Missed The Point?
People, causing the current internecene arguments for and against the DPB was not the point of my mailing ‘Says It All’.
The whole point was to bring attention to three seperate but vitally connected issues.
Issue 1. DPB offers a solution to the often morally moribund who simmply cannot be bothered getting out of bed to earn their daily bread.
Issue 2. The only way (mostly female recipients) can get it is to gain custody of the children involved.
Issue 3. The prospector of DPB (mostly female) are able to tell almost any lie and have such accepted by the Family Court to then gain DPB.
I believe, for better or worse, that in many cases the fleeing woman would be quite happy if the departing male was allowed complete and free access to the kids and to help manage them. But unless the prospector can demosntrate ‘she’ ‘must’ be the main guardian of the kids, not 50/50, then she won’t get DPB.
And so, in order to get DPB ‘she’ must demonstatrate that ‘she’ is the only fitting guardian. And to do that she ‘must’ throw the father under the bus.
There is a fourth point…and is probably the most iniquitous in Jane’s dialogue.
That was the advice she received from her lawyer that she must ‘not’ make a federal case out of her claims because, in doing so such would go to the District Court (at the very least) and in that environment, real proof is required. Whereas, as she says, in the Family Court, anything goes.
Further, Jane’s income of a grand a week was made up of sundry benefits, I gather totalling about $450 pw, plus accommodation benefit of $200, plus all of her little sidelines plus the income she got from her new live-in.
But this seemlessly immoral woman made the point which I find the most insufferable. She said she didn’t realy care about the kids, she just wanted her life-style and that the kids were just a part of the building blocks for that life-style.
And so we come full circle to my mail from The Shower. We have to find a way to make the Family Court require real evidence, not hearsay, opinion, feelings, crap, etc.
I ask you. How could legislators water down common principles of law (Innocent till PROVEN guilty) in the Family Court, then stand in the light of day and assert the new rules are fair and just?
The answer is, they cannot.
Surely, it is this issue, not the afore mentioned internecene arguments about DBP which MUST be our focus.
All I ask is that the FC be required to require proof positive before acepting any allegation. Simple as that.
And lastly, I say again. There are some genuine cases of serious need for DPB. I don’t have a problem with being a part of the funding for them (as a tax-payer). My problem is, I want the recipients to ‘prove’ beyond reasonable doubt that they are so entitled. And surely, if the partner is a genuine bad-arse, proof must be readily available.
my sentiments exactly
I have been flicking through some family court cases.(I haven’t studied family law yet so am not up on what is supposed to happen) One case said that the burden of proof is the civil level-ie on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal level which is beyond reasonable doubt. It also said that the more outlandish the accusation the less weight should be given to it.Example being that an accusation that father repeated raped daughter not as believeable as an accusation that he gave her a slap. I don’t understand why there can be accusations of crimes ie assault, sexual abuse etc and these not have to be referred to the police immediately for verification. If the accusing partner is unwilling to make a formal charge then it should be discounted and taken out of the equation. I think the idea behind the family court was that it would be a less formal environment where the issues could be discussed and worked through without the restrictions of proper procedure. obviously this has gotten completely out of control from what I am hearing.
David and Chrissy,
Whilst I agree with both your comments I believe there’s an underlying issue which often gets overlooked. It’s that nz has ‘no fault’ divorce laws, unlike some other countries where proof of being a bad hubby is required before a divorce is legally decreed.
As anecdotal and professional advice will show it has been usually women who more often than men have initiated divorce, and most often subsequently gone onto DPB.
It’s far from specious to surmise then that many do so because the DPB plus many attendant other benefits financial and otherwise in fact incentivises seperation and contributes significantly to our current epidemic of fatherlessness.
To put it bluntly it’s piss easy to dump your low paid/unemployed husband and get onto a relatively cushier track. It’s got a sacharine coated name too – irreconcilable differences.
And again I ask – do you wonder why so many savvy men are joining the marriage strike?
But don’t forget that with the relationship property act that men can be caught in the ‘living together’ trap as well. Perhaps the agenda is to keep the sexes apart altogether or be prepared to lose half of everything you own.
I agree also with the ‘irreconcilable difference’- I would have loved dearly to put my reasons down as adultery and abandonment (I was feeling spiteful although it was the truth)
I think the DPB was initially provided so that women whose husbands had walked out would be able to look after the children and themselves. When my aunties husband shot through with the neighbours wife 40 years ago there was nothing. she had a baby and a toddler and went back to teaching but had great trouble finding anyone that would look after the children of a divorced woman. things have changed greatly but the law moves slowly.
I was luckier. We had a pre-nuptial agreement on the house( we both sold our houses and bought one together in equal shares) and because the marriage didn’t reach the split it down the middle stage, we took what we had brought in and I got a couple of extras like the bed and washing machine because I was preg and was going to be out of work for a time and he was in a better position to replace them.
My advice is never to be so ‘in love’ that you don’t protect your assets, have a clear separation date so anything you buy after the split isn’t marital property and try and maintain some decency and dignity throughout the process so you have a clear conscience.
I agree with your comment and wish to outline my situation.
I agree: my circumstances that I am still working through are the following.
I made an evidenced based allegation to Work and Income that the ex was receiving various incomes while on ther DPB, I included bank accounts showing teh DPB abd income from rental properties plus other sources, she is making about $75,000 pa.
The family court with x’s lawyer then made a case of intrusion into her life and gained a protection order with special conditions preventing me making any allegations about her financial situation to any agency.
This is effectively a “gagging order” and inbreach of the separation of powers between the judicary and government.
Since then the ex has received further payments DPB, full custody and has been granted relocation to another country where I can not live.
I have also made OIA requests and have found that the DPB is paid to the person if they live in NZ or not ( excluding Australia) until the children are financially independant.
I am fighting this and have the DomPost in the loop, Judith Collins, Peter Dunn and the CEO Peter Hughes, as they admitted that they breached my confidentiality with the allegation to Work and Income, MSD have made offers of compensation but I haven’t accepted.
Can you help in any way??
Hello, Neat post. There is a problem together with your website in web explorer, might check thisÃ‚Â¡K IE still is the marketplace chief and a good component to people will leave out your fantastic writing due to this problem.