- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


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

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

Thu 1st May 2014

So If she takes my 2 children to Canada to live do I still pay Child Support??

Filed under: Child Support,General,Law & Courts — Had_Enough @ 3:59 pm

OK, so it seems that the mother of my children is taking my 2 kids to Canada to live and I will have no knowledge of where they will be living and no contact details whatsoever. I live in Australia which is irrelevant really because she blocks my access to them when I visit NZ and there is no history of violence or abuse on my part.

There is to be a Court case about this in several weeks but she has already booked the flights and I can’t imagine the Family Court refusing her request to be allowed to take the kids to Canada even though my youngest isn’t even 15 yet.

If I knew what her new address in Canada was going to be I could apply for an Admin Review under Ground 5 i.e. It costs more than 5% of the child support income amount to enable the paying parent to have contact with the child. But, if the Court fails to force her to provide me with the kids contact details and fails to enforce a Parenting Order (which I’ve recently applied for) I probably can’t even apply under Ground 5 because I will have no means of accessing my children. Can I please have some feedback on this because it’s doing my head in and I don’t know what to do? Thank you!

39 Responses to “So If she takes my 2 children to Canada to live do I still pay Child Support??”

  1. If she’s taking the kids to Canada, by right, shouldn’t the Canadian Family Court be deciding on these things? They would be in a better position to determine the cost of living and child support assessment, and also your access rights?

  2. Had_Enough says:

    Nah it doesn’t work like that Ashish. They have NZ and Canadian Citizenship so the assessment is done by NZ IRD CS because the kids are NZ citizens. It seems very strange to me that I am still liable given the circumstances but a NZ CS rep has told me I will still be assessed as if the kids were still in NZ

  3. Allan Harvey says:

    It does depend on the children’s citizenship if no one is in NZ.
    However you seem very negative about the Court matter. If you wish almost certainly the court will put conditions on the relocation regarding contact and schooling and address details. The downside is once she is in Canada these conditions are unenforceable.
    Don’t live in NZ Aussie is the answer to your dilemma.

  4. Had_Enough says:

    Hi Allan, the kids have Canadian and NZ passports. They were born and raised in NZ but their mother got them their Canadian passports recently because she is a Canadian by birth and wants to get all the freebies Canadian citizenship will get her and the kids once in Canada. Why is Aussie the answer to my dilemma? I live in Aussie and I don’t see the significance of that remark. Also, no one seems to know whether I will be liable to pay Child Support if she moves the kids to Canada. There’s F*** All on the Internet about it and one IRD CSR has told me that my liability will cease when she takes the kids out of the country and another has said I will have to keep paying. Also it would be grossly unfair if I am forced to pay child support but can’t do an Admin Review based on Ground 5 because she’s gone underground.

  5. Allan Harvey says:

    The fact the kids are NZ citizens and you live in aussie which has a reciprocial tax agreement with NZ you are liable wherever she and the kids live.

    If you don’t want to return to NZ and leave auusie for anywhere else in the world then there is NZ child support liability but no means of them collecting.

  6. Allan Harvey says:

    Sorry in 3 above I meant to say do not live in NZ or in Aussie. Any other country in the world in OK and NZ child support is not collected by that revenue authority.
    One word of warning is that under the haugue conventions international collections are a possibility but not on the horizon as yet.

  7. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Had_Enough, I hate hearing stories, such as yours. I heard them 25 years ago and I am still hearing them. Our children should be properly protected, in accordance with the law – Care of Children Act:

    Clause 4 Child’s welfare and best interests to be paramount

    (1)The welfare and best interests of a child in his or her particular circumstances must be the first and paramount consideration—
    (a)in the administration and application of this Act, for example, in proceedings under this Act; and
    (b)in any other proceedings involving the guardianship of, or the role of providing day-to-day care for, or contact with, a child.
    (2)Any person considering the welfare and best interests of a child in his or her particular circumstances—
    (a)must take into account—
    (i)the principle that decisions affecting the child should be made and implemented within a time frame that is appropriate to the child’s sense of time; and
    (ii)the principles in section 5; and
    (b)may take into account the conduct of the person who is seeking to have a role in the upbringing of the child to the extent that that conduct is relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.
    (3)It must not be presumed that the welfare and best interests of a child (of any age) require the child to be placed in the day-to-day care of a particular person because of that person’s gender.
    (4)This section does not—
    (a)limit section 6 or 83, or subpart 4 of Part 2; or
    (b)prevent any person from taking into account other matters relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.

    Clause 5 Principles relating to child’s welfare and best interests

    The principles relating to a child’s welfare and best interests are that—
    (a)a child’s safety must be protected and, in particular, a child must be protected from all forms of violence (as defined in section 3(2) to (5) of the Domestic Violence Act 1995) from all persons, including members of the child’s family, family group, whānau, hapū, and iwi:
    (b)a child’s care, development, and upbringing should be primarily the responsibility of his or her parents and guardians:
    (c)a child’s care, development, and upbringing should be facilitated by ongoing consultation and co-operation between his or her parents, guardians, and any other person having a role in his or her care under a parenting or guardianship order:
    (d)a child should have continuity in his or her care, development, and upbringing:
    (e)a child should continue to have a relationship with both of his or her parents, and that a child’s relationship with his or her family group, whānau, hapū, or iwi should be preserved and strengthened:

    (f)a child’s identity (including, without limitation, his or her culture, language, and religious denomination and practice) should be preserved and strengthened.

    From the circumstances that you state, it may be inferred that the familycaught$ is completely failing to honour the legislation. As a result, the familycaught$ are abusing the trust placed in them by Pasrliament and are no better than mafia.

    If they are behaving outside of legislation, then it seems they put themselves in the position of outlaws – they are outside of the protections given to law abiding citizens.

    In the good old days, outlaws could be shouted at, to improve society!

    MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

  8. Allan Harvey says:

    Given it seems she needs the NZ court’s permission to leave NZ with the kids then use that to ensure you have contact details for the kids.

  9. Had_Enough says:

    Thanks for the legal stuff Murray. I may use some of that when I make my telephone appearance in court in 2 weeks. Alan, like you said above, any conditions will be unenforceable once she gets to Canada. So, basically there will be no guarantee whatsoever that I will be able to have any involvement in the parenting of my youngest 2 children once they get to Canada. And, to add insult to injury, I will have no Admin Review or FC remedies available to me either so in effect her breaches of any Parenting Order in place will allow her to do exactly what she wants which is precisely why she wants to take the kids to Canada in the first place.

  10. Pete says:

    I had pretty much the same problem myself 14 years ago. My youngest one was just under 15 when mum promissed them a better life in Switzerland. I could have applied for a non removal order but that would have been pointless after the kids were promised a life full of chocolate and skiing. Her lawyer drew up an angreement that I was supposed to sign to express my accepting her move. I replied that I was willing to sign the agreement if she provided my with enrollment forms for school and a plan that would outline how she would manage if she couldn’t find work (living costs are higher so my CS payments would never have been enough). Instead of providing me evidence, she applied to the court to get permission to remove the kids even though she already had booked the flights. There was a JC just before x-mas where it was revealed that my son had already left. She got a good slap on her wrist with a wet bus ticket and the judge ordered the L4C to investigate if the kids were actually enrolled in a Swiss school and if mum had a place to stay and an income. By the end of January a hearing was held were my ex wasn’t present (she had left for Switzerland) and the L4C said he had no chance to investigate anything because of the festive season. The judge told me that i should have applied for a none removal order, that I could apply under the Hague convention to get them to return to NZ and that I was now no loger liable to pay child support. That was the end of that case.

    I never paid her a dollar, but I continued to pay CS into a savings account in my name. This came in handy a few years later when the kids where interested in education. It all felt like doom and gloom back then, but thanks goodness that is all behind us now. Both kids live in OZ, we get on really well and I look forward to visit them in a couple of weeks. :)

  11. MurrayBacon says:

    Although there are some horror stories coming out of Canada, I would guess that you are more likely to find a workable Family Court in Canada, than in NZ. So be sensibly optimistic, protect yourself first and best wishes.

    MurrayBacon.

  12. Had_Enough says:

    I think I’ll get a lawyer to represent me. I only get one shot at this so I’m currently trying to find a decent lawyer in the Perth area or maybe even a NZ based one. The law on these matters is so vague and perplexing and I don’t want to stuff this up. Does anyone know of a decent family lawyer who I could engage at short notice??

  13. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Had_Enough, please don’t think I am being unsympathetic, but the NZ familycaught$ is a hole that you could pour any amount of money into and still not really achieve anything. Expensive pieces of paper, that turn out to be based on no values of protecting children and aren’t enforceable without spending further huge sums of money – even then the odds of being able to enforce aren’t worth a bus ticket. I am suggesting that the more you spend, probably the less you will achieve.

    As someone pointed out above, the real action will be in the Canada Family Court. You need to learn more about how it works and does it work? The NZ familycaught$ may be willing to take your money, in the same way as a prostitute, but it would only be wasted in this situation. Courts sometimes try to maintain jurisdiction, to support their own future income, but for a “permanent” move, it is just wasting your money to go down that path.

    If you look at Jaydon Hedley case, his father Chris Jones probably spent as much money as most people earn in a lifetime, without any real protection for his son – until it all spilled out in public. Kay Skelton just played every dirty trick in the book and played the familycaught$ like a piano. They didn’t mind, they were raking in Government funds, legal worker’s aid and money from Chris Jones family…….

    I have seen more poorer people get a sensible deal from familycaught$, than rich people. Life is cruel, when you mix with ruthless mafia. (It really does pay to be able to look poor, much safer too.)

    May I suggest to give me a phone call and work through practical, real options. The goal is to be in the best possible situation in say 3 or 5 years. Wasting lots of money on legal workers now, probably impedes having a good future, in 5 years time. There are many options. It is difficult to plan when someone else can make most of the decisions, insane really.

    If you spend your money wisely, then you will Have_Enough money to buy legal advice, at the times when you really need it.

    MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

  14. Had_Enough says:

    Hi Murray I am sure you are right about lawyers being a waste of money. I’ve spent about $20,000 on Family Court representation in the past and have had mixed results and have self represented since 2008. My big worry here though is that I only get one shot at this and can’t afford to stuff it up. There’s no doubt in my mind that her and the kids will vanish once they get to Canada. I need to know what rights I have re my children’s contact details if the Court decides she can move. I wouldn’t mind calling you if you could give me your number. Thanks mate.

  15. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Had_Enough, 64 ouch. 9 6387275 The real action is in Canada, in the real world, rather than in any caughtroom. I doubt that you can have much positive impact through familycaught$ in NZ. I would put 9/10 of my effort into understanding Canada family law and 1/10 into NZ. Then try to put yourself into the best possible position in Canada, as quickly as possible.

    Cheers,
    Murray.

  16. Had_Enough says:

    Thanks Murray I will call in about 20 minutes if that’s OK.

  17. nameandshame says:

    If she blocks your access to your kids, post her name and photo here. Name and shame the bitch.

  18. V.O.F.M says:

    @ Had Enough, stories like yours are only too common and I feel your pain, I read the Anzac posts recently and it put this entire disgusting saga of the familycaught$ into perspective, MoMA put the writing on the wall with that particular post but it saddens me.

    We are no longer the land of the long white cloud but a colour I’m sure most men in this system would agree is a colour they realise from the experience, so long white cloud, our country is run by the opposite and the exodus will only increase given the state of this archaic, greedy, injustice system.

  19. Had_Enough says:

    Well one thing I know about greedy benefit bludging mothers is that they will do anything for free money. If CS payments could be denied to mothers who denied fathers access to their children the world would be a much better place for fathers and their children. Of course the hairy legged man haters will argue that this will allow abusive men to see their children.. Of course this could easily be prevented by a careful monitoring system but that’s far to hard to enforce isn’t it so lets just deny fathers access to their kids instead and make the fathers pay no matter what. Why the hell do we put up with this shit! Why do we elect MP’s who have no desire to change this anti family, anti father , sexist system!!

  20. OMG You're (&*)^*( says:

    The ultimate feminist mantra is something like this: It is better to deny 1000 men all access to their kids (in order to fully protect the kids), than to grant those thousand men uncontrolled access and risk just one of them proceeding to actually harming their kids.
    You can’t argue that one down in court; if you try to, you’re effectively admitting that you would happily allow the one man free licence to beat-up / rape / murder a defenceless kid.

  21. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear OMG You’re (&*)^*, you are forgetting that:

    more children are injured by mothers, than by fathers,
    more children are killed by mothers, than by fathers, (asphyxiation and poisoning doesn’t make news much)
    more children are emotionally neglected by mothers, than by fathers, (due to widespread low level depression)
    more children are injured by mothers, than by fathers,
    more children are physically neglected by mothers, than by fathers.

    Best statistical data for all forms of abuse (except emotional abuse)
    USA NIS4 Report

    However, physical abuse and neglect are relatively easily and quickly helped. Emotional abuse and emotional neglect are difficult to detect reliably, difficult to measure and also are very difficult to help afterwards.

    Emotional neglect affects how a baby’s brain develops. After the development should have occurred, but hasn’t due to lack of stimulus from carer and environment, it is very difficult to achieve that development years later.

    When a baby or young child has regular access to several, familiar adults, the child’s development path is much better protected from mental health problems of one or more of the adults. Carer mental health problems, even at levels much lower than formal DSM4 or DSM5 or ICD10 diagnosis levels may be hazardous for a baby’s development, in the absence of other familiar adults. The DSM and ICD mental health diagnosis criteria are based on whether an adult can care for themself in the community, NOT whether they are safe to have a baby or toddler left in their care, which obviously requires a much better level of mental health.

    The degree of hazard is different, depending on the particular nature of the mental health issue. Depression, which is particularly common among young parents, is probably the most hazardous condition. Although depression is viewed by adults as passive and not actively dangerous, from the point of view of a baby or toddler, who needs a high level of stimulus to develop properly and appropriately, depression is dangerous.

    From a risk management point of view, separation is the point where hazard to the children’s proper development may increase dramatically, thus is the point where constructive checks and balances might be interposed. When the familycaught$ allows, even encourages, unilateral removal of children from the family home, then it is putting it’s own paramount financial interests far before the children’s interests. Unilateral removal of children greatly increases the power of the mafioso legal workers, to extort the family to poverty and child abuse.

    The familycaught$ fails in its duty to protect children, when it refuses requests for mental health evaluations, particularly from fathers. Depression is a common driver for separations and if present, guarantees hazard for the children, even if only at a low level.

    Before separation takes effect, parents should be told whether their proposed parenting plan is safe for their children. Staying together (in one form or another) does offer much protection for the children. If one or both parent’s mental health isn’t sufficiently good for them to be able to safely care for their children for the amount of time that they propose, then obviously the parenting plan should not be approved and should never happen. Certainly, considering the children’s development interests may eliminate some of the options that the parents wanted to consider. However, this is a necessary sacrifice that is part of good parenting.

    Particularly if both parents have some mental health issues, then staying together might be the only way that these parents could safely care for their children – so be it. If one wants to decamp, then they risk losing the children altogether.

    To argue issues like this, after unilateral removal of children from the marital home, is ignorant, money wasting and usually child abuse.

    When looking at management of separations, as currently practised in familycaught$, it looks to me that familycaught$ get it completely wrong, more than 50% of the time. Tossing a coin would do a better job of protecting children, than these gravy stained, mouldy, lazy, greedy old judges.

    Teachers tell us that 30 or 40 years ago, the group of children who were almost impossible to educate at school, amounted to about 10%. Today, with 30 years of “work” or tomfoolery by familycaught$, we have lifted that figure to over 20%.

    What can be achieved in the next 30 years?

  22. Man X Norton says:

    name and shame @ 17. If a case is before the NZ FC then publishing mothers’ names would bring the authorities and legal action down on both the poster and John Potter. However, if the only legal action is overseas such as in Canada then I don’t think there’s any problem with publishing names.

    It may be possible for someone from another country to host a ‘name and shame’ site beyond the reach of NZ authorities, but if any NZ person were to put names through to that site it would need to be in a way that could not be traced, and when questioned by authorities that person would need to be strong, e.g. in refusing to answer anything. Expect your computers to be taken for analysis and your phone, text and internet records to be invaded.

  23. MurrayBacon says:

    Although the familycaught$ is able to purchase reports from their own list of psychologists, most of these psychologists were trained earlier than the research about the impact of parent’s mental health conditions was carried out. (Most of the research has been carried out in the last 30 years and the majority of useful research in the last 15 years.)

    It seems that this explains why these s133 reports rarely cover issues about the parent’s ability to meet their children’s developmental needs, either separately or together.

    Judges sometimes complain that s133 reports don’t meet their needs, but only in the sense of waving their hands in the air, like the robot in “Lost in Space” warning, warning, enemy aliens approaching. They don’t say clearly what their needs are! Mainly distracting attention from themselves, when the shit hits the fan.

    One difficulty is the historical division of psychology into groups of educational psychologists and clinical psychologists. The former deal with issues around education and the latter treat individual patients, for their own problems (the patient’s problems, not the psychologist’s problems!).

    Neither seem to be particularly knowledgeable about parenting skills and meeting children’s developmental needs – ie what is needed in familycaught$ situations!

    In the end, the present group of familycaught$ psychologists seem to have contributed very little value to the decisions about safe care of children, compared to what might be reasonably expected. This might sound like I am criticising these individuals for not being up to date in their profession. I am criticising the management of the familycaught$ lists of approved psychologists and suggesting that the mismanagement of these lists by judges, has greatly held back child protection in NZ, in addition to the financial impropriety issues too.

  24. OMG You're (&*)^*( says:

    Murray bacon – No, I don’t forget these things. But rational fact does not enter into the feminist mantra. I stand by my summation. The feminist thinking is simple: Banning the entire lot of men is a lesser evil than risking a single kid’s safety.
    They don’t care about facts and reality. They’d don’t care about statistics or percentages. Safe-guarding a kid against a 0.000005% risk is a bigger priority that accepting the safety margin of the other 0.999995%

  25. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear OMG You’re (&*)^*, you are far too kind to your fiends in familycaught. They are doing huge social damage to a huge number of children, in the name of protecting a few (where the protection usually does little anyway).

    Just relationship vandalism.

  26. OMG You're (&*)^*( says:

    Murray Bacon (or should that be Murray Baco) On the off-chance you misspelt ‘fiends’, then let me be clear: they are no friends of mine. I don’t for a moment support the reigning femi-dogma. I simply state it for what it is. To them, their logic is entirely justified. They simply don’t give a rats’ arse that 99.999% of men are laid to waste because of their pursuit of a risk, no matter how small or unrealistic it is.

  27. Had_Enough says:

    Seriously OMG You’re (&*)^* you don’t honestly believe that the femo man haters really give a shit about the safety of children do you. It stands to reason that any woman who genuinely loves a child will want what’s best for it including paternal contact. The anti male femonazi’s don’t have any concern about children! Their sole concern is to disadvantage men as much as possible financially and emotionally. The reason they are winning is because they know how to exploit white male guilt and get the most out of the state run institutions as a consequence. ALL Kiwi men need to learn how to vote strategically and only vote for candidate’s who will do something about the destructive anti family policies of the Family Court and the IRD. That’s the only way we will ever see any change in the current system. This will never happen of course with the apathy that reigns supreme on both sides of the Tasman. Both Labour and National politicians are equally terrified of the anti male, anti child, pro woman groups. We need a total paradigm shift and won’t get it out of either of the major political parties.

  28. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear OMG You’re (&*)^*(, #26 you have got one small, but important detail wrong:

    They don’t care about facts and reality. They’d don’t care about statistics or percentages. Safe-guarding a kid against a 0.000005% risk is a bigger priority that accepting the safety margin of the other 0.999995%

    I suggest that it should be:

    ….than protecting the welfare of the other 99.999995%

    The familycaught$ makes great marketing noise about worrying about protecting children and women from being murdered, especially by violence. This is a fairly big issue, but its actions haven’t made any measurable difference, as these murders continue at the same rate as before DV Act (background given in submission). (Asphyxiation and poisoning – no worries, they are usually ignored in the news.)

    In doing so, it completely ignores the welfare of many hundreds of thousands of children, in terms of protecting their proper emotional development and protecting their family relationships. This results in children unable to make executive decisions, they don’t know what is most important or less important and drift through their lives. They often makeg one disastrous decision after the other, for no visible reason. Even when given huge amounts of well meaning help, they just waste it all away. They often give this to their children too, compounding the size of the disaster.

    So what – well the consequences of this abdication of duty by familycaught$ is massive, far greater than 10 or 20 or 30 deaths per year. In the wake of children having poorer parenting skills around them each day, we see more children unable to thrive at school. This number is so great, that the Government is putting pressure onto teachers to educate them better. The problem isn’t the teachers, but the child who walks in the school gate.

    Emotional neglect and cut off relationships, cripples children’s development, in a manner that is extremely expensive to remediate afterwards. The children suffer reduced ability to form adult intimate relationships, in a manner similar to children who were abducted as babies or children – for much the same reason, they were denied relationships that are their birthright.

    If familycaught$ judges were paid by the value of their performance, they would be bankrupted in weeks.

    The Care of Children Act 2004 is fairly good legislation. If it was ever put into practice in NZ, legal worker’s incomes would drop markedly and children and parents would have much better lives.

  29. OMG You're (&*)^*( says:

    Had_Enoug – Femi’s care about children more then they care about men. And, you’re right, they care more about preserving their industry more than they care for children.
    Murray Bacon – your arguments are pointless – their logic doesn’t look at rational debate. Their mantra It is better to deny 1000 men all access to their kids (in order to fully protect the kids), than to grant those thousand men uncontrolled access and risk just one of them proceeding to actually harming their kids overrules logic.

  30. golfa says:

    #29 Correct. Why else do you think airlines ask men to shift seats if seated next to an unaccompanied child. ALL men are dangerous.

  31. MurrayBacon says:

    OMG You’re (&*)^*(, I suggest that familycaught$, in trying unsuccessfully to save 20 or 30 children and women from murder, they save none at all from murder. In doing so, they damage several hundred thousand children, many of them quite severely, resulting in damage that runs 20 or 30 or 40 years into these children’s lives. This damage cannot be seen in photographs, but is more serious than damage that can be seen in photographs.

    Throw in 50 or a hundred or more father’s suicides per year and in their wake – another 5 or 10 children’s suicides.

    Net value from familycaught$ – far less than zero. Cost to Government and society, quite large for negative value. Most of these costs show up as wasted lives and in other Government budgets than Justice/Courts ie Education, Corrections, Police, Health for mental health treatments and injuries to victims and of course WINZ for unemployment/sickness/DPB benefits ….

    I accept that you are arguing mainly about dangerous mothers. But they alone cannot carry out the damage that they achieve. The familycaught$ are ostensibly being paid to act with competent responsibility. By acting in accordance with NZ legislation and competent knowledge about child development, they could prevent most of the damage to children and their relationships with parents.

    Also, unfortunately some fathers end up doing similar when they get the opportunity to be custodial parents. This leads me to suspect that this style of parenting is more to do with mental health problems, than gender.

  32. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear golfa, come on, next you will tell me airline pilots are dangerous (MH370)?

    Sorry about my black humour. However, familycaught$ total negative impact is NZ’s largest single self imposed disaster. Adding up costs dropped into all of the other budget votes, the total must be 50x the direct cost of judges wages. Compare that to the value that they should be delivering, the cost of these refuse-to-be-competents is horrific.

  33. OMG You're (&*)^*( says:

    Murray Bacon – I’m not talking about dangerous mothers – and your continued rational debate changes nothing. The femi-mantra still stands.

  34. OMG You're (&*)^*( says:

    Golfa – you get my point. As I keep trying to explain to Murray Bacon – rational logic doesn’t come into it. Better to dis-possess 1000 men from ‘normal’ life interactions, than chance-it for the one occasion (has it ever happened in a place?) were harm to actually happen.
    Murray Bacon – to use Golfa’s example, you would be entirely right about the harm done to travel-alone kids, the messages about all men being predators, the harm done to kids by not enabling them normal interactions with men – even strangers, and all that jazz. However those logics are simply irrelevant when it comes to implementing the all-men-are-kiddie-f*%k$%s-anmd-therefore-must-be-segregated-from-poor-little-defenceless-unaccompanied-minors on planes.
    The femi-mantra must rule supreme and cancels all rational debate.

  35. nameandshame says:

    @ Man X Norton. Use Tor. It’s about time we stood up against Family Court Secrecy

  36. Vman says:

    To get back to the original questions:
    1. You should make sure there is a non-removal order in place.
    2. In theory you have a reasonable case to fight this relocation of the children. However the law is simply re-interpreted to allow mothers to use this as a way to destroy children’s relationship with their father.
    I think paying a lawyer would be a waste of money. I doubt it will result in a different outcome. Represent yourself and just beg the court to refuse to allow it. Be unequivocal that you would not bother to waste a single dollar in futile attempts to have a relationship with the children if the relocation is allowed. Make it absolutely clear that you are 100% percent certain it would futile to try and have a relationship with them if they move to Canada. Do not allow the court the slightest room to think there would be a relationship between the children and yourself if they move to Canada. Make it clear you’d like to have a relationship but you are in absolutely no doubt that it would not be worth even attempting if the relocation is allowed. The children can always live with you in Australia. This way the court is forced to weigh the cost of NO father contact versus what the mother wants. This is more awkward for the court because they can’t pretend that the children would still have a relationship with their father. Not being able to pay a lawyer for the family court case helps to reinforce that you don’t have the resources to fight for a relationship through the system.

    3. I am not expert, but if she permanently moved the children to Canada then you are no longer liable under NZ Child Support. She would need to make an application under Canada’s system. There may be some arrangement between Canada and Australia which would then apply. Although if you are in Australia

    4. Everything I have read leads me to think Canada is as bad as NZ for fathers and men in general. I wouldn’t count on getting a fair deal out of the Canadian system.

  37. Soothsayer says:

    The Nanny State Motto

    Steal his coin
    Lay his coffers bare
    Take his children
    Care not their welfare

    Let him work not
    Free trade is of the past
    Call it unsustainable
    Make certain he will not last

    It’s his fault
    For being a simple man
    He wasn’t progressive
    Or in our final plan

  38. Allan Harvey says:

    Vman, If Dad lives in Australia then he has little chance of opposing an application to relocate outside NZ.

  39. Had_Enough says:

    Allan, my chances of opposing the relocation are about nil. I realise that but my main objective is to get something on paper which states that she is willing to let me have access to my daughter once she’s removed to Canada. I know that will have no jurisdiction in Canada but at least it’s a starting point and may help me when I take action through the Canadian Court system. I really don’t give a s**t about what the giver uppers on this site have to say. She’s my daughter and as far as I’m concerned is worth fighting for!

Leave a Reply

Connect with Facebook

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