely matriarchial society. In my view Fatherhood is a noble calling and I’m not opting oiut just because it has a few financial costs. My costs are worth much more than mere dollars.
Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 25th July 2008 @ 10:43 am
Well said Allan - I have taken much stick from Men because I opt to Father my Son on an Invalids Benefit because of well documented Heart and reflux hassles. I have had NO help from WINZ and have done my best to berate the current Govt into changing the way DADS are destroyed when they are on Benefits - Being a DAD is NOT negotiable withever the statis of the Father.
Onward
Ration Shed - Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 25th July 2008 @ 12:12 pm