What is the Families Comission up to?
In December 2007 the Families Commission issued a Request For Proposal titled: “Research on contact, care and financial arrangements made by separated parents for their children”.
[14th March edit by JohnP – at the request of Paul Curry from the Families Commission this info is updated below:]
Families Commission Research into Child Support Arrangements:
The Families Commission wants to better understand the needs of separated parents and the difficulties they face.
We are therefore carrying out research into how separated parents manage the care and contact of their children.
The results will be used by the Families Commission to help form a view on what works, and what doesn’t work, for separated parents in New Zealand, and whether changes to the child support system are needed.
We are keen to have as broad a range of parental views on child support arrangements as possible. Our research will therefore involve men, women, and parents from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, situations and incomes; including separated parents who:
- have made private child support arrangements;
- are part of Inland Revenue’s child support system;
- have shared care arrangements;
- are the main care giver;
- are not the main care-giver;
- have re-partnered; and
- parents who both receive and pay child support.
We will use standard research practices to randomly invite over 10,000 separated parents to participate in this research. Parents’ identities and circumstances will remain confidential.
We expect to complete our research in November 2008 and publish our work early 2009.
Contact details for the Families Commission: [email protected]
Comment by Scrap continues…
14 March edit by Scrap to clarify.
Information extracted directly from the RFP is in Blockquote. Note the difference between the RFP quotes and Mr Curry’s PR spin. I stand by my comments and challenge Mr Curry to admit that no consultation took place with groups representing paying parents when creating this RFP.
“The key deliverable from this research will be an advocacy position for the Commission on the child support scheme. The research will inform the Inland Revenue Department’s policy development, and may also inform advice or advocacy for appropriate support services for separated parents, and generally raise issues that may require further exploration. The research will not be an evaluation of the current system.”
The anticipated timetable for completion of the RFP process follows in Section B. At this stage it is anticipated that this project will run for 6 months – from January to June 2008. Proposals should include a more detailed timeframe for completion of the research.
The target population for the focus groups fall into two groups — separated parents and service providers. It is anticipated that there will be two focus groups of people who provide professional services to separated parents — one of lawyers and the other of counsellors. There will be four focus groups with a target population of all separated parents.
This research is at the behest of worm-man Peter Dunne. Once again he has not lived up to his promise to keep us informed. Good thing we have eyes and ears in places he will never know!
Sadly this RFP has been written by individuals who have a pre determined agenda. This looks very much like advocacy research on behalf of “custodial parents”. It is also obvious that the author has little knowledge of the Child Support Scheme.
I’ll leave it to you to review the RFP document and make up your own mind. But ensure you bombard the Families Commission and demand your right as a stakeholder to be heard and all your concerns about the Child Tax system.
Regards
Scrap
I just sent an email to the link Scrap.
I have not heard from Lesley Soper who promised feedback from PETER DUNNE.
I have iniatiated a Family Court Hearing into Child Support Issues into an estimated $60,000 loss for my young son (which costs him his University Education) over the next 8 years.
I have applied to become the Custodial Parent.
IRD are confused. I have said that if I care overnight for my son 4 nights a week, take an additional 20 days holiday to care for him, elect to pay all of his financial costs, his educational requirements, his school fees, school trips, his school uniform, his casual clothes and footwear, his healthcare, his dental care, and heavy contributions towards his University Education, which equate to $60k in the next 9 years.
Guess what…I still have to pay my ex almost $600 a month according to one IRD spokesperson.
Other IRD personnel disagree.
I need to know.
I am going into battle for custody of my son. I need to know. 4 nights a week. Or 5 nights a week.
I cuurently do 3 nights a week. My ex does 4. This makes her the Custodial Parent and therefore entitled to Child Support from me.
A simple role reversal does NOT according to the IRD , change anything at all.
Now what the HELL is going on here?
On top of the role reversal I have offered NOT to receive any funds from my ex wife. I have offered to financially support 100% of the way. ALL and EVERY cost associated with his upbringing WITHOUT exeption. And he is a heartkid. That could prove expensive. I dont care. I love him.
IRD WILL NOT ACCEPT. THEY SAY I WOULD STILL HAVE TO PAY MY EX WIFE $600 A MONTH. She works, is NOT on a benefit, and her defacto partner is a high income earner.
Tell me again…is there anyone in this damned Country who gives a shit about the welfare of our kids or of the welfare of the parents who actually CARE about their kids?
This excepts the people on this site. It is aimed at the politicians, the Courts and the IRD who have told me…they have never encountered this situation before, they admit confusion. THis doesnt help me or my son before the Family Court.
Comment by Morris Lindsay — Tue 11th March 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Morris,
Email me your landline and I will talk through your situation with you.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 11th March 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Scrap
Have you or any other readers been involved where shared care is happening and IRD have agreed via Admin review or Commisioners review to waive payments going from ‘paying parent’ (us) to ‘custodial’ parent (other party) (which is a joke in itself con sidering we have 50/50 care so we should both be custodial parents)????
Surely one of the Grounds would fit, when we are having the children 50/50 and still paying out $1128 a month to custodial parent??? Paying this out 1) affects our ability to provide for the children when they are in our care – eg. extra curricular activities are now not affordable 2) the other parent can when applied for c/s from my husband was living in the matrimonial house and now its sold she owns her own home (so now her financial resources AND her asset being a house) she can now work more hours due to us having the children 50% of the time (so if we cannot get the IRD to waive payments then we can go the other parent for more $$$$$ instead of the $700 we get a year from her.(which we dont want to do as we believe no $$$ should change hands in 50/50 cases HOWEVER when your struggling to meet the costs of living everybit counts!!!!
Comment by Karen — Wed 12th March 2008 @ 11:55 am
Surprise, surprise!
Dunny-boy and his minions strike again.
Comment by Ethos — Wed 12th March 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Thanks Scrap I will get back to you on my days off…working 12 hr shifts at the moment.
Comment by Morris Lindsay — Wed 12th March 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Morris, I don’t know how the IRD can say that they’ve never heard of this situation before. What utter BS. We have written several times over the years and made a complaint to their complaints department. I am pretty sure that many others must also have voiced there concerns too.
We have been told that once the ex starts work things will change. Well, they haven’t. She gets the choice as to whether she wants to continue claiming through the IRD, we don’t. She knows that she can still get money from us, so will of course continue claiming through the IRD. Should she start earning more than us and have to start paying us, I am sure that she will exercise her right to say that she no longer wishes to go through the IRD, we won’t be given the option.
I will be emailing very soon to get my opinions across. Someone has to start listening to us soon.
Comment by pomcat — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 9:52 am
Karen, the IRD don’t want to know about “normal” circumstances. We have studied their review pamphlet and there is nothing in there to cover the daylight robbery of those of us that have 50/50 shared care and are still expected to pay the ex. They don’t care that both parents are actually Custodial parents, nor do they care that some of us have court orders in place stating every cost should be split 50/50.
We have asked them the following question:
How can you say that our son only costs us $70 a month to look after and yet it costs his mother $210 per month?
Comment by pomcat — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 10:01 am
I will try to make a submission on this to the Families Commission, even knowing that worm-man Dunne will totally ignore anything that doesn’t appease his feminist masters and that the Families Commission is little more than yet another branch of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 10:33 am
See Press Release Collins Spear Tackles Families Commission at http://www.republicans.org.nz
Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 14th March 2008 @ 8:29 am
I received a phone call from Families Commission chief executive Paul Curry this morning, asking me to update the information published on MENZ about this research, particularly the contact details. I have done so in the posting above, but left the RFP document available since this is what Scrap is discussing.
I note that on page 18 the document says:
Why the secrecy I wonder? I note that I can find no mention of this project on their website. The RFP also states:
This page does not appear to exist.
I have invited Mr Curry and/or his staff to contribute to this discussion if they feel anything needs to be clarified or corrected.
Comment by JohnP — Fri 14th March 2008 @ 5:59 pm
John,
If if Curry and his staff had even attempted to consult with paying parent stakeholders I would have known.
The only consultation I am aware of has been with IRD.
The RFP is completely discoverable under the OIA)Offical Information Act) as are responses to it and
Mr Curry and his staff know this – In the RFP they advise plastering responses with commercial in confidence to try and prevent discovery under the OIA.
The Families Commission has made a fundamental research stuff up with this RFP and, in light of this,the credibility of the commission to conduct unbiased research is in question.
The problem Mr Curry has is that they never expected to be “caught with their pants down” and he does not like being sprung.
THe credibility of the commission is in tatters and hes rushing to re-spin the commissions position.
TO MR CURRY
If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck and quacks like a duck its not a seagull.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 14th March 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Hi
sounds familiar. IRD says to me that there is no possible way to stop child support payments either way. The mother of my boy and i pay the same amount to each other each month (we have shared care her havin 4 nights me havin 3) which neither of us actually see because she is on a benefit and her payment doesn’t come to me its just reduces mine to equal hers. What a joke. Revenue collecting at its worst! All i can i say is harass them. never stop harassing them. Make their lives as close to how bad they make ours as possible
Comment by Daniel — Sat 5th April 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Is there a checklist for do’s and don’ts of an administrative review, I have read through everything I can soak up here at MENZ but if there’s a simple couple of pages of info that might steer me in the right direction, I would love to get my hanbs on it!
Comment by uktuatara — Wed 18th June 2008 @ 1:21 am
Imagine it is 2012.Robbie Deans is still coaching Australia who beat South Africa in the World Cup Final last year.Peter Dunne the Deputy Prime Minister has just held a Press Conference with Judith Collins the Minister for Child Tax.
They have just announced that the 10,000th man with Child Tax debts over $1000 has been sent to Child Tax Prison and been forced to work until the debt was paid off.
They were not allowed to pass go and no correspondence was entered into.
They have also announced that all be prevented from leaving the country or entering any golf club or skifield if any Child Tax debt whatsoever is owing (disputed or otherwise)and will also have this debt listed on their credit reports.
There are now a total of 37,324 Child Tax Debtors living outside NZ and Australia many of whom who escaped prior to the establishment of the Child Tax Regime in late 2008.
Teenage Suicide especially among males has reached chronic proportions.Vasectomy operations are up 17% on an already record year in 2011.
Comment by whanga — Wed 18th June 2008 @ 1:58 am