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

What about the children

Filed under: General — Julie @ 5:49 pm Fri 24th March 2006

I can understand that many parents (male or female) paying child support are struggling. The saying goes that you will become financially better off if the two of you (parents) can work things out together. So the perfect resolution would be for both parents to sit down togehter and decide together how the children’s basic needs of food, clothing, bedding will be paid as well as school fees. Then of course the needs for children to play sports, music leasons, dance lessons and the rest.

Encouraging males to put their assets and money into trusts is all good if the trust benefits the children in the long run. Because at the end of the day the children are the reason why child support is paid. Is this what you (been there done that) men are doing?

Even though the system or Child Support Act is flawed we should not disregard the children. ( I have e-mailed to ask him to produce the facts so that ordinary New Zealanders can get an understanding of what is going on. (I hope my request is honoured).

The problem that I acknowledge is that men and women are not working together. I see women that want to destroy men, put them in prison and totally destroy their life and then I hear men that want to destroy the women.

I understand both sides. (Thanks to this website) So where do we draw the line?


  1. Come on guys, I am challenging you. Especially yup, peterquixote, paul, scrap, jim bailey,and peter burns and my favourite john self (I am no longer ignorant)

    Comment by julie — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 6:45 pm

  2. Julie, I agree with you Parents of children do not work together when it comes to money. When it comes to an issue involving the kids safety and well being, that is normally a different story.

    I paid child support for over 14 years at time to such a level that I could not afford to live but IRD just keep accepting more and more Admin reviews to enforce yet more money to be paid to my Ex (At one stage 82% of my take home pay). As the custodial parent can make a new application every 3 months even though the application process is not meant to accept an application unless there is new grounds for said claim, this sort of treatment make people very bitter about money. Even though at time of separation I thought I was more than fair with signing over “all assets” to her to insure my children had a good home to live in and food on the table (totally against my lawyers recommendations) and not something I would EVER do again.
    The funny side is she now has to pay me child support and she is finally seeing the IRD system from the other side and the effect her actions had on my life.

    The IRD child support system is so floored it is unbelievable, the sooner it is scrapped the better even though I an no longer a liable parent, I feel for the people that are One can only hope our politicians can do a better job with the next revision and that you Julie get your wish

    Comment by SNMP — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 7:52 pm

  3. Thank-you for your comment SNMP. Oh, my God! How can someone pay 82% of their earnings and survive? But I am glad your female ex has seen the other side. I am thinking that the answer lies there. I heard that over money we (partners) should try to walk in the other’s shoes.

    I would also appreciate your view Al D Rado and Stephen.

    Comment by julie — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 9:10 pm

  4. II knew a man once, met him at a demo outside the Family Court in Lower Hutt. He came to support the cause and with him came his bus. It was a sight to behold; it proclaimed to the world that the Family Court was anti dad and anti kids. It’s somewhat ironic that this dad ended up being run over by a bus. I really wonder how the treatment dished out to this Kiwi dad can ever have been in the “best interest of his children”

    That’s who this whole debate is about, not the money; it’s about the best interests of my children and one day my grandchildren. It’s a debate that must be prepared to see radical reform driven into law by parents working together for the best interest of their kids.

    Its starts with a fundamental base that kids need both mum and dad. If mum and dad don’t live under the same roof they don’t stop being mum and dad. Its about equal parental rights and responsibilities. It’s a paradigm shift, its not going to be easy! But when you are motivated by your kid’s welfare you will overcome.

    It’s not about fighting in courts; courts make lawyers rich and help judges build art collections. Family Courts and the adversarial system create a system of Family Law that is built upon creating conflict. Conflict between “separated” parents never serves the best interest of the children.

    The change that is needed is at a political level. It requires lobbying and creating an effective voice for “separated” parents in Parliament. A voice that can bring about the law change required. Without the presumption of equal parental rights and equal parental responsibility it is impossible to have a fair and reasonable child support.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 10:54 pm

  5. Julie,
    So you want my opinion eh?
    Well, I hear no men that as you say want to destroy women. Not anywhere I’ve been in NZ (including prisons and Psychiatric wards) in over 20 years. So to say such seems an incredibly insulting and overwraught thing to me.
    Seems like despite your best efforts you have some need to demonise men. I fear for you sons.

    Endorsing men putting money away from where IRD can get thier grubby hands on it doesn’t necesarrily mean depriving one’s children of money. To the contrary I believe in many cases setting up a trust that IRD can’t touch would actually HELP KIDS TO RETAIN A FATHER WHO COULD AFFORD TO CARE FOR THEM.

    But of course IRD don’t think like that otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I believe they simply don’t give a shit if a Dad’s reduced to being a distant wallet.
    Child support is so terribly flawed that setting up a Trust may be a good way to go, if it works. I’m no expert on that issue.

    What has led me to form such a view is something that I’ll never forget as long as I live – thier cruelty.
    I still recall the choice I had to make when on the bones of my arse as an adult student due to a surprise hike in student fees – I could either move out of a flat and sleep on a mate’s garage floor, and get food parcels from the Sally Army – or I could get behind with child support and risk being criminalised, including having my pasport revoked and what few assets I had sold.

    I didn’t miss a single payment to those heartless bloodsuckers who demanded child ‘support’!

    That was all whilst my ex was living in a luxury house worth over $1,000,000 by todays values, jetting overseas for holidays, and generally living like a chardonay swilling Queen.
    Also despite her vexatiously and with total impunity denying my son visitation to me just for the hell of it.
    Neither the family courts nor IRD could give a flying f*** about my son getting fathered, as long as they were getting thier slice of pie, they were as happy as Larry.
    The whole thing was of course dropped on me from a great height due to NZ’s stupid unilateral divorce laws where (mostly) trophy men are routinely jettisoned from thier kids lives by callous mercenary wives when they try to be connecting humans instead of money making machines.

    Bring on the male pill, trust funds and the marriage strike I say.

    My advice to young men these days – beware overentitled Western women and thier pussywhipped chivalric bodyguards – you risk serious injury getting involved with them.

    Comment by Stephen — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 12:41 am

  6. Word to the wise; Trusts do not work for limiting you child support exposure unless they make a tax loss every year. IRD will get the tax records and base you child support on any earnings you may have including a Trust no matter how you structure it. The only time this MAY not be the case is if the children are direct beneficiaries and earn income from the trust structure.

    How do I know, been there done that. Have two trusts to hold varying interests and IRD took their income into account, also rental properties Shares, company ownership etc. But this is also dependant on how thorough the IRD review officer may be.
    Yes know the feeling of being on the bones of your ass very well and having to make the decisions about paying support or not, not a good place to be. But now I get the last laugh :o)

    Comment by SNMP — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 8:23 am

  7. Stephen, I will admit that there are alot more women on missions to destroy their male partners than men destroying women. Neverhteless I personally know of two very vindictive males who women do not want to cross.

    When I started reading the posts on this site I thought alot of this was false or exagerated. Soon I was hearing stories from others and now I see it everywhere.

    Maybe, you could start looking around you because there are heaps of women who admit to their faults and there are men ringing CYFS on mother’s just for hate.

    Comment by julie — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 8:34 am

  8. Julie,
    It was gracious of you to amend your initial statement about men’s and women’s relative hatred for one another.
    As to the claim that I could –

    ” start looking around you because there are heaps of women who admit to their faults and there are men ringing CYFS on mother’s just for hate”.

    I’m skeptical about that. Why?

    Because if it were true that there are men ringing CYFS on mothers just for hate I’m sure we’d hear about it in the feminist press.

    As to women admitting thier faults in using NZs laws to screw over menfolk) all I hear is a deafening silence. On the contrary, what I mostly hear from NZ women is smugness at thier oventitled situation.
    So I welcome you directing me to some of these admissions. If they tur

    Comment by Stephen — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 12:49 pm

  9. Whoops! wrong keystroke. Sorry.

    To continue ….. IF they turn out to be genuine, and back up words with action, then I’ll look forward to having more support in my campaighn for equal rights for men and children.

    If not it’s business as usual.

    Comment by Stephen — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 12:56 pm

  10. Hmmm. Stephen. What are you considering to change in your campaign?

    Comment by julie — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 2:51 pm

  11. Hey guys,
    Doesn’t time go by really slowly waiting for Julie’s proof that there actually exist (gasp!) 2 women in NZ with the integrity to acknowledge they’ve hatefully screwed thier menfolk over?

    Should we all heave a collective sigh of relief now that NZ womenfolk are all turning over a new leaf and finally want to do right by us?

    In the meantime like you say Julie –

    “What about the children?”.

    I’m not holding my breath too long on this one Julie.
    And until you put up the goods, my strategy is precisely that – mine. Not for the likes of you who haven’t earnt my trust – yet.

    Comment by Stephen — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 8:58 pm

  12. Hey, give me a break. I had to go to a pre-season soccer game with my son.
    I didn’t say I was going to produce 2 women who will admit to screwing thier menfolk over. I said there are heaps of women who will admit to thier faults.

    So tell me how to give you this proof. Do you want phone numbers.

    For starters, Monday morning 6.30am a female rings me to tell me she needs to see me. I take the morning off for her. What does she want?
    She wants to put her partner in prison and have his passport and New Zealand citizenship provoked.
    Because he doesn’t deserve it. So who made her judge and jury? She doesn’t care.

    Comment by julie — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 9:16 pm

  13. Whilst I don’t believe one gender is more or less evil than the other I do believe that mothers feel justified in destroying their child’s father in order to protect their children. This is probably due to the erroneous cognition that “my enemy is my child’s enemy” There can be little doubt that carrying a baby for 9 months and going through birth must make the mother biased and narcissistic in her attitude regarding what’s best for the child.
    My wife always assured me that she would never separate me from my child yet, once we separated she commenced a campaign that shocked me. From accusing me of sexual abuse to moving to another city, she still had the audacity to tell a judge that she wanted me to be a part of our child’s life. When the judge scolded her for false accusations and attempted alienation she justified it all by saying that she was only thinking of her child’s best interests. Therein lies the problem. Are we pissing in the wind by believing that mothers can really separate their and their child’s interests? Over to you Julie!

    Comment by Bryan — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 9:59 pm

  14. I know we are going off track a bit here but I am wondering if you have heard of the 10:80 (ten:eighty) rule. It is alot like statistical probability when used for large amounts of data.

    So, it goes like this. 10% of people are really bad, 10% of people are really good and the other 80% swing either way.

    10% of people staunchly vote labour, 10% of people staunchly vote National while the other 80% swing either way depending on promises etc.

    Using this rule 10% of people are extreme left/right (masculinists), 10% of people are on the extreme opposite side (femenists) and the other 80% are people that swing either way depending on the issues.

    I wouldn’t be suprised if either side wants to recruit the 80% although I am not interested in this.

    What is a common denominator for the whole 100% is well-being for ourselves and our children. I bet alot of the females in the 80% of people will fight (support) in the interests of thier husbands, male family members, male friends and children. And I believe the males in that 80% will do the same for women.

    Comment by julie — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 10:04 pm

  15. Bryan, I don’t have the answers but it is true that the chidren get caught in the cross-fire.

    Women become so passionately driven by feelings. It is true that women have a strong connection to their children. I suppose selfishness comes into it too. But there is no excuse for women to assume their enemies are their children’s enemies. Women do use the children because they are like little soldiers. I mean they love their mummy and mummy usually has more control over the children.

    Let’s hope someone else comments on this because we will both learn something.

    Comment by julie — Sat 25th March 2006 @ 10:21 pm

  16. Julie,
    As I imagined, cynic that I am these days, you not only offer zilch proof to back up your claim, but backpedal on your claim and try to play victim to boot.
    So you dropped of your son to soccer.
    Lucky you. Don’t expect sympathy for your choice.
    Many heartbroken guys would envy you doing that.
    After backpedalling on your claim you then ask if I want telephone numbers of women with admissions to make.
    You appear to want to have it both ways, and of course I don’t want telephone numbers, but I guess you knew that anyway.
    I believe the reasonable proof I look for would be women posting online admissions that they’ve used state sanctioned systems to screw thier menfolk over.
    Conversely, you can Google all day and night on our huge and ever expanding web and find practically zilch admissions from our sistas to that effect, whilst too many of them play the victim to get thier way knowing stupid chivalric types will save them from the ‘bad’ guys.

    Are we noticing any patterns here folks?

    I’m with Bryan on this one.
    Princess syndrome writ large doesn’t cut it for me any longer.
    Living in a jeopardy movie is boring to say the least.
    (For the uninitiated jeopardy movies are those where woman/women play damsel/s in distress and brave hero man/men saves woman/women from bad man/men). This genre probably fills up to 50% of adult screentime at a guess.

    It strikes me over and over that women’s violence is something modern Western culture is deep in denial about. It’s something we’re only starting to see bubble to the surface.
    By the way Goodonya Julie for having the guts to go public with your admission. I hope it encourages many other women to do likewise, but I’m not holding my breath waiting.

    Go read Warren Farrell’s excellent book –
    ‘Father and child reunion’ for loads of data to back up my claims.

    What scares me is thinking that with shrinking fertility rates the war for ownership of children that so many women initiate and play out will only see many women getting uglier and more vicious still as the ‘commodification’ of children intensifies.

    Who was it that said

    “The hand which rocks the cradle rules the world”

    And again like you ask Julie – What about the children?

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 2:44 am

  17. Stephen, you are a hard man but then you have lived a hard life.
    I cannot produce what is asked. But I will not change what I posted. I know what I know and that is OK with me.
    I resent you saying I play the victim. I am quite a strong person thank-you very much.

    Comment by julie — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 9:20 am

  18. Julie, its the 80/20 rule. Also known as the Pareto principle.

    Stephen, I can throughly appreciate your point of view, but at least Julie is engaging in dialouge.

    Lets state clear positions. Julie do you hold to the maxium that it is in the best interest of children to be parented by a mum and dad who have equal rights and responsibilities protected and enshrined in law?

    If you wonder about the outcomes of NZ children in differeing parenting situations, google information on Furgesson’s Longitudinal Study – Its based at Ch-Ch from memory.

    My position is clear Equal Parental Rights and Equal Parental Responsibilities produce the best outcomes for Kiwi Kids. Adults have to put their own conflict aside and focus on the kids.Its not easy, it can be unpleasent but its the kids that matter.

    Stephen, amd others what is your position in a paragraph or two?



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 12:14 pm

  19. All this talk about equality is good but thats all it is at this stage… talk.

    In my opinion majority of the females will not agree to this as cuts on their luxury allowance in the form of child support. Money that should be used on children paid for by the fathers… i have actually seen getting used by females on their maternal families, used for supporting their sibling who are capable of wrking ind you… buying expensive makeup fortnightly for their mothers, paying for ther rents and accomodation. only 15% of the actual child support money is used where it is meant to. Since accountability is not required by law, females get away with it. In my practical experience i have come across males who are more ethical in these issues then females will ever be. This is because males have an ingrained responsibility to provide for the best for their primaRY families- which are wife and kids… for them the rest are secondary. Females on the other hand tend to get swayed by their maternal families a lot and hence not only cause breakups but also ruin a childs future… and they claim they are looking out for their childs welfare.. ironic.

    Little wonder that fathers are reluctant to fork out money for child support in light of all this. Family law should be renamed “Family Flaw” because of all the bias that exists. And females being the more vindictive of the species tend to go gung ho in getting all they can get attheir former partners expense.. allowing them to setup their retirement etc paid for courtesy of the former partner they hate so much… meaning the partners money is good… the partner is bad.

    A child is the responsibility of both parents so at what point did the transition of the mother claiming full responsibility of childs welfare happen and how did the fathers part get pushed aside?

    Hence all for the trust account options… at least the fathers know that the monies will be used 100% on their kids and not provide a non taxable income.

    Comment by stan — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 2:28 pm

  20. Scrap,
    Thanks for saying you thoroughly appreciate my point of view.
    I do indeed think it’s only fair and just that children do best with parents who have equal rights and responsibilities enshrined in law.

    It’s true I’m a hard man – sometimes.
    I’m also very soft too – like each week when I give prizes I’ve bought to students.

    As you’ve noticed I can be very tough when need be – like in the face of those who want me to accept thier position WITHOUT PROOF.

    Rather like the family court.
    You know that one eh guys?

    So you resent me saying you play
    the victim eh? Go ahead, resent away.
    It’ll just confirm it further IMO.
    You won’t be the first woman I’ve met who’s pouted to try and get her way, nor the last either I imagine.
    You claim you’re quite a strong person. I can quite believe it – you are after all an overentitled NZ woman IMO.
    There’s also strength in playing the victim if you can get sympathy and rescuing from others.
    I’m surprised and delighted to see that some chivalrous feminist guy hasn’t entered this thread to play hero to your damsel in distress and rescue you – so far.

    I agree with Scrap, you are engaging in dialogue,
    I’d trust you a whole lot more though if you didn’t make claims along gender lines you subsequently can’t back up – claims which if accepted without question influence how folks relate to fathers and mothers abilities to parent – to which I’ll also add –

    Thanks for finally fessing up.

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 2:51 pm

  21. This is a serious subject so yes, let’s keep the children in mind.

    I’m thinking of the many children, including my little boy, who have been robbed of a real relationship with their dads. Many others have lost their dad’s altogether. I think it’s no exaggeration to call them a stolen generation.

    I can’t imagine a worse kind of theft than to separate a child from his parent, and yet to my shock and grief I have discovered that it is a practice the state not only allows but actively encourages.

    I know of women who have made a career out of what could accurately be termed ‘baby farming’. They have a series of children, sometimes with a series of different fathers whom they ditch as fast as they can, and thereafter live comfortably on welfare and child support payments. It is easy for them to keep the children to themselves because of the widely held but unexamined belief that mums know best how to raise kids. If need be, a false allegation of sexual abuse will often do nicely to permanently sever dad’’s ties with his family. I once would have thought it a myth that women could behave this way, but now have seen it for myself many times.

    My son’s mother however has no need to farm babies. She is already wealthy. She is more of a baby-tycoon, a baby-dictator who chooses to dispense with the other parent because she can. Because negotiation and communication and sharing are so inconvenient, so draining. And because the state rewards her for assuming sole proprietorship. The excessive tax payments that she and the state exact from me serve not to support our child but to prevent me, his father, from being an effective parent, by keeping me in poverty and debt.

    While she travels the world with our son, owns her own home, and establishes her bond with him, I get to live in cheap rented accommodation, work all week to pay the taxman, and see my little one-year-old boy for a few brief hours each Sunday, if I am lucky.

    It’s an emotional subject as well as a serious one. I find it difficult to write about unemotively, especially if it’s been many days since I have seen my son. Anyone surely, would be angry and sad.

    Last weekend I heard him say his first word — he pointed at the cat and said …. “Dog!”. It was a joy to be there, but also a sad reminder that he and I get to experience so few of those treasurable moments together. For some lucky kids one of their first words may be ‘dad’, but I don’t think my son knows who dad is.

    I would like to hear more front-line reports of how the so-called child support laws are affecting other parents and children.

    Comment by Paul — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 4:36 pm

  22. Yes I did mean the 80/20 rule. I asked my ex-husband why he never spoke like you are. Why? Because I never knew the other side. I thought we were close enough to talk about these things but I was wrong.

    My point is that if I see something wrong then 60% of society will see the same thing. (Don’t challenge me on this please, it is just an average)

    What I am thinking is that the majority of women don’t know this side either. And I think they need to know so that both parents are there for the children as well as both parents have a fair go in life.

    Can I make a difference? Hell yes. Not because I am a womean but because I am a voice.

    Scenario: If heaps of people in New Zealand learn about this then pressure will be on behavioural change. Women will be look down upon for thinking they are in charge and for abusing the father’s chances for well-being.
    Trends change because people become educated.

    Changing politians view are another scenario but seeing that lady on Good Morning New Zealand not willing to compromise tells me we have to work another way.

    I intend to talk to Chris Carter (Wiatakere and Labour MP) He has been voted in for 3 terms because he cares for our community.

    Helen Clark represents the Mt. Eden area so I am going to make an appointment through a friend to see her. I am going to take alot of the information from this site.

    Stephen, please give me a break. I can back up things but choose not to. Your challenging is getting the response. “Talk to the hand.” It is not because of you but I cannot ask women to put truths on this site. That would be suicide.

    Comment by julie — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 5:05 pm

  23. Yes Paul,
    I couldn’t agree more with your comments about women in NZ. I wish a lot of them would get thier shit together and grow up for the sake of our kids.
    Seeing today’s piece of father-bashing vitriol from Rosemary McLeod in today’s NZ stuff gives me pause for thought though. She’s supposedly a well educated socially savvy legal eagle – God help us all!

    I fully expect many women including sista Mcleod to continue to try branding all those terribly alienated Dads as ‘deadbeat’ whilst turning a blind eye to all the demonising feminist barriers put in the way of kids getting the fathering they need and deserve.
    Shame on them I say.
    Heartless, spoilt, concieted lot.

    A lost generation of kids indeed.
    Great naming there Paul.

    Sorry you get such little contact. My heart goes out to you.
    Kia Kaha bro.

    I’ll keep plugging away for the likes of you and the many other good dads out there who’re getting screwed over.

    are you getting a bigger picture here now?

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 5:18 pm

  24. Julie,
    Can’t ask women to post truths?
    That would be suicide eh?
    Yeah right.

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 5:23 pm

  25. No Stepehen, allowing them to be challenged by you would be like leading a cow to the slaughter.

    I am getting the bigger picture and I am getting angry.

    Just for the record, the reason that I am going to follow-up is because my boys and friends boys are the next generation. We put our efforts into encouraging them to get educated, play sports, music etc for their future. Damned If I will stand by and watch their future become ruined because they willingly have a child or get a girl pregnant.

    Comment by julie — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 6:00 pm

  26. John,

    I am under the impression that people in high positions in New Zealand such as those in parliment are not interested in hearing the suffering of men over child support because of different reasons.
    There seems to be alot of anger over the issue and I liken it to the police targeting drink drivers and speeders. Everyone gets targeted to hunt for the small number of people putting lives at risk.
    Another issue angering these same people is the number of people on the DBP who are basically being carried by tax payers.

    So, I am thinking of putting the two together to get further than just the door and a say. By working out DPB against working and child support I am going to show a plan for how the government can save money. I am confident I can do that part.
    What do you think would be best to bring the male’s side into the equation?

    Comment by julie — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 9:14 pm

  27. Lets draw a distinction here between

    A) Having money taken from you to pay for your children’s upbringing


    B) Being allowed to contribute financially to your children’s upbringing.

    The operative word here is not children, or financial contribution, but upbringing, and that is because Mothers and Fathers have different priorities.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 9:41 pm

  28. Have you ever talked with Jim Nicolle from SCRAP Julie?
    He is politically active in this area and would probably appreciate your support. His email is:

    [email protected]

    Comment by Bryan — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 9:41 pm

  29. Thanx Bryan, I will do that.

    Comment by julie — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 9:51 pm

  30. Julie,
    Got shown up and spat the dummy.
    Get a grip sis.
    With that attitude you’d never know how I’d respond to these mysterious women you keep talking about. For all you know they might get equal doses of anger AND compassion from me as I actually feel sorry for a lot of modern women. Thier emotional games are all but up due to men’s banding together to share a common story of being shafted by women, helping one another and new technologies. Some amazing good hearted women have helped this process too – Phyllis Schafly in the States, Bettina Ardnt in Oz, and our very own Barbara Faithful and Muriel Newman in NZ. I don’t think we’d have made such progress without thier courageous action.

    As a consequence of the above and lots of other efforts to bring awareness of men’s plight many women seem to be growing more desperate and hysterically ridiculous by the day. Rosemary Mcleod is a case in point.

    Great posting about Mcleod by the way Al D.

    if you do manage to follow through with your stated plan of approaching Clarke and Co then good luck. I’d be first in line to compliment you for it.
    Congratulations on feeling some of the anger that a lot of us men are feeling for our kids sake. Very, very few western women have gotten that far to date.

    Only don’t get so shitty when you’re called to task about a claim you can’t follow through on. Men call each other on that kind of stuff all the time. I’ve been called on such stuff myself.
    Rigorous peer review you might call it!

    I hope you get an opportunity to talk some sense into Clarke. Don’t get your hopes up that she’ll be very receptive to your message though. Remember Ian Wishart and many others reckon she’s a closetted dyke. She’s certainly childless, and doesn’t even reside in the same city as her hubby a lot of the time. So hardly someone conducive to being sympathetic about family values and fathering issues despite all her office’s pro-family claptrap spin.
    From all accounts I gather she’s had a very detatched, cold relationship with her own Dad, which she could be acting out in adult life.

    One more thing.
    Some good news for you and your boys.
    New research reported in the online press today shows that contrary to popular belief it now seems very clear from recent research studies that women’s ability to birth healthy babies declines much earlier than was previously thought.
    Couple that to the fact that the male pill is now being used in two countries, and will inevitably make it’s way to N.Z. and we can see that thankfully your sons are going to be empowered in ways the previous generation of men wasn’t.
    In effect the tables are turning.
    Men won’t have to be held hostage to women’s fertility. It seems fair to assume the vast majority of future western women will want to reproduce and won’t be able to afford to do so by sperm donor and raise the kid/s alone.
    So they’ll have to play much fairer with thier menfolk or face a marriage strike and see themselves passed over as men favour other women – Asian, Latin, African etc, or just opt out of fatherhood period.
    Non of this unilaterally instigated ‘no fault’ divorce crap for these boys! The next generation of men will have grown up seeing thier own Dads shafted left, right and centre by vexatious overentitled women, which no amount of feminised education and Rosemary Mcleod pissing off in public is going to obscure from them. They won’t be so dumb as to sign up for the crock thier ol’ man or some other guy they know signed up to.

    It’s kind of like Vietnam was. Eventually, as the bodybags were flown back home every town and village had it’s young men who’d died soldiering in Vietnam. Then a tipping point was reached whereby the anti-war movement sprang up.
    Well now see, there must be very few young guys who haven’t heard of some good Dad/s being shafted. The tipping point is coming.

    You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all hte time.

    Rave over.

    Comment by Stephen — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 12:00 am

  31. Stephen, just a couple of things back at you. I know you are fair because even though you challenge me you always write something positive too. I am just playing with you.

    Good comments. As for Helen Clark, I like her and just for the record she has had hard times too. I worked for people that live across the road from her in Mt. Eden. I just want to be prepared because she is smart enough to challenge me on the spot.
    I do look forward to the male pill being introduced.

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 7:36 am

  32. Stephen, thanks for your good wishes and the same to you. We’ll win this thing eventually, and equal parenting rights for dads will become the norm.

    Julie I didnt understand your analogy;

    I liken it to the police targeting drink drivers and speeders. Everyone gets targeted to hunt for the small number of people putting lives at risk.

    I know there are selfish mothers out there ruining lives, endangering children and thinking only of themselves, much the way an anti=social drink driver does. But I do not see the Police, WINZ, IRD, or any other arm of government targeting them.

    That’s the horror of it; the state at best turns a blind eye, and at worst actively encourages the dangerous child-rearing practice of solo – parenting.

    Comment by Paul — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 8:53 am

  33. Paul, maybe I shouldn’t have included drink driving but solely speeding. I hear about a number of children killed by drivers speeding around schools. So all schools are now 40-50 kms and speed cameras are installed. Nearly all parents will be fined because they sometimes slip over the limit in their driving to and from school twice a day.

    In the end millions of dollars will exchange hands with those who do not drive at a speed to kill paying for the few who disregard the lives of children.

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 10:35 am

  34. Julie you can take this comment to Helen Clarke and I’m interested in what she might say and what you and others think of it.
    I wrote to IRD to bring to their attention that the facts that the recent Admin Review decision relied upon were not true or accurate. I had the physical material evidence to prove without any doubt that the information that was provided to IRD by the mother of my children was wrong by a long shot.
    They quoted me this part of the CS Act:
    Section 96I(5) “Any hearing before the Commissioner, and any inquiry or investigation carried out by the Commissioner, is to be carried out as the Commissioner thinks fit and the Commissioner is not bound by any rules of evidence.”

    Comment by Phoenix — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 12:06 pm

  35. Single – parenting without a very good reason should be as much (if not more)of a crime as drink-driving or speeding. The risks are great; a boy who grows up without a fatherly presence in his life is 11 times more likely to be violent. Think of all the harm he may ultimately cause. Then there are the risk factors relating to teen pregnancies, suicide, and dropping out of school.

    It takes only a moderate sense of responsibility to avoid driving drunk. Slowing down around schools is no hardship – we can all do that. So why is single-parenting still a socially approved activity? It takes a bit of effort to share responsibilities and communicate with the other parent after a break-up, sure. But not to not to make the effort, in my opinion, is criminal.

    Comment by Paul — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 12:18 pm

  36. I see your point on single parenting being more harmful than drink driving and speeding. It does make me wonder why it isn’t a higher priority. One day it will all come to light but unfortunately it will be far too late for a whole generation.

    I can’t find, damn it, you said 96I(5) while I read 96(5) which is not a subsection. On the phone again to IRD.

    By the way I learn’t that you cannot challenge a decision made through a admin review unless you find another new ground. Like changes in circumstances.

    You need to go to the next step which is court for a Departure hearing. You need to ask for a Suspension Order which will put your payments backwards in amount. You need to have evidence for your claim (which you do) because you only get one based on a really good chance of being successful.

    There is an Admin Review Team set up which can be contacted on 0800 371 333. But please allow me more time to look into this with the right section of the act.

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 12:45 pm

  37. The first part of my last comment was meant for Paul while the second part was meant for Phoenix. I feel sorry for you Phoenix, you must get fed up. Sorry I didn’t understand what you were going through earlier. I now have a small taste of what it feels like for you. That Admin review team is hard to get hold of. Who has time for this bullshit. And that’s only the beginning of your journey. Sorry but I can’t continue to hold on the line so I will try later.

    I will keep your information. It seems to me that you are in a win-no win situation with your position being no-win.

    I spoke with a lady today that keeps up with all the goings on legally, in the newspapers and life. Alot of the people I work for are the same age group as Helen Clark. These women were pioneers in women’s equal rights because they all had the chance to become well educated. Their parents worked towards this. These women feel strongly towards women’s rights yet they have tipped the scale the other way.

    Now I understand what all the guys on this site are telling me. (I think)

    You don’t want to tip the scale the other way but just keep it equal, in balance. I am not part of the age group of Helen Clark and I have alot of friends who are not either. We haven’t had it hard as women but we want just the same as you do. Please don’t shut us out because we need to altogether retify this unjust.

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 1:27 pm

  38. Julie — As Beven has most aptly put it the (Anti) Family Court robes of justice are but a monkey suit.
    I have experienced it in action.
    Regarding departure orders; Part of the (so called) Judges decision on an applied for by me departure order was for the judge to say “It must be observed that, notwithstanding his alleged difficulties in meeting his child support obligations he has in fact kept payments up to date.” Therefore his reasoning was, I should continue to pay the same amount even if it was an unfair amount.

    Comment by Phoenix — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 3:10 pm

  39. Sounds strangely familiar, the IRD or courts do not look favorably on the liable parent especially if it a male that is the liable parent, this of course is in my experience.

    Personally I think the order goes something like this..
    1. Custodial Female
    2. Liable female
    9. Custodial Male
    99. Liable Male

    Comment by SNMP — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 3:40 pm

  40. This is so unbelievable, yet it is true. Sometime earlier I spoke to a friend about making a movie on the mens side. I think the problem would be in whether it was seen to be serious or a comedy.

    I hope you guys don’t see that as making a joke of this but this is ‘so out there’. Maybe we should make a movie of it so that New Zealand people can see how pathetic this is.

    All I can think of is that you guys did something wrong in a past life and even that sounds way out there for normality.

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 6:34 pm

  41. I can recall “War of the Roses” and “Mrs Doubtfire” , were there any others?

    Comment by Bevan Berg. — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 7:12 pm

  42. Well Julie it is what we live every day. My partner when we first got together did not believe some of my stories in regard to my Ex as she thought they were my imagination. Well after a number of years together she can’t believe what my Ex got/gets up to with the courts and IRD.
    She has a child to her Ex and he gets it easy as she has seen the utter Hell I have been though and in a small part still going through trying to get support for our son out of her.

    Comment by SNMP — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 7:43 pm

  43. I like you comments SNMP. My ex gets it easy too. But then I would never of even thought what half of the women do to be OK. I mean, I can’t even imagine pretending a male sexually abused a child and especially pretend the father did it. I hope the rest of your life becomes enjoyable because you have been through enough. It is great that you pass on your experiences to me and others.

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 7:54 pm

  44. For a movie to be successful the audience needs to be able to empathise with the characters. Females are brought up to see ‘real’ men as conquerors and hero’s. Men are brought up to see themselves as winners, staunch and never crushed into the dust. Therefore to portray the real story of men’s lives in NZ would just bring opprobrium upon the characters.
    A script similiar to “Falling Down” (1993) where the broken hearted father “michael Douglas” has had a guts full of the system and his testosterone takes over. That is my type of movie. Keep it all in fantasy, You get to kill all the crooked lawyers, judges, and cops. And then… that the problem, when the testosterone stops pumping you realise you are just as bad as the scum you have killed so you take yourself out. Huh! got to be a movie where love and understanding are the heros….any investors interested??? Yea Right!!!!!

    Comment by Bryan — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 8:06 pm

  45. i supported my ex when she came tyo NZ initially. for 5 years she studied , she did not work, we had a kid, i sponsored her parents and siblings over since she did not have a job at that time..

    two months after graduation and a job offer, she accuses me of trying to abduct my kid out of the blue, and gets seperation. I was told to stay out of my house which in was alone paying the mortgage for without any contribution from the missus. …. now she screwing me using the system forall she can get out of me.
    does this sound like a good script or what…

    Comment by star — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 10:12 pm

  46. I’ve got it…”VICTIMS” a non linear movie with the juxtaposition of the Mother’s story, Father’s story, and the Childs’s story.

    Then the sequel……

    “How to Protect Your Industry and Make Lots of Money”
    The Lawyers story, Judges story and Psychologists story.

    Hey this could go further…how about trying a third sequel…

    “If we get rid of Fathers Who can we Blame”
    Politicians story, Human Rights story and the Feminists story.
    Film commision will be keen on a script like this…Yea Right!!!!

    Comment by Bryan — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 10:41 pm

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