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

Why Child Support Won’t Change.

Filed under: Child Support,General,Law & Courts,Men's Health — Downunder @ 12:35 pm Mon 27th March 2006

A political agenda to which child support is such a critical element will ruthlessly enforce compliance until it is overwhelmed by death.

The issue that is central to feminist control in respect of the child, is the manner of its upbringing. Parenting in this context is not something that Mothers and Fathers do, but is a legally enforceable, state managed regime. In order to maintain control of parenting the state uses the family court to control, firstly – possession of the child, and secondly – financing of the child’s upbringing.

In terms of possession it is the last resort of the court to place the child with the biological father, and until the recent protestations of fathers even to allow contact.

The second issue, that of funding is critical to maintaining this agenda. Here’s the child, here’s the money, now go to school during the day and go home to your caregiver at night.

The collection of child support is justified only by the existence of the child. Any other considerations are removed to the arena of parenting issues, which must be resolved in an adversarial court under the watchful eye of “The Family Law Section”, who have turned the robes of justice into a monkey suit, by pretending to be a court, rather than acknowledging their role as a state institution.

For the purposes of collecting child support it is more convenient to blame fathers for their absence rather than encouraging participation – that was simply never in the agenda.

It is not the brave new world of women, simply retrodictive ignorance, and a sad indictment of our society that as mothers and fathers, we allow our children to be used as the political fodder of egalitarian tyrants.


  1. Bevan,

    Great and true stuff.

    However we could change this overnight if the APATHIC DADs got off their backsides and stood with those of us who drive for change.

    HandsOnEqualParent from Conception residing together or not be Best-4-Kids not bureaucratic/Solo Parenting and so called Child Support.


    Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 12:50 pm

  2. Hey, Jim Bailey. I visited your website and also rang you. I think you are doing a wonderful thing. I want to ask you, will you help women also. I have a friend who was raped by that Auckland rapist years ago. He broke into her house and raped her while her children were asleep in the house and knifed her arms. He even came back and did it a second time. You can just imagine what she went through and understand why she went inside herself because it was so horrific.
    She has lost her last child to a sister-in-law who doesn’t want to give the child back because she is cruising on the DPB. My friend did turn to alcohol but has done alot of counselling and is a great mother. She has not had a drink for almost 4 years now.
    The lawyers don’t want to give her a chance because they are considering the feelings of the sister-in-law. The little girl is only 4-5 years old and wants to be with her mother.

    I know this is not a menz issue but it won’t hurt for them to know women suffer also.

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 2:01 pm

  3. Julie,

    What an earth gives you the idea I work for MEN?

    Please help me change whatever it is that you saw on the Website that has made you think it so.

    I beleive that ALL Kids should receive HandsOnEqualParenting from Conception where at all possible

    Regards – Jim –

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 2:13 pm

  4. Thank-you Jim.

    I actually found your website overwhelming meaning that I don’t understand. Maybe there is too much information. Alot of people still don’t have a clue about computers.

    I am so happy to know you.

    By the way, The father of the 4 other children has raised those children since the event happened and has been doing a wonderful job. She is not after those children but the 4 elder children have today a better relationship with her because she has not only survived but overcome what I would call ‘Hell’. There is alot of support for her.

    She will be so happy to know there is a group to help her.

    How do we get your support?

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 3:03 pm

  5. Julie,

    My contact details are on the website.

    Regards – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 4:38 pm

  6. Dear Julie & Jim,

    If I can be of any assistance trying to rectify this injustice, I am at your sevice.

    Regards Paul

    Comment by paulc — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 5:16 pm

  7. Paul I will take you up on the offer also if you have the time. Thank-you.

    Comment by julie — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 6:24 pm

  8. Child support is even more pernicious than it seems.

    By impoverishing the poor old Dad contact with his children becomes harder.

    It’s not as though the money they take from you goes to your children (as the standard line goes) it goes into the state coffers to fund whatever programs the social engineers fashion of the week is.

    Meantime you are left with barely enough to survive let alone do anything meaningful with your kids.

    May the architects of this program rot in hell

    Comment by jimmy — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 9:50 pm

  9. funny they blame fatheers for their absence but do not actually admit that itis the vindictive mothers that keep the fathers away thus eroding child- father relationships

    Comment by stan — Mon 27th March 2006 @ 9:59 pm

  10. FAMILY COURT – strange terminology, I suggest it be more termed as the UN-FAMILY COURT, a little trivial maybe, but
    yet accurate, i’ve only clocked up $36,000
    in payments of child support to IRD while
    the UN-FAMILY COURT has taken 4 x judges to stop me from having any contact whatsoever with my 10 year old son over the last 8 years, may 1998 – april, 2006. good work, MORONY & BoULLSHITER. May you both burn in hell for an eternity.

    Comment by cwb — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 4:43 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