- 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.

Sat 11th January 2014

Men abandon New Zealand

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 7:52 am

Historically, the country has had the opposite problem. Kiwi men of the 1800s and early 1900s often struggled to find a partner.

But since the 1980s there have been more women than men and the imbalance is now as bad as it’s ever been.

Well there’s a real surprise.

Who would have guessed that this trend would have started in the 1980s. Certainly not any gender-bent lost soul who has fallen for the feminist trap of the redefinition of words – oh and you didn’t realise they intended to redefine men as well?

Census 2013 figures show the number of men to go around is at an all-time low – and it’s especially grim for those of a prime marrying age.

For every 100 women looking to snag a New Zealand chap aged between 25 and 49, on average about nine will miss out.

To give that some perspective – if this was a natural trend of male depletion rather than a consequential occurrence that would equate to a population deficiency of 450,000 males.

Wellington economist and social researcher Paul Callister says the figures show New Zealand has yet to shake its man drought.

Yep, it’s a problem alright, even the economist recognises the lateral and elongated effects the absence of males will have on our economic development, but it is not the economist that has the power to fix the problem, nor does it seem there is any will to change what women in this country now perceive to be their entitled lifestyle.

Story from Stuff.co.nz

44 Responses to “Men abandon New Zealand”

  1. Julie says:

    This won’t change and it’s sad that gender issues come to this sort of thing, IMO.

    When I moved to New Zealand, in 1990, after marrying a kiwi I met in Australia, I came across people, mainly Maori, who were insistent their children marry their own kind, yet for these people, it wasn’t just Maori they wanted their daughters and sons to marry,…… they wanted them to marry into their tribe…… Their children will be over 25 now, so it will be interesting to see what happened.

    …………

    I think a lot of men and women leave New Zealand because it’s small and there’s not a lot of opportunity here. A bit like Pacific Islanders leaving their small islands and coming to New Zealand, and then moving on to Australia and the rest of the world. Maori, Pacific Island, European kiwi…. you can’t hold back progress. (I can imagine the panic of early colonisation when people moved away from Europe).

    IMO, it would have to be incredible sex to stop men and women from looking for greener pasture, lol.

  2. Downunder says:

    Thanks John,

    Interesting reading and good to know that someone considers it worthwhile investigating.

    This initial investigation of 2013 census data indicates that the New Zealand ‘Man Drought’ has not broken. Instead, of the birth ratio of around 105 boys to every 100 girls continuing through all age groups across the population, in 2013 there were 95 male to every 100 females. In the 25-49 age group – an age range where a ‘Man Drought’ has previously been indentified in both Australia and New Zealand – the ratio in the 2013 New Zealand census is 91 males to every 100 females. While the New Zealand ‘Man Drought’ has not ‘broken’ or worsened, in Australia the ‘Man Drought’ is no longer significant.

    Interesting also that while the symptom was first identified in Australia rather than New Zealand, they no longer suffer from this problem. I wonder if it were not for the Christchurch Earthquake whether we would have seen a continuing deterioration rather than a levelling off in the negative ratio.

  3. Skeptik says:

    Glad I got out of misandric NZ when I did.
    I encourage other men to go your own way too.

  4. MurrayBacon says:

    Paul Callister seems to only consider bare economic migration. If he was to consider the following drivers, he may find the data easier to explain:

    1. deadweight costs to fathers (and a bit less so, mothers too) of attempting to deal with familycaught$ mafia
    2. deadweight costs to fathers of dealing with child [and spousal] support, waisted time, motivation
    3. increased marginal tax rate, beyond just paying costs for children
    4. disadvantageous treatment of men as social welfare claimants

    If these factors were included, then it would be then be difficult to explain how many men are still in NZ.

    I also wonder why Paul Callister has not considered suicide (and chosen industrial accidents) as one of the paths by which some NZ men escape from NZ?

  5. Soothsayer says:

    Kiwi attitude.

    THERE’S nothing quite as hard to deal with as a sad husband. Fortunately my husband doesn’t get sad very often. Just when we move house.

    The last time we moved house from Sydney to Auckland my husband was so sad I had to rush out and buy him a puppy.

    I had moved ahead of him as he had to work out his contract. He arrived from the airport to a fully furnished house and a banner saying “Welcome home, Dad!” in the kitchen.

    He looked at the banner, went outside and put his head in his hands.

    “This is a good thing,” I kept saying to him. “We’re home where we belong.”

    “Mmm,” was all he said.

    Fortunately the puppy needed house training which gave him a reason to live and he was right as rain in a few weeks.

    This week as we’ve packed and cleaned, ready to move, I’ve been a box of birds having dealt with all the emotional chaos of leaving my home of 12 years as we’ve sold our house, bought another two and organised my pants off. It has been a process, a journey, something I have willingly gone through. And now I’m at the end of the tunnel and the future looks bright.

    My husband, meanwhile, has missed every clue I’ve given him to join me in my journey.

    He got on with life as normal, pausing to pack his 3000 books in alphabetical order and only realised this week what it all meant. I first noticed something wasn’t quite right when he started gazing longingly at the ceiling. Then the walls. He’d then do a great agonising sweep across the floor ending with the windows. Then he’d sigh. One long sigh, full of doom. The world was obviously about to end.

    “Are you really only just processing the fact that we are moving out, the day before we move?” I asked.

    “It’s just I love this house. So many memories.” Another sigh.

    “Well we have known this was about to happen for a while. So, you might like to just, you know, get on with it.”

    “I suppose,” he said wandering off to another room to get on with a bit more looking and sighing.

    Nothing brings out the disconnect between the sexes more than life change and I have a theory that it dates back to the cave.

    At the cave, all those thousands of years ago, my husband did not need to think ahead that much. He got up, went out, chased and killed something, then dragged it home for everyone to eat. Most days. Not a lot of planning required.

    I had to plan. I had gardens to organise, harvests to preserve – I’m thinking I probably buried stuff in the ground or dried it in my cave. And then there was all the giving birth in a safe place and keeping the kids safe from marauding tigers and organising the old people to hurry up and die.

    In this day and age it is still the woman who thinks ahead.

    I’m the one who sat on the phone on hold for most of a day listening to Dave Dobbyn sing Welcome Home over and over while I changed the power, gas, telephone and insurance.

    I’m also the one who organised the movers, organised an army of cleaners (myself and my daughter) and said our goodbyes to our two favourite neighbours.

    Months ago I did my sighing and looking. I cleaned the house from top to bottom, rubbing its walls affectionately, saying my goodbyes.

    At the time my husband rubbed my back and said, “There, there”.

    On our last night in our old house I had planned to set up a table in the garden, open a bottle of champagne and have our last meal as a symbolic gesture of “we are moving out, get over it”.

    Instead, I found my husband at the pub at 7pm, having organised a business meeting which went on a bit.

    I realised that I was looking at another great difference between the sexes. The male’s propensity for avoidance.

    My heartfelt sympathy to the husband.

  6. Soothsayer says:

    Another kiwi degenerate;

    SAME-SEX marriage has always been with us. Marriage itself ostensibly ensures the sex will always be the same.

    But, that aside, I wish dinner parties between married couples would be outlawed – they are perverse. As I’ve said before, this isn’t the ’70s anymore.

    At a dinner party you can expect a competitive comment from one wife to another, a dull DIY talk between the husbands of the wives, or the wives of the wives, or the husbands of the husbands, and endless hints at a better time.

    I mean everyone is trying to check out everybody else. For why else would you take a brightly lit residential meal with your oldest friend, let alone your oldest friend’s wife? From a man’s perspective, the latter is scarcely likeable, and the former almost killed you in your youth, and you only got married to get away from him.

    But now, because of the socially expected phenomenon of dinner parties, a married man has to sit around with the aforementioned parties, his own wife, and six to 10 other married people in vastly sober environs. And it’s all about sex.

    The only difference between now and the ’70s is that the S word is merely metaphorical these days. We hope.

    You can expect one mean bottle of wine shared between eight people. Expect cheese boards and cheesy boredom. Expect the expected.

    In the rare event of there being more than one bottle of wine, make sure the ladies drink champagne only. For champagne is the only alcoholic drink which makes a woman beautiful, as Madame de Pompadour said. Anything less will make the birds go cuckoo. They will singularly rant, rave and rah, rah, rah bitchily for 20 minutes about their co-worker or sister-in-law, swearing like sea captains, while the men sit in stunned silence.

    But I’m getting ahead of myself – we’re supposed to be outlawing the dinner party between married couples altogether.

    It gets really perverse, mean and stingy when the host asks each couple to contribute a plate of food pre-party. And this is what happens most of the time, in New Zealand, and it’s loathsome. The implication is: the host/hostess is too cheap to host you properly. Indeed, you must bring a sad-wrapped plate for he/she to sniff and scoff at, for they’re saving money for their trip to Fiji. Disgusting.

    A secret cook-off between the female parties is what this party has devolved into, realistically speaking.

    But they must be abolished, these dinner parties, as other people’s homes are depressing, and especially so at night. He and she, the traditional couple, will never have matching taste in house adornment, so what you get is cumulative interior disharmony: a macabre china cabinet for her and obscene leather furniture for him. In other words, a rest home meets a decadent hotel lobby. Impossible.

    Then there’s always some poor husband not being allowed to eat sufficiently, as his wife is the weight police. Or the very same wife puts an offensively paltry portion on her own plate, spoiling everyone’s fun by making all feel gluttonously guilty for overdoing it with theirs. Then there’s the talk of kids, and nobody’s interested except those talking.

    Dessert is the saddest part of all because not everyone indulges in it and those who don’t are left with their hands free which, my uncle assures me, is a fatal look at a party. But then again these particular people are quietly waiting for the others to put on weight, so it gives them a wry, gloating satisfaction.

    The decision of who does the dishes is always an embarrassing moment, too.

    For the hosts, with their newly hijacked plates, can’t very well say, “No, you go – I insist” to their guests with dishes unwashed. For the guests will then have to wait for weeks to get their crockery back and not everyone can afford to lend crockery to others for a full fortnight. But it’s a catch-22 because the guests don’t want to do the dishes in foreign territory, nor do they want to observe the wreckage of the party any longer. The couples thereupon say their goodbyes.

    Most definitely MP potential!

  7. Julie says:

    It’s funny to read through the comments for you see how different we all are, in our own little minds…. in our own little worlds.

    I think people should do what their conscious allows. If they leave, great, if they don’t great – just don’t regret because they chews you up inside.

  8. Allan Harvey says:

    Julie,
    Single no kids, then whatever.
    Parents exiting the country where their children are resident makes parenting next to impossible.
    Likewise relocating with kids to another country makes things super difficult as well.
    If the result is effectively non-parenting and this is understood and a parent is “walking out on their kids” then their call but they will almost certainly not be the only ones who regret the decision later.

    The ultimate leaving is suicide and I’m never encouraging that option and am often doing working hard to ensure other options are well thought through. In my cases so far (touch wood) I have only had one chap take that final option and I know it has had real difficulties for his children.

    Parents have choices, kids often don’t. The best parent after separation is almost always BOTH parents.
    Lets work hard to make that a reality for our children.
    Allan

  9. Soothsayer says:

    new zealand elevates social terrorism to new heights. Those fortunate enough not to have lived there would never begin to imagine the insanity that prevails. Human, financial and legal rights abuses have long since been the norm. A den of social decay, institutionalised corruption and a veritable man trap! (Social destruction is big business). Moreover the fascist regime covertly and illegally commits unconscionable abuses outside of it’s own borders.

    Why are other countries able to harmoniously implement positive social advances without commiting gross human and legal rights abuses? Perhaps the agenda differs?

    It speaks volumes of the weak character of it’s citizens. Don’t expect an improvement anytime soon.

  10. Soothsayer says:

    I’ve very quickly and roughly thrown together an overview whilst intentionally omitting the really nasty details (to be published at a later date).

    When after many years of provable abuse from my hypergamous ex and a short period of separation, she filed for a divorce, I was approached by my employer and recommended a lawyer (Len Brown). It soon became apparent that he was colluding with my ex’s lawyer. It is my belief that he was a political stooge. To his great annoyance I sought alternative council with Sandi Bailey. Ultimately, she would not allow me to proceed with litigation. My case was overwhelming. I have reason to believe that she was lent on from political office.

    A year earlier (2001) I had respectfully and in good faith (naively) written to the PM concerned with events occurring in NZ society. The result of which was the onset of severe Police harassment that continues to this day (my car forced off the road, window smashed and dragged down the road.

    With my ex being a senior IRD manager all dealings with the department were unilateral, corrupt and repressive. Neither did I ever receive any response from the family court. I absolutely bent over backwards for the children’s sake, yet in all matters both my ex and the state were brutally oppressive and hostile towards me.

    For four more years I cared for our always delightful children 80% of the time and in so incurring most of their expenses whilst also having to pay her full child support. From their birth I had a profound involvement in all facets of the children’s lives and had for many years been the primary caregiver and also done most of the housework to a very high standard. I have letters from her begging for me to care for the children even more. All the while she would neglect them, abuse them and block their activities to extort more money from me!

    When inevitably my funds ran out, she packed a sad and denied me all access. There was a bizarre meeting with a SES worker who told me “They are her children” (Her brother also works for the SES). I have since learned that I was removed as their legal guardian. Like all of their actions, I was never consulted. This was typically farcical as by then she had thrown the older child out onto the street at age sixteen!

    There are also examples of severe abuse and victimisation of our children at school. Including a shocking gang bashing instigated by a politically connected principal’s child and being made to make a speech against me! With much difficulty, I obtained a school report in which every field was ‘unsatisfactory’. He had previously consistently obtained high distinctions in several subjects.

    With all contact denied, I began being harassed at my work and “spied on” and bullied by female colleagues. This occurred at several jobs with covert Police involvement. My ex was also active in this.

    Then in 2009, I was yet again being harassed and spied upon at work by government officials. The situation was unbelievably farcical and when I finally confronted the issue my employer was forced to terminate my employment. My statements were completely erased from the reports and letters. The reasons given for my dismissal were poor performance and from out of nowhere, “having an issue with women in positions of authority” (I had just been given accelerated promotion!!!) Glass ceiling – yeah right. I had had the vision to undertake the study, gain experience and obtain an excellent position through extremely hard work. Now positions in this field are in high demand and very well paid. Typical of the NZ government to cut you down and in doing so impoverish you and your children.

    On Christmas Eve of that year, I was arrested without charge and held for four days in solitary confinement. Denied a lawyer, a shower and forced to perform ablutions in front of female Police Officers. They repeatedly tried to antagonise me however I was wise to this and simply asked for a Bible.

    Being unable to see my children and work in NZ, in February 2009 I gained employment teaching girls and boys in Kuwait. I arrived penniless however still paid all child support, fully supported the child she had thrown out and also sponsored two children.

    After about eight months, I began to be harassed by some of my colleagues. Blocking of resources and comments about my “Not being one of the good guys”. They also began wearing pink shirts. I was terminated despite having an excellent appraisal, being higher qualified and better experienced than my colleagues. The following day there was an email about a UN program at the college on sustainable management for women and women’s sport (I had myself been playing mixed netball at the time). I was also forced to sign papers in Arabic that I would not sue the College before I was allowed to leave Kuwait (I have damaging material).

    Upon leaving Kuwait, I gained employment in Australia and flew over my older son who had been drifting to live with me. Our living conditions were very basic (single bed cabin), I was working huge hours (80+\week) and I was in a poverty trap but at least he completed some study.
    Then one day I received an abusive phone call from the IRD demanding child support for the child that was living with me! There was harassment and isolation at work and I was unofficially asked if I was a terrorist (really). Thankfully the Australian authorities are wise to these pathetic games. The personal stress and poor quality of life was and remains crushing.

    In stark contrast to NZ, Australia is fantastic, the government is excellent and the ladies of all ages are civil and most often adorable.

    Last year I had to renew my NZ passport. Soon afterwards I again began to be harassed at work. This time I not only lost my job but also the equity in an apartment. It is patently clear that the NZ government wishes to destroy me and by proxy our sons.

    The younger child also left her home two years ago and I’ve been supporting him from abroad. Yes, she was again fraudulently claiming child support.

    There is discrimination against ‘single’ males in the workplace for employment, pay, promotion, higher duties and opportunities. The reality is that I have less income and also have children to support.

    I have only quickly glossed over the facts to give you an impression of events. There are many more disturbing incidents and aspects which evidence the complete breakdown of my civil rights. Most often in circumstances where I was also struggling to care for the children!

    I am now in the position of having worked extremely hard for thirty years and being all but destitute. I have lived out of one suit case for the last twelve years. The illegal acts against my career and financial well being are now unrecoverable.

    Do I regret leaving nz? Absolutely not!!!

    Will I let the human, financial and legal rights abuses go unpunished? Absolutely not!!!

  11. Soothsayer says:

    The above details have been emailed to numerous diplomatic missions.

    The sword of Truth.

  12. Soothsayer says:

    Let me know when you’ve absorbed the above and I’ll share some background information with you.

  13. A dad says:

    Alan @10…
    ‘The best parent after separation is almost always BOTH parents.’

    I like that statement. Wish we could convince MPs of that fact. Perhaps Colin Craig may offer some sensible option for the future? I don’t know enough to be sure. One can only hope.

  14. Bruce S says:

    …and of the men that remain in New Zealand; how many are abandoning the idea of marriage? Perhaps we have another by product of the New Zealand “asocial engineering project” – a marriage revolt? New Zealand men showing leadership and creativity in the face of adversity?

  15. Soothsayer says:

    Western ‘civilisation’ FUBAR!

  16. Dylan says:

    Cross-referencing of marriage, divorce, census, survey and dating site data suggests that more women than men are choosing not to marry, choosing to leave marriage, and choosing not to re-marry. A counterfactual to the statistical “man-drought” which assumes that all single men and all single women are available for partnership. In terms of active participation less woman are actually available, than men. This does not reflect quality of men, or quality of women, but may reflect increasing satisfaction with the quality of life when single.

  17. Downunder says:

    The man-doubt is based on two things:

    1. That there are less men than women in the marriage/partner age group.

    2. That women are complaining about not be able to partner (media driven).

    As in Japan there are extreme numbers of men and women choosing to remain single and it’s conceivable that this is happening here, that there are a number of men and women choosing to remain single, or alternatively choosing to remain childless.

    I don’t think we should confuse these things because the man drought suggests that men are leaving the country and not returning.

  18. Sarah Haras says:

    Dylan says

    Cross-referencing of marriage, divorce, census, survey and dating site data suggests that more women than men are choosing not to marry, choosing to leave marriage, and choosing not to re-marry.

    Just how do these statistics show that it is women who are choosing not to marry, or are the ones leaving a marriage (divorce), and choosing not to marry?
    Marriages are down; no argument there. [ignoring gay-marriage], last thing I knew, whether there are 50,000 marriages a year, or only 5,000, the same number of men as women are involved!
    How do you establish its because women have chosen not to marry? Are more men marrying than women? Do stats show women are saying no when proposed to?
    Do divorce stats show that its women leaving marriage? Stats might record who filed for divorce; there is no correlation. My former wife left me; I filed for divorce.
    I left for Australia. Am I part of the assumed stats of men leaving NZ because of women and their refusal to marry? Did I leave because NZ women are a bunch of spoilt twats? No; I left to pursue work./ No other reason. My job shifted to Oz.

  19. Sarah Haras says:

    As in Japan there are extreme numbers of men and women choosing to remain single and it’s conceivable that this is happening here, that there are a number of men and women choosing to remain single, or alternatively choosing to remain childless.

    Whilst I agree there are increasing numbers of people here choosing to remain single rather than marry (or alternatively to simply live together), I don’t think this is ‘extreme’. So the institution of marriage is all but history; so too is the ‘christian’ majority in NZ. So too are many RSA’s. Many Scout troops; many schools.
    Things change. Nobody has ever (as far as I am aware) ever conducted solid or empirical studies on the causal links. It is therefore a far reach and pure speculation to link either the ‘exodus’ of men to other countries, or the increase in singledom within NZ, to men (or women) choosing to de-couple from any long-term heterosexual stable relationships. [As Skeptic has frequently expounded].

  20. Skeptic says:

    Sarah,
    You’re trying to put words into my mouth.
    The only thing I’ve expounded is encouraging NZ Men Going Their Own Way.
    I don’t know of research that suggests there is a man shortage in NZ and frankly it’s not an issue I’m even much interested in.

    I simply want to help other men in NZ as I think that as the laws and social conventions in NZ are framed and enacted it’s all too easy for NZ women to use false allegations to deliberately mess up men’s lives horribly with total impunity.

    I think this website alone bears testament to the family court having a proven track record over several decades now of favoring women, whilst not operating on the basis of proven facts but the slippery slope of ‘in the best interests of the child’ to do so.

    Then there’s the issue of ‘no fault divorce’ which appears to all too often result in women leaving relationships with good men, as female hypergamy is aided and abetted by a raft of self serving female sympathetic agencies who appear to shamefully lack due compassion for men. It’s male disposability writ large in my view.
    We have been educated to understand women being viewed as sex objects as a stance that is lacking in humanity. However I think there’s along way to go before many people understand the equally repugnant stance of treating men as success objects. MGTOW is in my view a rational response to the widespread existence of such reflected in our laws, social conventions and day to day interactions.

    All in all then I view cohabitation, marriage and having children with women in NZ as a terrible gamble for men to take and for me and other men I know and respect not worth the risk.

    You seem to promote the idea that it’s women abandoning relationships with men, not vice versa. I’m not convinced that’s the case.
    However even if that were proven to be so, under current circumstances as I’ve outlined above the end result would be greater safety for men.

  21. MurrayBacon says:

    UK Parliament MPs censure familycaught$ Early day motion 210

    SHARED PARENTING RIGHTS AND THE FAMILY COURTS

    Session: 2013-14
    Date tabled: 10.06.2013
    Primary sponsor: Galloway, George
    Sponsors: Meale, Alan Campbell, Ronnie Kaufman, Gerald Godsiff, Roger Long, Naomi

    That this House notes that many fathers convicted of no criminal offence have very limited access to their children as a result of decisions made by the family courts following separation or divorce; further notes that the family courts operate in conditions of secrecy in which there is a lack of public accountability for the decisions they make; believes that mothers, children and fathers all have rights in relation to family contact and access where there has been family breakdown; further believes there should not be a presumption that family breakdown is the primary responsibility of either parent; further believes that where there is palpably no threat to children from their father in the context of family breakdown, the courts should try to maximise reasonable access in the interests of the children; and calls on the Government to review the operation of the family courts in general and their decision-making in relation to fathers’ access to children in the context of family breakdown in particular, taking into account the testimony of the many thousands of fathers who feel their rights are being ignored or abused in relation to their children and in particular the organisation Fathers4Justice and the 36,000 families it represents.

    If you look through the link above, you will see that the sponsoring MPs come from all parties, with less Conservatives than other parties, but essentially cross party support for this public challenge to UK familycaught$.

    Completely different legislation – but the same legal attitudes, integrity and ethics

  22. Dylan says:

    Sarah, Sorry but your comment makes no sense. Also, your name is “Sarah” but you write as a man. More confusion. Just to reassure, there are many statistics collected (not solely by StatsNZ and Census, DIA etc, as well as qualitative data. I am simply stating that there is no real “man drought” in NZ in terms of marriage or partnership, due to many women making a decision in advance not to partner. I affirm again, that this is not due to poor quality of men or women, but likely reflects a higher quality of life for singletons in the 21st Century. I don’t see that as a bad thing – we would surely all wish for the quality of lives of New Zealanders to improve.

  23. Daniel says:

    I read in this morning’s paper an article about a man who has worked overseas for several years but has a rental property here and financially supports his children based in NZ. The IRD has assessed him as being liable for tax since he has “strong links” with NZ. Because of this he has been ordered to pay back tax plus a 20% penalty.
    The irony is that supporting his children was considered by the IRD to be a “strong link”. The only conclusion I can draw is that he would have been better off not supporting his kids, what a ridiculous situation.

  24. Downunder says:

    @ Daniel, thanks for posting this – The IRD obviously has its eye on expats and he is the unfortunate test case.

    Armour said the penalties were a particular surprise, since a decade was generally considered long enough to sever all tax residency ties.

    “A pessimistic view is that New Zealanders now need to break all ties with New Zealand to be confident they no longer retain New Zealand tax residence when they leave to work and live overseas.”

    This is draconian Slave to the State material

  25. kumar says:

    Tax residency rules kick in here. If you are a tax resident in NZ (based on your family ties..or other tests) then your worldwide income is taxed here in NZ.

  26. Daniel says:

    I wonder how long it will be before someone takes this whole tax residency issue to the United Nations or somewhere similar. Quick, before Aunty Helen gets in!

  27. shafted says:

    Hi. Advice please. My son is 18. he lived with me for the past year. He attended school.
    Under our roof he had boundaries set, that included not taking drugs, respecting family members etc. He was given the choice to abide by the household rules or leave. He chose the former in the form of rescue by his enabling mother. I have made enquiry of her as to what his intentions are this year-work?School?
    She refuses to tell me. Do i have any rights in this regard?

  28. kumar says:

    He is 18. I don’t think there’s much you can do.

  29. shafted says:

    Thats what i figured. Get to pay child support though. cool

  30. Downunder says:

    I am not sure when the new legislation kicks in.

    Under the old system you were obliged to pay child support if the child was working less than 30 hours a week or still at school.
    (I assume this is still the same)

    I am not sure what the situation regarding the unemployment benefit is at the moment.

    Under the news rules child support ceases at 18 unless he is still at school.

    Your ex is obliged to inform you of his situation so you can calculate child support liability but if she doesn’t want to tell you she is obliged to tell the IRD.

  31. Allan Harvey says:

    Daniel #25
    He owns property here and has rental income therefore a NZ Tax resident. No doubt about that.
    Shafted #30 after 16 your son decides to do what he wants and yes under current legislation you pay CS till he is 18 or he goes on a benefit or works more than 30 hours a week, or get a student loan or similar.

  32. Downunder says:

    So, effectively a father can pay his child’s board, while his child sits on his arse at his mother’s place, plays computer games, and works part time.

    Really productive outcome for everyone, eh.

  33. Daniel says:

    Allan #34 yep I realise that but even if he didn’t he is still caught by the act of supporting his kids. My point is that there is a big disincentive for any parent in his situation to do the right thing.

  34. golfa says:

    #35. Downunder, it’s worse than that. The child may no longer even be living under the Mother’s roof (she moved over 400km away) and you are still liable to pay her child support as she still has “custody”.

    And for everyone, you stop paying when the child turns NINETEEN.

  35. Downunder says:

    @ Golfa not under the new rules.

    Child Support stops at 18 unless your child is at a registered school, which would include the new charter schools.

  36. anonymous says:

    What happens to your child support payments when the child reaches 18 and the mother is claiming a benefit? We will prob pay until the child reaches 19 under the current child support laws. The child is no longer in full time education and works less than 30 hours a week. The mother receives child support for four children in total from us. We pay more than the basic sole parent amount per week for all the children. Is the payment we pay for the 18 year old passed on completely or is it still used to offset the sole parent benefit even though the benefit no longer includes the 18 year old? Child has been asked to pay board and we were under the impression our child support for that child would cover most of her expenses. I hope this makes sense.

  37. Downunder says:

    If you take a ‘State perspective’ they would probably say; the law says you have to pay child support and whether the State or your child’s mother gets the money has got nothing to do with you – your just the paying parent, shut up and pay your dues.

    Your situation won’t exist under the new rules (whenever they start)because child support will end at 18 unless the child is at a registered school.

    @Allan Harvey, with all the confusion over the new legislation does anyone know when the new rules kick in?

  38. OMG you're &*^(%$ says:

    Golfa #37, yes, under current legislation you are CORRECT (unless they leave home and are no longer studying). But under changes proposed to legislation, that CHANGES to 18 – hopefully from 1/4/14, but might be rolled up in the deferred changes to 1/4/15.

  39. Allan Harvey says:

    #39 Anonymous
    Mr English and his consolidated fund snaffles your payments.
    If the child is in work more than 30 hours a week or gets a student allowance then you get let off that CS hook.

  40. Allan Harvey says:

    The new rules probably, possibly begin to kick in 1 April 2015 and the changes due 1 April 2015 are now delayed to 1/4/2016.
    The Minister has told me he had no confidence that they could get it right and to date he doesn’t yet have confidence for 2015 either.

  41. anonymous says:

    It is not the fact that we are paying child support, we are resigned to that and have been for years. It is more the fact that if the money was being passed on for the 18 year old, why the need for additional board which limits child’s choices. Cannot afford full child support, cost of regular contact and then pay extra to child to help with their board/living costs.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are now likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

« »

Powered by WordPress