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

Collins Dunne with families?

Filed under: Child Support,General — Downunder @ 4:32 pm Wed 13th September 2006

Pay up, and penalties will be wiped out link to stuff.

Pay up and Penalties will be wiped – Child Support.

Judith Collins says “delinquent parents are a disgrace”

Now JC is a lawyer and words are her trade, so what does
this mean. If a Father lives in a different house from his
children and provides for his children in every way he
possible can, does that stop him being a delinquent parent.
Now the answer is NO.

The only way a delinquent parent can avoid this so called
disgrace is to hand over the money. Pay up and shut up.

What fathers are doing when they comply with these immoral
and illegal demands (and they are illegal and our attorney
general has failed parliament again) is to abandon their
role as fathers. Any Father who does not pay child support
but provides for his child or children will always have the
superior moral and legal position.

When parliament grows up and plays by the rules we will stop
regarding The National Party’s families spokesperson as a legal and
moral dipstick.

I might also take this opportunity to remind Ms Collins that
those same boorish people she castigates for protesting
outside lawyers and judges houses were the same protesters
outside the high court in Auckland that she thanked for
supporting Nick Smith when he faced contempt charges in the
high court.

Neither Peter Dunne as the proposer of this child support
legislation or Judith Collins as the objector have shown any
credibility as defenders of the family. They seem to have
forgotten that families include Fathers too.

Bevan Berg
Republic of New Zealand Party.


  1. Just an idea;another loser[ncp male child support payer]and myself were complaining about our poverty and the inappropriate amount paid.My ex has married a wealthy man and I am on the bones of my arse till 59.What would would happen if all us losers formed a registered group of some sort;like a union of taxpayers ;and all simultaneously refused to pay the assessed level and paid what we feel is appropriate ;could be more or less.If we simultaneously took this “industrial action” as taxpayers;being against human rights or economic slavery;etc;what would the IRD response be;Regular notices of industrial action could be served and if we all contributed a small amount to have a lawyer represent us?What was it?some 120,000 people?

    Comment by keith — Wed 13th September 2006 @ 5:15 pm

  2. damn good idea keith.

    by the way what new changes were proposed in the bill that Dunne is so “excited” about? just wiping off penalties?…

    Comment by starr — Wed 13th September 2006 @ 5:19 pm

  3. Yes good idea Keith,wish I had thought of it.We need to take action,the amount of Child Support taken is no more than legalised theft.How the hell can anyone be expected to get ahead in life when they are charged more and more child Support based on their income? I would also like to know how it is that a certain amount (lets say $800 a month) is considered a sufficient contribution for raising your Children,but if you start earning more then that $800 a month is no longer sufficient,what has changed in the Children’s lives since last Month? I would fully support Keith’s idea of Nationwide action.

    Comment by brett — Wed 13th September 2006 @ 5:55 pm

  4. So if the Republic of NZ Party organised a child support conference for non custodial parents in Auckland you would all be keen starters on that one.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 13th September 2006 @ 6:14 pm

  5. For sure,we need to do something and thats a good start

    Comment by brett — Wed 13th September 2006 @ 6:32 pm

  6. This is an intellectually insupportable view of child support. If I didn’t know how child support works, I would assume from this post that it is compulsory and astronomical. Yet I know that’s not the case. Prior to Child Support many many custodial parents were left in the lurch by partners and their children suffered as a result. Laws that ensure that both mothers and fathers at least provide some way towards their children’s care may need to tinkered with to straighten out flaws but are a vast improvement on the ‘olden days’ when one parent could just take off. To describe child support as ‘legalised theft’ or to describe people who don’t pay their child support (but offer some undefined ‘support’) as morally superior is so over-the-top as to be propaganda-like. This is the reaction of fathers’ activists to the promising news of cutting late penalties?

    Comment by toni — Wed 13th September 2006 @ 10:32 pm

  7. Were did any Government ever get the moral authority to charge a transaction tax on financial exchanges between mothers and fathers. Who’s propaganda have you been dinning out on.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 13th September 2006 @ 10:39 pm

  8. Actually toni I think you’ll find that children deserted by fathers became wards of the state – who were funded by the taxpayer – guess who were the vast majority who worked for a family wage and paid taxes back in those days – MEN!
    So you see, whilst a few men did abscond from fatherly duties, virtually ALL able bodied men picked up the slack of supporting the abandoned kids, financially anyway.
    Makes you think doesn’t it?

    Comment by Stephen — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 1:08 am

  9. As a group we are either already on strike and/or unable to keep up. It is right there in JCollins figures:

    Ms Collins has figures showing there are 127,655 parents liable for child support and 99,387 are either in arrears or are not paying at all.

    It is spelt out in what Dunne is quoted as saying in parliament:

    “The problem is that in many cases liable parents simply stop meeting their obligations because penalties have become too great,” he said during the third reading debate on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4).

    You would be forgiven for thinking that the logical thing to do would be explore why penalties were getting so out of control. What moron would simply assume that 78% of parents don’t pay because all of them don’t give a damn about there kids?

    Now keep that figure of 78% in mind while we recap the Herald’s demonising of fathers:

    They claim the court is biased against men and depriving their children of their fatherly care. Their claim became so insistent that the Herald asked the court for some figures. They show that custody of children is awarded to the mother in 65 per cent of cases, and to the father alone in 11 per cent. The separated parents share the care in 12 per cent of cases and in another 12 per cent the children are entrusted to a third person.

    Keep in mind that “shared care” as the family caught describe it is NOT what anyone else understands it to be. When the family caught talks about “shared care” they mean virtually any arrangement where the child spend some overnight time with both parents on a regular basis. The kids might only spend every 2nd weekend with dad and the family caught will describe it as shared care. That is why they have used the word “alone” as in a lone parent. They report that custody of children is awarded to the mother ALONE in 65 per cent of cases.
    What these figures really say are that 11 percent to fathers ALONE and 12 percent where the children spend some overnight time with dad on a regular and frequent basis. 11 + 12 = 22%.
    To put it another way, in 78% of cases the children end up with little or no contact with dad.
    Now isn’t that an interesting figure? 78%
    Gosh what were we discussing?
    Oh yes, we noted that 78% of parents are either in arrears or are not paying so called child support at all.

    Gee that’s interesting. I wonder if this is a pattern that is reported in other countries? Oh golly! 5 mins on the internet tells me that this is the same pattern in the US. There is a clear correlation between contact and payment.
    Hummm what should we deduce from this simple exercise? What is J Collins view:

    “Those are the people whose penalties we are going to write off — because apparently they can’t meet $14 a week.”

    Ms Collins said she did not believe they could not afford $14 a week.

    Well that is one theory. Surely that would be very easy for the IRD to check out? Let’s suppose that most of them can afford $14. So let’s assume it is not because they can’t afford to pay it. What reason does that leave us with? Again, let’s refer to J Collins’s viewpoint:

    “And I don’t for a moment believe that writing off the penalty means these people are suddenly going to get a conscience,” she said.

    I beg your pardon?
    How did she discover that 34% separated of parents have no conscience? That is a remarkable thing to say about parents. How does she justify such an extraordinary claim?

    National won’t support that sort of delinquency. . .I’m so tired of listening to fathers groups who go around protesting outside MPs and judges houses. They’ve met their match in the National Party because we’re not going to be bullied by that behaviour.”

    Hummmm apparently what has motivated J Collins is that she is tired of listening to fathers groups who protest outside MPs and judges houses. Therefore she is going to assume that 34% of separated parents have no conscience and are delinquent bullies. Therefore she is going to make sure the National party treats them as such. I suppose that is one way to respond to the situation.

    Personally I would have thought that since 78% of people have not responded to that logic and that approach in the past there seems little point in carrying on that way. What is Mr Dunne’s view:

    “The logic is that it’s better to have those parents paying something rather than nothing,” Mr Dunne said.

    “None of that $651 million penalty liability will go to the children anyway, it is revenue owed to the Crown.”

    What blows me away is that having identified the problem they do nothing at all to make is more realistic – instead they do the opposite. Now these are reasonably intelligent people so I don’t accept it is because they are stupid. It is because they are ideologically driven.

    The party’s welfare and families spokeswoman, Judith Collins, said delinquent parents were a disgrace.

    Does Ms Collin’s comments sound like someone who has prejudged people to you? If 78% of the people can not or will not keep up with paying their taxes, is it reasonable to assume that there is nothing wrong with the tax system?

    Of the total, 65,319 pay the minimum $14 a week regardless of how many children they have.

    “And of that 65,319, there are 44,339 who are not even paying the $14 a week,” she said.

    Yes I had too read this 3 times to make any sense of what she said as well. I think what she must have meant was that 65,319 are liable to pay the minimum $14 a week. Of that group 68% don’t pay the $14 a week. Sounds like protest action to me.

    Comment by Dave — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 12:09 pm

  10. There will be a few people pushing the print button on that comment Dave !

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 1:17 pm

  11. Prior to Child Support many many custodial parents were left in the lurch by partners and their children suffered as a result.

    Yawn. Keep rehasing the myth and people will believe it.The CS Act was passed for the sole intent of recovering the DPB.Mutiple. It applies a levy to one parent to pay for the other parents lifestyle post seperation and has nothing to do with supporting kids.

    If I didn’t know how child support works, I would assume from this post that it is compulsory and astronomical. Yet I know that’s not the case.

    Which shows how little you know. If the “custodial parent” is in reciept of a benifit it is compulsory. As to astronomical, do the math or maybe you consider 1300 dollars a month for a 2 year old child as perfectly reasonable?

    You are saying that its perfectly OK to tax the “liable parent” at an excessive rate for the purposes of sposual maintenace, not support of children.

    Laws that ensure that both mothers and fathers at least provide some way towards their children’s care may need to tinkered with to straighten out flaws but are a vast improvement on the ‘olden days’ when one parent could just take off.

    You do not know what you are talking about.This legislation has nothing to do with supporting children.

    Toni, your ignorance is astounding!

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 1:25 pm

  12. It is very disturbing that most people in this Country are as ill informed as Toni,which is why we are in the mess we are in.It is just amazing that Toni thinks Child Support is not compulsory!!This is what happens if you dont or cant pay your Child Support,IRD will add penalties to your growing Child Support bill until it is an ASTRONOMICAL amount,they will then go to your employer and take it directly from your pay before you even see it.If this leaves you unable to pay the Mortgage or other bills (which will be why you could not keep up the payments in the first place)then that is just too bad,which is why it is legalised theft Toni.I would be interested in your response.

    Comment by Brett — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 3:50 pm

  13. I think you have hit it right on the head Brett. Toni is simply showing us just how much ignorance and denial that the vast majority of people have on this issue. In a sense she is doing us a service.

    Of course we still have the majority of people in power at all levels that just do not comprehend the consequences of shutting out father’s from childrens lives.

    Add into the mix all those single mothers out there whos ex lovers have simply buggered off and left them holding the baby and it is hard to get people to recognise what the cause and effects are.

    The information is there but people simply do not want to acknowledge it. My editorial comment above illitrates this very well. [If I might say so]. The public blind spot on these issues is staggering.

    Comment by Dave — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 5:04 pm

  14. I am totally in favour of Keith’s idea expressed in (1). It’s so bloody brilliant I’m surprised it hasn’t been thought of before.
    Child tax is taxation without representation, so we must represent ourselves. Other groups of ‘payers’ (ratepayers, taxpayers) are well represented so why not us?
    As for comment (6) it can only have been made by a person who has not experienced for themselves being progressively reduced to poverty while simultaneously losing contact with the one thing that give meaning and joy to life – their children – and being unable to effectively keep up the contact because of child-tax induced poverty. It’s a vicious cycle that sucks hope and meaning out of life and can only have been designed by a sadist.
    Those who without thinking swallow stereotypical myths about deadbeat dads are in my book guilty of that same sadism.
    So count me in to any union, meeting, or organised industrial action.

    Comment by PaulM — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 8:45 pm

  15. I’d like to add that I make my last comment as a father whose child has been taken to and kept in a far distant country without my consent while I stay here strugging to keep up rhe payments. After paying child-tax, there’s no way I could afford the air tickets to go see my son. Essentially thanks to the the wisdom of this “vastly improved” scheme, I have been forced to pay for my own child’s abduction. And what price will my child pay in years to come, for the lost contact with his dad?

    Comment by PaulM — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 9:14 pm

  16. When it comes to human rights, separated fathers don’t count. In fact it is simply beyond the horizon for most people to consider human rights issues when discussing topics related to separated fathers. Let’s take the issue of child support as an example.

    The main problem with NZ child support is that it is in fact a child tax. It has no relationship to what it costs to support a child, it is solely related to the theoretical ability of the separated parent’s ability to pay. To make matters worse the percentage of income taken from a separated father is huge and unreasonable. However let’s set that aside and continue to call this child support rather than the more appropriate term of child tax.

    Figures released from the Family Court show that in 78% of cases the children end up with little or no contact with their fathers. International research shows that when fathers are actively involved with their kids after separation then they pay child support and when fathers are shut out of their kid’s lives they are reluctant to pay child support. It’s just human nature, common sense stuff and the figures in New Zealand show this correlation as well.

    78% of parents either can not or will not keep up with their child support bills. This is a trend that is still gaining in speed. On average each liable parent owed $2,901.11 in 2000 and now they owe $7,861.88 each.

    Part of the reason for this is that for most people if for any reason you are late in making one payment the penalty payments are so severe and unrealistic that it is unlikely they will ever get back into the black. If you are late paying you will get fined 12% immediately plus 2% per month that it takes you to pay it back. That’s 36% p.a. Imagine having to pay a mortgage at 36% p.a. and you can see how it becomes hopeless to ever get back into the black.

    Obviously this means the amount “owed” just keeps growing and the penalties grow even faster. In 2000 49% of so called child support debt was actually penalties owed. By 30 June 2006 59% of the debt was actually penalties owed. On average each liable parent had penalties stacked up of $1,434.78 in 2000 which grew to $4,642.61 each by 2006.

    12th Sept 2006, National Party Web site:
    The figures show that at June 30, 140,365 liable parents owed $452,012,960 in child support arrears and $651,519,334 in penalty payments. This compared with 131,241 liable parents owing $192,452,098 in arrears and $188,292,302 in penalties in 2000

    What is curious is that the almost universal response to this by our politicians is to take away separated father’s human rights without a second thought.

    According to the Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 18, Freedom of movement, “Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand”. The Bill of Rights Act makes it absolutely clear that this right can not be taken away because someone has fallen behind in child support and penalties. Also this is not a privileged right that we have simply created for ourselves in New Zealand. It is a basic human right established in international law.
    Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that:
    “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
    The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognised in the present Covenant. “
    Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:
    “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their own country.”
    Article 2 of the Fourth Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:
    “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.”

    According to our Bill of Rights Act, the exceptions where this right can be denied are very specific and limited:
    “Restrictions on the exercise of these rights may be justifiable in certain contexts where they can be shown to be necessary to, and are imposed only to the extent necessary to achieve, the objectives of preserving:
    – national security
    – public safety
    – public order, or
    – public health.
    The powers used to preserve such objectives must also be rational and proportionate“
    You could hardly say that child support and massive penalties was a threat to national security, public safety, public order or public health. In each case, child support calculations are made arbitrarily without consultation by a government department. They aren’t even the subject of a court order.
    In most cases a bill or statement isn’t even sent to the father. It is not at all unusual for fathers to be presented with bills when they should not have been. Imagine rushing to get on a plane to see your dying mother and being told you are not allowed to leave the country for an unpaid bill you were never sent and may even not be yours.
    The Guide to the Human Rights Act is there on the web for all to see and for policy makers to read before making policy that might effect peoples rights. It states:
    “Policy triggers: do I need to consider section 18?
    Are you working on a policy or developing a practice that:
    – requires persons to fulfil certain requirements before they are able to leave and enter New Zealand at will; or,
    – [list continues]
    If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you need to consider whether your policy or practice is consistent with section 18 of the Bill of Rights Act.”
    Surely it is reasonable to expect our politicians to be competent enough to at least consider the human rights impact of a policy that prevents people leaving their own country. However I have not found a single politician who has even mentioned human rights when discussing doing this very thing.

    Now consider think about that human right as you read what your elected representatives are up to.

    14th Sept 2006, United Future Policy from their own web site:
    Support for Victims
    United Future will:

    “Stop people from leaving the country if they owe reparations, fines, or have defaulted on child support payments.”

    12th Sept, Questions in parliament from Scoop web site:
    Judith Collins: Why is he allowing parents with outstanding child support debt to leave New Zealand, when that is directly opposed to United Future’s own policy, which is “do not allow them”–parents–“to leave the country with debt outstanding”; why is it still happening?

    5th Sept 2006, Judith Collins Scoop web site:
    For some reason, people about to leave New Zealand can be stopped at the border for unpaid parking fines but not for unpaid child support.

    20th August 2006, National Party Web site:
    Ms Collins also notes that less of the money being collected by the Government is finding its way back into the pockets of solo parents.

    “According to answers to Parliamentary questions, in 2003, 70% of money collected from child support went back to the custodial parent, with 30% being kept by the Government.

    “Today, less than half (48%) goes back to custodial parents, with Labour hanging on to 51% of the collected cash.

    15th June 2006, from Labour Web site:
    GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): I am pleased to rise and take a call on the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). As chair of the Social Services Committee, which considered the bill, I would like to thank Judith Collins, who has just resumed her seat, in her role as deputy chair and also the other committee members.

    From Hon David Cunliffe: The Beehive website:

    “We are also talking with Customs and the Police to enhance our ability to track and stop non-compliant paying parents from leaving the country.”

    14th January 2005, From and stored at

    National Party social welfare spokeswoman Katherine Rich said the Government should apply more “aggressive measures”, such as blocking parents who owed “reasonably-sized” child support debts from leaving the country through greater links between the Inland Revenue and Immigration departments.

    From the guidelines on the Bill of Rights Act 1990:
    Min of Justice Web site:
    Section 18 Freedom of Movement
    Section 18 of the Bill of Rights Act is as follows:
    Freedom of movement
    (1) Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.
    (2) Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.
    (3) Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.
    (4) No one who is not a New Zealand citizen and who is lawfully in New Zealand shall be required to leave New Zealand except under a decision taken on grounds prescribed by law.
    Policy triggers: do I need to consider section 18?
    Are you working on a policy or developing a practice that:
    – limits the ability of individuals to move freely through, remain in, or enter or depart from, any form of public space;
    – places conditions on the ability of a person to live within the community;
    – enables the state to monitor or trace the movements of a person within the community;
    – limits the ability of any individual to choose where he or she wishes to reside;
    – requires persons to fulfil certain requirements before they are able to leave and enter New Zealand at will; or,
    – seeks to require an individual to leave New Zealand?
    If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you need to consider whether your policy or practice is consistent with section 18 of the Bill of Rights Act.

    Comment by Dave — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 9:17 pm

  17. Dear Paul M,

    You raise in your comment that your child was abducted.
    Was this due to an order for relocation overseas or an abduction as defined by law??

    Kind Regards

    Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 9:34 pm

  18. Bevan,

    The govt gets the moral authority to impose child support (which is not a tax – using loaded words like these is what i consider propagandistic about your comments) when a benfit is being paid to a custodial parent – which is the only situation in which Child Support is compulsorily imposed. And it makes sense if a parent is not contributing – yet the taxpayer is – for the state to expect the noncustodial parent to ‘pay back’ some of this money into the tax coffers.

    In the other situations the custodial parent chooses to apply if they haven’t been able to reach an agreement with noncustodial parent. In which case, CS is just the go-between and the argument is really between the parents. Penalties and assessment issues can be debated but the fundamental goal of child support is necessary. I’ve read a lot of your posts and you issues seems to be the very idea of child support – which like I say I think is extremist to the point of being indefensible.

    Comment by toni — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 9:44 pm

  19. Just to add – what I mean by ‘not compulsory’ is it not compulsory for all separating parents to go thru the child support agency – unless the custodial parent is on a benefit. Of course, if you are on the CS books it is compulsory. But it’s hardly some government conspiracy to trap all noncustodial parents.

    Comment by toni — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 9:50 pm

  20. Hi Paul C
    It is an abduction as defined by law. I have started a process under the Hague agreement, seeking his return.
    Paul M

    Comment by PaulM — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 10:01 pm

  21. for the state to expect the noncustodial parent to ‘pay back’ some of this money into the tax coffers.

    Well, its levied on gross income, its at a flat percentage rate that increases in brackects according to the numbers of kids, its collected by the Inland Revevenue Department, The IRD use powers from the Tax administration act to collect the Tax.

    It looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and your trying to tell the world its a seagull.

    Thats why we pay taxes, to pay for our health, education, welfare system … Why tax parents twice? Maybe we should tax parents for kids attending schools to offset the cost of education for the state?

    Penalties and assessment issues can be debated but the fundamental goal of child support is necessary.

    This system has nothing to do with supporting children. Formula systems like this are discredited world-wide.

    It is not the responsibility of one parent to maintain the other parents lifestyle post seperation. It is both parents responsibility to support the children.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 10:12 pm

  22. Sorry Toni, you haven’t even started to grasp the concepts. All you have said in your first paragraph is that if a custodial parent on a benefit exists then the liable parent should pay, end of story. What you have not considered is the circumstances that allow this situation to arise, and how the state reacts to those situations.

    In the second paragraph – let me put this another way. If I don’t get what I want I will just get the child support anyway. Thats what you call a negotiation.
    It also portrays your acceptance of another myth. Fathers have nothing of value to offer. They are only responsibly for their faults.

    You have been on the feminist drip for so long you can not even think rationally, and you are calling me the extremist.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 10:20 pm

  23. Put an application into the Court for a Child Support Departure Order Ex Parte citing the grounds that IRD will be abetting the commision of a crime by not abating the deductions, refer
    The minimum that the court should accede to is a Suspension Order as in my case until all matters are resolved.

    I will still be taking this further as it is unethical, immoral, injust and further adds salt to the wound after a slap in the face.

    Kindest Regards

    Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 11:25 pm

  24. The last post was for Paul M


    Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 14th September 2006 @ 11:27 pm

  25. Toni,

    I hear where you are coming from and the truth is that the FC figures say a % of relationships end up in court while the child support figures show a much larger number of parents are not sorting it out by themselves.

    Yes, there are heaps of custodial parents that would rather the money get sorted out through Inland Revenue than try and sort it out themselves as money is a big issue for relationship arguments. And then there is trust issues, reliablility issues and the list can go on.

    Many do believe that if NZ was to abolish child support we would still be in a mess.

    But in saying all that I do think that the ‘one size fits all’ scenario is wrong.

    I do think there needs to be a ‘ceiling’ for the amount that should be paid as there is a minimum and some of the amounts are over the top to provide for a child.

    I do not believe that a parent should be liable to provide the other parent’s life style.

    You are responsible for the chidren only, not each other.

    But I also do not believe the lover of the custodial parent should be held responsible to provide for the children.

    Child Support is all wrong for it was not designed for supporting children but to get money back from paying the DPB as you have read over and over and it should not be made as mainteneace for the custoial parent. Both of these reasons are written in the Act.

    There needs to be another completely different Act written up for financially supporting children.

    Comment by julie — Fri 15th September 2006 @ 9:54 am

  26. Julie – The family court says 5 % of cases end up in a hearing. What they don’t say is how many women sit outside the court room and ball their eyes out so they don’t have to participate in the hearing, and how many fathers walked off because they just got so pissed off. There is a big shadow behind that 5 % you can’t see, and while the family court has few sucesses to claim, it sure ain’t going to admit to it’s failures. You are right though to try and establish the link between child support and the family court, and this might make your figures add up a little better.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 15th September 2006 @ 1:41 pm

  27. Bevan,

    I do see many heart broken males in my journey of life and especially since I met males regarding ‘Wayne’s walk.’ but there is also so much support from good women. Alot of what you have seen is something no man has shown me and I am sort of glad.

    If you want to set up a meeting in Auckland regarding Child Support, I will help.

    Comment by julie — Fri 15th September 2006 @ 4:34 pm

  28. Bevan,

    “Fathers have nothing of value to offer. They are only responsibly for their faults. You have been on the feminist drip for so long you can not even think rationally, and you are calling me the extremist.”

    You are projecting what you believe is society’s attitude to fathers onto me. I have used the words custodial parent and noncustodial parent for a reason. As I have commented at other times on this site I believe we need to make societal changes where fathers can take a more active role in childcare (such as parental leave for fathers with newborn children and working for a society in which it is culturally acceptable for either parents to be the stay at home parent. My beliefs about child support are all about making sure that children are being supported by both parents – regardless of whether it is the mother or father paying child support. The Act is the same – its terminology is gender neutral. Unfortunately, it is usually the mother who had done most of the caring and who gets custody, hence the
    majority of child support payers are fathers (I want to say on topic here and not get into a discussion about the Family Court. I want to discuss the principle of child support – as I have already stated issues regarding custody , assessment, penalties etc are in my opinion of course open to re-evalutaion etc). I am sure as hell not anti-father and believe fathers have a lot to offer – if I could create a perfect society I would want to revolutionise work structures so men and women could have equal time to nurture and care for children.

    I support child support because if a parent, mother or father, is not supporting their kid while the state pays the DPB (I don’t get why a commenter thought the govt should pay since he paid taxes. Couples who stay together don’t get that) or a couple have not managed to come to an agreement over child support. Someone mentioned the custodial parent having all the power … no child support means that the non-custodial parent has all the power to leave the custodial parent in the lurch. And it happened a lot – half of my school friends in the 80s had a parent who had nothing to do with them and didn’t contribute to their upbringing financially even though some of them were extremely well-paid. The solution to me seems to be to tweak the existing system so non-custodial parents have more power – but not so much that they get to say “I refuse to pay anything or I will pay the pittance I have left over once I”ve paid for all of my luxuries”. Children are expensive and they are a parents’ responsibility as well as joy.

    Anyway, this will be my final comment because I don’t think we will ever find any common ground and there’s only so many ways I can explain the same argument over and over. I just want to provide another side to the argument on this thread.

    Comment by toni — Sat 16th September 2006 @ 12:35 pm

  29. I support child support because if a parent, mother or father, is not supporting their kid while the state pays the DPB (I don’t get why a commenter thought the govt should pay since he paid taxes.

    If the state chooses to pay a parent a DPB thats their choice. We fund benifits out of general taxation. Why should the seperated parent be held liable for the DPB?

    If I understand what is written you are saying that you support “non custodial” parents as you call them being required for 18 years to pay a huge ammount of spusal maintenance and a tiny bit of money for the kids .

    A seperated parent has no responsibility to maintian the lifestyle of the other parent. They are only responsible, equally with the other parent, to support the child. (Support is more than money)

    Sposual maintenance is the bulk of what is being collected via the Child Tax Act 1991.

    Mind you, I suspect you would have been happy with the Poll Tax levied on the Chinese earlier this century.

    Do some basic research before you start debating Toni. You are not putting another side of the argument, you are spouting a load of ill informed twaddle.

    To help you educate yourself.

    NZ and Canadian Systems are very similar.

    What Were They Thinking?
    The Development of Child Support Guidelines in Canada

    The Canadian child support guidelines were developed with the goal of increasing the amounts of support awards, because of social science evidence that much of women’s and
    children’s poverty was the result of low support awards upon divorce. This clearlydefined problem had an unambiguous solution: increased amounts of child support.
    Unfortunately, the research findings supporting this paradigm were flawed and likely caused the overlooking of important research findings during the development of the guidelines.

    In particular, the developers of the child support guidelines disregarded the
    fact that the system in place prior to the guidelines, whereby judges awarded support, was on the whole satisfactory to the protagonists and produced reasonable economic outcomes for divorced families.

    The guidelines, as implemented, contain not only child support, but spousal support and overestimate expenditures on children.

    None of the key assumptions that underlie the new support formulas are based on fact.

    The Canadian Child Support Guidelines produce too many inequitable situations and do not provide a practical way for these inequities to be corrected.

    In addition, they unfairly target the
    poor and working classes, in an attempt to circumvent the progressive taxation system.

    The system does not respond easily to changes in circumstance, and issues like the desirability of a parental relation are ignored.

    While support awards may not be a major
    cause of women’s and children’s poverty, the problem of poverty remains a serious one.Too many Canadians, and especially too many Canadian children are poor. However, thesolution to this problem does not, in all probability, lie with child support.

    Future research should target tactics more likely to succeed.

    This legislation is beyond fixing its underlying ideology is fundementally flawed.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 16th September 2006 @ 7:57 pm

  30. If the govt really wanted to make this a level playing field they would make paternity tests compulsory at birth. From what we see in the news lately some of the pollys might just get a surprise if this were made law? As far as I know most men don’t just wake up one day and decide to move out but the blame is 50% with both mother and father. It is the father who is expected to vacate the family home (otherwise he is seen to be kicking his wife into the street). More often than not the woman makes life unbearable in the home for the man until he leaves then the woman assumes the victim position and as we know govts love people who are willing to play victims as they are easily manipulated and controlled and some women use their children as a retirement plan and surf the child tax wave all the way into their 50’s. I am an Aussie and met my ex partner in Australia before having 2 children. When the eldest was about 7 the ex decided she was home-sick and after some discussion her parents decided they did not want to move to Aus. Strangely enough 6 months later my ex packed my 2 children and moved to NZ. Like a fool I came to NZ under her instruction to make a go of it here. Things were ok for a while and we had another child. She was into the dope and I threatened to leave with the children. Soon after I was physically threatened by the family who said if I knew what was good for me I would go back to Aus. I took them seriously (as you should with any threat) and returned home for 12 months. I was not working for the 1st six months due to stress however IRD said they calculated my income for that year from my previous years income in NZ and refused to reduce this even when I sent them my Aussie tax returns for that year. My ex partner received free counselling, legal aid while I was not entitled to anything. I returned to NZ to learn I had a 20 thousand dollar debt which I have been paying off for the past 3 years. I have my children every 2nd weekend and half school holidays (having them for 25% of the time costs just as much in setup costs as it does full time). I have bought school essentials because their mother refuses to (and knows I will if she leaves it long enough).

    So now I am in debt to IRD by 15K and recently learned that my ex has purchased a house (well a family member bought it and she pays the rent which is no doubt subsidised by the govt) while her sole income is the benefit.

    Maybe JC should visit a few bars or clubs on a Friday/Sat night and see how many “struggling mums” are chugging down $6 drinks and enjoying the single life they were aiming for when they pushed their child’s dad out of the family home?

    Comment by steve — Wed 11th October 2006 @ 11:57 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar