Child Support when Child is in Canada, whereabouts unknown
My youngest child (16 and a half) lives with her mother in Canada. She was born and raised in NZ but her mother was allowed to take her to Canada, against my consent, about 18 months ago. Anyway I phoned Child Support this morning because my daughter and her mother have both disappeared. My daughter has been taken out of her school, the phone goes unanswered and I have no idea where they have moved to. I asked the CS lady how it can be that they continue to take large sums of money from me each month when they have no reliable way of knowing what the mother’s income is, whether or not my daughter is working full time or even if the two of them are still alive. All these factors would potentially affect my assessment if my daughter and her mother were living in NZ. The CS lady told me that if they can’t contact the mother she will just assume that the situation remains unchanged and that I will have to keeping paying child support as usual. SURELY THIS IS A JOKE!!! CS are telling me that they have no way of knowing whether or not the mother is still entitled to CS however they will just assume she is even though they have no idea where she is or what her circumstances are. Does anyone out in MENZ land know anything about CS liability when the mother and daughter have dual citizenship and live in Canada?? Oh and by the way, the money issue is the least of my worries. My daughter lives with a crazy woman in Canada and could be in a very bad living situation but that’s another story and something I am taking up with Child Protective services in Canada. Thanks guys.
The so-called ‘Child Support’ Act is a long and complex raft of legislation designed to ensure that men are very reliably enslaved in the economic service of women. It seems to enable the NZ IRD to keep extracting money from a NZ-based father to help fund the lifestyle of a woman who has taken his children overseas. This is inconsistent with the government’s own approach to its liability towards beneficiaries who cannot expect to keep receiving any entitlement for long if they go overseas.
In your case I would seek legal advice from someone who is expert in so-called ‘child support’. I see in the Act that the Commissioner has the discretion to rule out documents from overseas that may be false, so if your child’s mother sends the annual application in with an address that isn’t correct then her application will be false. Possibly, her last application that the IRD currently chooses to uphold is now false because the address is wrong, and it should now immediately be ruled invalid. However, the IRD will always bend over backward to ensure men are whipped out of their money to pay women they were unlucky enough to mate with, so a lawyer will be necessary before the IRD will do as the legislation intends.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 10:07 am
Good points Man X Norton.
I wonder whether that is enough to formulate a High Court Injunction, so IRD have to defend their position.
They’re used to doing what they like, and getting away with it, because they are seldom challenged.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 11:44 am
“ensure that men are very reliably enslaved in the economic service of women. It seems to enable the NZ IRD to keep extracting money from a NZ-based father to help fund the lifestyle of a woman who has taken his children overseas.”
Can you refuse to pay?
Comment by sharingiscaring — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 1:49 pm
Essentially, ird cs are saying to you “take us to caught$”.
Either suffer and enjoy it, or take them to caught$ and take what comes out of it.
If you pay a legal worker to represent you, you take a serious risk of them failing to serve your interests well enough, so that the odds of ever benefiting, are too low for it to be sensible to pursue. I have spoken with several fathers who have paid reputable legal workers hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a pile of paper that isn’t even valuable as toilet paper. And also left them with huge costs bills for the other side’s legal worker too. Government always pad their costs, to increase the odds against people who have them on. They are aggressive and follow “worst practices”.
With care and close monitoring, it is possible to employ one legal worker to do a bit of work and also employ several others to comment on the quality of the work of the legal worker. Tedious, but it is possible to apply sufficient pressure to get competent work. At the first sign of failure to perform satisfactorily, you detect the problem in time to remedy the defects and still have a chance to win. This idea comes from the depression idea of laying off the slowest work gang each week and taking on a new gang, from the ranks of the unemployed. Just do exactly the same thing with legal workers, to get enough pressure to get value.
Although this might sound expensive, it is likely to be much better value for money, than just trusting a single legal worker, as suggested above.
If there are several fathers in similar situations, then it is well worth grouping together, as once the first has won, it is far easier for those who follow. Thus, the followers will find it very worthwhile to assist with the legal costs of the first to go.
Alternatively, if someone wants to do the work themself, study the acts and precedents and don’t take the added risks of employing a legal worker. Similarly, other fathers (and maybe there are a few mothers in the same boat too) can work together, to take on ird?
I know that ird cs payers are often paranoidly cautious about privacy. If this is an issue, I am prepared to act as coordinator, to bring people together.
Disclosure of conflict of interest: I have been a little screwed by ird cs, but not in the way discussed above. Accordingly, I have an interest that the ird cs process become fair to all parties and also serve protection of children’s interests for an equitable, healthy upbringing.
If ird cs cannot justify their actions, as serving a still alive mother=custodial parent and child, they don’t have a leg to stand on!
By giving a publicly known incentive for international abduction, before the abduction occurred, the ird cs are accessories before the fact. I think that this is covered in the Crimes Act, as it should be?
There is a strong public interest for this topic to be openly litigated, to serve the interests of child protection.
Cheers,
Murray Bacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 2:54 pm
You should not refuse to pay, you should avoid paying, what is not due.
If it comes to a court case and you refuse to pay you will be in contempt of court.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 2:56 pm
Remember this is us against them.
A few judges aren’t going to shit on their pay packet.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 3:42 pm
Maybe you haven’t got this yet – don’t ever expect a judge to issue a search warrant for an IRD file.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 3:45 pm
Well the other curve ball here is that I live in Australia and the CSA have the same lack of compassion as the worst of debt collectors. Basically they don’t care where my child lives or what her living situation is. I can’t withhold payment as a bargaining chip because the CSA will deduct it straight from my employer. I tried to negotiate an access agreement with the Canadian Child Protection Services but the mother didn’t agree to it so that was the end of that and she’s 16 now anyway. The whole scenario is basically heads she wins tails I lose and my daughter loses out the most as a consequence
Comment by Had_Enough — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 4:37 pm
Yeap, that’s Feminism.
The silly bitches of society hold all the cards.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 4:52 pm
sadly, it is only in the short term.
In the longer run, any advantage taken is roughly evened out. When I say roughly, I mean very roughly, the costs eventually come back and rest on many women and many children, in many subtle ways. Distrust isn’t doing the man any good either. (Of course, when cheap men play dishonest, tricky games, it all happens the other way around too.)
Other men refuse to exercise trust and as a result, other women and children miss out on something…..
Young men will see what is going on and shun relationships… Who misses out then?
Too often familycaught$ is just a fool’$ paradise, a ruleless room for abuse.
Constructive wisdom has been around for a long time. I wonder why we don’t pick it up? It is already provided for in the Family Court Rules, but not in the “judges”. I wonder who is benefitting?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 29th November 2015 @ 8:15 am
In the same way that people in bad faith cause many long chains of suffering to others, maybe the same applies with ird, though to a smaller extent. They have power to compel.
Nonetheless, there are always a few people who will refuse to submit, if they believe that they are being treated illegally, unethically, inequitably or the like.
I don’t have permission to tell this story (so I have had to leave out practically all of the details), I have never been able to check it either.
A father offered the mother equal shared care.
In her wisdom, she was clearly able to see the conflict between her personal financial and lazy interest (child support from ex-husband would easily pay all of her expenses without her having to work for pay) and her child’s interest to have shared care (which would allow his child to maintain the best possible relationship with both parents).
So she refused to discuss or consider shared care and informed the financial movers and shakers at ird cs that she was retaining full care of the child. They duly enforced the cs act on the husband.
Although they forwarded a dramatically high assessment to him, he duly informed them that he had no income at all and suggested that they might like to amend the assessment to reflect the real position. He also informed his exwife of the days that he was available to care for the child and that these cou.
On issuing a demand to the employer, the employer informed ird cs that it was correct that Mr. Father performed duties for 20 hours per week, he was not drawing anything at all from the partnership practice, so nothing could be usefully deducted from nothing!
ird cs responded by taking Mr. Father to caught and as time went by and no funds were transferred to ird cs, they were able to quickly get a caught order for contempt of caught. Mr. Father was duly jailed for 30 days, which he relatively happily attended. He did suggest to ird cs that they might like to think through whether their actions were in fact serving the interests of the child? Of course, while in jail, he was not easily in a position to care for his child. Also, by enforcing the mother’s demand, they were not listening to him about the shared care situation.
Their reply was an echo of the Nuremberg trial defendants (later hung) “I am just doing my job” or “it is in the legislation”. ird cs treated the exercise as a challenge of their authority, whereas it was a challenge of their integrity.
Anyway, it is interesting to consider that an enforcement order could be obtained so quickly, but many fathers and mothers find the familycaught$ wasn’t there when they applied for warrants to enforce issues relevant to children$ welfare? So what is really paramount in familycaught$ Despite me throwing borax at familycaught$, I am aware of it sometimes doing some things properly. I would like to think they weren’t mistakes?
I am guessing that there are quite a few stories where alleged non-custodial parents have defied dumb authority. The whole idea of non-custodial parents is unethical and irrelevant to good parenting. It went out with the Guardianship Act 1968 and the old judges should have been disposed of at the same time.
curiouser and curiouser…….
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 29th November 2015 @ 10:25 am
Hi Murray, yes it’s definitely strange how the authorities strike like lightning when a liable father doesn’t pay but mothers are allowed to breach Parenting Orders with impunity. On one occasion I arranged for a warrant from the Court which would have enabled the Police, if necessary, to pick up my 2 kids from their mothers address and bring them over to my place for their fortnightly visit which she’d been blocking. It never happened though because the judge didn’t understand what dates the access visits were supposed to occur. The dates were clearly written in the Parenting order and further clarified in an affidavit I included with my submissions. I can understand why some fathers have been driven to suicide over this sort of thing. There was a very special occasion scheduled for that particular access visit. I had helped my little girl pick out a new dress and shoes to wear for the occasion. She never got to wear the new dress and shoes.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 29th November 2015 @ 11:11 am
I think this should be on menz homepage. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” Voltaire.
Comment by J — Sun 29th November 2015 @ 11:20 am
Sorry, I got interrupted in #11:
Although they forwarded a dramatically high assessment to him, he duly informed them that he had no income at all and suggested that they might like to amend the assessment to reflect the real position. He also informed his exwife of the days that he was available to care for the child and that these could be readily rearranged if that suited her.
Mr. Father was jailed on several occasions, for 30 days. He always stoicly attended jail, as appeared to be required by ird cs, always pointing out that ird cs’s actions were irrelevant to destructive of the best interests of his child, but if jail was what ird cs needed, then he could do jail. It seems that ird cs tired of this game eventually, having dismally failed to make any useful point at all.
I see Mr. Father’s actions as those of a parent concerned about the proper development of their child, competent in identifying what factors served the child’s development and what factors threatened the child’s proper development. I certainly couldn’t see that the familycaught$ or the accountants at ird cs could make a similar claim, even in jest or dressed as clowns?
However, I suggest that a citizen should be able to reliably expect child welfare informed decisions from both familycaught$ and ird cs, or they should be unceremoniously disposed of, if they only threaten children.
NZ’s democratic pretensions are hard to keep up, in that the particular caught decisions are not readily publicly accessible to all citizens…. I felt that Mr. Father had made important contributions, that should be more widely known. I take my hat off to him and the deviants that he attempted to expose.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 29th November 2015 @ 8:32 pm
If familycaught$ had any element of professional pride, they would have required measures to ensure that an honest address was supplied or that in the event that a later move invalidated the address supplied, that measures were in place with Canadian authorities, to ensure that the correct address would be supplied.
In the absence of due care, to my eye it looks as though the familycaught$ was acting in a manner which couldn’t be seen as competent or good faith. Both of these elements are necessary for proper child and relationship protection.
Thus, it appears that familycaught$ could never be successful in serving child or vulnerable person protection? (Vulnerable can apply to all parties, as all parties are to some extent vulnerable, if other parties act in bad faith.)
Why do we continue to have familycaught$ at all, as it seems to serve no useful purpose successfully?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 29th November 2015 @ 8:45 pm
Hi Murray, I couldn’t agree more. I have always thought it would be much more beneficial to the child if payments could be stopped if a custodial parent bars contact between the child and NCP for no good reason. That would ensure that fathers had a much better chance of being fathers to the children. The current arrangement of a debt collector forcing fathers to pay a hostile parent who doesn’t allow him to see his children is completely devoid of morality.
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 29th November 2015 @ 11:08 pm
Good choice of words @Had_Enough
The Civil State has turned fathers into paying parents.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 30th November 2015 @ 8:03 am
If you can afford a laywer to challange payment, then it might be better to go for custody, parental alienation could be cited if that what you find out or other dangerous behaviour. A difficult case may well be easier, and at least they will be motivated to find your daughter.
Comment by JnF — Mon 30th November 2015 @ 10:58 am
Dear Had_Enough,
, the point is child and vulnerable adult protection, rather than airy fairy morals?
The Government is putting much more effort into chasing teency amounts of money and failing to put anywhere near the same effort into protecting the quality of children’s upbringing.
The quality of children’s upbringing isn’t some airy fairy concept, but plays out in:
mental health statistics (treatment costs a huge amount in the long term),
jail occupancy (incarceration costs a huge amount in the long term),
happiness of children’s lives (hugely affects the upbringing that they can give their children in the long term, which affects all of the other items listed)
the children’s work productivity(a poor work record costs a huge amount in the long term),
So, it is far better to forget ird cs and focus on giving children much better quality upbringings.
Allowing custodial parents and familycaught$ to vandalise children’s relationship to the other parent, leaves the country with a huge long term cost.
This is already provided for in the Care of Children Act 2004, so we just need to recruit new judges, that have read the legislation!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 30th November 2015 @ 5:54 pm
That’s exactly the point Murray. The only way to combat custodial parents using their kids as cash cows is to ruthlessly enforce Parenting Orders. The Courts didn’t even bother enforcing their own Orders, in my case, so what’s the point of a Court that won’t enforce it’s own rulings. Imagine if the Magistrates Court sentenced someone to 5 years imprisonment for aggravated robbery but then let him go home and decide whether he wants to go to Jail or not. That’s exactly what happens every time the judge agrees on a Parenting Order with the 2 relevant parents. No enforcement at all!!, only Police telling fathers they have a trespass order against them if they decide to go around and pick up their kids for access visits. But, one thing I know about the vast majority of custodial mothers, THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY MONEY!!. They won’t stop access visits going ahead if it’s going to cost them a months Child Support.
Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 30th November 2015 @ 8:05 pm
I don’t know if anyone mentioned this but the best first move could be to find a way to ask for a review that would require them to contact the mother, that way you will have in writing that they can’t contact her to complete their obligations.
Also now is the last time you can opt to pay in a voluntary way.
Soon it will be auto from wages as a rule.
My point above is to stop paying from the point on when they can’t do the calculations! (based on the ex having any income etc.) Surely they will have to come to the same conclusion, you can’t pay an amount that would obviously be incorrect and your local MP would have to back you up on this. If you pay until your child is 18 an then your ex tells them it’s been wrong all this time you could have a huge bill after your child turns 18.
Comment by too tired — Mon 30th November 2015 @ 10:27 pm
Hi Too tired I tried that and the following is the stock standard reply they gave me which I received about 4 hours after making my inquiry so you can imagine the investigative work especially considering it would have been the middle of the night in Canada:–
You recently asked us to check if (name omitted to protect identity) still qualifies for child support. We’ve checked all the relevant information and have determined that they still qualify because:
She is under 19 years old, and · a New Zealand citizen or ordinarily resident in New Zealand, and Child support can be claimed for a child who is a New Zealand citizen in any country. However if the receiving carer and child or children are living in Australia, you need to let us know in writing immediately so we can review your child support. We determine whether someone is ordinarily resident in New Zealand if they have a permanent place of abode in New Zealand, and by the number of days they are present in New Zealand. · not living with another person in a marriage, civil union, or de facto relationship, and A de facto relationship is a relationship between two people, including same-sex partners, who: · live together as a couple · are not married to, or in a civil union with each other · are both aged 16 years or over A person who is aged 16 or 17 is only considered to be in a de facto relationship if they have the written consent of their guardians, or consent is given by a Family Court Judge. · not financially independent, that is, not usually working full time, or receiving a benefit or student allowance, and A child is financially independent if they: · are in full employment · receive a student allowance, or a benefit payable under the Social Security Act 1964, or a payment under a government assisted scheme, similar to a benefit payable under the Social Security Act 1964. IR 220A 7/07 CLASSIFIED IN CONFIDENCE – INLAND REVENUE HIGHLY PROTECTED Page 2 of 2 CS042 Full employment means: · the person is employed under a contract to generally work an average of 30 hours a week or more · employment for any number of hours, which is considered to be full-time employment for the purposes of any award, agreement, or contract · self-employment to earn money for an average of 30 hours a week or more · still in the care of the receiving carer. What if I disagree with your decision? Please call us to discuss any concerns. If, after talking to us you still disagree, you can object by writing us a letter or completing a Notice of objection – child support (IR 119) form outlining your reasons. You can download forms and guides from our website http://www.ird.govt.nz or, if you’re in New Zealand order copies by calling 0800 257 773. Remember to have your IRD number handy. We must receive your objection by 29 December 2015. Any questions? If you have any questions please call 1-800 504 042 between 8 am and 5 pm weekdays.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 1st December 2015 @ 1:38 am
(#19): I think ‘too tired’ was suggesting a formal review. You can apply for one in NZ but I’m not sure whether you would do that or find out how to apply for a review in Aus.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 1st December 2015 @ 4:44 pm
I’ve applied for Admin Reviews in the past Man X Norton but they are only usually successful if you can claim under one of the 10 grounds. I thought I may have been able to claim under Ground 5 – It costs the person incurring the costs more than 5% of the year’s adjusted taxable income to have contact with the child (or children) but she put an end to that by moving to Canada and not supplying a contact address.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 1st December 2015 @ 5:24 pm
But if the IRD now can’t get the admin review papers to her because the address is wrong, that will cause a problem for them. Your application must then succeed in the absence of her response.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 1st December 2015 @ 7:04 pm
I note also that IRD’s reply to your enquiry did not state that they had a correct address.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 1st December 2015 @ 7:06 pm
Yeah exactly. They think I came down in the last shower. They have clearly made no effort to contact her and I am sure they can’t because her phone number and address has changed and she will only contact them if her money supply dries up. I have a small amount of knowledge of her whereabouts and know she has changed address and not taken her landline number with her. This is entirely deliberate of course because she believes that people are tapping her phone FFS. They would hunt me down to the ends of the earth if I disappeared and stopped paying CS and didn’t answer the phone or reply to letters or emails. They are very pro Mother no matter how unfit she is as a parent or whether she breaks the rules or not. I realise this isn’t news to anyone on here but I see examples of it time and time again and it’s always heads she wins tails I lose!!
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 1st December 2015 @ 7:18 pm
Ahhh, Ministry of Men’s Affairs I see your point. I could attempt an admin review that may have a very small chance of succeeding on the Ground I apply under, but could succeed based on the fact that she didn’t reply. I like your thinking, a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel 😉
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 1st December 2015 @ 7:43 pm