Free (State Funded) Lawyers aiding Benefit Bludging Mothers to keep Good Fathers away from their Children
I just thought I’d let you guys know that your hard earned tax dollars are being used to help benefit defrauding bludging mothers keep good fathers away from their children. The mother of my children is trying to have me removed as legal guardian of my 2 younger children whilst at the same time is attempting to take them to Canada to live permanently and, to add insult to injury, is trying to get the FC to force me to pay her lots of money in Child Support once they move to Canada. SO it seems that it’s me against her AND her State funded lawyer when the case is heard just before Christmas. How is it that an aggressive applicant, who is clearly trying to deprive my kids of any paternal involvement in their lives, gets a state funded lawyer? If I was abusive toward her, a bad father, or just generally a bad bloke, I wouldn’t mind her getting a free lawyer. But she’s the aggressor here and has a history of breaching Parenting Orders, not sending our daughter to school and CYF getting involved with her due to her brilliant parenting skills. Why the F*** is this allowed to happen and why is it that I have to face both her AND her state funded lawyer. This situation is stressful enough for me as it is. I can’t afford a lawyer, they all want about $400 an hour. Anyway I just thought I’d let you know how your tax dollars are being spent.
it’s common and us men can do nothing end up costing use and hurting us and the kids, the system is so stuffed up i found out today my youngest has miss 37 1/2 days of school and the school has questioned her on it and my oldest has missed 33 days of school.
youngest has flea bites all up legs and ex said sound am not to see her thankfully school said there is no order so have every right to see her, she has brain washed oldest to think i not allowed contact with youngest and blocked cell number from her cell, ex gets angry at youngest if asked o see me
Comment by Aaron Bell — Thu 12th December 2013 @ 8:44 pm
Under what context is your guardianship being attempted to be removed?
It is not able to be removed by the family court unless there are serious concerns for the children’s safety…. Eg, you are a convicted murderer or child rapist. Please search for guardianship issues in this website. Look for judge burns… He thought he could remove guardianship at a whim but was chastised by the high court as a result and his decision was overturned.
Comment by A dad — Thu 12th December 2013 @ 9:27 pm
#2 I don’t think it stopped Burns.
One other thing … if your guardianship is removed by the Femily Court, shouldn’t that absolve you from Child Support ?
Comment by golfa — Thu 12th December 2013 @ 9:36 pm
Well she has no context to remove my guardianship rights and I’m quite sure she will fail on that count. It’s definitely ironic that she wants my guardianship rights taken away from me while still expecting Child Support but she regards me as a bank so this attitude doesn’t surprise me. The part that worries me most is that she may be allowed to take my 14 year old girl to live in Canada which wouldn’t be a good environment for her at all. I mean, what chance have I got? The mother has has a feminist state funded man hating lawyer and a man hating Family Court on her side. I’ve got nothing.
Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 12th December 2013 @ 9:42 pm
Sorry to hear “Had Enough” can you keep me posted on what happens please, that’s similar to what happened to me and continues, she gets free legal aid, I have to pay lawyers , she uses the government as a bank screws me over , hops on the benefit, child support even tried to get spousal maintenance till she found out it was not available to her as she was on the benefit, lucky I smelled a rat and dropped a non removal order on her lodged with Interpol just days before she took off overseas with my son and have been fighting her against an unlimited cash fund through legal aid for 2 years plus, the courts are so behind they cant even give us a conference date and its gunna drag out, CYF are morons even with all the proof they needed they still take her side as she is the mother blah blah, all the time I don’t get to see my youngest while she just makes constant dribble up that is not court tested and instantly believed by the courts as she is a chick , its screwed its unfair , it will drive you into a grave and send you crazy day after day month after month year after year , and the only winner is “the lawyers”
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Fri 13th December 2013 @ 8:06 am
Removing guardianship does not absolve you of child support. That is based on being a parent. A parent automatically becomes a guardian when a child is born, but a guardian may also be granted to someone who isn’t a parent… A foster parent for example.
#3. It stopped burns from doing it again. I was precluded from being a guardian for approx 8 months. The high court over ruled him and, in my opinion, chastised him. He is an arrogant asshole who, for once, was smacked on the hand. I’d love to sue the ass off him for his arrogance but.. It’s the New Zealand family court we are talking about.
Had_enough, i suggest you find out under what act they wish to remove your guardianship.
Comment by A dad — Fri 13th December 2013 @ 8:59 am
P.S Judge Burns is a major Douche, I have had a run in with him Good luck.
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Fri 13th December 2013 @ 10:20 am
back again, had to have a breather, look it matters not whether you have the “label” the “word” – guardian and or parent attached to your name, linking you to a child or children.
What you must all understand is you have NO RIGHTS – to parent or to guardian – they were removed in the pursuit of money, revenue and or profit – as we all now from experience – you can not ever get assistance enforcing these rights – its too costly and time consuming for any mortal person.
So now that you all know your rights have been deliberately removed – in the pursuit of PROFIT by lawyers – despicable human beings who cant lie straight in bed and who care not about you or your children…..they are only there for the money ….not for you.
So now you are finally understanding – what are you going to do about it?
The family court is a sham – a total sham, there is no independent oversight, its shrouded in secrecy – secrecy is tyranny – remember that, any time they want to do things in secret = deceitfully, by stealth – its tyranny and dishonest.
Comment by hornet — Fri 13th December 2013 @ 12:20 pm
Do you have contact with your daughter? At 14 even the family court would need to take her views in serious consideration. If she wants to go then there’s not much you can do. In which case you may be able to organise an agreement from your ex with regard to not apply for child support. Have that agreed in front of the judge and signed, sealed, delivered.
If your daughter doe not want to go then you could argue that the child’s interest are paramount and that a move would rob her of her family and her friends.
Comment by a dad — Fri 13th December 2013 @ 10:02 pm
Some children, at the age of 14 would be able to make a more sensible decision than their parents; others, and more likely, at the age of 14, for a variety of reasons including maturity, social development, personality and the ability to be intimated and manipulated, would not be able to.
Age should not be taken as a foregone conclusion that a certain result should happen, particularly when there are younger children involved. A decision on behalf of the oldest or a severely influenced child, is a decision affecting all siblings – it is not just a decision in favour of the mother – which in isolation can have devastating consequences for a family.
This is feminist heaven to see this on a men’s advocacy site.
Yes, the child’s position should be considered but to take their views in serious consideration is equal to removing guardianship.
I realise this is what Hornet has said above, but I thought it was worth making the point again.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 14th December 2013 @ 6:41 am
does anyone know about michael roots lawyer for child? a father here is applying for access/ contact. Roots has been appointed child lawyer. is
he ok to deal with or does he practice bias and be difficult?
can anyone tell me about his background?
Comment by kirann jiharr — Sat 14th December 2013 @ 8:02 am
There’s no such thing as ‘state funded’ lawyers. You can get a loan that has 8% interest added. It’s called legal aid and the 8% interest each year makes your legal bills much more expensive.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/services/legal-help/legal-aid/repayments
Moreso, I wonder whether New Zealand tax payers would be better off sending your children to Canada for 1) You are in another country, and 2) why are New Zealanders paying the DPB to a Canadian?
Also, I don’t think people living overseas should have a right to force other people to live in New Zealand when they want to leave. I can’t comprehend why someone who can freely move about would want to force someone else to stay in one place? Are you visiting New Zealand once a year or something to see your child? If so, what’s the difference if you visit Canada and see you child?
Comment by Julie — Sat 14th December 2013 @ 9:27 am
Gentlemen – and I mean this sincerely, all too many of us are GENTLE MEN – who are forced to deal with total corruption at every turn. This family court bullshit is nothing but a business based on the DELIBERATE and FORCED separation of a child from a parent – that is a fact.
So Gentle men – what do you do, when you realise that a state sanctioned kidnapping enterprise is NEVER going to help you to see your own child?
As you say, had Enough, – breaching court orders is the norm mate, this is acceptable, because it suits the system, it keeps you deprived and on the pay roll – this is deliberate.
How many good parents have to suffer under this fraud before we all stand up and say – enough, you corrupted thieving lying protected scum lawyers……
And as we all know – Parasitic, prowler len is a LAWYER who has also been given special attention by his mates – has anyone here ever been given the chance to read and approve a report on your bad conduct before it goes to the public – no – thats right – now you understand – there is one rule for us and one set of rules for them – and that is the corruption that is endemic in NZ today.
I have said it before, – when the HUman rights Commission and the Ombudsman REFUSE to investigate legitimate complaints against their own – that is corruption at its very core. And while it is permitted to continue, more and more good parents will be destroyed and impoverished and refused their most basic RIGHTS = their rights to be a PARENT to their own CHILD.
Sadly Had Enough – when you are dealing with a corrupted system, you have to resort to corrupted practises yourself to get actual justice.
Comment by hornet — Sat 14th December 2013 @ 9:45 am
@Julie
Wrong answer. Big red cross. Now have a think about this, and have another go at explaining it to us.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 14th December 2013 @ 10:45 am
Julie you don’t know what you are talking about as per usual and are allowing your man hating views to get in the way. I feel that I do have a right to have a say in where my children live. Apart from the fact that I pay for everything. Yes Julie I pay for my children not the State and definitely not their mother. $2000 AUD per month would cover my child’s expenses with some change left over. You are right in one regard though Julie. If she takes my daughter to Canada at least the NZ Govt won’t have to pay for the endless benefits she defrauds out of the long suffering NZ taxpayer. But the main reason I don’t want my daughter taken to Canada is because she needs a father in her life. I have tried to see her on my trips to NZ and have tried to have her flown her over here but her cow of a mother obstructs and blocks everything due to her nasty spiteful nature. But unfortunately she will be dragged off to Canada which I’m sure will make you very happy Julie. She will tell the judge that she wants to go, not because she really wants to but because she is being abused and is under duress.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sat 14th December 2013 @ 10:08 pm
Had_Enough, did you move to Australia, or did your ex move (back) to New Zealand?You fly to NZ / fly your children to Australia – how often?
You are paying $2000 AUD per month in CS tax for two children? Presumably your children were born in NZ, hence the jurisdiction of the NZ FC.
I think you have three wars on your hands: guardianship; removal to Canada, and CS Tax.
You’ll win the first. Everyone is right when they say she can not have you removed as guardian, basically unless you are a serious threat to the children, and completely derelict in your residual duties as father.
You’ll probably lose the second – mainly because you’re in a different country already. Sadly, we all know that if the children are removed to Canada, they are unlikely to return to NZ to live, ever. Australia, maybe.
And the third is up in the air. If you lose the fight to keep your children at arm’s reach, maybe the best you can hope for is for FC to rule to absolve you of CS Tax, and instead direct you to fly to Canada / fly your children to you for 4 weeks a year instead, or for a week mid-year, and three weeks each summer? (Lord knows, that’ll be a $10K trip, by the time everything adds up).
I guess I’m saying you might have to pick your battles. Focus your energy where you might succeed. Guardianship is a red-herring, although if you do nothing, the FC might remove you just to make a point. Cost of contact if the children are in Canada is your only real argument (in your favour), and in terms of CS legislation, you have a BIG ground to have CS reduced, based on cost of maintaining Contact. If you moved to Australia, leaving your children in NZ, then you might have lost that battle too.
Finally, (and many men fail to realise this), FC lawyers watch this site. They will happily raise anything you say here in evidence against you. Shooting Julie down in flames will be used against you, as evidence of your ‘negative attitude towards women’, ‘anger-management issues’, ‘verbal (written) violence’, etc.
Everything you write here, you must treat as though you were saying it in court.
Comment by Sarah Haras — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 6:46 am
Hi Sarah I was merely pointing out to Julie that she was incorrect in her assumptions. There was certainly no verbal violence. I think Julie represents the view of many ignorant people out there who assume that all non custodial fathers are dead beat dads and all solo mother’s are perfect. A tired old stereotype but something people like me have to put up with unfortunately. If the mother takes my daughter to Canada I’m pretty sure that I won’t be compelled to pay one cent in Child Support since there is no reciprocal CS arrangement between Canada and NZ. Perhaps one of the Menz posters could confirm this. In fact this is the only hope I have; I.e. She’s incapable of working for a living so possibly won’t go if she has a guaranteed $2000 AUD from me per month going down the gurgler. I moved to Oz for 2 reasons. 1) I couldn’t find a job in NZ and my severance money was running out so I had to do something. 2) she was breaching the Parenting order and not letting me see the kids anyway.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 10:51 am
Had_enough, exactly what you said is how I see your case. You can keep your ex and child locked away from family because as a guardian that’s your so called right. Whether you can force her to be nice to you when you feel like seeing your child is another matter.
I don’t see you as a deadbeat, just an [I can’t use the word here].
What I am pulling you up on is telling NZ tax payers that they should stop her from having legal representation. I know people are using the argument ‘tax payers’ to rip legal representation from their exes, but before tax payers jump in and demand only you have representation they should know the whole story.
Comment by Julie — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 11:31 am
Dear Had Enough,
She could be living Mars or have completely disappeared with the child/ren (i.e. Abduction) and you would still have to pay child support to NZ IRD who would then be duty bound to pay it directly into her nominated account, as she would no longer be able to claim NZ Benefits and they then couldn’t withhold to offset same NZ Benefits.
She then withdraws said money worldwide using ATM withdrawal.
The reciprocal arrangements are not for paying out to the custodial parent but collection from the non custodial parent.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 11:47 am
Are you sure Paul? If she goes to Canada she will be living there as a Canadian citizen under Canadian jurisdiction. If she could be living on Mars as you put it wouldn’t NZ need to have a reciprocal CS agreement with Mars otherwise what is the point of reciprocal agreements. I think you have your facts wrong Paul. As far as I am aware there has to be an arrangement between the 2 countries taxation authorities otherwise how can it be administered?
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 12:00 pm
PS: do you have any legislation you could refer me to that backs up your claims Paul? This case is going to be heard before Xmas and if you are correct my only hope of preventing my daughter from going to Canada has gone out the window. If I have to continue paying CS when she’s in Canada there’s nothing to stop her going.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 12:13 pm
I think what Paul is saying is that if you went to Australia and there was no reciprocal agreement, as the custodial father child support could not be collected from you. However if you had stayed in New Zealand child support could still be collected in New Zealand and paid to the mother.
I think Paul’s case is one of the mother leaving with the children and demanding child support. Is that how it was Paul?
I think the question here might be; could the mother have child support assessed in New Zealand and collected from Australia through the current arrangement even though she has gone to Canada?
I am assuming the mother is the only one who is not a New Zealand Citizen or has dual citizenship?
Comment by Downunder — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 12:53 pm
Incorrect assumption regarding the right by IRD to deduct by her being Canadian citizen,(or even Martian) that’s a red herring.
It is not Mother Support it’s Child Support.
I take it the child is a New Zealand Citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand and the application for Child Support was instigated and initiated in NZ.
If citizen you will have to pay until child is 18 unless one of the circumstances kicks in that negates your liability as stated in the Act.
If however the child is only permanent resident here, I believe the residency lapses after a period of time, from memory no longer than a year, thus then at that time you are free from liability by NZ IRD.
An opinion requested from the High Court of Auckland by way of a hearing for the Manukau Family Court
Child Support is currently being administered,and will continue the same, garnish you, pay into a nominated account in NZ, leaving her to withdraw the funds with an ATM card, or she can instruct her bank to direct transfer funds to wherever (Mars is definitely out of the question at the present time).
Another red herring is the cost of access/contact that would be increased due to a relocation if it was being engaged.
IRD will only look at what access/contact is currently engaged in and any increase to that only.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 1:03 pm
I’m pretty sure you are incorrect Paul. Both the ex and my child are dual Canadian/NZ citizens. There is no reciprocal agreement between Canada and NZ and hence nothing to enforce. I’d appreciate info re any legislation that contradicts this though.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 1:13 pm
So what you are saying here Paul, (and I have no idea because I haven’t looked at the new legislation)
is that the IRD is not able to consider calculating increased costs into a change of circumstances, therefore that would mean that child support costs dues to change in circumstances must be considered by the court giving the IRD a new starting point from which they could then reassess changes?
Comment by Downunder — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 1:19 pm
There is no reciprocal arrangement with any Country when a child has been abducted and is completely off the radar.
IRD have to still collect upon the valid application for Child Support.
Catton v Larsson and IRD
You are missing the point, the child is still a NZ Citizen and IRD are collecting on behalf of the child, they remit to the custodial parent even if the parent is Canadian, Martian or on the run.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 1:21 pm
Am not saying that either Downunder, am only relaying what IRD review adjudicated in my case.
Family Court would have to have made final determination had I taken it to dispute.
Child Abduction trumps cost of access / contact increases any day when applying for a Departure Order from Formula Assessment.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 1:27 pm
Yes, I’ve got that bit – but child support is based on the non-custodial parent’s income adjusted by the IRD. What you have said above is
so where I am going now is as I said above;
is that the IRD is not able to consider calculating increased costs into a change of circumstances, therefore that would mean that child support costs dues to change in circumstances must be considered by the court giving the IRD a new starting point from which they could then reassess changes?
Comment by Downunder — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 1:30 pm
That would be my take on it also, however as we seem to see regularly on this forum, Review Officers seem to do and say what they like on any given day.
Always a roll of the dice with IRD or Family Court.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 1:44 pm
At this point my child hasn’t been abducted. The mother is going to ask the Court to allow her to take my 14 year old daughter to Canada without my permission. It’s a given that the pro mother Court will let her do whatever the F*** she wants. That’s always been the case so why would it change now. She is also asking the Court to make me pay her Child Support once she has migrated to Canada. If it’s a given that she gets it anyway why is she taking me to Court over it and employing a taxpayer funded lawyer?
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 1:53 pm
@Had_Enough You’re the one that has been forced into court over this matter. You have no choice but to defend yourself or walk away – that’s the way the civil system works. So she wants to go to Canada, so what. It’s the same argument when a woman says I don’t want to follow my partner to a new town for him to take up a new job, because it is not what I want, or the kids are settled here and they shouldn’t have to move; goodbye just pay the child support.
Either way this expresses a total disregard for the value of fatherhood.
Motherhood has been given currency; it is the only thing of value therefore it succeeds and should be financially supported regardless of the outcomes. We know the outcomes, they are not good. We are even starting to see this reflected in commercial surveys, as I posted earlier today.
I don’t think you have a lost case, but I do think you need to think about the issues you raise for your children and for yourself and your welfare, and your ability to provide fatherhood.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 2:16 pm
Separate the issues.
I assume IRD already receive Child Support on behalf of the NZ Citizen child,and they are passing it on completely or retaining some /all for her Benefit recovery as she already has been awarded by the Court primary care of the child hence you being a liable non custodial parent.
A. Additionally, she now would like to relocate to Canada with the child as she determines overall that it would be in the best interests of the child.
B. Your guardianship is being called into question by her and she would like to see it negated.
C. And a further bogus type of application to the Court for continuance of Child Support post relocation.
What title do these separate applications have and what sections of legislation have been cited for filing.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 2:21 pm
Yes I agree Downunder. My case for Fatherhood is based in an a variation of the Parenting order (currently awaiting review) that would have my daughter visit me in Australia during school holidays. I will pay the costs of her return flights. I have always made it very clear to the Court that I am very willing to have my daughter in my full time care so no one can accuse me of not at least trying to be a father to my kids. If she goes to Canada she will just disappear and my daughter will be raised by family that’s headed up by a patched Hells Angels member. Still it beats being raised by a dad who has a good job and a good reputation and good intentions I suppose.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 2:28 pm
Hi Paul. She’s basically filing a variation to Parenting Order that will allow her to permanently relocate to Canada. The reasons she’s cited are that Canada has better Education and Health Services for my daughter than what she can get in NZ.
This is of course total bullshit and I have my daughters glowing school report to prove it.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 2:34 pm
@Had_Enough I wouldn’t be to disheartened. There have been a few mothers that have been ordered to get their arse and their children back to Christchurch recently. Perhaps some of those decisions, if you can get your hands on them might help.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 3:04 pm
So ultimately it boils down to a variation of Parenting Order (Relocation).
If you were resident here in NZ it would be a lot harder for her for it to be granted autonomously.
I believe your best option if possible could be to oppose the Relocation, Cross-apply for primary care in NZ (better yet Australia, but that might really be an uphill battle), as there are far better Education and Health Services, support,stability and consistency etc.. in this hemisphere.
That then could give you leverage to negotiate an outcome that is equitable to all, not exhilarating for either party but neither broken-ass.
My youngest boy(13)will be meeting us in Copenhagen in March and we’re taking him to Venice for a treat,it can work, however no guarantee.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 3:19 pm
you do realize you can put a non removal order on your child, I have done that on my ex-partner as she went up to Auckland and she got forced to come back and live in my region, Now she’s trying to move the children done south, as she has found a new guy, and it got pointed out she cannot remove the children from this region, so In a weeks time I will have my boys full time, because her piroities is now this new man and not the children
Comment by Richard — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 5:43 pm
Dear Richard & Had Enough
The application now before the Court is variation to Parenting Order wishing to relocate which is what the matter is really about.
An established automatic non-removal CAPEX should be in place (hence An Application for Variation)until determination, otherwise abduction has occurred.
Similarly, other directions given by the Court need to be adhered to by primary caregiver.
However, primary caregivers are prone to flouting law and acting unilaterally.
If flight is a reality, I also might recommend you take out a CAPEX Order, Child Abduction Protection Ex-Parte Order (Non Removal) if you feel circumstances justify the position,which then also raises stakes in the biased roll of the dice, remember the house never goes broke.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 6:51 pm
Yeah I agree with all that and will try and put those measures in place. The mother of my children is a chronic bludger. There’s no way she will move to Canada if the Court and IRD don’t force me to continue to pay CS as part of the deal. This is the pivotal factor and I guess I’m going to have to depend on the wisdom of the Court to determine this since I can’t afford a lawyer.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 9:20 pm
Disclaimer:There is no wisdom in any Court since Solomon, as they say caveat emptor.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 9:57 pm
What a waste of opportunity, IMO. I personally would have gone back to trying to sort this out in an amicable fashion without the court. Mediation seems better than a judge – make a parenting order to swap holiday time in Australia for non-holiday time in Canada. Give and get…. Both win.
But if it can’t be done, it can’t be done.
I apologize Had_enough for saying a bad thing against you even if I left it blank. Women’s groups have been suggesting mothers run to the court to get orders sorted in fear of what fathers can do. There’s lots of mothers needing ‘non removal orders’ too so perhaps the court needs to make this part of parenting orders.
Comment by Julie — Sun 15th December 2013 @ 10:15 pm
I don’t about that, Paul. I did see a case in the States recently were a man successfully sued his ex-partner for producing ugly kids. She had failed to declare her plastic surgery.
(Only in America)
Comment by Downunder — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 5:56 am
Julie the biggest problem I have is the attitude of the mother. Unfortunately she uses my love for my children as a weapon against me and knows how much it hurts me when she denies my access to them. But it’s not about me, it’s about my children particularly my daughter who needs her father in her life. The reason people on this site loathe the Family Court so much is because it consistently fails to act when bad mothers breach Parenting Orders and help stuff up the attitudes and futures of vulnerable young children. I earn good money and have a good lifestyle. My younger 2 children live in dire poverty due to their mother’s mental illness making her unemployable. This makes me very angry! Even though I give IRD $2000 per month and she bludges every benefit going my kids don’t receive one cent of this because there are no checks and balances in place to ensure the money goes on my kids and not alcohol. Why does the least competent parent get the kids? Answer Because she’s a woman. If I had those children in my custody I would save the State about $1800 per month because I have the means and the love to raise my children with no financial help from anyone. I wouldn’t feel so bad about it if my kids lived in a money less household but received lots of love but unfortunately they get neither , only abuse.
Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 10:16 am
@41 Julie.
Aren’t all matters awaiting family court determination a waste of opportunity? If both parties were able to come to an out of court settlement then think of how much that would save everyone, and most importantly how much more the children would have as a result!
Had_enough. Just a couple of things to raise in court.
1. If your ex is wanting to leave New Zealand then is she planning on paying off her state funded loan for legal aid beforehand?
2. Have you or your ex ever soughtmediation? If not then I suggest you bring this up in court as it may delay the decision and allow you to discuss options. Like Paul catton mentioned, it may be a great strategy to break down the case points and go through them 1 by 1.
Guardianship…explain to the judge that you have never been a threat to the children and that you have always wanted them to have the best start in life. Suggest that you want to keep seeing them. Suggest how that might be done.
That may lead on to an option for the child support where you remain a loving father by offering to pay flights to see them, and that the cost of paying child support would reduce the finances required to pay for flights to Canada, or to New Zealand, should the decision be made for the children to remain here.
Lastly, explain that you have been denied the ability to bond closer with your children under the current arrangement and that further distance would make that even more difficult.
Hope something in that is useful. Good luck from a father who managed to get his children living with him after the naughty judge said they shouldn’t….
Comment by A dad — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 10:35 am
“The benefit was never meant to be a full time career”
Okay let’s look at Legal Aid (state) versus Family lawyers as let’s face it most mothers can’t work because of the baby and kids right as they are full time jobs for them ?
The guys are the providers and if you are working you will not be eligible to legal aid in 99 % of the cases.
Remember these are my own personal views from actual experience not what I have read somewhere on the internet, so feel free to let me know if they are not correct.
1, Legal Aid, fill in a form state you are on a benefit and have a baby it will be approved 99 % of time.
2, Family lawyer’s minimum of $5K to $15K upfront before the second meeting has even happened.
1, Legal aid, billed after 6 months of finalization which can easily be years and how you gunna get blood outta a stone as they are generally on a benefit anyway with little to take or seize as per NZ dept recovery system, what’s 8% interest of nothing, still nothing.
2, Family lawyers, $15K – $200 K easily paid upfront depending on the outcome which doesn’t matter already paid.
1 and 2, Clear winner / legal aid.
I did read it a while ago that there is no point fighting against a biased system using your own money to fight yourself.
@ Had enough, spot on, keep up the fight for what you know is right, Kids need a father will be looking for an update good luck.
@ Hornet totally agree with you 🙂
@ Julie, seriously? You are a _______ can’t put that here 🙂
@ Down under, also spot on.
@ sarah yes I am sure FC lawyers will be reading this and if it meant trying to get a bit more money by a longer affidavit they would without fail, the good thing is that I personally have expressed my extreme disappointment directly to the family courts, the judges and to lawyer for child , Good old Mr man hating Graeme Askland , so for once who cares, as the only person that is missing out is my son, not my other boys whom I have no problems at all with their mum and not my little girl just one child is missing out for nothing but a angry ex and that’s the problem isn’t it ?
I have 3 boys and at some point he will realise that he has 2 other brothers but thank goodness he is still way to young.
Kids need both parents and this hopeless NZ system is letting everyone down in pursuit of a “paycheck”
Yes thank you for reminding me what a PC whipped namby pampy society we are heading towards, but not in the real world.
The best ones are, negative attitude (shoot once a month is hell for me with any lady) psychological abuse (chicks are best at that) and threating behaviour (also confirmed by a recent study chicks get away with this all the time) or maybe even looking at someone in the wrong way, so basically we are meant to be happy and cheery with this going on ?
The guys do not report it or just put up with it but the chicks are the first ones to use it against them,
Anyway sorry to go a little off topic,
Comment by Dominic — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 10:48 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11173311
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 11:58 am
Hi Dominic,, further to what you were saying about FC lawyers reading this. I view this site as a means of gaining and providing support for men who are in a similar situation to myself by sharing experiences. It would be impossible for me to express just how little I give a F*** about the opinions of FC judges and lawyers. These people are beneath my contempt and have failed me and my family in more ways than I can count. As far as I’m concerned they are the problem. The mother of my children only gets away with her abuse of my children and the system because she is allowed to by a philosophy that assumes that fathers are unimportant and the wants of the mother (not the child) must always come first.
Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 3:29 pm
Dear Had Enough,
Maate I really feel for you – hang in there,
don’t get distracted from the kids contact,
save your fight for that which is right…
we offer a support group every weds night,
we also help guys self represent, a bit,
but happy to help if we can…
this week is our last, a BBQ of sorts,
6-8 pm behind onehunga library,
if you can make it…
Fathers Mauri Ora Circle..
kia kaha,
father and child
Comment by realkiwi — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 4:10 pm
Hi Realkiwi, thanks for the invitation mate but I’m in Australia and a long way from Onehunga. Otherwise I’d love to come.
Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 7:02 pm
The media is always on about those fathers in Australia – it’s good to have you posting here – and it’s been a while too, but I guess that just goes to show how effective the Family Court is.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 7:28 pm
Had_Enough, I’m glad you are releasing your emotions through your views for bottling up is really unhealthy and that you have support here.
I think I may come across more cases than others these days as men’s advocates are working at other things too, but perhaps not … while I know I have a greater variety. The Family Court is not pro mothers and anti fathers – it’s way more complicated and deals with so much more than people realise, IMO.
The awareness the men’s movement brought to the public was excellent for good men wanting to be in their children’s lives up against ill behaved, selfish exes and interest group advocates with political agendas. But it didn’t mean all men were unselfish and behaved well and other interest groups were free of political agendas.
What I see is people, both men and women, doing things that are wrong because they can. They phone CYF on their exes in an attempt to destroy the parent/child relationship in the hope they will get the children full time, or receive more child support or pay less child support when in fact the other parent is just imperfect, not abusive,…. they deny access in the hope they get more child support or they muck the other parent around to get more access to pay less child support and then dump the children on the new partner or family or even daycare,…. they lie, blackmail, threaten, manipulate accounts, throw mud where ever possible, delay proceedings, ignore the authorities, con the other parent into signing bad agreements, use money as power, sell assets to friends but not really, hide assets, and more.
I see interest groups lie, manipulate and all the rest for their political agendas and I see psychologists and other professionals do the same. Some of them are outright abusive themselves to both men and women depending on their personal views.
The best advice is to stay away from the Family Court and IRD if possible. Yet unfortunately with an opportunist selfish ex, you need a lawyer to keep one step ahead or at least an equal position whether a man or woman.
Note: This is not directed at anyone personally, just observation through other cases.
Comment by Julie — Mon 16th December 2013 @ 11:04 pm
I forgot to add ‘non removal orders’. They get abused a lot IMO. Not only do they stop children from attending school camps and visiting places outside a town/city in NZ but I suspect medical treatment in other towns/cities. If a parent wants to destroy their ex badly, non removal orders can do that.
I had mentioned before that abusers in prison have orders on exes who were witnesses to their abuse. One day I was phoned by a woman desperate to leave a town on the west coast of the South Island because the father of her 3 year old had been released from prison and he was punching her up with the deliberate intention of forcing her body to miscarry her unborn child. I phoned the nearest women’s refuge and was asked, “Who is she?” When I told her name the woman said, “We know her and can’t help her because of the non removal order. The men on your island are responsible for this”.
I explained to her why the men on the North Island had protested and made a fuss about (I can’t remember if it was Paul Catton’s case or another man whose name I don’t remember but his ex was in England). It’s no other man’s fault what happened in this case, but it shows the need for some sort of criteria.
Anyways, they also wipe out whole families and fathers too are upset they can’t take children to funerals or other important family events. Just imagine if both families live in another town/city or country and children have no access to any family members unless they visit.
Comment by Julie — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 12:07 am
@ Julie, Kids are not weapons to be used against exs.
Thanks for your interesting top half of article and you are right.
I personally got my non removal order based on the simple fact, my son would have left in a few days never to be seen again to another country, Australia or Croatia. No matter what lies my ex was saying about never leaving with him (it’s hard to argue when you have a passport application and tickets to back it up). (Status quo)
@ Had enough, I can’t tell you how much I agree with you that they are the problem as they make all these “without notice” walls then make you wait years to remove them at huge cost finically and physically all the while time marches on and on and the kids get older and then the first thing they use is that you have no bond with them even though you’ve been trying and at all instances there are flaming hoops you have to leap through to get ,,,, nowhere ,,, it makes no difference what you do as the exs just keep making up more and more untested rubbish and the courts make it harder and harder and there you have it ,,,
The courts are so backed up because everyone is aware how to use them to their advantage, from the lawyers to council for child the myriad of people that instantly step into your way while trying to get a basic right of a father.
That’s where the system is screwed, when you finally get away from all the rubbish, there’s more it’s never ending and thanks to the length of time the courts take which is designed to wear out and frustrate people, a lot of people just end up walking away from their kids which is so wrong.
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 9:11 am
I think my argument for non removal is very similar to yours Dominic. If she takes my girl to Canada she will just disappear and I will be lucky to see her again. Canada is obviously a huge place and I don’t know the extended Canadian family members very well but I have heard that there is a major drug and alcohol problem that runs right through the family and some of them are gang members with histories of wife bashing and child abuse. And, I have heard this from the mother of my children who obviously knows them quite well although I am sure she would have changed her tune by now. Funny how I have the likes of Julie criticising me because I wan’t to stop my daughter going to Canada when my main concern is to protect her from domestic violence and other forms of abuse. Is domestic violence more palatable Julie if it’s coming from the mother’s side of the family? It might come as a shock to you Julie but many fathers actually care a great deal about the welfare of their children and are motivated by more than power and control issues which seems to be more of a female pass-time. You do raise some good points though and I definitely agree that children are manipulated by the power games of bad parents far too often (regardless of gender) and the FC gets sucked into this and make some very bad decisions accordingly.
Anyway, I’ve just contacted IRD CS and had a lengthy chat with a very helpful CSR. He has informed me that if she takes the kids to Canada to live my Child Support liability will cease. That’s great for me and my daughter, not because I get to save money, but because the mother won’t go if she has to stand on her own 2 feet and actually get a job and earn some money like I did when I had the kids in my custody. The CSR said that she would have to take up a case with the Canadian legal system and get them to broker some kind of arrangement with the NZ Family Court whereby I would be asked to pay whatever amount they decide is fair and reasonable. I think she would find this whole process too hard because I would have a very good case for Ground 5 “It costs more than 5% of the child support income amount to enable the paying parent to have contact with the child”. The irony here is that I don’t give a flying F*** about how much Child Support I have to pay and believe that I should pay Child Support,, however if she thinks for one moment that good old IRD CS are no longer around to enforce payment she won’t go to Canada. In other words after almost 50 years of feminism the FC and IRD CS systems have managed to, in a sense, reduce females back to the good old days of being chattels of men. That’s what happens when you make one gender completely dependent on the other financially I suppose. Well done feminists. You have really done a good job of freeing the sisters from male oppression 😉 I shouldn’t count my chickens before they hatch though as there’s no telling what the FC could do.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 12:37 pm
I wonder how many people get to where they are going, after ripping apart family’s and wonder , bugga how did that work out for me and the family that I wanted when I got married/ pregnant ect ?
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 1:27 pm
Dear Had Enough,
I was also told by on occassion by helpful staff that my liability should cease.
However IRD lawyers and legislation determined otherwise when it came to actual cessation.
25 When child support ceases to be payable
(1) A parent shall cease to be liable to pay child support in respect of a child under a formula assessment from whichever is the earliest of the following days:
a) the day before the day on which the child-
(i) turns 19 years; or
(ii) is adopted; or
(iii) enters a marriage, civil union or de facto relationship; or
(iv) becomes financially independent; or
(v) becomes a person who is neither a New Zealand citizen nor a person who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand; or
(vi) dies:
b) the day before the day on which the liable parent-
(i) becomes the sole provider of ongoing daily care for the child; or
(ii) becomes a person who is none of the following:
A) a New Zealand citizen:
B) a person who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand:
C) a person who is ordinarily resident in a country with which New Zealand has entered into a reciprocal agreement for the enforcement of child support; or
(iii) becomes a person from whom child support may not be sought in respect of the child by reason of section 6(2); or
(iv) dies:
c) in a case where the eligible custodian dies,-
(i) if no new application for formula assessment of child support in respect of the child is properly made within 28 days after the date of death, the 28th day after the date of death:
(ii) if such a new application is properly made, the day before the day from which the formula assessment in relation to the new application commences to apply:
d) the day before the day on which the eligible custodian-
(i) ceases to be the sole or principal provider of ongoing daily care for the child or ceases to share ongoing daily care of the child substantially equally with another person; or
(ii) starts to live, or resumes living, with the person from whom payment of child support is required in a marriage, civil union or de facto relationship:
e) in any case to which section 8(3) of this Act applies, the day before the day that the eligible custodian ceases to be under a duty to make payment under section 363 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 in respect of the child:
f) the day specified in a notice of election to end the liability of the liable parent that is given by the eligible custodian under section 27:
g) in a case where a voluntary agreement made in relation to the child between the liable parent and the eligible custodian has been accepted by the Commissioner, the day before the day on which that voluntary agreement first applies in accordance with section 59.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (f) of subsection (1) shall apply in respect of any liability to pay child support to an eligible custodian who is in receipt of a social security benefit.
Section 25(1)(a)(iii): substituted, on 26 April 2005, by section 3 of the Child Support
Comment by Paul Catton — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 2:23 pm
Hi Paul, yeah I know that IRD are great at obfuscating the issues with their bewildering legislation loopholes but I think she loses Child Support based on “(v) becomes a person who is neither a New Zealand citizen nor a person who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand” I won’t hold my breath though and thanks for posting that info because it’s good to know what I’m up against. I get the impression that she would need to go through more agencies than just IRD to get her pound of flesh out of me because she is basically no longer NZ’s problem once she moves to Canada. She will no longer be bludging NZ benefits and will essentially be a citizen of a country that has no reciprocal arrangement with NZ but I am sure she will get a free lawyer compliments of the Canadian tax payer and try and maximise her slice of my take home pay. Interesting though because it will make a refreshing change from the tired old IRD CS formula which they’ve been beating me around the head with for the last 12 years.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 3:07 pm
… and we’re all just real people in such a false world, and the fight goes on.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 3:13 pm
Actually I think she should lose her right to the normal IRD CS assessment based on this to (thanks again Paul):-
(ii) becomes a person who is none of the following:
A) a New Zealand citizen:
B) a person who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand:
C) a person who is ordinarily resident in a country with which New Zealand has entered into a reciprocal agreement for the enforcement of child support; or
(iii) becomes a person from whom child support may not be sought in respect of the child by reason of section
So, it would seem that she will either have to enter into a private agreement with me or get the Canadian and NZ Courts to agree on some other means of extracting child tax out of me.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 3:47 pm
Golfa has put up a post about a delay in the new child support legislation, so that would mean any court case will operate under the existing rules not the new rules.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 4:39 pm
Thanks Downunder. I think the new legislation is due to come into force on October 1st 2014. I’ve been trying to pick the eyes out of the new legislation and compare it with the old but have yet to find anything that would be to the benefit of non custodial parents in the new legislation. It’s just a different flavour of being F***ed over I think.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 6:10 pm
One of the applications my ex put into the court was decided on the legislation that was before parliament not the legislation that existed at the time.
Good thing you are looking at the new legislation because they will do what suits them anyway.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 6:34 pm
Dear Had Enough,
You see but do not observe (Holmes to Watson), and are cherry picking to suit your indignation.
b) the day before the day on which the liable parent-
(ii) becomes a person who is none of the following:
A) a New Zealand citizen:
B) a person who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand:
C) a person who is ordinarily resident in a country with which New Zealand has entered into a reciprocal agreement for the enforcement of child support; or
(iii) becomes a person from whom child support may not be sought in respect of the child by reason of section
This section of the Act relates to you the liable parent.
A)Are you a New Zealand Citizen?
Yes = Pay, No = Go to B.
B) Are you ordinarily resident in NZ?
YES = Pay, No (refer to A, if A was yes + Pay, No = Go to C.
C)Living in Australia or similar which has reciprocal agreement with NZ?
Yes = Pay, No = Don’t come back to massive debt.
You may have to revoke you being a NZ’er obtain alternative citizenship & employment from the few non misandrist countries available.
Hope this provides clarification, Check with Rod Hooker as advertised upon the website for a second opinion, I hope that Downunder, Allan Harvey, Scrap the CSA, are able to provide input.
Let us all try to get together on this and help Mr Had Enough.
Comment by Paul Catton — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 7:17 pm
Actually Paul that doesn’t really help clarify anything but I appreciate your efforts. My eyes tend to glaze over followed by an intense loss of the will to keep breathing when I read IRD legislation, both of which tend to affect my concentration. The way I see it is as follows:-
If she were an Australian citizen I would keep paying CS as per normal because Oz has a reciprocal agreement with Canada. But she has Kiwi and Canadian citizenship (not Oz) and seeing there is no reciprocal agreement between Canada and NZ she doesn’t get Child Support as per the normal agreement. I am a NZ citizen with Australian residency and the Australian CSA have been collecting CS from me on behalf of the NZ IRD CS. The operative words here are “on behalf” because the CSA are merely a revenue gatherer collecting on behalf of the NZ IRD CS. So, when the mother of my kids goes to Canada to live permanently she will be residing in a country that has no reciprocal agreement with NZ so the normal IRD CS liability that currently exists will cease. I am sure the Court and possibly IRD will find creative new ways to screw me once she takes the kids to Canada but my point is that my normal IRD CS liability will no longer be in force. So she will have to petition the FC or whoever to get CS out of me at which point my main objection to paying CS will be the fact that my daughter (and my 18 year old son)have been taken out of NZ to live in an unsafe environment, against my will. Then there’s all the associated extra costs for contact which will be a fun argument as the round trip with Air Canada is currently about $4,000. But, oh gosh darn I’m forgetting myself, I’m just a father so who gives a flying F**k about my kids having a Father figure in their lives anyway.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 7:56 pm
Had_Enough
This is where you and Paul are not connecting.
A child support liability doesn’t cease to exist because there is no reciprocal agreement. There is another section that says when a child support liability ceases to exist.
So provided that section doesn’t apply and the liability exists then if and when Canada and NZ form a reciprocal agreement you will get the big bill out of the blue.
Is this what you are trying to point out, Paul?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 8:10 pm
Yeah I see your point Downunder. I think I would try and arrange a private agreement rather than take the risk of yet more debt. She may agree to that if the Courts and IRD don’t step in immediately and misappropriate money from my pocket to hers which they have been doing a very good job of for the past 12 years.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 8:16 pm
I am not sure that IRD recognise private agreements.
My understanding is that; if they do fall over, IRD pretend they never existed. I have heard some horror stories about men paying twice for the same child support.
Alan Harvey might be able to provide a better answer on that one.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 8:24 pm
Almost quite there, Again Mom could be anywhere on the planet and the nominated Bank Account has to be supplied upon her demand (unless paying Benefit Recovery).
A Family Court Order negates IRD involvement if able to privatize arrangement, (not excluding NZ DPB).
Have had the headaches (try migraine) or maybe self infliction banging ones head against a wall whilst trying to reason with IRD over Child Abduction.
Had to duly pay whilst trying to sort this problem,
After children finally located Swedish Child Support started to make claim too!!
Fuck me, twice over and send me down the river.
Suicide wasn’t an option, been there once before.
Yes Downunder Double-dipping does occur but Swedish Foringkassen, after many requests from myself to NZ IRD negated this.
Comment by Paul Catton — Tue 17th December 2013 @ 9:12 pm
Just a note to Julie
The Family Court is not pro mothers and anti fathers – it’s way more complicated and deals with so much more than people realise, IMO.
Here we will have to disagree as in my opinion the femily caught is the most sexist and biast institution I have ever had the misfortune to be involved with.
Its not so complicated really but again in my experience I found the femily caught made it so in trying to bend over backwards to accomodate one party because she is the mother and disregarding perjury, NZ law and even just a modicum of common sense.
and as for
One day I was phoned by a woman desperate to leave a town on the west coast of the South Island because the father of her 3 year old had been released from prison and he was punching her up with the deliberate intention of forcing her body to miscarry her unborn child. I phoned the nearest women’s refuge and was asked, “Who is she?” When I told her name the woman said, “We know her and can’t help her because of the non removal order. The men on your island are responsible for this”.
sorry but this doesnt sound right under current domestic violence laws in NZ. Some guy is punching his pregnant partner and the wimmins refuse dont want to know??? did anyone think to call the police and have him removed???
or did all these organisations dedicated to the welfare of women simply turn a blind eye as there is a non removal order in place?
In my opinion this is BS as I have non removal orders on my children which hasnt worried Femily caught or WR one bit
Mits
Comment by Mits — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 8:37 am
Had_Enough, I don’t think anything I say will be satisfactory to you as I don’t have the same views as you. But I hope at the very least I can give empathy, which is a wonderful thing, IMO. I too have been in the place of powerlessness against what Dominic explains very well (IMO) @ comment 53.
I come across very sad and bad cases involving fathers too. I can’t get over the financial costs, wow, soooo expensive.
One case this year involved a dad who put his 3 out of 4 daughters on a plane to visit mum in Australia last Xmas and she wouldn’t send them back. She had up and left dad and the girls for another man on a whim 4/5 years back and dad took care of the girls while one was still a baby.
He applied to the court to have the girls returned and in the meantime mum had phoned CYF saying he was sexually harming his young daughters. She ignored the judge’s request to make a statement explaining her intentions, thoughts, ect which delayed the proceedings 2-3 months and when the time lapsed the judge gave her more months to reply to a second request.
CYF in the meantime questioned the daughter sill with him who is now at school asking how she was disciplined, how dad did this and that and then found no grounds to suggest he was abusing his daughters sexually or otherwise.
Mum continued to ignore the judge who sent yet a third request after the second time lapsed while CYF decided to label the dad a concern under parentification.
http://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/Parentification.html
Like most parents, dad felt powerless to do anything but try and keep functioning. He stated a judge would not have been so lenient if the sexes were reversed. (other way around)
Fortunately for him, he had an expensive lawyer willing to argue for the return of his daughters and they obtained CYF’s paperwork through the Privacy Act and fought this young label of parentification while arguing CYF could not build a case against him.
The judge finally stopped allowing the mother to delay the proceedings and the children were returned 10 months later at a huge financial cost.
Comment by Julie — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 9:47 am
Interesting phenomenon in the USA. They’re having trouble getting students to enrol in law school. Their enrolments are down 5000 on last year – they haven’t seen such low numbers for 40 years.
Public image problem perhaps, no longer seen as an honourable profession or do young people simply have better things to do with their time?
Comment by Downunder — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 11:02 am
http://www.infowars.com/brand-obama-totalitarianism-2-0/
This will give you an idea as to the feeling in the US – people are waking up to the lies and bullshit……even the Police and military – SWORN TO PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS and the CONSTITUTION – are waking up in large numbers to the corruption at the top…..
Comment by hornet — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 11:54 am
Hi Julie, the issues I am going through with my kids at the moment are causing me a lot of stress and I get really pissed off with people who make blanket generalisations when they don’t understand the facts of the case. It’s fair comment that I have moved to Australia so who am I to tell her she can’t move to Canada. The mother of my children can go and live in Antarctica for all I care but the issue here is the children, particularly my daughter, and what’s best for her. I believe I should get a say in where she lives for a number of reasons.
1) Education:- My daughter has only just re-engaged with the education system and is doing well so why dump her into another school in another country where she may not adapt.
2) Bad Environment:- My daughter will be forced to live in an unsafe environment in Canada where she will potentially be exposed to drug and alcohol abuse and emotional and physical violence.
3) Financial:- I pay for everything and will be made to pay more and more if I want to visit her in Canada so why I shouldn’t get a say in where she lives.
4) She’s telling the FC that she has to take my daughter to Canada because she’s being persecuted by the NZ Education and Health systems and unfairly disadvantaged. She’s also citing the MOE and Dept of Health and CYF as harassing her and trying to take out protection orders against them. This is the kind of person we are dealing with here. Barking mad!!
It’s not all about the mother and what she wants to do when she’s dragging my kids along for the ride. If I had abandoned them and wasn’t willing to have them in my day to day care then I would have less of a case but I would love to have my younger 2 kids in my day to day care and the FC are well aware of this.
Comment by Had_Enough — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 3:09 pm
@Had_Enough I admire your patience and fortitude. Even with all you are going through you can take the time to respond to indiscriminate criticism. Your children are very lucky to have such a caring and dedicated father.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 3:52 pm
Thanks Downunder. I think I’ve learned to be patient by trying to take the emotion out of the issue and concentrate on the facts although this is very difficult at times when the welfare of my kids is at stake. Earlier this year Allan Harvey taught me a very valuable lesson on keeping the emotion and the negative comments out of affidavits and Court proceedings and sticking with the cold hard facts and figures. That’s something I try and do religiously now and I am hoping it will pay off in my upcoming case re the custody of my kids. I find the advice and shared experience I receive from yourself, Paul, Alan, Dominic, A dad, Hornet and several other posters to be very helpful and it’s very comforting to know that I’m not the only one who has to tread this miserable path of unjust litigation, apathetic government agencies and alienation from my children.
Comment by Had_Enough — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 4:27 pm
Hi Mits,
I have no reason to disbelieve you. What happened to you is crazy and cruel.
I remember one time I was in the Family Court, in Taupo, and the judge was in a bad mood. Just like that, he took his emotion out on families who had spent 6 months to a year or more, waiting to get in front of him to sort out CYF intervention and separation access, ect. Most people, IMO, would assume his judgement was based on law and yet it wasn’t.
Funnee. It’s OK to believe what’s law and what happened in your own case can be different but you won’t accept someone else’s tale because it doesn’t suit your political views. Perhaps it’s not as cut and dry, so to speak, as you think after all.
Anyways, the non removal order was not placed on the woman. She herself could leave at any time but their child could not. She wouldn’t up and leave her child behind.
Comment by Julie — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 5:06 pm
There is something you need to learn about the West Coast, Julie. They don’t tolerate silly feminist rubbish down that way. They will run a woman out of town if she starts playing that game. I’ve seen it before, and it quite surprises me how one part of New Zealand can be so
different, sensible, but that’s just the way it is down there.Comment by Downunder — Wed 18th December 2013 @ 8:45 pm
Had enough-I symapthise with you-really i do as i wear a similar t shirt. I went through something similar a couple of years ago when the ex tried to relocate to Australia. She is an Australian citizen but the kids have sepnt their entire lives here. The case took approximately a year to get to mediation, at which point she backed down, i suspect largely because of the affidavits i managed to obtain from third parties, contradicting her B….S….
1.Keep every email and text exchanges you get from her/to her
2.Keep your head at all times
3.Seek answers to all of the qwuestions you have. i.e. what is her measure of the superiority of the Canadian system compared to here? What are the abuses she claims to suffer from the authorities”? Ask her, in writing. Be conciliatory in all correspondence.
4.Do not manipulate your daughter (not suggesting you are)
5.Regardless of the outcome, have faith that yur daughter will work stuff out for herself in time. Many told me that, and i thought “yeah right”-but….they were right.
The difficulty will be that you are living in Australia and want to have them stay in New Zealand. I would personally be seeking to have her, in the first instance, live with you in Australia, with a fall back of living in New Zealand. You should present info on chosen schools in Australia, transport and care options in Australia should you obtain custody.
Also, obtain copies of ERO reports for her current school in Nz, comparison of costs of living, education system, crime etc.
Also, focus on her perescution complex-is it worth asking that she be examined by a professional (the ex). If you have proof that she feels this persecution from all, surely this hints at psychiatric ill health?
Are you able to provde the courts with proof as to the unsuitability of extended family members in canada-newspaper articles?Court records,affidavits from sympathetic family members attesting to having been told about the hell’s angels etc.
I wish you well my friend. it is an incerdibly painful and frigtening time for you. You will come through it-perhaps a little bruised, but life will go on and you will be ok.
Comment by shafted — Thu 19th December 2013 @ 9:49 am
Hey Shafted , thanks for the advice mate. I will definitely have my ducks in a row before appearing in front of the judge although I’m not sure when that will be because a date hasn’t been set yet. I’ll go through the process but I really don’t know what the outcome is likely to be. I’ve found, in the past, that it really depends on the judge you get. I definitely believe what you said about the kids learning the truth in the end though. This has already happened with my youngest child and I’m sure it will happen with the younger two. She always puts me down in front of them and I know that will backfire on her bigtime.
Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 20th December 2013 @ 1:20 am
had enough. Mine has done so too, and i have never reciprocated. Just allowed the kids to be kids and they have worked it out. Same with her frinds. Sent me to coventary for afew years, and have now worked out all is not as it seemed. I was branded a wife beating alcoholic none caring self centred a…. hole…noe of which were true.
HAve a good break and givve your head time off from all of this!
Comment by shafted — Fri 20th December 2013 @ 11:08 am
After going through the court system, I am sorry to say that Dads are not welcome there…. My ex even had warnings from the police from abusing children and she still won the custody. Judge Ryan said as I no longer put my son in her care that this is no longer an issue. However I still lost the ability of shared care.??? I believe the system will never change due to the discrimination against fathers.
I also believe you have a better case than mine as no court will allow the children overseas… You will pay through your teeth right here in NZ.
Good luck
Comment by Gary — Sat 28th December 2013 @ 9:11 am
Had enough. I have only read the top half of this conversation but thought you had better know this. You WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT. Probably too late now but I am in the same boat as you. My ex went back to Singapore with my son who is a new zealand citizen(dual)actually and because of that I am still, even though our courts and orders have no power over there.
Comment by joostice — Thu 17th April 2014 @ 10:35 am
Hey joostice , yes I am sure you are right. The Australian CSA people have advised me that the Canadian Courts will be able to stitch up some kind of deal with the Australian Courts whereby I can be forced to pay her an amount (determined by them) even though I am not an Australian Citizen. They are actually saying they could do that even if NZ IRD CS wasn’t interested in collecting as the liability would be terminated from their point of view. So, in a sense, I could be worse off by choosing to live in Australia than if I were to return to NZ. Just as an aside; they make you pay a much higher amount in arrears in Oz than in NZ. The NZ IRD were happy with about $300 per month but the Australian CSA insisted on $1000 per month but I managed to get it reduced to $500 per month which is still a major struggle. Moral of the story; don’t have kids..
Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 17th April 2014 @ 5:47 pm