- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

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

Thu 6th January 2011

No job or income but admin review says I have to pay $1450 in child tax per month!!!

Filed under: Child Support,Law & Courts — Had_Enough @ 9:11 pm

I have always paid my IRD formula prescribed amount of Child Tax. Never missed a payment and at times even had to borrow money so I could meet my obligations. In May I lost my job. I have been unemployed ever since. I am not entitled to any form of benefit being a middle class, middle aged married male who has paid his taxes all his life. Soon after I lost my job I filled out an IR104 which allowed me to have my liability assessed on my actual earnings for 2010-2011 instead of my earnings for the previous year. For several months I was allowed to pay the minimum amount which I thought was fair since I still have no income and no job or savings. There was a thing called the Global Financial Crisis but IRD don’t appear to believe me when I tell them that this has prevented me from finding employment since I lost my job in May. By the way I lost my job due to some very dubious practices and I believe I would have had a case for constructive dismissal but I’d had enough so didn’t bother getting litigious. Anyway, I will get to the point. The mother of my children who has a job and multiple benefits did an admin review on me. I declined to take part since it was obvious that I had no income. I mean the IRD people can easily verify that so I thought the result would be “no departure”. Oh how wrong I was!! The Admin Review Officer has decided that I should have to pay the same amount of Child Support as when I had a full time job in the 2009 – 2010 tax year. She has made an assumption that I have deliberately made myself unemployed to avoid child support and thus should continue to pay $1450 per month!! Not only do I have to pay this going forward but she has backdated it to September which has immediately put me in arrears.

Please wise people out there , what the F**k can I do to make these people see reason. I have been told I can’t do my own admin review unless it is based on different grounds to the ones the mother of my children used on me. This makes it impossible because she used grounds 3, 7 and 8 which are precisely the grounds I need to use. I have also been told I could take it to the Family Court if I want it overturned. Yeah right, like that’s going to help!!!! Any ideas?????

107 Responses to “No job or income but admin review says I have to pay $1450 in child tax per month!!!”

  1. Down Under says:

    Possessed Toys do not operate for your benefit. Get used to this. Their purposeful existence is to remove as much money from you as possible, make life as difficult as possible and obstruct you in any way they can, so you just go away. The fact that you are now in debt is of great future benefit to the state, but that is another subject. Because you are isolated you are an easy target. Even though you have found this website you need to know that any advice you receive here is known to the IRD in advance and your course of action anticipated and easily avoided. You should also be aware that the appeal process for an administrative review is the family court. Even though the mother of your children is not on the DPB, the IRD can come along for the ride, and the courts first responsibility being to the crown you will get taken to the cleaners in private of course. Welcome to the club.

  2. Hans Laven says:

    It was probably not a good move to decline to take part. This allowed the review officer simply to accept whatever your ex said and not to take your true position into account at all. As I understand it, the Family Court is now your only recourse. The Court will probably order you to provide financial records about all your assets, sources of income, life insurance policies etc. From what I have seen, the Family Court applies different tests than the IRD review process; it appears to compare the assets and income of both parties to see if any plundering of the male’s resources is remotely defensible, and if so will plunder accordingly. However, I think it likely that, if you genuinely don’t have much in the way of assets and income and can provide evidence that your unemployment is not your own choice, the Court will reduce your liability to a more reasonable level. You will need to provide a good explanation of your reasons for refusing to participate in the IRD review process.

  3. julie says:

    Any ideas?????

    Firstly, good for you to reach out – it’s not supposed to be easy for men to do this so you’re on the ‘Watch out list’.

    I have a couple ideas.

    1. Go see your doctor! ASAP!! Because this is extremely stressful and you can’t go about living like the normal unemployed with this over your head. Stress is a sickness.

    He will put you on the sickness benefit or at least give you a sickness certificate so you can have a breather to get help for your own well-being and sort this out so we don’t see you in the obituary. [minimum 3 months]

    2. You need an advocate. Where are you in NZ?

  4. Hans Laven says:

    Incidently, what children would cost $1450 per month to run? That’s more than the benefit provided by governmnet for a “family” of sole parent and children to live on completely. Even for disabled children who will cost a lot more to run, with the extra “child disability allowance” included the amount still comes to less than $1400 net per month. And Had_Enough’s $1450 per month “child support” is supposed to represent only his share of the costs of raising his children, so those children must be assessed as needing truly silver-spoon luxury.

    The truth is that such amounts are totally unrealistic as far as children’s costs go, but are simply a dishonest form of spousal support.

    And will such exploitation of fathers be good for their children? Hell no! Even in the unlikely event that such huge amounts are spent directly on the children, this would likely cause them to become accustomed to an unsustainable lifestyle and to expectations that the world will magically provide them with funds for superior privilege with no effort on their part. That’s not good for them. Realistically of course, such “child support” money will almost always serve mainly to increase the luxury of the mother’s lifestyle, and much of that will work directly to the disadvantage of the children’s welfare. For example, $1450 coming in every month on top of anything else the mother earns will allow for (and often result in) a copious booze, drugs and party budget, holidays away and paying others to care for the children enabling the mother to spend minimal time actually nurturing them. None of that is likely to be good for children.

    Even worse, exploiting fathers in this way reduces the relationship they can have with their children. Everything (often more than) the father could afford to spend on his children, to provide a nice place for them to stay with him, to pay for costs of transport to maintain contact etc is channeled to his ex. It reduces the nurturing role most fathers strongly want to provide for their children. Is that good for children’s welfare? Hell no! A huge number of people in New Zealand have had their relationships with their fathers diminished by the male exploitation that is dishonestly called “child support”. On average, those children throughout life will experience less security, hope, meaning and sense of identity because their relationships their fathers were depleted.

    Aside from the direct effects on bonding and nurturing experiences caused through limiting fathers’ economic development in this way, there is also another major child-abusive consequence from our archaic “child support” system. That is the incentive it provides “custodial parents” to prevent shared care or even increases in the amount of time children spend with fathers. Who on earth would want to jeopardize a nice tax-paid $1450 per month magically turning up in their bank account? Whatever the emotional and developmental benefits there might be for the children to spend equal time living with Dad can easily (though not validly) be reasoned away when money like that is involved.

  5. Julie says:

    Good comment.
    I was reading the latest women’s magazine while in the supermarket checkout yesterday, and one article was about Oprah giving tough love to Sarah, Duchess of York after she moaned to her about her inability to have the royal life style because she blew her allowances, lol.

    Oprah said she should work on her MORAL bankruptcy before caring where her riches will come from. – see article.

  6. Had_Enough says:

    Hi Julie, Hans and Down Under. Thanks for your replies to my post. I agree with all that has been said above. My concern about taking this to the FC is that they have caused me and my children nothing but grief over the past 9 years. They have consistently failed to enforce the Parenting Order and I am lucky to see my children once a year these days. I told them exactly what I thought of them at a hearing in September and I don’t think the judge liked his institution being called “an incompetent apathetic toothless tiger that is so focused on supporting the mother that they have lost sight of what’s good for the children”. I then proceded to tell them that I want nothing more to do with their useless institution and have resigned myself to the fact that I won’t have the opportunity to have any meaningful input into the children’s lives until they are a few years older and able to make their own decisions.

    I’ve been thinking that it may be worthwhile at least attempting a counter admin review just so it’s on record as to why I can’t pay and what my objections are. Then, when that fails, I could go to the Family Court albeit under sufferance.

  7. gwallan says:

    Winfrey lecturing others about morals?

    What a strange world.

  8. Down Under says:

    Remember also that if you want to go to court, that a debt to the crown is not discharged by bankruptcy, which means after all your assets have been sorted you can still be jailed for non payment of the debt, so honesty is not the best policy here, just lie through your teeth and tell them how wonderful they are.

  9. Had_Enough says:

    I couldn’t agree more Down Under. Telling the truth has bought me nothing but unjust FC and IRD CS grief in the past so I will be very careful how I proceed. I’ve just read some info from this IRD link http://www.ird.govt.nz/childsupport/paying-parents/admin-reviews/apply-for-ar/

    There are no appeal rights to the review decision, apart from Judicial Review. You can only apply for another administrative review on a different ground or if there is a new matter to consider. You can however apply to the Family Court (website can be found under the related websites section of our site) if you are not satisfied with the review decision. When the matter comes before the Court, it is treated as a new hearing or an appeal depending on the circumstances and who is applying to the Court.

    Looks like I’ll have to go to the FC although I am sure it will be a complete waste of time.

  10. Allan says:

    I have been referred to this post by a friend.
    I have a case very similar to this in the Wellington Family Court where I am assisting a chap in a similar position.
    I advise you do attend the admin review but be well advised and prepared before you attend.
    Where in NZ are you??
    Allan
    Wellington UoF

  11. Had_Enough says:

    Hi Allan, I’d love to discuss this further with you. Do you have an email address so we can take this offline? I regard the IRD as being no more ethical than the East German cold war Stasi and there are things I don’t wish them to know about my case. I am aware that they read posts on this site. Thanks Allan..

  12. Hans Laven says:

    If the review officer did not take into account your circumstances because you did not specifically describe them, then your circumstances may be considered a “new matter to consider”.

  13. Had_Enough says:

    Sorry Allan, I didn’t fully answer your question. I’m based in Auckland..

  14. Down Under says:

    In the middle of World War Two – months before Hitler ordered some 4.5 million troops to invade the Soviet Union – the Foreign Office in Berlin commanded its diplomats in the Nazi-friendly Nordic country to gather evidence on the dog, and even came up with plans to destroy the pharmaceutical wholesale company of its owner.

    We still hunt Nazis 65 years on, but somehow the lessons of history always seem to get lost. Enjoy the link.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/4522182/Hitler-mocking-dog-enraged-Nazis

  15. Down Under says:

    And one other thing I forgot to mention, even if you are bankrupted the official assignee can bankrupt your new partner to get the money the ird invented that you now owe, so you may want to get divorced before you start your family court proceedings.

  16. GerryMen says:

    Dear Had Enough

    You situation is all too common. My dad had the same experience. But it does matter if the custodial parent has applied for a review on the same grounds you require. You can apply yourself for an administrative review on which ever of 10 the allowable grounds you feel you can justify. The regulations are that either party may apply for a review on any of the 10 grounds but may only do so once in a particular tax year unless new information comes to hand. For example you could in theory apply for a review on ground 3 on 31 March 2011 and there is nothing stopping you applying again under the same ground the following day on 01 April 2011 as you would be in a new tax year, but you will be restrained from applying on that particular ground for 12 months unless a new matter comes to light. Hans is right in the advice he offers, you did not provide any information, so any information you provide now is a new matter for IRD to consider.

    It may offer little immediate solace, but your final income for the tax year will eventually present IRD with the truth of what you say when you don’t achieve the level of income the review officer says you will earn. Good luck with the review. Jeremy 🙂

  17. Down Under says:

    Let’s throw this into the mixer. If you have shall we say a well healed business man who has a company that pays much tax, and has an ex wife that is not on the DPB, but the crown allows that person to avoid child support, which happens often, the crown is as guilty of corruption as anyone else. The law has not been applied equally because it is to the benefit of the crown. Taito Phillip Field gave a gift to receive a benefit. It is the same thinking, just do as I say and not as I do, not withstanding that I view the child support legislation as the most destructive piece of paper in New Zealand anyway.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4522980/Corruption-rears-head-in-NZ-business

  18. Down Under says:

    And I meant heeled not healed.

  19. Scott B says:

    Admin reviews breach the privacy act as they allow your ex to see your financial statements. Try asking to see them at a bank!

  20. Had_Enough says:

    hey Gerry, thanks for the advice. I had figured the same thing and will probably go down the Admin Review track. Worth a go anyway as things couldn’t get much worse.

  21. Scott B says:

    The family courts and the IRD will always find a way of making it worse!

  22. Down Under says:

    I think there is something important to think about here and that is post disorder traumatic stress. Now I didn’t write that the wrong way around. It is like a soldier going to war, which is alongside natural disaster probably our greatest situation of disorder, and the fellow makes it home and they say YOU have a disorder. He hasn’t got the bloody disorder, and I blame the arrogance of the medical profession for calling it PTSD. What I am saying here is post traumatic stress comes from disorder in lives of people, so let’s get this the right way round and recognise that a person suffers a ‘level of stress’ following disorder. The analysis shouldn’t be that it is a disorder; the analysis should be what the level of stress following the disorder is, and how do we bring this person home again. I mean for God’s sake have we stopped being human?

  23. Hmmm says:

    If stress is suffered from order, surely traumatic stress is suffered from disorder.

  24. Drunk'n Charge says:

    no, disorder would lead to dis-stress

  25. Vman says:

    I have been thinking about this example.
    Firstly, even if you made yourself unemployed ‘deliberately’ that doesn’t change the facts. They can only rule on your income. The dollars. Not speculation about your intentions or reasons for having a particular income.

    Really it needs to be published and the so called review officer needs to be named.
    I review officer is simply a lawyer that has some experience in child support law. Usually not a great deal of experience but some.

    What threatens the divorce industry is a growing tendency for fathers to simply ignore it or by pass it. The biggest threat to the system is a lack of public confidence.

    By refusing to participate in the review the threat to the lawyers is that the review process becomes obsolete.

    Anyway that does not help you.
    You need to have your own Admin review or go to the Family Court.

    Also given what you have told us, what is the point in you working in NZ again? I fail to see why you would stay in NZ. You could have a great life in another country that would value your contribution to their economy and society. Probably a country were women value men and fathers. I suspect you have an education and experience that would be in great demand in many countries.

  26. Ms IRD Oficer says:

    Hi Guys,
    Sorry I have been on leave and just back to work today.
    Vman knows very little about Child Support and the law we work under. Yes Admin Review Officers know a little about the CSA (Child Support Act) but where the CSA leaves off the Tax Administration Act applies. That lets us do basically what we like. We can come to your home and instruct you to photocopy every piece of paper in the house at your expense just because we would like a copy of it. I remember the time we had some poor sap copy all the unused bog rolls at his house because we needed the copies.

    They can only rule on your income

    What kind of moron are you? Income zero, no matter our pound of flesh and a fair dose of blood can be found elsewhere and it is perfectly within our powers.

    The biggest threat to the system is a lack of public confidence.

    That is also a joke. Peter Dunne is more than happy with our work and his Commissioner. Our bonuses and performance payments attest to that fact. The public don’t care about a bunch of layabout loosers like Vman and Had_enough. We can chase them where ever they go in the world. The Hague convention is soon to cover Child Support and there will be few places for Vman and his ilk to hide from our ability to justly and fairly administer the law.
    The number of cases relating to CS that get bought to the FC each year is less than 50. That is because we do such a wonderful job. We DO understand the rules and will continue to apply them in otherwise proper directions. Tight tight tight, that is our legislation and our application of it. Sorry guys but them’s the breaks, live with it and pay up what you owe for the support of your wee dears.
    If you do have a few unpaid then we make sure you remember those amounts as we add on a 10% here and a few 2%’s there. De dumb de dumb it all adds up and if you happen to come visit us here in God’s own then be assured we won’t let you out uyntil we have squeezed every last penny from you including those penalties that just keep adding and adding to the CS pot we administer.
    Come on guys, beauty therapy is expensive and our dear CPR’s need their weekly facial otherwise they might look like I do when I wake up in the morning.

  27. Scott B says:

    Not sure what you hope to achieve by pretending to be an IRD *********! Or what you hope to achieve by such posts!

  28. Scott B says:

    To be honest the reviews are no better than the initial guesstimate that the IRD do on how much you “owe” anyway. You do know that they can just say “sorry, too difficult” and not review it don’t you? It’s in one of their many pamphlets I have!

  29. paul says:

    welcome to the seedy world of parenting,its all about the money….kids,what kids

  30. julie says:

    I remember a lady I worked with, looooong time ago, who was married to a man who had been in the navy years before they got together. Great couple – your average factory workers who were asked to speak to groups dealing with miscarriages because they had something like 4 or 5 in a row and their marriage stayed in tack [blame in relationships destroy relationships, they say].

    After they had 3/4 children, he got lumped with orders to pay a women in an Asian country who said she was pregnant to him during his navy days.

    “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”, they also say and I hope that couple made it through for their 19 years would be finished.

  31. Scott B says:

    Ever noticed that mothers never say that the father owes the children that money? It is always “He owes me!”

  32. paul says:

    where are the receipts

  33. Scott B says:

    LOL yes I would like to know that too. It’s funny how we are supposed to pay all this money to “support” our children yet we have no right to know where the money is actually going nor does it give us a right to see or have any kind of relationship with our children or give them any actual support. But we are told that we MUST pay. Otherwise we do not care about the children!

  34. Skeptic says:

    Thanks fellas.
    I’m glad your ideas are being expressed.

    In my opinion what’s even worse is that you have no way of knowing if the kids are actually yours or you’ve been cuckolded!

    Because NZ in it’s misandric wisdom has made getting a DNA paternity test a CRIME!
    Yes, that’s right.
    A CRIME.
    Go figure!

    Even if you get good materials (say the child and your hair samples) and get the test done legally in Australia in a state of the art laboratory it will NOT be accepted in a NZ court as evidence.
    Repeat – NOT BE ACCEPTED.

    Why?
    Because you are a male.
    Legally you are in such instances a non entity – a nobody.

    How’s your mythical patriarchy holding up there Neville Robertson?
    Starting to notice any cracks in it yet?

  35. paul says:

    who pays you when the kids are in your care eg.maybe your half of any holidays,any weekends.do you get any money back?…does your x hand over any cash for any expenses you incur over these times……does the inland revenue understand the amount that is spent in the weekends keeping children amused…..NO the reason for this is because ur x sleeze of a wife is using u as a built in baby sitter so she can go out with her solo slut freinds and get laid using ur money….the government department known as the inland revenue know what goes on so they intentionally employ people with the IQ of amoeba.It also seems to me that the further you go up the ladder in the IR the bloody dumber they get….which means the person at the top is the dumbest on the planet.

  36. Vman says:

    I don’t mind Ms IRD Officer’s style of posting. Personally I do not think it is the way to motivate people to force some changes. However I understand their intent.

  37. paul says:

    good greif you rabbit on….but your right on the money

  38. Down Under says:

    I copied this off the previous child support post.

    The law does not recognise fathers; it recognises only a parent who has control and authority or a parent who has financial responsibility. For a father to take responsibility it requires that there is agreement from a Mother that they will absent themselves from the law. Family in the sense of Mothers and Fathers exists in the absence of law.

    Is this the problem?

  39. Scott B says:

    Sounds about right!

  40. paul says:

    looks like a huge problem

  41. Scott B says:

    I don’t see why a custodial parent shouldn’t be allowed to initiate a review. It’s surely just another state backed form of abuse/bullying?

  42. Alastair says:

    You have good advice from 2 of the best! This exposes the whole fallicy of CSA! Write tp Peter Dunne (Nothing) Cc your local MP especially if they are labour!

  43. Down Under says:

    The chief coroner said yesterday he would “possibly” issue a practice note to guide coroners about when to release information on self-inflicted deaths.

    The state has abandoned its responsibility to the preservation of life. A suicide is not a self-inflicted death. It is a killing, a taking of a life. The purpose of the inquest is to determine ‘the cause’ of that death.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4550506/Anger-over-missing-voice-from-suicide-review

  44. Phredd says:

    I had a similarly rough ride with IRD, the details of which I don’t intend to bore you with. However what I found very useful was to make an appointment with my MP at the first opportunity, and give her a copy of all correspondence to and from IRD, and with a summary for easy reference.
    Within a relatively short time my payments had been sorted, and since then I’ve had no more problems.
    I have no doubt that it helped having a Nation MP.
    Make some noise. MPs love to help constituents treated unfairly by the system!

  45. Jonathan says:

    Help please. I know this is off topic from the thread, but I saw on the site some time back a link to a very good article on how the US bureaucracy has created the deadbeat dad phenomena as a self-serving, revenue-generating mechanism. And now I cannot locate it. Can anyone provide the link?

  46. Julie says:

    Hi Jonathan, I would like to be able to provide you with the link you request and IMO, I think many others would like to also.

    Unfortunately, there’s been so many links to the type of information you’ve requested over time, that I wonder if any of us know where to start.

    Did you find it? If not, do you still want assistance? We might be able to narrow it down.

  47. Jonathan says:

    Thanks Julie, actually I have recently located it myself. “From Welfare State to Police State” by Stephen Baskerville:

  48. Unbelievable says:

    Interestingly this has just happened to me too. I lost my job mid 2009 and have been in one crap job after the other earning NOTHING near what i used to earn. I just went through an admin review that the disbelieving mother of my children put on me claiming points 7 & 8. I have now been ordered to pay child support in accordance with a figure that is $40,000 ABOVE what i have been earning over the last 8 months and what i currently earn. I do not understand where I am supposed to come up with this money and what to do to be heard. I did partake in the admin review and still no intelligent result. Seems in NZ there is a distinct bias towards mothers. This woman literally made up stories about me, and included false witness from my own mother (who is prepared to swear that she took part in no such conversations)… but yet it’s too late. The admin review is already complete and I am not sure what to do next. Im working my but off but its never enough.????

  49. John Brett says:

    Hi Unbelievable- You should share MY Attitude problem! Consider this:- The IRD think that they can get all of this money out of someone who has none. Who has the problem? THEY DO! POINT OUT THIS FACT
    I understand this- When I went through this, I was part on a benefit, and part in Temp labour jobs.
    When on a benefit they can only take $10 per week. TELL THEM THAT TOO.
    Your local MP would also be interested, but main point- Let The IRD do the worrying and sweating!

  50. Unbelievable says:

    Hi John Brett, I dont live in the country so its very difficult to understand or put these things into play. I am HAPPY to provide for my children. I don’t have a problem paying their support and im not trying to get out of it, but I would like to know how Im expected to increase payments such a huge amount when I physically don’t earn it. It would mean basically giving a major portion of my wage straight over in child support. I have a wife and daughter here in Australia in addition to my two girls in NZ. I feel like their decision was totally one sided and takes away from other members of my family. But I get the feeling they could care less. I would like to get feedback from others in this position and how to deal with it….. Is there someone or some department I can call…. Oh yeah and in addition to child support I pay for flights 4 to 8 times per year so the children can have visitation with their paternal family in Australia (part of the court order) and I have to fund that myself too. So now im in a position where I stand to lose visitation due to affordability. My heart is literally breaking just thinking about it. My family believe this was the motive at the end of the day, as in my ex will do anything to keep them away from me and take as much of my $ as possible. I just didn’t think the government would allow something like this. Surely theres SOMETHING we can do????

  51. Anonymous says:

    Unbeliveable,

    This happens all the time. Politicians know it happens and just dont care as the whole child tax act is too difficult for them.

    You can appeal to the Family Court in NZ but I wouldnot hold my breath.

    Being in Austrailia just means the Aussie Taxman will screw you for the NZ taxman to get the money.

  52. John Brett says:

    Hi Unbelievable-
    What difference does the county make? The same dynamic plays out in most Western Countries. You say you “don’t have a problem paying their support, and are not trying to get out of it” but-
    You chose to have two families, but you only earn basic wages.
    It takes a BIG wage to support ONE family, (as I did for 20 years) – Who did you expect to support all these children? Your two families?
    I think that you SHOULD be handing over the majority of what you earn- then you know what normal parents have had to do (as well as supporting other peoples families through tax)
    I don’t have respect for the Inland revenue- Child Tax division- but your mess is your own.

  53. Mits says:

    hang on a minute there John Brett

    Reading what he has said and taking it at face value he had a good job but got laid off 09 and had a admin review go against him (surprise surprise not)
    And he also pays for his kids to travel to see him 4 to 8 times a year on top of that.

    This mess he’s in, which you tell him is his own, could happen to any one of us.

    Im paying high child tax at the moment due to being PAYE and working long hours to get ahead. The children get to see sweet F all of all this child tax as their mother gets first dibs and considers it her money.
    I have another family now which is why I have to work longer hours and upskill myself to be able to give them what they need after child tax has been liberally skimmed off my income.
    If I was to get laid off is it your contention that the drop in my income is my fault and while the family that are with me can suffer due to these circumstances the witch I have to pay child tax to could never be asked to suffer such a hardship and infact should have her entiltlement increased?
    You have to give some thought to that statement “you chose to have two families”
    John I can tell you I have been through the divorce, family caught, IRD, Cypfs had their evil snout in the trough at one time, lawyers and lawyers for child. None of it was my choice but I still got through it.
    Give the man a break

    Mits

  54. John Brett says:

    Mits-‘you chose to have two families’- you need to have a way of supporting them too. Most men can hardly afford one family, even on a high wage- what was your plan?
    Normally, if you are on the high income needed to support a family, and then lose that income, the dependant family suffers. That’s life, that’s how it is.
    If you have two dependant families, you have twice the problem.
    If you have the IRD dipping into your bank for child support, or child tax, then when the money runs out then the IRD don’t get any. TOUGH FOR THEM
    I’ve been in that situation- IDR took my last dollar, then sent me demands for what I couldn’t pay.
    The children they were supposedly taking the money for were actually living with me at the time, so NO FOOD FOR ANY OF US
    The Bank Manager kindly lent me some money, and so did my mother.

    At least I had the brains not to start another family.
    I made a new plan- carried it out, got a new life.

    Your plan is what? The Government (other stuggling families) should pay for all your and the other fellows offspring? GIVE THE REST OF US A BREAK

  55. Mits says:

    I am supporting them JB that was my point.
    I pay the child tax as well as child support to my children of my first wife and I support my children with me.
    Dont blame men for this ludicris system that allows women to walk out of their marriages take the children that they have no way of looking after with them and then demand a govt handout and then force the father into paying for the priveldge of her lifestyle choices.
    what this guy is telling you is that due to IRD stubbornly applying their rules to this misbegotten system of child tax his second family dont get a look in as its only fair that the first family doesnt suffer. And you seem to be going along with that.
    I dont want the NZ taxpayer(govt) or anyone to pay for my offspring as you so quaintly put it. I’ll pay for them myself, which if you’d read what I’d written you would see that I already do.
    Good on you for getting your kids back. I would have taken a bit more of a stance in that scenario and stopped paying IRD before I was completely broke but then I dont know your whole story. This is the fault of a income based tax on children. Am I a better parent or citizen because I pay more in child tax than someone else. If I work hard and pay the tax does that mean Im helping out the poor old taxpayer better than someone like yourself who went on a benefit. I dont think so. Its a money grab nothing else dont believe the hype that its for the children. If it was there would be a better system as you pointed out in your post.
    I hope in six years time when Im done paying child tax, I fully believe i will pay child support to my dying day, kids dont end at 19, that I dont take your attitude.

    Mits

  56. Dan says:

    If there is one change that could be made to the child tax system my first choice would be an end of year square up so you pay tax on what you actually earned rather than some IRD wonk’s wet dream about what they think they can screw out of you. Then they would think twice before extracting anything that they thought they might have to get back from the custodial parent.
    But of course that would breach the custodial parent’s human rights, it would be unfair on them, it would harm the children, it would be expensive to enforce yada yada yada. The current unfair, abusive and expensive system is much easier for them – they don’t care about you.

  57. Train Driver says:

    I totally understand on how you feel,

    I have shared care for two children who are in my care for 50 percent (week about)and I have my other Son 3 weekends out of 4 from Friday after school and take him back to school on Monday plus half of the school holidays and it works out through I.R.D that he is in my care for 36 percent of the time and YET I am still liable to pay Child Support and get charged 1125.00 per month.

    What about the resposibilty when the children are in their Mothers care just as I am resposible for my Children when they are in my care and YET, I get nothing and if I did claim Child Support for the two Children who I have 50/50 care for, I.R.D told me that all I will be entitled to is the minimum of $67.00 per month and I fall short of Shared Care 60/40 for my other Son.

    I applied for an Administrative Review under 3 grounds and was told that my situation will not change and the current legislation will still apply to my case and I too am borrowing money to survive and pay for my Children when they are with me.

    I am being punished for having an active interest with my Children and being a great Father to my Children.

  58. Bob says:

    I have no job, a benefit, cancer and still the IRD harrass me for over $1,000 a month. They are a bunch of thugs. No other way to describe there actions. The government sanctions it and thus its time for men to stand up and fight this unfair legislation.

    I ask all men and fair minded women to make this an election matter. If we stand by idly accepting our status then we deserve what we get. I think its time to make a stand in Queen St and become more politicised. If we do not then kids will be the losers as the British example of abandoning the child support agency shows that this type of legislation does not help the children. Just money grabbing women unfortunately. Lets make a date for a march near to the election date. Or even during the rugby world cup – the equivalent of a man’s shopping mall – it worked for apartheid why not mens issues.

  59. noconfidence says:

    sign me up. I have experience of IRD doing something similar to me.
    If you explain some more detail about your case then maybe some of us on here can advise you what to do.

  60. noconfidence says:

    btw; can anyone point me in the right direction for a good, safe, cheap vasectomy ?

  61. Skeptik says:

    i think you may be able to get it done through the family planning association.
    Just look in the yellow pages.

  62. Peter says:

    Would someone kindly advise me on how to post documents onto this website.

    It was great to finally receive some form of correspondence from the IRD of the Women’s Republic of New Zealand. Could they please call again as there are further serious present and historical human rights and legal abuses to be addressed. Should she not be be able, either Fiona Bell or Paula McGill would be acceptable substitutes.

  63. Scott B says:

    LOL Women’s Republic of NZ!

  64. Darryl X says:

    Hans – just reading some of the older posts here and thought I’d comment on yours. In the US, I have/had a $70,000 per year income. I pay $30,000 in child support and another $30,000 in state and federal taxes. No surprise I was no longer able to afford to work. The idiots ran me out of a job (could no longer afford a car to get back and forth to work – and no, I don’t buy on credit) and now can’t pay any child support. (If a reasonable amount were ordered, there wouldn’t be this mess.) So, now I’m looking at state or federal prison for the rest of my life (yes, they do that in the US – and the cost for the State or the feds to keep me in prison is about $30,000 per year, so they are screwing themselves). Since the state can not lower or eliminate my order for child support because of the Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, arrears continue to accumulate until and after my death (approximately 6% of all child support obligors in the US for whom arrears continue to accumulate are in fact dead). I will not be able to afford to pay the arrears (ever), employed or not and therefore will never be able to receive Social Security benefits when I’m elderly. Furthermore, I can’t declare bankruptcy or receive any kind of welfare benefits of any kind. That I will be on the street soon is guaranteed (I stay with friends right not but that is not indefinite). That’s why I’ve been looking for a place to go in the world (with my last few dollars) where as long as I’m homeless and starving, I won’t be cold (and I will be an illegal immigrant since I won’t have a passport – the State Dept takes that away too when you’re in arrears). And to answer your question, “no”, it does not cost $30,000 a year to raise two kids in the US. More like $10,000. The rest is to facilitate adultery of my ex and the mother of my daughter. Also, the additional money is used by the State to collect federal subsidies through a number of programs. That’s why such large amounts of child support are ordered. On top of that, I have not seen my children in years – no one cares. But I probably already told you this. Maybe someone else might benefit from it, though. The US has become one of the scariest and tyrannical countries in the world.

  65. Hans Laven says:

    Darryl X: That sounds terrible, absolutely disgusting. I cannot see that such inhumane exploitation and abuse of one subsection of society, also involving such destruction of children’s lives, can be based on anything other than a master plan with ulterior motives, such as weakening the population to reduce the power of democracy against the elite in government. How on earth else could this stuff be explained?

    I would invite you to NZ but I fear things will soon become just as bad for men and children here. They’re pretty bad already, but not as bad as what you describe.

  66. Bruce S says:

    Hans & Darryl X; the situation Darryl X describes, where child support payments exceed income, does occur in New Zealand. Indeed there are already examples cited on this site. In my situation when I separated, losing “our house” and a significant wad of cash; IRD assessed my child support “obligations” on the basis of the previous years income and the assumption that I was still financially fluid after the separation. The IRD assumed I was still making the same money after the separation as I was prior. I ended up having to pay more in child support (for 10 months) than I was actually earning. Of course, this has been fixed now; as Darryl X explained, the incentive is there not to work; so I don’t. It seems NZ is dragging the chain here tho; I haven’t been threatened with jail; yet.

  67. Skeptik says:

    Yes, Daryl X.
    I understand what you’re saying.
    Several of my American buddies (who never want to set foot in USA under present feminist dominated conditions too) will verify every word you’ve written describing the place.

    America is now a feminist shit-hole which I won’t even visit, so I see completely why you’d want to leave.
    As you know I left NZ for similar reasons.
    I got fed up with paying massive taxes to subsidize a form of quasi gender-apartheid feminist elitism and marginalize/criminalize masculinity.
    The day in day out death by a million small cuts seeing men, including myself ridiculed, treated unjustly, ignored, demonized with gross caricaturization I personally found soul destroying.
    That was depressing enough.
    So how you cope with living in a place even more draconian than NZ like the USA is hard for me to imagine.
    I admire you doing so.
    It’s ironic to fantasize of Mexicans sneaking into USA to settle there, whilst savvy USA guys go the other direction!
    Whatever move you make I hope it works out well for you.
    I won’t ask you to divulge any ideas or plans as we never know exactly who is reading this site.
    But as a general principal I’d bet my right arm feminists keep pretty close tabs on this site looking to see the next moves MRA are going to make and whether they can strike preemptively or at least block with misinformation.
    Whilst I’m writing here, please understand it’s great to have you writing regularly on this sight as it gives readers insight into just where NZ men are heading if we aren’t vigilant.

  68. Phoenix says:

    Hey if we still hunt for Nazis 65 years later, I wonder how long the hunt for feminists will last after all the BS is finally over.

  69. Phoenix says:

    Hey that would make a great protest action. Every man in NZ, who pays child support, applying for an administrative review…..at the same time. I wonder how the system would cope with that number of reviews being processed at once.

  70. Darryl X says:

    Depends on how long the hunt for fathers delinquent in child support will persist.

  71. Darryl X says:

    Or better yet, if every man who is ordered to pay child support stops paying. In the US, the already-crippled economy would grind to a screeching halt. Child support and the divorce and domestic violence and child abuse industries really are such a large part of the economy throughout the developed world that if all men just walked away from their jobs and stopped paying for a little while, all of civilization and the public infrastructure would fall apart. I’ve been a strong proponent of this kind of civil disobedience. But administrative reviews all at the same time is also a good idea and probably more achievable.

    That being said, I remind you that you’re not dealing with humans but monsters – psychopaths and malignant narcissists. They would interpret a phenomenon like massive petition for administrative review as evidence of their success in making your lives miserable and encourage them to do even more to make your lives miserable. That’s how malignant narcissists and psychopaths think. They don’t want things to work. They don’t care about the “best interests of children”. They want to make as much money as they can by generating as much chaos as possible. These people in or government and courts and in the legal profession truly are evil. The more evidence of their success in generating chaos, the more they will do to generate it. Good luck!!!

  72. Darryl X says:

    Yes, Hans. I believe the goal of our government and the Central Banks and the Divorce Industry and other conspirators (willing and knowing or not) is to exploit for the purpose of achieving absolute power and control and to transfer massive financial instruments from the poor and middle class (or what’s left of it) to the wealthiest few. These are malignant narcissists and psychopaths – no conscience, anlytical skills, or long-term planning. They are addicted to power and control and sex – which is easily bought with money. These are not people but monsters, incapable of reason or sense and trying to interact with them at that level is futile. That’s why I’ve said before that every attempt to appeal to any sense of empathy or with reason like analysis of facts and data is pointless. They are incapable of understanding and even if they were, they don’t care. Appealing to their sense of empathy by describing the consequences of their actions for children and fathers and families and civilization just encourages them, as they interpret such appeals as evidence of their success at destroying civilization and consolidating power and control in themselves. Appeals like these satisfy their fix for narcissistic supply. The more the better. That is why they and their institutions must be destroyed. The United States has become a very dangerous place and anyone who allies themselves with it has made a deal with the devil (as has already been demonstrated by our economic crisis).

  73. Doug says:

    Skeptic
    Mexico is the thirld world shit hole that America is turning into. The international bankers and their cabal follow the Talmud and anyone who understands it will realise that this is not just the ‘religion’ of a tribe who wandered the desert and suffered the effects of sunstroke, drinking bad water and smoking halucinogenic plants. This tribe became the Mongols (Khazars) and they have terrible plans for the world they believe was given to them by God.

  74. Deb says:

    First time I’ve been on this site and it’s great to know we are not alone.
    My husband is currently being beaten up big time by the IRD for similar situations described above about the assessment formula. He is self employed and we never know from one month to the next what he will be earning. The last communication we had yesterday from IRD was, to put it simply, my 2 kids – I only receive child support of $70.63 for one as the other is at university and over 19 – is that I should be ‘helping’ my husband pay his child support. He has been assessed to pay 11 times as much for 1 child than I receive for my one. Even though, I struggle to support my kids,their expectation is my children are less important than my husband’s daughter whose mother and partner have a combined income of $300,000. a year. We are desparate to find out if there is anyone who can give us guidance on administrative reviews or suggest anything else we can do. Thanks!

  75. Bruce S says:

    Hi Deb; first and foremost; the IRD calculation is only used to assess child support IF THE PARENTS cannot agree on financial support arrangements. Does your husband communicate with his ex? If yes; then perhaps they can come to a more amicable support arrangement that they can work on; instead of these IRD assessments? Sadly; if that is not possible, then you are left in the same hole as the rest of us; battling the bureaucracy for a modicum of fairness.

    Your situation high lights precisely the idiocy and stupidity of the child support system. Why indeed are there huge disparity’s in what each “paying parent” has to contribute? Shouldn’t the costs of maintaining children be somewhat constant; irrespective of the income of the paying parent?

    I wish you well in your quest for fairness; rightly or wrongly; the best outcome really does lie in the hands of your husband’s ex.

  76. Gwaihir says:

    Not quite correct Bruce. If unsupported child benefit is being paid in respect of the child or the other parent is paid DPB by MSD, full formula is claimed by IRD and paid to the consolidated fund. There are exceptions, however IRD will hound you to the grave (and beyond) to collect their share.

  77. cleanedOut says:

    Has anyone here tried the IRD ombudsman?

    I have debt with IRD, and yesterday they just took everything in my account out with no warning, telling me I had not contacted them for months (then later pointing out I had made 2 payment a month ago). I realise I need to pay it, but I am currently out of work as im a contractor and last contract ended and the one I had lined up next fell through. Anyway I am not entitled to any support from work and income etc at all – even if I was dying of starvation as i earned too much last year, and I dont have a partner and my parents dont have enough money to pay my costs for the next couple of months will I hopefully have another job. Ive got no idea what I am going to do…

    I read through the legislaton they work under (the tax admin act) and it says that they cant take out money from a bank account if it would result in significant hardship. Their -model- also implies that they only do that to people who are totally ignoring them, and that they ‘want to help’people who are in debt, but making some payments (just not enough)
    I went through it all today as I had no idea how much the original debt had ballooned to, and the most I am going to be able to pay when I am working will still be way less than the increasing principal – is used a snowball debt calculator and for each payment the amoutn due leaps even higher, so the longer I am paying it the more it will be…. short of winning lotto now sure how I can ever hope to pay it off

  78. Simonb says:

    cleanedOut
    A message to everyone.Dont get behind with your Child Support.I heard of a father living in Oz who deposited a lot of money into his NZ bank account and it was whipped out straight away by IRD and given to the mother of his children.He hadnt paid for years.Tough eh…

  79. Gwaihir says:

    If anybody plans to head overseas – Leave nothing here. IRD considers they have a greater need. Have you tried an administrative review? Can get the payments altered. They do consideration in cases Cleanedout. But you have to be a good boy and totally open your books. I think that they have more power than Hitler!

  80. Vman says:

    I’ve discovered the same problem. How can any one have any confidence in a department and a system that is so plainly absurd? IRD have ackowledged that they have no foundation for this assesment but they have gone and set it anyway.
    I’ve been to an Admin review process once. They refused to make a decision and wanted me to take the issue to the family court. Then effectively made a decision because they continued to tax at the unsubtainable amount. The made the flawed asumption that I would have the money and emotional capital to go to the family court. A system that I have found to be so deeply biased as to be unconscionable. A system that I certainly i see no point turning to unless I actually wanted my life to be miserable.

  81. Down Under says:

    They were probably trying to force you into court so they could get a decision against you that would then be case law that they could use against anyone else. You were in a lose-lose situation, but that is the way these pieces of shit operate. They like to make an example of anyone who dares to complain. That is why we refer to them as possessed toys.

  82. Vman says:

    You are probably correct. The system is failing under it’s own weight and they still don’t get it.

  83. sean says:

    well im going through kind of the same,my ex walked out on a mortgage and 12 grand debt,she always said that if i take on the debt she will support the kids when she has them and i will when i have them,7 months later she is filing for child support now i have to go through all this crap…after all the bills come out i have $200 per week, CS is $180 per week….so im ment to feed my kids,me petrol of 20 per week,yea right.i wont even beable to afford to see my kids……moral of the story,never trust a woman and pick wisely who you have kids with

  84. hornet says:

    File a complaint with the Human Rights Commission – the current system is oppressive, bullying and discriminating against you as a male, and as a father – it is discriminatory towards you on the basis of a perceived social standing – the system prefers to use, historical envious evidence of when you were successful and is not basing an assessment on your current situation – what is the point of offering a review system “when your circumstances change” if it does not look at your CURRENT predicament (take it from me I know because I am in the same boat), the entire review system is a sham anyway. I have been told by IRD phone operators ( just normal people answering phones – who hear all the complaints and usually agree with us that we are being hammered by an unjust system – and they usually will only give you an off the record comment) stating that the FIRST decision made is never overturned in any subsequent review – so why offer a review process if no one is going to overturn the usually biased and one sided first decision which will hammer the male into complete financial submission?

    The discriminatory expectation on men, is you have to pay to prove your circumstances in court at your cost. More discrimination and bias towards fathers. BY not accepting financial returns and facts from men is discriminatory and prejudiced. Why bother filing returns if those facts are not accepted at this level?

    Discrimination is a crime – and only a collective complaint by all those effected will make the system realize this is happening in good old supposedly fair go New Zealand…….its currently not a fair go at all. You will be surprised how many good women out there agree with us – good women married to good fathers who agree this system is a sham, a disgrace and is discriminatory.

    File a complaint so its on record but Dont hold your breath with the HUman rights commission – they acknowledge that they receive lots of complaints from fathers ( I wonder why ) but currently they have decided to do nothing about it……..(inter department butt covering springs to mind here). it will be interesting to demonstrate that the very department set up to protect people from oppression and discrimination is refusing to actually help those who are being effected.!!!!!!!!!! So does that make them a party to the offence??

  85. ford says:

    by xmas ill be in a position to claim a benefit that is freely given to women..i qualify in every aspect except im a male.anyone want to assist me in a gender discrimination lawsuit against winz?

  86. Hans Laven says:

    hornet (#85): In my opinion the Human Rights Commission is most certainly a party to crimes against (the male half of) humanity. So is our ‘Families Commission’ set up by Dunne the Fraud (who pretends to care about men’s issues in election year then spends the next two years kicking and exploiting men). Both the Human Rights Commission and the Families Commission fund the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ that encourages the population to be against violence only towards women and turns a blind eye to the most frequent violence in our society, violence towards men. Through this pointed omission both of these tax-funded bodies (and others) condone violence towards men and encourage the population not to care about men. They also promote the feminist myth that women are more often victims of violence than men are, a falsehood now widely believed in our society. It really is unbelievably ridiculous that our so-called Human Rights Commission repeatedly indulges in this obnoxious gender discrimination. Would they practice racial discrimination in this way? E.g. “Maori, show you’re against violence towards white people”. Statistically that campaign would be more justified, but of course it would be seen as totally unacceptable. But hey, when it comes to men any kind of abuse seems to be acceptable. Complaints to the so-called ‘Human Rights Commission’ about any form of discrimination against men seem clearly to be wasted effort based on its behaviour so far. Both this body and the Families Commission seem to be really only concerned about women’s interests and should be renamed ‘The Commissions for Feminist Propaganda’ or ‘The Women’s Supremacy Commissions’. Can anyone else think of good names for these male-demeaning institutions?

  87. hornet says:

    Hans, dont get me started on the violence theme……in my case, two people go there separate ways by mutual agreement, then the family court and its lawyers get involved and all of a sudden every horrible allegation that can be made against was – Im violent, abusive, angry, I drink, I gamble – about the only thing she did not try was to falsely accuse me of sexual abuse…..I spend the first half of the circus defending my reputation – successfully against all such attempts to defame me. It appears this tactic is the first course of action – paint the picture that you are all these things, so that protection orders and violence orders will be sanctioned against you and the rest is easy – if you are successful in defending yourself against that onslaught, then you have to deal with every bad behaviour imaginable by these women – stopping you see your kids, making every visit difficult, alienation – the list of seemingly acceptable bad behavior by a woman is endless – after nine years I now have two psychological reports detailing the SEVERE PSYCHOLOGICAL harm the mothers bad behaviour has caused the child – and NOTHING is done about it. last time I checked Psychological harm is child abuse = but they do nothing about it. I have a parenting order giving me time with the kid, but when the child is deliberately withheld from me – over christmas when it will cause the most harm, in direct breach of the parenting order – nothing is done about it. I file all the paper work given to me by the Justice department, the court registrar helps complete it and accepts it into the court after I drive hours across Auckland wasting my xmas time with my family, trying to seek a warrant to give me time which has now passed ( thats what the system expects of fathers ) – the judge throws the paperwork out because apparently its not in the correct format – so COURT PROCESS is more important than giving a father time with his child – and a court order is breached and the court does nothing about it……..These are Simple facts to access – the child is not in my care as per your parenting order – do something about it ….oh no sorry you forgot to insert a heading here and you missed a couple of full stops in your affidavit – dismissed, thrown out – try again – are you kidding me – so in the face of all this provocation ( thats why they removed it as a defence) a man ( who is hard wired to protect his family and children from harm ) is expected to sit back and watch his kids be harmed and do nothing about it -and we wonder why men are taking the law into there own hands – any person faced with such dreadful behavior, such horrible provocation would do the same – there is actually no other path to take – when faced with such a disgusting, biased one sided sham system. Interestingly when I talked to CYFS for help to see my child over christmas ( I also missed her birthday as a direct result of the breach of the court order)- time I never get back ) they referred me to the Police – the police actually wanted to help – a breach of a court order is an arrestable offence, in fact they said they were inundated with calls over christmas similar to mine, but the family court says they are NOT ALLOWED to intervene to help you uplift your child in time you have been given – yes even the police felt constrained by an unworkable system, so again you have direct provocation, deliberate breaches of a family court parenting order – and there is NO ONE you can turn to in your time of need, if you want to do things the right way……..so what choice do men have…..they fall into the well laid trap – the react as anyone would, and are then forever branded – angry and violent – and remember once you allow a protection order or violence order to be successfully lodged – its with you forever!!!!!
    Even now after years of refusing to have any personal interaction with the ex, and by restricting all communication to email and texts – she still chants the mantra of the disgruntled ex – calling me angry, violent abusive and everything else she can think of, (even when she has no knowledge of my new life, with a new wife and a new child), its all designed to get a reaction…constantly bating me to incite a reaction – so they can hang this tag on you, making the rest easy for them ……. because you then lose your credibility, your reputation, your children and everything else…….

    That is the current tactic for lawyers in the family court……..destroy you – make you out to be a horrible father……….all for what, some power trip, control of the kids, narcissism at its finest………fathers then just walk away……..they have no means – time or money to fight such an oppressive system……….

  88. Sam says:

    Hi all, need some advise, i used to pay my ex through a private arrangment until i moved a fare distance away from my daughter, then i incurred all the travel costs to collect and return my little one, which is around $300 plus a month, depending on grab a seat offers if i cant get them then i drive or pay big dollors for flights, so i stopped paying my ex this money, she in returned threatned me with the IRD, but before she did i went along and spoke to them and found out i could pay her the minimum each month but she as she was the bread winner when we were married would incure a far more fee back to me. i didnt seek this as not to start a battle but i wished i did now. After nearly three years i have not claimed bennefit nor had a sallary i live in a what can i call it a kept relationship with my new partner and help her with her business but as i state do not and never have received a wage for nearly three years. What can the IRD do as i have nothing in my accounts and my tax refund balance shows nothing earned. I know i do pay for flights and i know they will ask were that money comes from but what do i say ive been useing my own money that my ex bought me out of the seperation from the house but since put that in my daughters trust account, but everything else would come from my partner, could they seek my income from her even though we are not married, she has her own children to support let alone paying for my troubles, whats the score ???

  89. Allan Harvey says:

    Hi Same,
    First thing you do is STOP talking about your financial affairs on this website. This can and will be used against you and what you have said above will cost you and probably not benefit your children if it remains. Ask John P to deletre your post above.
    Get some good advice, in confidence, from someone experienced in Child Sup[port matters.
    Write to allan@uof.org.nz.

  90. ford says:

    i wouldnt worry about your post sam..just dont identify anyone and youll be sweet

  91. V8 says:

    Who’s this John p where is the link to get in touch with him then Allan i’m about and want to let of some steam and ask for advise about my IRD troubles and other matters about seperation and i may get caught up in the motion and i dont want to be seen noticed just yet.

  92. Gwaihir says:

    Johm P. is our August web slave, Allan is with Union of Fathers. They also have outposts in Hamilton and Tauranga!

  93. Jane says:

    I’m not a Father, I’m a Mother who has been reading this with interest as I am also being d*cked around by Child Support and Administrative Reviews, and trust me when I say the same bias happens regardless if you are female or male, it seems that all non-custodial parents are tarred with the same brush.
    I had a review with the same outcome as the original poster. I also can’t apply again but am told I can try my luck with “new information” that has come to hand so the ground can I can apply for my own review under the same grounds. I’ve spent hours in tears on the phone to IRD trying to reason with them and explaining I have no means of paying this and the arrears are building with penalty.
    I’ve been assessed in the admin review by the woman at a salary I have no hope of achieving again. She had no understanding of the current job market and she treated me with such contempt during the hearing from the start that it was obvious she had made up her mind what the outcome would be before it began. I was also accused of quitting my job to avoid child support (untrue) but she wouldn’t listen to any reasoning as her mind was made up. I think it is highly possible it was the same person who did the original posters review and perhaps she takes this stance each time so she can make a fast assessment and a quick buck. She was a complete b*tch. I honestly think if the original poster had attended the hearing the outcome wouldn’t have changed, she’s not interested in what the non-custodial parent has to say!
    The ex has custody because he had more money, makes hundreds of thousands with his new partner. My husband makes less than half what they do combined but supports us as I am currently unemployed but I’m still expected to pay $2100 a month because I used to make good money. We don’t get benefits and I’m still paying a small amount towards child support out of my husbands salary even while unemployed just to keep IRD satisfied that I’m making an effort. We have no assets, my husband has also paid his share of child support so has been through the same sh*t I’m going through. Its an absolute disgrace. I have no issue with paying towards child support but the amount I’ve been set to pay is absolutely unachievable, if I get a job I’ll still be going backwards because they’ll make deductions out of my salary and at the level the review set, so I can’t just take any job, I have to try and hold out for this elusive high salary I used to make. Funny that when I search for jobs to apply for paying that salary these days there I get “no search results found”
    I sympathise with each man that is going through this. I’m a non-feminist myself despite being woman (equality has gone way too far) and I can see the issues you all face and the unjust treatment you receive but as I said, as a woman suffering at the hands of IRD, I find the administrative review process utterly ridiculous and bias toward the non custodial parent regardless of gender. The lawyers they hire are completely ignorant of the job market and economy and have no financial background to decide what is and isn’t affordable for the average Joe Bloggs to pay and still survive. There is no compassion and no understanding.
    Meanwhile the ex takes overseas holidays and buys a new car and lives in his mansion..
    Oh well I apply again and wait. Hopefully I can get a reviewer who has applied for a job in the last decade and has some understanding that a high salary cannot just be whipped out of thin air at will.

  94. Shafted says:

    Julie,
    Your situation is almost exactly the same as mine except that i am now working. I have been reassessed for the period i wasn’t and now have huge arrears to them that i have no hope of repaying any time soon. Ex lied in admin review but when i brought that to IRD attention they advised that they “dont handle that sort of thing” and that i should get a lawyer to look into it.
    Like yours, ex goes skiing and overseas holidays whilst i struggle to pay car rego and warrant.Kids are dressed in finest attire and spoilt rotten by her and i can barely affors to feed them when they stay with me. I am so angry and beaten and upset i could scream

  95. Gwahir says:

    Kids aren’t silly. The other party can smother them with goodies, but not smother them with love. As Stephen Tindall said, “The best thing you can spend on your children is time” . The other thing is always praise the gift, as (The X) is so good helping me to look after you! Save your bitterness for private, well away fron the children!

  96. Too Tired says:

    to 94. Jane.

    If you pay something towards arrears there should be no interest added, also in April you will be re-assessed based on last years actual earnings so the amount the IRD can ask of you will drop (and by the sounds of your post it will be dramatic)

    There really is no way around early charges even if like me you actually pay what they ask on time they find a way to say you didn’t pay enough etc, the system is rought with problems.

    But if your ex-earns a lot are you on good terms because you can come to an agreement about how much he expects and this will remove IRD’s calculations and any potential charges as long as you pay the agreed amount between you and your ex. Or if he doesn’t want your money he can opt to recieve nothing.

    Hopefully very soon the GOVT will change CS and his income will matter when making calculations so hang in there 🙂

  97. Nickstar says:

    Shafted, your situation sounds like my partners. Ex lied in review and he was ordered to pay extra. What becomes confusing is that he has 2 children that have different mothers. His child support for both gets deducted each pay day, On one IRD staement it says he has 2 dependent children, on the other he has 1…..how can the same man be living in two different situations???
    My partners exs go out get facials, pedicures, hair done, ponse around looking like a million bucks!!!, buying new horses, new cars etc, when my partner had to work an 80hr week over the christmas months so that we had enough money to buy the kids that live with up permenatley presents. It makes me sad as his exs refuse him visitation, have lied to courts saying he was violent, and our kids with us miss out daily because of the system. Whats even worse was the 80hr weeks hes was working to have a half decent christmas will probably bite us in the arse this finacial year and once again our kids here with have to go without so his ex can live the high life.
    It makes me sick!

  98. Down Under says:

    @ Nickstar That all makes perfect sense to me and it will to other people in the same situation but not to someone who isn’t in that situation. Could I ask you to take the time to write a clearer longer post as if you were explaining this to someone who doesn’t understand? Many people really have no idea what is actually happening and many women don’t actually speak up about what they see. You never know who might pass by and read what you have written.

  99. Nickstar says:

    My partner pays child support for two children. The children have different mums. My partner and I try to gain visitation thru the family court system and failed, due to us having a lack of money and his exs working together and lying to their lawyers saying my partner is violent. We have not seen his children in 18 months as the exs will not allow visits. His children are 6 and 3. His exs also decided to review the amount of child support he was to pay aswell, lied to the review officers, saying Abbie misses out on kindy and things she needs because my partner was living with me and supporting my 11yr old daughter that I have 50/50 care of with my ex His ex collects the DPB, also works 20hrs a week as a beautition and lives with her partner who works full time, so the child does not miss out at all!!!!. IRD review said it was fair that my partner support his biological children (which his ex refuses him access to) before his step children (my daughter that lives with us 2wks of every month)….so IRD took my daughter off his living allowance and ordered him to pay an extra $60 a week. IRD said he was to pay this until our son was born in August then it dropped by $5 because thats all it costs for a baby each week????
    Ird then proceeded to send my partner statements to show him how much hes to pay to each of his exs. To our surprise, he had 1 dependant child on one statement (my son) and 2 dependant children on his other statement (my son and my daughter)…. confusing how the same man has TWO different living situations, TWO different amounts of dependant children, and TWO differentamounts of income and TWO different amounts of child support to pay???
    When we tried to ask IRD about these contradictions, We were put on hold then cut off, I assume this is because they could NOT answer our questions. Also told us that if I was to work, and my partner stayed home with the kids that I would be liable to pay his child support. I argued that he WAS NOT allowed to pay for his step daughter so why should I???
    Once again no one would answer my question…I wa sput on hold and cut off or told, “that is not the situation I am in so it is irrelavant” WTF!!! its not irrelavant!
    IRD contradict themselves and if me, An at home mum, can work out the inconsistancies, the fake income amounts, the amount some idiots has made up for you to live on, which is immpossible, for example, Myself, my partner and our TWO children are expected to live on $400 a week. our rent it $280!!!
    my partner and I dont mind paying child support, what we mind is when our kids we live with miss out daily on things like a new pair of shoes, treats like a damn icecream!!! because of IRD not calculating things correctly, ALSO they need to tgake into account how much the EXS bring into their households!!! 3 incomes into one of my partners exs place, we have 1. And when he has to work 80hr weeks so we can give our children a half decent christmas, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM!!!!!!!
    Thge goverment needs to acknowledge that times have changed, things are expensive and they need to stop complaining about child poverty, when THE GOVERNMENT is to blame for some of that!!!!!! It makes me sick, and very heartbroken that my partner and I cannot support our kids on a $62,000 a year wage because the government think its fair to take a 3rd of his wage so his exs can go to have facials, pedicures etc OH and not to mention. go out clubbing each weekend, and buy new horses….on the DPB????
    Maybe we should all go on the DPB it seems to be paying alot these days, well enought to go to pubs and buy new cars anyway…if there is anyobne out there who thinks I have this wrong, I would love to hear from you….my conclusion is IRD child support system is a F#$%KING joke, and the government, the media, and the public need to stop ignoring this issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  100. golfa says:

    #100 Nickstar. I believe the proposed changes to the Child Support Act will make no difference to the situation you are in. Unless I’m wrong, the changes have not mentioned the Admin Review process or the application of it at all.

  101. Glen says:

    Hi All, My ex has moved out of the family home and wont give me her new address she is claiming now through her lawyer that i assaulted her although when my lawyer confronted them on the evidence they had none except to say the police had been advised. When i quizzed my lawyer about my rights as a parent she said and i quote “there is nothing in terms of the law to force your ex to tell you where she is”

    Surely this cannot be true i must have some rights although we are also working through the custody of the kids. Any advise anyone as my lawyer is not going to do anything but put a request to her lawyer who has been using bully tactics from the beginning.
    I suppose all of this came to ahead after i caught her having an affair so it my fault now yea right.

  102. Gwahir says:

    Unfortunately Glen your lawyer is sort of correct.

    I ass ume no protection order and your X has no reason to fear for her personal saftey my suggestion is to apply for a without notice contact order for your children. Change overs can be at a neutral place. Contact http://www.uof.org.nzExcellent advice here!

  103. Nickstar says:

    @golfa…I don’t think the child support changes will help the likes of us either. The part that annoys me is that I think ALL the children suffer from the system how it is, the children we pay CS for, miss out as they don’t get a chance to bond with their father as the lawyers, IRD, government and god knows who else, seem to make this an issue about “father vs. Mother” not what is the best thing for the children. The children we live with also suffer, due to the ridiculous amounts of CS and penalties IRD demand. IRD have decided a family of 4 should have no more than $350 per week to live on. OUR RENT IS $280!!!!! get a god damn grip NZ and make this issue known and lets try and work together to get the changes we need fo our kids who are the future dont grow up with mental issues or in poverty!!!!!

  104. shafted says:

    Nickstar-its a tragedy.
    I am living in a defacto relationship with a lady who has 2 children. At the time i moved in it coincided with my son starting a trade apprenticeship. Thus, i contacted the IRd and informed them that i was in a defacto relationship, and that my son should not be considered as part of child support. They advised me that my contributions would be reduced due to change in circumstance and partners 2 children. I advised that the 2 children were not mine and that whilst i contributed by way of food and power and bills etc they were not dependent. The IRD informed me, no, you are entitled to reduction.
    Next thing, ex calls for admin review (may i point out that the support she was getting for our 3 children together was the same outgoing as for the 4-i.e no chage for her)
    admin review was over and done in half an hour. It was deemed:-
    1.I was effectively single because my partner is capable of supporting herself without me (as WAS MY EX). That the 2 children that the IRD said i could claim for were struck out-thus, single man with no dependents assessment.
    2.The kicker was that they reassessed me for a period 4 years ago (despite me having informed them at the time details of my income etc and gaining their advice as to what to pay), and they said, hmmmm, you owe 13k from that period which is due and payable now and it is attracting penalties and interest (paying that off at extra $300 per month).
    The bit that i don’t get, is that effectively they are assessing my partners income in my child support calculation. My ex lives with a reasonably high income earner yet no assessment is made of his financial circumstance.
    Only way you can challenge this viscious process is via family court.
    I have nothing but empathy for you Nickstar-good luck-only consolation is that one day you will be out of this regime.
    As an aside, my 17 year old son is smoking cannabis on a daily basis and i have raised the issue of tough love with the ex , only to be told that the reason he is doing so is due to the lack of effort i have made as a father. Why is is that she is happy to throw me to the dogs (IRD)whenever it suits, but has activley sought to diminish my role as a father. because i am firmer with my son, she stands with him saying i am too tough etc etc and thereby casts me in the role of villain.
    Exhausted by it all-like the rest of you in here.

  105. johnnyt1 says:

    Ahhhh…. The good old IRD of good old Noo Zuland.
    I gave my two fingered salute and left NZ for good. This is often the only solution.
    I got cancer and had to give up work. I called the IRD to let them know i was out of work and needed to drastically reduce my child support. The lovely lady on the other end said “cry me a river” and basically told me to still pay the full amount. So the story went over the next best part of a year arrears piled up to the tune of 50 grand. The IRD even though i had aggressive testicular cancer ignored me and forced me into massive debt. Basically once i got better after almost dying i then left the country for good. I now have a foreign passport in my new home country after many years of staying away from NZ i travel in and out of NZ undetected. I still send money to my child each month but i’ll be damned if i give a cent to those IRD assholes. The only solution is to move away. My advice to dads being fucked over like this.

  106. Mr Done says:

    Hi

    Does anyone know if you can be liable for more than what your previous (higher income) of 5 years ago? Which is the income the review officer keeps on referring to under ground 8, 5 times now the review officer nailed me on a historical salary. Given that they never go above that amount, I suspect they can’t. Any knowledge out there on this? Much appreciated

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar