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

Any advice on Admin Reviews

Filed under: Child Support — GM @ 9:54 pm Thu 7th June 2007

I’m about to go to my first Admin Review. Apparently I earn a small fortune, have a small fortune tucked away, and am extremely anti my daughter. I have no idea what I’ve done with my fortune and my partner is going to be very angry when she finds out I’ve lost this small fortune, plus I quite like my daughter, altho I do tell her off when she is rude. Anyway, I’m being sarcastic. I would really appreciate any advice (including horror stories) of what to expect in an Admin Review and how to approach one.

I’ve read a few horror stories about what goes on with Family Court decisions… are the Admin Reviews anything like this? My main concern is that they can assess you on your “earning capacity”, meaning that they have the right to assess me on what I might earn if I worked 20 hours a day, leaving my partner to do all the childcare (we have a baby of our own). I find it quite amazing that someone can make totally unsubstantiated and damaging claims (that will probably result in an audit) in order to get more money out of me. I know too damn well that no evidence will be required to back up her claims and even if I spent some of my small fortune proving that her allegations are nothing more than lies, there will be no consequences to pay for her.

I admit I have no faith in the justice system, Child Support or Family Court… 12 years ago, our daughter was 2 and I had spent those 2 years raising her pretty much full time. Upon our separation I asked for joint custody… but no… in one day I discovered the mother had abducted the child, went to the USA for 2 months while serving me with a sole custody application, AND I had the police arrive on my doorstep to serve me with a restraining order because I had assaulted both the mother and the daughter. Being utterly naive, I thought justice would prevail and that surely you can’t just say these lies and get away with it, surely you’d need evidence… No! So that’s when I lost my daughter. Since then I’ve been lying low, paying far more than I should in a voluntary agreement, but also seeing quite a bit of my daughter as a result. But nothing ever resembling co-parenting. Now my partner and I have had a baby, and man the sh&* has hit the fan. Psycho ex just can’t contain herself. So now I find myself going off to an Admin Review to explain how I don’t remember where I’ve lost my small fortune.

Joking aside, any advice appreciated.


  1. I just can’t follow your situation. I suggest you explain it more clearly to your local father’s group.

    Comment by Dave — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 12:49 am

  2. man i know what your going through
    unfortunately much like the family court system all you can do is drop your trousers behind over and take it like a man.

    Comment by phil — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 7:31 am

  3. Yes, sorry, I wasn’t very clear in my post. I’m really just looking for advice on how to approach an Admin Review, especially with regard to my “earning capacity”. The nature of my job means that now we have a new baby on the scene, I can’t work as much, therefore my income has dropped significantly. This is what got Psycho Ex going as I said I was going to have to drop my overly generous payments. (Actually think the main issue is that I’m doing it without her permission!). I don’t know if my “earning capacity” is what the Admin Review will focus on, but apart from the numerous false allegations of tax evasion, that’s my main worry.

    Comment by Gary — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 8:32 am

  4. Gary, there was a group who would help with CS issues but they are moving into politics to sort the problem out properly. Far too many are getting screwed by the system and you will probably find the interviewer gets a personal gain from screwing you over.

    When you gain back some dignity, I suggest you go and see your local MP and tell them what is going in. Not enough people have been stepping forward and every bit of support helps.

    Comment by julie — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 9:11 am

  5. When you get asked about your ability to work more, just say that you can’t because you have another child and you often take care of him/her during the day. Do NOT say anything silly about being able to work “20 hours a day, leaving my partner to do all the childcare” because they WILL assess you on that.

    Comment by Greg — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 10:28 am

  6. Is the administrative review initiated by IRD?

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 6:11 pm

  7. I have been through 42 Admin Reviews over the last 14 years, I can almost tell you exactly what to expect the result to be. Expect to loose you living allowance if your partner/wife earns at all. Expect your earning capacity to be set at the average for your employment type. If you have taken a voluntary reduction expect your income to be set at your full income no matter what the reason.
    The way the review will go is also very dependent on the grounds the review has been applied on. If it is ground 8 anything goes and no justification needs to be given by the custodial parent (Yes I know what the act says but this is reality). If you don’t agree with the result of the review the Family court is your only other avenue and we all know how worthwhile that is..

    All I can say is good luck, be friendly and don’t give any information you don’t need to.

    Comment by SNMP — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 7:17 pm

  8. Child Support Admin Reviews
    My Experience:
    Back Ground:
    I had been married for 21 years.
    My then wife and I had two boys aged at that time we separated 7 and 9 she took them when she left and I was left to run the small family business we had bought a short time before.
    The ex left on the 31 March 2001 the end of the financial year.
    This kind of set the tone or at least was no accident and is indicative of her psyche.
    Between us personally we had very very little.
    But we did have a plump family Trust that she thought was ripe for the picking.
    But after sometime it became apparent that the property that was in the Trust was not matrimonial property and hence was not available simply at her discretion to cash up.
    Of course I was deemed liable for child support from the moment she claimed to the IRD that I was.
    This original C/S assessment was based on my previous years income which was fine because I still earned about the same amount.
    Next because her lawyer encouraged conflict and told her that she would get or could get a whole lot more money from me if she applied to IRD for an admin review that’s the way she went.
    In my naive ignorants at the time before this 1st review I remember thinking to myself that this would be fine, it would be fair, why would it be anything but, it will be based on my true income.
    I could not have been further from the truth.
    I went to the review and explained my situation things with property and mortgage repayments were in some chaos and I didn’t have much income from the business I was running.
    With the encouragement of her lawyer things that had started between just the two of us peacefully were now getting a bit nasty. She was being very dishonest and this was preventing a settlement of the Trust property.

    Back to the 1st Admin review.
    The decision of the Admin review came back to me and I was absolutely devastated.
    This first review from the IRD was written in a very sinister tone.
    This review officer one Mark Miller had vilified me completely.
    Factually just about everything in the review was inaccurate and biased in my ex’s favour.
    I just could not at the time believe that I could be treated so very badly.
    Here I was down, the family life I had had was gone, I wasn’t able to see my kids as I wished along with that I was working long hours providing the money required to hold the show together paying mortgages and bills until we could reach a trust property settlement as well as paying legal fees and the current C/S.
    The decision of the 1st admin review came back to me and I’ll tell you some of what this contracted IRD review officer Mark Millar said:

    “In the present case, it is incredulous that Mr Me stated that he receives no substantial income from the companies. He is in a position to regulate his income from various sources.”
    This was of course nonsense a complete lie!
    As if there was just a limitless pool of money available to me to draw upon as I wished. This was just simply not the case I had been done over and was being given a good thrashing by a henchman of the IRD.
    I’ll quote another;

    The question has to be asked whether Mr Me has placed himself in a nil-earning financial position rather than his true earning potential in order to reduce child support liability. I am satisfied that Mr Me has in this case made a conscious decision to earn less income, though through legitimate accounting means, to reduce his child support liability and that his limited income is self-imposed.
    My blood boils! This is completely untrue.
    This has been and is the whole theme from my experience of IRD Adim Reviews.
    Review officers are required to use case law to support their decision.
    From my experience, there is case law that they just quote time and again in reviews that they have applied incorrectly. And that is according to a Lawyer it is not just my finding.
    That year this review officer assessed up my income more than $17k from what I really earned that’s gross figures.
    Regarding Mrs Me-x this is what the review officer said.
    Mrs Me-x supplied a statement of financial position indicating she has the usual outgoings and expenses.
    Her expenditures exceed income though there are areas of self-elected expenditures. She and the children can benefit from an increase in child support payments. Yea right who couldn’t benefit from having more money.
    And it goes on to say.
    With regards to Mr Me he too supplied a statement of financial position.
    This process is a balancing act etc etc.
    Well I took it all to the Family sham Court and was able to prove that my income wasn’t what it had been assessed to be.
    It was meant to be a new hearing but the judge not knowing what way to turn in order that he would be able to get my income up insisted on a copy of the IRD review even then I was able to prove that the assessment was wrong and wasn’t based on my income or fact.
    So his finding was that I had paid this C/S up to date thus far so I could continue to pay the same amount. Along with the claim that because I refused to agree to sell on the open market one of the Trust properties that my ex thought that I should, I was being irresponsible and he would punish me financially. So my assessment stayed the same on those grounds.
    That cost me $10k the (professional thug) judge J D O’Donovan ordered me to pay my ex’s legal fees.
    The review for the next year 2003 set my income which was $30,145.92 to $50k that’s $19,855.00 above my true income.
    The next review after that being 2004 halved my living allowance.
    This review officer for 2004 Kathy Riddell claimed that “his (that’s me) personal occupation of my family home, which was a trust property and the travel/vehicle benefits available to me from the business along with the fact that I had kept the current C/S payments up to date so far and the GST returns for my business had increased therefore I should have my Child Support free living allowance halved thus I loose $6,289.00 and my income assessed to be $27,026.00 above in real terms from what my true income in reality was.
    Saying “as a self-employed person he (that’s me) can elect what taxable income he will have/declare/return”. As if that is the case for anybody self-employed.
    At this point the property settlement with my ex still hasn’t taken place. They are still trying to force me to sell property.
    What has actually paid the C/S is the money I had put into a scholarship fund that was to pay for my childrens terary education the ex had cashed it in without my consent and I had managed to get half and I had used this to pay child support.
    While this is going on I am fighting to have the property that is in the family trust divided fairly we are talking court and lawyers fees.
    Finally the property settlement is arrived at.
    She gets $615,000.00 cash and two commercial buildings that gives her an income of $47k per year. This is made clear at the next review hearing.
    So under the heading “otherwise proper” this is what review Officer Stewart Benson has to say: It was “otherwise proper” to reduce any burden on Ms Thomas’ partner for supporting Mr Thomas’ children according to Mr Thomas’ capacity to pay child support. You can tell me if you have $615k cash and an income of $47k per year that you don’t have to work for. How is it that my Children are ever going to be a burden on my ex’s partner?
    For this review Stewart Benson assessed my income at more than $40k per year above what I actually earn each year for the next two years.
    The next review that this time I instigated to try and get some relieve and honestly into the system. I took along a Dictaphone so that I might record and later refer to what had been said and try to learn what I was doing so wrong.
    Wow what a reaction I got. The stupid old fart who was to do the review had a right fit. She refused to do the review sighting that it was against the laws of natural justice, I might take the recording and alter it and use it in a judicial hearing against her is what she said. As if. So that review that day never went ahead. The only way that I could have a recording of the hearing was if they recorded it. What a fuss. The hearing went ahead finally some weeks later and took half a day the longest it has ever taken. They even provided a security guard to protect me I guess that’s what he was there for.

    These are some of My Issues with Admin Reviews:

    1. Child Support is controlled by the IRD. The commissioner of IRD being the head of this government department. So I looked up in legislation what the responsibility of the Commissioner is, and this is what it says under (3).
    In collecting the taxes committed to the Commissioner’s charge, and not withstanding (which means not opposing to) anything in the Inland Revenue Acts,

    it is the duty of the commissioner to collect over time the highest net revenue that is practicable within the law having regard to-
    And so it goes on.
    So therefore it seems to me Child Support must be considered a tax and the commissioner or his employees job is to maximise collection whatever.

    1. In Admin Reviews the Objects of the act are applied or not applied according to no rules. This is what one of the objects of the Child Support Act says:

    (d) To provide that the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children is to be determined according to their capacity to provide financial support:
    That is clearly not adhered to.

    2. (f) To provide legislatively fixed standards in accordance with which the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children should be determined:
    That is not adhered to either Admin Reviews are based on arbitrary nebulous findings or review officers opinions.

    3. I have spoken to two of the politicians who were on the Child support amendment bill social services select committee neither of them had any idea at all about the Admin reviews process or legislation and I doubt that any of the others have much of a better idea. These are the deadbeat politicians who complain about the Dads that don’t pay Child Support.

    2. Admin Review Officers can say or claim anything at all in Admin Reviews it doesn’t have to be factual or true.

    4. Review officers are not accountable. IRD do not check or question any Quoted facts or figures. I have a letter from Child Support and the person says “We trust Admin Review Officers”

    5. The non-custodians Income can be assessed to be anything without so much as an explanation as to how that income has been arrived at.

    6. From my personal experience the attitude of the IRD is that non-custodian parents are the enemy and must be destroyed, abused ripped off and lied about.

    7. Take the case to court it is not a new hearing but a hearing for the judge to review the review officers decision and for him or her to find a way to come to the same financial assessment result that the review officer came too. Then have the person punished by ordering them to pay all of the other party’s legal costs.

    8. The legislation is Draconian to the extreme. IE. 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.” And I have had that quoted to me to support a decision.

    9. Penalties. If you can’t afford to pay or you slip up. You are slammed big time 10% added straight off then 2% added per month amounts to 35% for each dollar owning for the first year.

    10. There is a very very clear bias in favour of the custodian parent.

    11. No consideration for the non-custodians parents’ input or possible input to the children at all.

    12. Objects of the act are not aheard to: One of the Objects says
    (d) To provide that the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children is to be determined according to their capacity to provide financial support:

    13. (f) To provide legislatively fixed standards in accordance with which the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children should be determined:

    The only advice I can offer anyone regarding Admin Reviews is if you are a non custodian parent and you are about to have a review brace yourself you
    are about to be ripped off big time. Have the hearing taped.
    And keep your mouth shut don’t tell them anything about anything!
    There is a lot more to tell but basically —
    They are dishonest liars and cheats.
    I believe from my experience review officers (they call themselves Lawyers but like Steward Benson but he doesn’t have a practicing certificate). He is just a loser lawyer who couldn’t make it in the real world so has got himself a easy number with the IRD) rip the shit out of who ever they can. If they can cause conflict it means they will keep busy as one party will always be wanting a review. The reviews are not verified by any party so…. It is a business to them and more reviews means more money for them.

    Comment by Rasberries — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 10:47 pm

  9. Rasberries,
    OMG, what has happened to you is just terrible. I hear stories like this too often.

    How can it be in the world today that we allow these things to happen. This should not be.

    Comment by julie — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 11:35 pm

  10. This is shocking stuff! I really appreciate all your feedback, as horrifying as it is… it sounds like I’m a lost cause already. Quite frankly, I don’t have the energy to fight this and my daughter is 14 so I’ve only got another 5 years to go. And I certainly don’t see the point in spending tens of thousands in legal fees. What a bl**dy hopeless system. (Raspberries, I am speechless!

    Anyway, this Admin Review has been initiated by the mother. She’s applied under grounds 7 and 8. Apparently going to a private school is a special circumstance, as is having braces… (which I have always paid for half of but somehow that doesn’t seem to matter). Her claim with my income is that I pay my partner to run the company (income splitting) when in truth we both work in the same industry and her share of company profits is more than justified.

    My partner and I moved to Brisbane (excellent move) last year but have struggled to get work in our industry. So we actually now find ourselves back in NZ doing some short term work so we can pay the mortgage. I imagine that IRD can tell me that I should just keep working in NZ if that’s where the money is. My partner is Australian. We want our children to grow up in Oz. We don’t make a lot of money when you take into account flights and accomodation, extra phones, etc, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in my “special case” I shouldn’t be allowed to claim those as business expenses.

    My psycho ex earns at least twice what I earn, has about 6 times as much equity, and has bad teeth genes. She’s a successful writer so you can imagine how wonderful the fiction is, and she’s extremely clever and manipulative.

    Unfortunately I’ve probably done myself no favours by making an estimate for the last financial year that was too high, and not re-estimating it until Feb. I can see now that this “proves” I was capable of paying at that rate, even though we had to use my partner’s savings to pay CS.

    The only thing probably going for me is that I don’t have any fortune stashed away. Our entire equity in our house is thanks to profits my partner made before we met. So I consider that hers. I’m sure IRD will consider whatever they damn well please. I’ve also made a cross application… one, for the costs of access (flights to Oz), and two, for the fact that living in Oz and working certain periods in NZ means I’m assessed on a 15 month financial year. I had to ask them 3 times if I was hearing them right. I pointed out that if I was earning $40k between Oz and NZ, this would then be calculated up to $50k… quite a difference… didn’t care. I also pointed out the mother’s financial position (very very healthy), and I noticed that IRD must have asked her to supply a statement of financial position, I’m sure she wouldn’t have offered it on her own.

    Finally, are there ANY success stories at the Admin Review? Does the fact that I now have another baby to be responsible for come into it? Also I had wanted to record the Admin Review but I can see this just puts you on their wrong side or holds it up for weeks. The psycho ex is currently on a 2 month holiday thru Europe so she’ll be on the phone for the hearing! My child has been yanked out of her incredibly important private schooling to go overseas for 6 months. (2 months thru France and Italy – hard times at their place!).

    Well I’m getting prepared for the worst, thanks everyone.

    Comment by Gary — Sat 9th June 2007 @ 9:33 am

  11. Rasberries,

    I’m not going to read your post. NOt because I don’t empathise or sympathise with whatever it is you have said. If you are telling lies then you are telling lies for some reason that needs to be investigated because under the lies there will be a societal problem of significant proportion. It needs to be looked at and the economy will need to be altered accordingly in order to mitigate any disaffection that has occurred or in certainty would occur within a cappable future.

    Who is listening? Who is reading? Theres a few people who have visited this site recently. Who are they? How many times have you been on in the last 24 hours Jim? 150 times?

    So who is out there looking? So who is coordinating in this realm of massive injustice – the Families Commission? Wake up! The G=Families Commission just this last week proved that they were a puppet mouthpiece of the Ministry of Social Development using undue influence to restrain a qualitative report from reaching the eyes and ears of the public in a sensitive period. Come on folks WAKE UP!

    Who is gettign these reports organised? Who is getting interviews ready to go before commissioners and ministers? Who is organising the protests to say this is how we will compete with this marginalisation and disaffection of the New Zealand male: let alone the callous exploitation of his son or daughter.


    Benjamin Easton.
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 9th June 2007 @ 10:42 am

  12. “Anyway, this Admin Review has been initiated by the mother. She’s applied under grounds 7 and 8. Apparently going to a private school is a special circumstance, as is having braces… (which I have always paid for half of but somehow that doesn’t seem to matter). Her claim with my income is that I pay my partner to run the company (income splitting) when in truth we both work in the same industry and her share of company profits is more than justified.”

    Thanks. Thats relevant anything else that expresses your frustration is not.

    1)You have to use an analytical brain not the emotional one to approach this.
    Go emotional and you will get screwed.

    2)You need to go to a budget adviser and have a budget drawn up. Demeaning yes, but its important to have expert financial opinion on your budget. Admin review officers are not specialists in budgeting, budget advisor’s are. DO NOT USE IRD Supplied statement of finnancial means forms!!

    3) Did the child go to a private school before separation? Have you agreed or discussed with your ex private schooling in the past? What was the agreement?

    4)Is the need for braces purely cosmetic? You say you have paid 1/2 of the braces in the past this may be problematic. Do you have a specialist opinion (Oral surgen,..) about the need for braces.

    5) Before you met your new partner was she supporting herself?

    6) What is the cash position of the company. This is from the view that no tax deductions are allowable not using GAAP (Generally agreed accounting principles)

    You are facing a very specfic 3 fold test.

    1) Do special circunstances exist
    2) Is granting a departure order just and equitable
    3) Is granting a departure order otherwise proper

    To be successful as a respondent you must defeat the first test “special circumstances”.

    I don’t have the time to sift thru irrelevant stuff if you want assistance answer the specific question succinctly and in one comment. Or email me off list.





    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 9th June 2007 @ 12:28 pm

  13. Ben,




    P.S. Politicians know, they have been told. They do nothing.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 9th June 2007 @ 12:30 pm

  14. Thank you James,

    I tried the link but as I am in the library, websites access is limited.

    You make the significant point to Rasberries that confines the emotive into the objective. You recognise from your experience that the system operates under this condition and that for you as an active individual, prepared and dedicated to alleviate, mitigate if not overcome the problem is limited (reasonably0 by the amount of time you can or should be expected to put into the troubles of others against getting on with the job. Or, at least, that is how I recognise your answer to Rasberries.

    You have replied to me that in order to be effectively respected for the comments I have made on this issue I should look at another site and there presumably I will find in some form the kinds of answers that I seek. I reply that i will look at the site but do not accept that it will provide me with the answers for the questions that I put forward, nor do I accept your answer to Rasberries as adequately recognising the contribution of those good folk who are shepards as yet being separated from the sheep. Irrespective of my opinion above you have replied astutely directly to my challenge yet you have answered me directly with the apathy about which I complain. You say: “P.S. Politicians know, they have been told. They do nothing”.

    Today is a most important day in New Zealand’s history. Among other significant events it is the day in 2003 when our then Attorney General Margaret Wilson didn’t introduce legislation before the House of Representatives that was recorded was introduced. What was introduced was a mockery of the rights of parliament to establish legitimate (if) controls over the rights, powers and responsibilities of parents. The legislation that now reads improperly on governments offical register was introduced improperly as inconsistent with answers given to written questions that day. The separation between the answers and the questions for the anomoly of the legislation is of the most extreme nature possible in our legislation. The House are bound (or at least until that act) to protect the best interests of children. The legislation mitigated that responsibility overriding the childs’ security and protection upgrading against the provisions of the United nations Conventions on the Rights of The Child the freedom of choice for women. The act directly mitigated the responsibilities of men as parents by empowering other guardians possibly to be appointed as a suitable representative of the childs’ needs and welfare. This as I point out removed from the best interests of the child as being the primary demand of protection and promoted women as more important than the child. At its end it meant that single women and lesbian couples can have children without worrying about the bloke.

    This under our own public protections is very serious and the argument over these four years for my insecant challenge on the impropriety has raged, with me being a sole, alienated and isolated individual against the mountain of applied and (I allege) universally corrupted democracy.

    So I reply to you that I disagree, with your observation on the politicians doing nothing and reaffirm my respect for you for the efforts that you and all our other fathers put in, (not to exclude the extraordinary financial and emotional damage suffered through our history) it is not the politicians who do “nothing” it is us. We do nothing. They do what we tell them to do. if we don’t tell themn what they are to do then they don’t know what to do they just do what they want!

    Yet I would like better to be more practical about my approach to this issue and supply you with an idea about what can be done against what isn’t being done by the men’s movement.

    I will add before advancing this opinion that I have already passed this advice to others and the response predictably has been the same: the same kind of response that I tire that I hear continually.

    We: in part the fathers’ coalition have earned our rites of access to inclusion on the present review of justice that is being undertaken in this country. We: predominantly a fathers’ coalition have managed to get six cases in front of the families Commission. These cases are absolutely profound and they can cripple either major parties administration for their inactivity within the areas of injustice that have been raised in the cases. The Families Commission, reasonably is under some pressure mationally for being a puppet of government. That is because they like other Commissions have proved are like puppets of the government.

    A fathers’ coalition has achieved what it set out to do. Yet now what? Do we wait as the review of the justice system gets done around us and because there is no pressure from the mens’ movement the mens issue are not included in a review of NZ’s justice system? Do as those I have spoken to so far stay sitting down saying that the review won’t include family law issues? So I put to you again that there is something significant you, the Republicans, or anyone who is prepared to stand up and resist being marginalised in an oppression of gender can do! Make the review ours.

    The Ministry of Social Development are overviewing the review of the justice system. I have challenged them in this and had an unsatisfactory (and for excellently precise reason I will add) response. I was going to take this response to court but have decided to use the Ombudsman. I already have an issue in before the Ombudsman that is presently being looked at. My case is unique and if held at its end will rearrange the Child Support system as relevent to beneficiaries which in the end will pan out to the rest of the public. The Ombusdman most interestingly is overviewing the overview of the review of the justice system so I have two strikes at the injustice of our system entirely and individually I like my chances given I have done so much work and research in the area.

    So what can you; the men’s movement or our sympathisers do? Well you can get a crowd together on these issues. You can say “what about us in the review of justice?” You can challenge the Families Commission for being weak against teh government and not standing up for fathers where they are the only commission of advocacy for dads available. You could write to the Minister of MSD David Benson Pope and say that if the MSD reckons it leads social development in NZ (which it does) “what have you been doing in the past to promote the relationships between sons and daughters and their fathers”. And “What are you doing now if you haven’t done anything adequate in the past”? Sting them with your words. Show them the link to the shared parenting site and demand that they look at it and reply! If they don’t reply come knocking at their door. You cold write to the Ombudsman and ask the Ombudsman how dads will fare in the review of justice. If the Ombudsman say dads don’t fare in the review we can go knocking on the Ombudsman’s door. I know where there office is I’ve been there twice.

    I’m saying don’t bend over to take the cane James.


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 10th June 2007 @ 1:47 pm

  15. Benjamin,

    I hope you don’t take this the wrong way because it may come across that I am telling you what to do but it is not my intention. Just a few thoughts.

    It is good to see that you have things going on with the Family Commission. I think they and everyone else are aware males are discriminated against. I am wondering if it is about what they are doing about it because they have research up on their website, they have a chatroom where we all can go and put ideas up and discuss matters and they ARE working with men’s groups. I asked a friend/associsate to talk to his brother because I know he has lunch with him on the same day every week and i know they discuss matters like this. But, he says I can go through the same channels as everyone else. Scrap is right. They know. They have known for a long time. And they know what men have to do. Everyone that needs to know does know. (well, not everyone as there are quite a number of people out there who don’t even know about feminism that well)

    I am wondering if it is about ‘what the system can do for males,’ or if it is about ‘what males can do for males’. If males want to have maternity classes for dads, then males have to run the maternity classes. Females can’t do it. Sure they could advertise a position and males will come forward but… can they really tell a dad how to be a dad? Fathers is a difficult one but Mark Leshman has stepped up to the plate and joined a parent group to discuss ‘dad’ issues with dads. And others are doing something about it like church groups. Man Alive has a ‘Dads Alive’ program now. But then I know many men feel they are not mean’t to work in the community for they are builders and engineers and so forth. If that is the case the the marriage strike looks like a good enough solution. lol

    Anyhow, What’s up with all the groups on the father’s coalition website? Maybe if you were to ask them once every 2-3 months to write to a certain politician or a certain commission they might. Maybe asking them every few days or every week may be a bit too much for them. (but i can’t say that on their behalf for maybe they like to write alot. lol)

    Anyhow, just ideas. I am sure this has most likely been tried before.

    Comment by julie — Sun 10th June 2007 @ 7:49 pm

  16. My suggestion to all is that if you are considering going for an admin review then your time would be better pissing against parliament building. At least some satisfaction could be gained. My X issued me with a restraining order just to get me out of the house. She earns $50,000/annum and takes $1,101.00/month in child support for one child. I am employed as an Electrician for Fonterra and until recently worked part time as a housemaster for a boarding school. Although no money changed hands it was still considered income so was slogged for income tax and child support. When I left I asked for a review and was turned down as my total income did not drop x%.

    Comment by Steve Blackstock — Sun 10th June 2007 @ 10:42 pm

  17. Thank you Julie,

    No – you say what you want. You still haven’t picked up on what I have said though, where you have neither emailed me off line as you requested as a balance to qualify our communication, nor registered what you would do about the explicit injustices, researching these; so that if you visit the Families Commission couch, you would know what to talk about.

    Today is a more important day than yesterday in the history of NZ. It was the day that the records must be written back to determine if the due process of our system can be justified where a report on the Care of Children Act 2003 overrides the as accepted as faulted responsibilities of our then Attorney General Margaret Wilson who is now; our invulnerable Speaker of the House.

    The point I have just made Julie as Steve articulately (if my spelling is correct) describes, is that everyone here is thinking without effectively using the facility of thought. The groups are overlooking the fundamental problems so in order better to concentrate on their individual conditions.

    While we concentrate on our own condition the problem manifests. So I’ll ask you in reply: Do you comprehend what the fundamental problem/s might be?

    Today, I will put in my first petition to parliament. Marion Hobbs has agreed to accept it. It reads “I request: that all legislation removing the right of a son or daughter and a mother or father to association with each other be repealed”.

    After a general inquiry on the wording Tariana Turia suggested it should be the lesser value of “reviewed” and Peter Paalvast (Ngati Wikitoria) suggested the more direct and if you like truthful word of “revoked”. I chose the middle ground, not just as a compromise but as a necessity where Peter’s comprehension is hinged on colonial law, and mine determines that we negotiate our way through the indiginous issues (as determined to be) of what the Christians demand is paganism.

    In this I accept (and thank Tariana for her reply) that her reply is the option that is most certainly the option that would receive an affirmative response from parliament, yet given what it is that is presently and fundamentally being protected chose to take the middle ground and from there determine the new direction.

    Now, for the moment I figure that just went right over your head. That is my point in reply to you. Stop tinking get a crowd. Do children need their fathers’ – of course they do!

    On a sub note, I have collected only 142 signatures. This does not include those from the two boards that were stolen, one from my hands as I took signatures and another from an office where the response was extremely popular. The signatures were collected in a very short period, where the discussions were comprehensive and the wording accepted. I didn’t need to pursue more signatures and waste any more energy than necessary because a petition (of this kind) can be lodged with one signature and: as Steve points out, the word yes or no is determined before the thing arrives, having little to do with the number supporting it.

    The wording does not cover the fundamental problems with quite enough specification for my liking yet it is certainly close enough for the experiences I can relate against for the moment. Yet the wording opens the door – front or back – which ever the mens’ movement could chose to use.

    Kind regards

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 11:11 am

  18. I have read all this with some interest as my husband and I have shared care of his son. We pay 3 times as much in child support as the psycho ex pays to us, for the same child. We were thinking of going to the reviewer as we find it totally abhorrant that not only do we pay “full price” for everything, full mortgage, half the school fees etc, etc. Because she is on the DPB we have to subsdise her benefits. So, she gets a v. cheap state house, subsidies on child care, the govt pays for her to study and so on and so on…
    Where is the fairness in that? We have spoken to Child Support who have basically agreed with us that it is not right, but our only option would be to go to the reveiwer. Now that I have read what everyone is saying, it looks like we just have to sit back and shut up. We can only hope that the psycho ex decides to actually work when she finishes studying. Yeh right… we won’t hold our breath.
    It really is time that there was some kind of shake up in the system to put a stop to this.

    Comment by Pomcat — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 2:25 pm

  19. Pomcat,

    Go to your MP. Write e-mails to politicians. They don’t hear this stuff enough from people just like you. They hear what the feminists want them to or whoever else wants to use them so that they follow an agenda.

    Just today I was speaking to a friend (not associate) who is an old school feminist. She couldn’t give a toss about this anymore (another changer from Labor) but she told me there were few when she started and at about my age. She told me that she would listen to politicians and held them in the same regard as I did. That they were supposed to smarter and more onto the countries problems. Then a man turned around and said to her, “Don’t you know that these people are politicians because they couldn’t make it in the world on their own. That they can’t get normal jobs like everyone else.” Politicians are below us. They are mean’t to serve us.
    (Scrap not included)

    They don’t know what to do because we are not telling them. We are not telling them what they NEED to hear. This is the only way you are going to change your situation. The ex will not change it for you and neither will IRD.

    Comment by julie — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 3:35 pm

  20. Pomcat,

    as happened for me and uncountable others arriving at the men’s advocacy group some years ago, recognising for the experiences that the injustices are beyond comprehension you recite the same dialogue. Some of us do more than others to react but in general the effect of the injustice fades the individual away into one form of submission or another. Some men kill themselves or others as a response. The road is pretty hard. If you have been reading with interest then I hope you have picked up what I am saying which is that the disaffected community of separating parents has allowed the adversity to swamp it into ineffective resolution. There are answers that can be extracted from the problem but they need resolution from those who say they are experienced in challenging the problem. Everyone, yourself included needs to directly challenge parliament for how we are being treated. I suggest a crowd is formed and that is what should happen, whether over the Internet or on the street but a crowd should be formed. If you have a complaint take it directly to either the Ministry of Social Development and say “you are not leading social development when this damage is done to the citizenship!” Or to the Families Commission and say “what are you doing about this! Sting the Ombudsman with a tirade and say “how can this be?” But if you sit on the couch or figure that writing a few words over this website will cut it as your protest, you might as well recognise you are living in a dream pretending that you have control over the remote. I mean no disrespect I just believe that now is the time for everyone to advance in numbers. Watching does nothing but exasperate the problem.


    Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 3:41 pm

  21. Benjamin,
    You got my e-mail (finally). I don’t know what was up with that because I was receiving e-mails saying you could not be contacted. Maybe your ‘inbox’ was full.

    I don’t want to get into a discussion about things with you. I find it hard to keep up with you and I will have to use my dictionary to look up words you use. I do that enough with other guys. I am just a plain, simple female. lol

    Males having equal rights as females in law and being treated as human beings sounds good enough to me.

    Comment by julie — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 3:48 pm

  22. Hi Ben,
    This was in my post and is the law. I wondered what you throught of it? And what you think should be done about it? (In plain lauguage please.)
    8. The legislation (CS) is Draconian to the extreme. IE. 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.” And I have had that quoted to me to support a decision.

    Comment by Rasberries — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 3:55 pm

  23. Rasberries,

    Scrap the CSA is the person who you need to talk with. Benjamin is a leader for something else.

    Scrap’s group is the one that you may have seen on the TV and such disputing the child support act against the government officials.

    Also Gary, dont’ hesitate for one minute to take Scraps offer. He is the best you will ever get. You are fortunate.

    Comment by julie — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 4:02 pm

  24. Oh Damn, had to come back. regarding #19, I also include Dave and Bevan when I say excluded from politicians that cannot make it in the world. You guys are the greatest. Keep up the great work you are doing.

    Comment by julie — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 4:41 pm

  25. Julie,

    The presumption that equality is the achievable goal is the greatest travesty of our modern time. Women should have looked for equity and not equality. Homosexuals should have looked for equity and not equality. The’ve stuffed up their own causes by championing the wrong goal.

    Rasberries, at most junctures in social law there will be an area at its foundation where the public is at the mercy of “good will” and “reasonable behaviour”. The pulling of the plug on an oxygen machine just recently shows where this simple acceptance of compassionate human nature if not effectively administered can dive into a very steep decline in subjective chaos.

    This implies that a legislative remedial reply to your observation won’t exist until someone inadvertantly pops the plug on Child Support in some way that the media will respond because they have no choice. Hopefully this isn’t necessary and the shock waves from Mangere are strong enough to reverberate through every SOE. Guys have been reacting badly to these conditions in CS for some many years but the emphasis has not yet ever been strong enough to demand from government (or the fourth estate – being the media) that alternative measures are an immediate necessity. Politicians will read this reply, yet they will not see the need to fully consult with the dads who are worst hit by any changes or have been damaged from the post carnage. Bureaucrats tend to just champion on as duly elected representatives of the public interest and so continue to exploit that interest.

    However, try this: There is an instrument you can use in the wider case that directly competes with the decisions of the Commissioner if you are not happy with them.

    The first part if you follow what I say will confuse you a bit but go to:(s.7) the NZ Bill of Rights. Don’t get tied up with s.4 or s.5 they are the responsibility of those replying to your challenge. Wait for those replies to come back before figuring out how to deal with them.

    The Child Support Act is an unlawful discrimination against parenting, or more specifically having or not having the care of your children. This is under s.21 (l) (i) (ii) of the Human Rights Act. This information doesn’t at this stage give you an instrument of negation against the Child Support Act but it is a largely an untested impliment that directly competes with the power of the Commissioner under such conditions. This is to say; that if any Commissioner is being unreasonable then they would (s.6 BORA) under an interpretation that is consistent with the BORA describe why it is a justifiable limitation.

    I doubt there is much case law in this area yet suggest you look it up as it is certainly a defence. Even if only to get your mind working in the area of challenging back against primitive injustices. Have a read and then get back to me if it suits.


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 4:44 pm

  26. Benjamin,
    I am not into this feminist and masculinist war. I wonder if half the time people in general know what they want.

    You forget that I have been down this track regarding CS. I have had 2 write ups in the local paper and one that went front page as well as holding 2 groups in my area and one in South Auckland (also in the paper, that IRD turned up for.) Also had the events on the radio stations by being a community event for our trust. AND also have a whole CD full of court cases. AND bought the CSA Act from Unitec. But still I don’t know help people through. You don’t know how I had females phoning me against their men.

    In the end I went to the council because I felt that I could not take 2 sides. What if I was to help a male and then the female asked for help? How could I be 2 faced on the problem.

    I don’t care about what feminists or gays want or what they should have done or what they shouldn’t have done.

    Feminists want the impossible. Their wants don’t fit into economics. They are not thinking sensibly. They can’t have it their way so they say that it is a man’s world. They are idiots. It is not the man’s world that they have a grudge with. It is normal business. Supply and demand.

    You getting to Tariana Turia makes me jealous. lol. She hasn’t yet responded to me. I like her but then I pretty much like everyone.

    Comment by julie — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 6:12 pm

  27. Again you have missed the point, excusing your political adventure as justification enough to separate oneself from the real problem. I commend you for your efforts and I thought I was reading James Nichole not a woman until the smiley face cam in and the lol. 🙂 I’m long long past laughing now.

    The point I have made above is that I fundamentally agree with you, yet the issue you have accepted as reasonable is that once an achievement has been accorded it is time to resurrect the principle of direction as if everyone comprehends what has been done and there are laurels on which to be rested. This isn’t true. Good for you for your achievements but what have you done with them? In my opinion you have accepted your mana as a given and that is where you can stop thinking (this is what I call tinking) putting your energy into the maintenance of your new found confidence.

    What I have written is not about the subjective. What I have provided is the objective instruments by which to remove the bastions of oppression. James has replied quantifying my reply seemingly having excused himself from writing in reply to the facts. This is exactly how politicians disengauge themselves from the truth. Some things are just too hard. The facts are (1) The CS Act is directly inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and thereby an unlawful discrimination. (2) This gives challengers of the CSA an instrument to use that has not been used before. (3) You say you have been down this track before but I have not yet read any case law oon this challenge. (4) The Bill of Rights once proved is preferred to any other argument as long as it is directly consistent with the Bill of Rights. (5) The Care of Children Bill was introduced improperly and this miustake has extraordinary implications on acting government as welll as hisorical practice. (6) The present administrators in the mens’ movement are aware of these points unless they cannot read and they choose to ignore them. (7) This pattern of ignorance is recognisable for the lack of campaigners on the ground floor and for whatever reason it is leading us into a state of popular decline. (8) People who fight back are the ones who are noticed. (9) people who go to ground do not have the capacity to stand. (10) The gender issue is the fundamental base of power in this nation with gender practices establishing the guiding principles of social protocol. (11) Homosexuals have commondered this condition and champion for equality under the same misguidance of exercising claims in equality where equity is the only logical (and legal / see Crimes Act 61 I think s.25 Ignorance of law no excuse) ground for such demand.

    Let’s get back to the principle that Jim complains about with the way you as a woman would determine a campaign against women challenging men and explore the value of what he has said against the value of your defence. It is the same with Judy Turner where she presently is the mans’ champion in parliament. She does this, as you have written so do you successfully because you have no reason to be afraid of women. You cannot possibly be a victim of such violence as it is a physical impossibility given your hetrosexuality. There is no reason for you to preserve your function because you are in a different camp. You prove this saying the gender war does not effect you. Women are no longer under attack, under point (10) men and the way they have run the show is under attack enshrining point (11). Good for you Julie, I commend you: all power to your pen. Jim says don’t do the men’s stuff. The sad part is that htere aren’t many men out here doing that stuff. Jim has every right to criticise you where he champions along alone without recognising that his point should be less to criticise you but acknowledge you and Judy for what you do and more to advise men if not challenge them as I am doing that they are nowhere to be seen.

    If you look at the points of what I write and consider them carefully you will see how I have indicated to the mens’ movement that it is not functioning as it needs to function. You put my brothers to shame: good for you, I hope you and Judy keep it up where any challenge at themoment is most necessary. The points as facts nstruments that exist that get down to the primary principles of the democracy. They say “who is the boss and why is this true”. The answer being that women have babies and this cannot be excused. The legislation protects this function because we have to protect our children and if we do not protect our children to what they are naturally entitled we hurt them. If we hurt our children we hurt ourselves. If the homosexual lobby group sees a weakness in this and takes advantage as it has been proved has happened under point (5) We then r our children.

    Don’t ignore the gender issue Julie. If you ignore it and your role in it then it is empowered for such the weakness.

    respectfully and kind regards,

    Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 10:58 am

  28. Ben,

    Giving a sermon everytime someone subjective view of the world is different to your subjective does not engender support.

    Objectively the CS Act does not in itself discrimate based on gender.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 1:14 pm

  29. true Scrap… the keyword being “objectively”… but realistically??…..

    Comment by starr — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 2:33 pm

  30. Julie,
    No disrespect but we have a government “not of good standing”. I have written countless letters to MP’s of most parties including emails voicing my concerns. It appears my email address has now been blocked, however, the bottom line was spelt by Peter Dunne who made it quiet plain that no forseeable changes will be made to the Child Support Act. When I drew his attention to the sweeping changes made to the Child Support Act in Australia his comment was less than an acknowledgement. A copy of the editorial written by John Caldwell (Senior Law Lecturer at Canterbury University) was also emailed to a number of politicians but was held with contempt.
    This government must go. History proves that when you oppress a minority long enough blood will spill into the streets. Somebody will get hurt.

    Comment by Steve — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 5:40 pm

  31. Steve, I have walked with many parents their child support “nightmare”. I understand the oppression and the frustration when faced with impotent political shape shifters like Puppet Master Michael and Mr Worm his preforming minister responsible for child support. But violence is not the answer, direct action yes, violence no.

    Counting down to 2008!!!!!

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 8:11 pm

  32. Steve,
    whatever Scrap_The_CSA says is TRUTH. He and Mark are the absolute best there is. There is no-one who knows more.

    And this goes for everyone else. There is no-one else to put your concerns forward. These guys have been professional about this for the last 6-7 years. They are right up there with the politicians who are relying on the owed money to pay for the baby-boomers retirement or whatever else they have an agenda for. And we are talking about billions of dollars that the government is relying on.

    This movement is only beginning. But please don’t think that your support is not important. Please don’t think that someone else will fix this for you. There is no magic wand. This game is people power. It is a major wall to break. It must be done as a team effort.

    Comment by julie — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 9:09 pm

  33. Benjamin,

    I can’t answer you on Jim B’s site because he is only allowing what is in his interest. I guess he is paying me back. lol

    I am not talking as a man because I can’t. I can only talk from me and I am a woman. (trust me)

    He must know that he baits me by bringing Man Alive into the equation. You need to understand that the males who are working towards men’s rights the way you do not like have been in my life for 4 years. You and Jim have only been in my life for 1 year and i don’t even know you. I don’t have to put a good word in for them. You will see what they are doing soon enough.

    Comment by julie — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 11:02 pm

  34. James you isolate my missives differentiating between objectivity and subjectivity. If you were right then your opinion would be valuable and superior to mine. The freedom of speech would be the rule of thumb and we could all be moderately happy living in our respective conundrums knowing that we have some form of relative compassionate support. Yet you are not right because you have not comprehended what is being said. You stop thinking objectively I presume at the point you arrive at something which is alien. If my words came from a judge you would be bound to listen. In the interim you are content with your description and interpretation of the law. Read John Armstrong today. He delicately touches the raw nerve of bureaucratic society when referring to the Bill of Rights. I could email him back and challenge him for what he knows that he and those other hard liners are not really telling every one.

    You and I can say this with absolute confidence do not have a functional handle on the law. You see what is in front of you, and what you read, yet if you are to step up to the politicians, let’s say you become an elected politician the difference from what you think now to be real to what is real will have you flummoxed. You would join there crowd where they sit in silence when confronted with an issue too hard. I have challenged you and said the stuff I write is too hard so you stop thinking about it and ignore it: you have replied saying that the CS Act does not discriminate against gender. I never said it did. I said it unlawfully discriminates against having or not having the care of children: HRA s.21 (l) (i) (ii). Read it.

    Then reply. – cheers,

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 10:08 am

  35. Julie,

    as I remember I wrote that you were acting “like a man telling a woman what she needs”. This is diffenret from thinking that I am saying you are acting as a man. I agree you are not a man.


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 10:11 am

  36. Ben,

    Your post 35 is another sermon.

    Engaging with you is pointless as the moment you are challenged, you engage in personal attack. Thats your way Ben, throw the toys out the cot and attack the messenger not the message.

    Its repeated behaviour in all your comments.

    When you attack the man you have lost the debate Ben.Thank you.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 11:04 am

  37. I didn’t attack you – again you have missed what was said and again you separate yourself from the request. I think your clever. I admire you for standing among a crowd but your standing in the wrong place. You should be standing at the front. Read the NZ BORA is what I have asked and then reply. Look at the word “discrimination” and then – if you so decide to get that far read what I have said again James. Read what I have said and nnot how it makes you feel.

    Most respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 11:10 am

  38. Ben,

    Not only do you attack me (Prevvious comment) you presume to understand how I think and feel.

    Good luck with your BORA approach, when it succeeds get back to me.

    I would suggest that you read the Crown Law Opinions to Parliament on BORA and the CSA.

    I will not engage any further with you.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 12:25 pm

  39. I have spoken directly with a Crown lawyer about the problem of Crown submissions to Bills, most particularly on the Care of Children Bill. The advice from Crown Law to what is accepted by government is not something that is accessible through ordinary means and I haven’t advanced this into the Official Informations Act.

    You have missed my point yet again. The reason I am on this site and writing is because the BORA argument has succeeded. All I need now is for people like yourself to recognise it. Bevan is aware of exactly what I am saying and his last post is digging into the edges rather than going into the core. Who is representing the public and general interest if not Peter Dunne and Michael Cullen and how far will those individuals commit themselves to prtect that interest if they are not paid so to do?


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 1:07 pm

  40. Benjamin,

    I know what my lesson is regarding Jim. I know what the problem is. There is a devide between males in this country and on what is the best solution. There are also males that have been in the men’s movement (if there ever was one this long) going back 20 years. Some have been in it since they were 19 and early 20’s. Some of these guys are in positions of power now and are working with the system which is the problem in other males eyes. Both sides agree there are problems with the system but both sides don’t agree on how it should be dealt with. Thus they don’t work together. My attack on Jim has not only come from myself but from 2 discussions and one growling I have received for my own safety. And not from males here.

    The males that you want to protest against are not going to take it lying down. It is not in their nature. I wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of them myself. Some or maybe many males are willing to discuss matters in a rational way and offer this. Whether Jim is right (and you may be thinking along the same lines), “It is beyond discussion” is something I don’t know.

    All I have been told is that the problem with the Men’s Movement is that they are not organised. And until they get organised nothing is going to happen. And no-one is expecting it to get organised anytime soon. Whether it be that protesting is the answer needs to be fully understood. Because while the protesting goes on the men’s groups that are working with the system do not get funded. This has happened with the last protest and Jim knows this.

    And by my not backing Jim’s way, I am looking to be the enemy. A femi-fascist.I don’t know who to back but I do know that I am not going to go down and i am not prepared to lose anything else over this. I have already fought the system for 9 years. I didn’t go about it in a very good way at times and so I have to take responsibility for the part I played.

    Am I RIGHT??????

    Comment by julie — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 1:13 pm

  41. Like I replied off site Julie, I think you are doing too much work tinking too much. I’m not quite sure what I would be agreeing to if replying yes. I think you have Jim’s respect as I know Jim anyway. He pushes hard against walls, good on him if not for folk like him the walls would just get bigger and bigger. And from what you say – you the same. In the 9 years you describe youself pushing at walls the difference from Jim (as from most others) is that you are more the conformist. He conforms yet demands reasonable answers to reasonable questions – even when he doesn’t get them. Which, surely, is fair enough?

    Try what I have suggested in the Kiwisaver. Write to say??? Mark Burton the Minister of Justice. Ask him if a child is not protected to an association with their mother and father by the NZ BORA 90 s.17. Ask him if the legislation under s7 requiring a report on the DVA Bill was a requirement where you have read that there was no such report written. See what he says and I will interpret the reply for you. Push him in “urgency” if you want. Give him a hurry up by asking the questions under the Official Informations Act 82.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 4:26 pm

  42. Star,

    In reality the CSA applies equally to male or female liable parent.

    In reality the overwhelming number of liable parents are dads.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 9:00 pm

  43. P.S. Its mostly dads who are in debt.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 9:01 pm

  44. IRD seem to think it’s fit and proper to force me to pay the mother of my children $650 per month for the upkeep of our daughter. This would be fine if there was only one child from the relationship. There are in fact 3, two of which are in my custody and both still at school. I have had 2 admin reviews done on her so far and submitted receipts, bills, bank statements etc to try and prove to them that I am actually earning $500 less per month than I need to pay for the basics. I cant afford to pay for my custodial childrens school fees, clothes, shoes etc and am forced to borrow $500 off my mother each month to help make ends meet. Meanwhile she works part time and hides her other 2 incomes under the table. I have given up on the idea of getting a fair hearing from IRD. They seem convinced that I am in fact very comfortable even though I have given these retards heaps of documentation which proves that I am in fact in dire financial straits. Why is all their focus on the upkeep of my daughter with no condideration whatsoever given to my ability to provide for the 2 children in my care. I am at my wits end here. Please, if anyone knows of a way I can get justice let me know. I’ve tried my MP but to no avail. I have heard that the Family Court may be able to intervene somehow although IRD have tried to put me off this. Please help!!

    Comment by Tony — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 10:52 pm

  45. Toni,
    If you are in Auckland, Paul Catton could be a good choice. East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families (09)940 6236 I know of a lady in the Salvation Army who is helping a friend of mine with a bill for 5 years child support for when he had the only child. She, over Christmas went on the DPB again while she had the child for a week and the father is having to pay for child support again. She had gone on the DPB for the 5 years he is being charged also.

    IRD are recognising this but the way their system works he isn’t getting anywhere. He says he is having an overseas holiday when they pay the money back to him because it didn’t go to her.

    Your are right about the MP’s not doing anything but at least they are receiving complaints. I received 2 e-mails, one from Sue Bradford and one from Peter Dunne but neither want to do anything. He is going to MP Lyn Pillay next.

    Another idea would be (if you are out of Auckland) to contact advocates.

    Contact Family First,
    Birthright who have offices all over NZ.

    Speak to CAB, Salvation Army and even send me your accurate details and I will send letters on your behalf through our group. [email protected]

    It all helps. You shouldn’t have to live the way your are. Everyone needs to hear about this. Also send an e-mail to the Ombudsman because that is what they are there for.

    Comment by julie — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 8:08 am

  46. Tony you will be in the same position as countless others. The rules have been set. They are concretised under the principles as it is operated by of our democratic system. Paul as Julie suggests is an excellent assitance to people and within his ability would charitably help any person to whatever end he could. Yet what is before you is the system not the compassion necessary to discover a better solution. The system is about numbers budgets and their relative statistics.

    The thing now that is differnet is that there are different instruments available that can be used to change this system, yet what it requires is the diligence of those who would ordinarily support to recognise that the problem is bigger than the system’s solutions. These people would need to recognise that if they are better to effect the support of the people for whom they declare they champion they would need to exercise with different instruments from those which they are familiar. As you may have read in my exchange with Scrap / James, that there is a definate reluctance to entertain the use of different instruments. The advice you will receive from the individuals on this site will be experienced and knowledgable. These champions from the men’s support movement will give you assistance to butt up against the wall with as good an argument as you can muster and if you go no further then it islikely that you simply do not have an argument (or you wield a disposition) that can compete with any order limiting any relevant condition in your circumstances.

    So, if at any stage you either lose confidence or lose hope, I would assk you to take a little time over the Internet. Type “statutes NZ” on Google and go to our legislation. Go to “h” and the Human Rights Act. Go to s.21 unlawful discrimination. Find (l) (i) and (ii). Read it. Consider if it is unlawful discrimination to take child support on the grounds that you have or do not have the care of children. Make a decision. In the statutes go to s.3 and then s,19 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

    Now stop at this point and figure if the base weight of your thinking from what you have read is in your favour.

    Before you talk to anyone else consider from your case those points where you feel you are being unfairly treated. Spend some time on this. Be very careful not to let how you feel or your anger overpower you which is obviously given the nature of the issue very easy to have happen. If you work best by writing which I advise, write down these points. Refine them. Be fair as you interpret the word fair.

    In order to reach a place where you would have any effect from how you advance you will have to have balanced your points against those replies from any previous admin reviews.

    Now I ask you to make a choice of two options. (1) Write to whomever you believe is influential in the bureaucracy in respect of your case and ask them a question. Ask them how it is a justifiable limitation to expose you and your children to the adverse conditions that you do not think are fair. Option 2 is to do the same to the lawyer you have been using. Ask the lawyer if how the government can justify removing this proportion of child support where these unfair conditions exist.

    Remeber at all times that because of the existance of s.21 (l) (i) (ii) it is presumed that you are right. The onus is on the administration to prove otherwise.

    Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 10:10 am

  47. Benjamin,

    I have the day off today because my youngest son has exams and I have to pick him up early. So, I am wanting to do more than tinking. If you are still on, give me something and I will use the groups on the Father’s Coalition site and other groups that should know. But please make it something worthwhile as you know how tiring it is to write to each politicain individually.

    Comment by julie — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 10:25 am

  48. I have made a request in response to what you have claimed you can do, with one specific task in order to self inflict a challenge on what I am saying.

    On July 1st 2001 I stood in the parliamentary gallery and declared (for the trespass order that was later to follow) an emergency. I know what the emergency is and am able to describe it. The courts won’t let me describe it because it is too real for their ability to trump against it. If you want to assist to sort this problemout Julie, you should write the letter. If its not the kind of letter you figure you want to step up to then reread my last post.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 10:38 am

  49. I thank you all again for your responses. They are overwhelming. I admire the strength some of you have in your ongoing battles. And I really can’t believe the injustices when it comes to the CSA. I hate to admit it but I honestly do not have the energy or the money to spend the next 5 years of my life fighting this battle. (Saying that, I may be forced to if Psycho Ex won’t let it go). But it is unfair on my new baby and partner and in the end we’ll just have to suffer the consequences and move on. I certainly feel obligated to write to MPs and the Ombudsman when I get the time, and if I ever feel the passion or have the strength again I will join “someone’s” campaign.

    There is a much bigger picture here than I ever realised and I agree there is a fight that has to be fought. At the same time however, I’m going to have to try to earn the living that the Admin Review will tell me I’m capable of earning. And of course I want to actually spend time raising my family. I assume that this kind of attitude is exactly how this utterly corrupt system gets away with it… most Dads know they’re screwed (or find out pretty quickly) and it becomes obvious that if you want to keep fighting, it’s going to cost far more money than if you just did what you were told. There’s always a child involved (obviously) so many many fathers would actually decide to cop the loss and try to get as much time with their child as possible.

    Can anyone tell me what the overhaul of the Child Support system in Australia involved? I know that their formula assessment includes how much the custodial parent (and partner?) earn and have. Seems much fairer.

    My Admin Review progress report… just had my hearing postponed, which isn’t a bad thing as I’ll be able to get my Tax Return done and should be far more prepared. I will also get time to possibly contact some of the names mentioned here.

    Can I propose that we set up another discussion that specifically deals with Admin Review advice. I bet there’s heaps of father’s who do what I did (google search) and just need to be warned and advised accordingly. It’s very important to know that you’re probably screwed. My problem (and I bet most other Dad’s) is that I assume an Admin Review will be fine because justice will be done. This must be a distorted perception from watching shows like Chips and The A Team. But we should try not to bombard all us naive innocents with discussions on changing policies, dark underbellies of society or discussing complicated legislation. I’m not suggesting we don’t slowly open the eyes of these people. (I have been glued to everything you all say). But in all honesty, marching on parliament and spending the next 5 years of my life fighting exhausting legal battles is not gonna be what my family want to hear about. Again, let me emphasise that those of you who are standing up and fighting are to be thoroughly commended and I hope they name mountain passes after you. It will take people like you to make changes. And maybe people like me can just pitch in when we’re able.

    Once again tho, sincerely thanking you all for your responses.

    Comment by Gary — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 11:42 am

  50. Bravo Gary,

    you speak for fatherhood! If it weren’t for you there would be no point in those of us who would fight, fighting.

    I cannot answer your questions about Child Support in Australia as nor could I answer them about New Zealand. Child Support is the secondary concern for those of us who would take the battle to the front. The argument is not about money. It is about how those who handle the authority treat fathers after a separation. They care about money.

    All the very best,

    Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 11:53 am

  51. I agree entirely Ben, the fact that it’s only about money to the state seems to be the fundamental problem. I’m sure you’ve quoted it up above but isn’t it something like… the Commissioner of IRD’s main objective is to get as much revenue as possible. Hardly a great way to run a country. What I don’t understand is the IRD attitude to the payments from Non Custodial parents to Custodial parents who aren’t receiving any benefit. How does that affect the IRD? Why do they feel so compelled to screw the father financially? They don’t get any of it themselves. Altho surely if the Admin Review decides that I income split and claim expenses I’m not entitled to, SURELY the IRD will need to investigate my company and take everything they’re entitled to. Or would that not work because I’m allowed a lawyer then? Would that not work because the IRD would need evidence to support it’s charges? Is it just a one-size-fits-all mentality? Why is no legal representation allowed at an Admin Review hearing (particularly when you’re about to have significant financial interference, particularly when you’re getting accused of all sorts of tax evasion – otherwise known as extortion)? How on Earth do they justify the fact that the Commissioner doesn’t actually need any evidence when making a decision? These all point to something quite sinister but I don’t think I’m yet prepared to believe it. I feel like I’m still too influenced by tv in the 80s! What exactly is in it for the IRD?


    Comment by Gary — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 12:18 pm

  52. Gary,

    To maximise its income, IRD would ideally like to place “earnings quotas” on all of us. These quotas would be set a little above our demonstrated earning power, in order to incentivise us to work harder and smarter. Exactly like companies do when they set a sales quota for their sales-people, then raise it the following year once the quota has been met.

    Separated fathers can be easily manipulated to conform to this system, as the gross violation of civil rights that it involves can be effectively ignored by the machinery that keeps Child Support in motion.

    The last thing IRD wants is people who are content to live on a small income, and happily do without many of the products and services that are now considered ‘essential’.

    The State is waging war on our right to live a lifestyle of our own choosing by laying claim to ownership of our labour.

    Comment by Rob Case — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 12:55 pm

  53. There is an International movement for men’s rights and the best site that I know about is

    I think we as a group did not realise how important they were going to be for us to move forward. Someone should have shut me up when I challenged us being in the MRA. lol

    (Intrepid, if you are out there please come back.)

    There was a male writer who had great information on how to get around the Child Support but without being less of a father or paying what is fair. What happened to that writer?

    Scrap, we really need to get something together on this site. John is back now.

    Comment by julie — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 1:35 pm

  54. Julie,

    I dont waste my time any more providing information to people who just want there situation fixed and wont work for real change to CS.

    Child Support is very primary for the 700-750,000 kiwis that are directly impacted by it.An impacted number that far exceeds the FC,CYP,DV impact. Objectively, in most cases, the court crap goes away but the CS lingers till your youngest is 19.

    The matrix of Family law will never change till the issue of support of children post seperation is resolved. It is about the money – and the politics behind the money.
    Making it a gender war will not solve the issue but thats what happens when, people incorrectly define a problem and read symptoms as causes. This site is full of people who see a symptom and think its a cause and suddenly Don Quotixe is tilting at windmills with no change obtained.

    When faced with a problem in a complex interrelated system (Family Law Matrix) it is frequent for those affected to see the problem only as symptoms that affect them.This then in the case of many men incorrectly defining the symptom as the problem and thus ending up in a gender centric position. e.g Its all about dads rights.

    Same happens to women and thats why you have the current DV model that sees violence as soley caused by men. They see a symptom and think they have the cause.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 2:47 pm

  55. Scrap, I am for you and I just love Mark. So does our group. Our darling chairperson (he is player but like a younger brother to me) has been roped into believing the Duluth method. His own journey .. but us women do challenge him because we don’t have to fall for that crap. He has to think of himself too because that is what we are about.

    He works for, can’t think of her name off hand but she is postered up in libraries and is on Odyssey House’s Trust Board (I am sure but not 100%) and is working against family violence. You know her. She is our top NZ designer. Name on the top of my tongue but can’t say it. Face even there. But…

    I understand where you are coming from. I am all for what you are doing. I only wish you or Bevan could be the leader. Or even Jim because I have my own personal problem with Kerry. I don’t like him. So when it comes time I will back for a seat in the area rather than a seat in the house.

    Comment by julie — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 3:38 pm

  56. Cause? Symptom?

    Cause: parents split up and the state has an obligation to provide for the children.

    Symptom $ pressure on families after separation.

    Cause: Government policy or lack of.
    Symptom: Breaking down families.

    Remedy: deals with the symptom.
    Cure: challenges the cause.

    The respondents to my allegations as yet have not factored responsible replies to the NZ Bill of Rights and its impact on EVERY single piece of legislation, nor less recognised for opening the statute that s.7 is the primary protection for any citizen under any area of unlawful discrimination to which all cited legislation by James is a host.

    Theory, stratergy and tactics, as is causal intrusion before the disaffecting symptomatic complaint a question of priority. This is not a competition. It is an issue of fixing the problem. Concentrating on a symptom of the primary problem will not protect the nations children. In teh case of Child Support it will protect someones wallet.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 4:02 pm

  57. Benjamin. check out and all the right political site. The socialists/left are being challenged. I am sorry, but I need to understand you before I can follow you.

    Comment by julie — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 5:53 pm

  58. The library does not permit the link to the site so I won’t be able to look at it until the week.

    But you miss what I am saying constantly Julie. I don’t want you to follow me. I want you to comprehend what I am saying and if you have the commitment that you profess then concentrate on it. To say that you need to be led is like recognising you are walking in the dark. The information I suggested you send on in question to Mark Burton and later to the Prime Minister is really very simple. It is about challenging the injustice by concentratin on what the injustice really is. You won’t need to follow me, you’re waiting on Bevan.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 16th June 2007 @ 1:40 pm

  59. I am very interested in this thread as I am also in the throws of my first administrative review. For 6 years my sons father has paid around $$40 – $50 pw child support, immediately getting it dropped when he changed jobs and was paid cash under the table etc. During the last 18 months he had been in a job that he described as receiving the best money he had ever earned. Hence, I anticipated the child suport increasing slightly. Low and behold when I received a notice and it had reduced to $25 per week I nearly fell off my chair ! Upon enquiry with IRD, I discovered, he had declared his new partner and her 3 children as dependants. They had recently purchased a home together of around $800,000 , she is finacially independant has a very good income from self employment and an ex partner who supports generously both financially and time wise etc. The formula for child support assessment does not include her income, yet it includes an allowance for her and 3 children !!!! I dont know why most men dont take this up ? For the record, I have never received a DPB, I have worked in a professional environment all my life. As a single parent I do not rely on child support, I could not afford to given my ex’s attitude.
    Compounded with this is he now wants more access, after 6 years of being a bachelor and taking almost no interest in his son, he now wants to be a father and would like 50/50 shared custody !
    Problem is, its all about him not our son.

    Comment by Tash — Tue 19th June 2007 @ 4:13 pm

  60. Tash,
    First thing that comes to mind is what wrong with him wanting 50/50 shared custody.. You should be grateful at his interest at wanting to take a greater part in your sons life..
    But on your other question.. Admin Review, I can only assume you have applied for the review under grounds 8.
    As for his change in living allowance, this may not be totally his fault as the forms that you HAVE to fill out are very generic for change in circumstance and do not take into account the partners income or how they support them selves. So to this affect if the partner is deemed self supporting (income above the dole) during a Admin review they deemed to be able to support themselves and at least the living allowance will be changed to Single, so you will be back to the amount you were being paid. As for his general income, it is anyones guess. There are many ways to hide income and not declare your true taxable income some are legal some are illegal. Trusts, LQAC etc are methods to reduce and limit taxable income while still being honest. The Admin review process will not touch a Trust and this is normally up to the family courts if you take it that far as IRD do not have jurisdiction over them. If he owns or runs a company this is a different story and IRD will look at those financial reports unless he is in OZ etc as they only have rights to personal income from OZ as an example.

    Comment by SNMP — Tue 19th June 2007 @ 7:19 pm

  61. SMNP

    So to this affect if the partner is deemed self supporting (income above the dole) during a Admin review they deemed to be able to support themselves and at least the living allowance will be changed to Single, so you will be back to the amount you were being paid.

    Maybe not. There is a growing body of case law that holds this situation is not a special circumstance.

    The Admin review process will not touch a Trust and this is normally up to the family courts if you take it that far as IRD do not have jurisdiction over them


    Changes to the Act give IRD the power to to create a departure order that targets any structure that they believe is used to minimize income or create an asset base at the expense of income in the hand.

    However such a review could only be initiated by IRD and from the ones I have seen they are targeting paying parents where the receiving parent is on the benefit. They are being very ruthless!


    I don’t understand why if you are not in receipt of a benefit you would bother with collecting child support via IRD?

    Why don’t you talk with him? Use a mediation service and work out whats best for your boy

    The best outcome for you is to get him to voluntarily agree to pay a set amount.

    I have seen how the act does not work for paying and receiving parents or the kids. Thats why I promote change and reform.

    Like it or not, junior is going to want to know dad.

    I would suggest you try and get hold of
    Raising your children cooperatively after separation



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 19th June 2007 @ 10:22 pm

  62. Tash, your situation is similar to my own. I am deemed a high income earner by IRD so, even though I am struggling to feed the 2 kids in my custody, IRD are forcing me to pay a huge slice of my income to their mother. This is due to the fact that she has one child in her care and hides much of her income. Seeing that IRD think she is only earning about 28K per year she gets away with paying me nothing, once offsetting is taken into account, while I have to pay her $550 per month. Fair??, I think not! IRD’s stupid formula rewards those who wish to stay on benefits, work under the table, or enjoy a part time work lifestyle, while punishing those who work hard for a living in PAYE employment. Your Ex sounds very similar to mine in his attitude. Wanting to be a parent but not wishing to meet the financial commitment that comes with parenthood. I am currently in a situation where I may have to house me and my children in sub standard accommodation because I can no longer afford to pay for ALL of their expenses plus pay for ALL of my non custodial child’s expenses. I have a burning hatred for IRD because of the hardship their policies have inflicted on me and my custodial children. Scraps suggestion that you reach a private agreement would be about as useful in your circumstance as it would be in mine by the look of it. Some parents just don’t want to pay their share and IRD enables them to do so thanks to their stupid retarded brain dead formula. I have had 2 admin reviews done on her using grounds 3, 5 and 8. I was unsuccessful on all counts despite a huge amount of supporting evidence which I supplied to the IRD admin review cretins. I don’t even know why the admin review office employs people. Everything is based on their grossly unfair formula so they may as well get a computer to do the reviews as no human thought, compassion or flexibility goes into the current process. . Tony

    Comment by Tony — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 7:40 am

  63. Thanks everyone for your comments. In reply to SNMP re whats wrong with him wanting 50/50 shared custody. My son has had the security and stability of living with me for over 6 years. During this period his dad was a bachelor and could’nt even commit to 2 days a fortnight, I have been my ex’s full time baby sitter on weekends when our son was suppose to be in his care. Father has never even had our son for more than 2-3 days max, never taken him on a holiday etc etc. I think the ex needs to give this new relationship some more time before he starts changing our sons life , I mean the relationship could be all over in 6 months or so , what then ? His partner is more likely to be the one doing all the work for our son, ie drop offs and picks up for school and sports,washing, cooking etc so what happens if it all falls apart ? Ex is rushing in like a bull in a china shop. He has a lot of changes to make before I would ever seriously consider it, committment for one. Another would be to communicate with me, he gets son who has just turned 11 to pass on all his messages. Since he and new partner got together , only 6 months ago, he has done nothing but criticise me, he seems to have turned it into a competition of who our son loves most, who son prefers being with etc etc I could go on and on. I am fully understanding of the fact that our son loves both of us, but ex is clearly very immature. Fundamentally for 50/50 to work, the parents need to have a very good relationship with great communication , unfortunately we do not.
    Once again tx very much to you all for the info regarding IRD Admin Reviews, much appreciated.

    Comment by Tash — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 2:16 pm

  64. Reply to Sscrap, as to why I go through IRD. I would definitely prefer not to go through IRD, but ex would pay zero then lol ! Only way I get anything at all from him is to go through IRD, sad but true.

    Comment by Tash — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 2:55 pm

  65. Scraps suggestion that you reach a private agreement would be about as useful in your circumstance as it would be in mine by the look of it.

    What I said was the best outcome would be achieved by a voluntary agreement, because that is true.

    Going to an admin review is fueling the conflict between parents. Who does that benefit?

    Tony. you state

    “Everything is based on their grossly unfair formula so they may as well get a computer to do the reviews as no human thought, compassion or flexibility goes into the current process”

    Its blatantly obvious that you are unhappy with the amount the formula assessment is producing in your situation.

    Maybe you need to think outside the square.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 3:22 pm

  66. Tash you say,

    I am fully understanding of the fact that our son loves both of us, but ex is clearly very immature. Fundamentally for 50/50 to work, the parents need to have a very good relationship with great communication , unfortunately we do not.

    Thats a myth. Its helps to be able to put aside all the other shit and focus the kids but even without that a large number of parents share parenting where ongoing conflict exists.

    Regards Scrap

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 3:23 pm

  67. Tash,

    Why? Why would he refuse to contribute to his son? There has to be a reason.

    End of the day if you go to admin review it is likely you are just going to increase the level of conflict.

    I just think you need to be aware up front what happens in many cases when a parent seeks an admin review.

    They fuel the fires of ongoing conflict be aware!





    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 3:47 pm

  68. The facts that create/cause a percentage of the described conflict have little to do with any admin review or administrative formula of the IRD. I would argue the percentage would be as high as almost all of it.

    The primary problem is th eacrimony, and as long as this is supported and exploited by the state governed system there will be no end of these debates empathic of red tape and limitations as leaches from a misdirection by social dysfuntion and as then demanded its arbitrary control. So if we look for any common alternative from the thread the debate would surely be better centred at how the mediations should be implimented their rules as against the wills or will nots of any particulat case. This position establishes a different and alternative economic frame to both the process of government departments as it is likely for its effective and professional maturity, the positive results for separating families.

    The instrument of rule to change all of the conditions covered in the thread, in order to achieve the higher status promoted as achievable is less cost of exchange but what is achievable as required by the child from the associable perspectives of everyone concerned. This is to say that the primary values that are considered and explored before any numbers are concluded are not conflictory but centred on the care of teh child. Care cannot although at present is, be simply interpretable into a dollar and cents equation. Until the love (aroha) for the child is factored into the equation as expressed by each parent, no $ sum will hold any specific bearing on teh child from the child’s immediate perspective of need. While we continue to push $ down the child’s throat as the primary functional value in humanity we continue, skillfully, with this process of bastardising the nations’ children.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 4:43 pm

  69. tash
    in 64 ypou have made all the text book excuses that one makes.
    in fact if you are as mature as you imply why don’t you agree to 50-50 share with no money exchanging hands. afterall you can afford your kid and the father can at his end. why prolong the conflict for no reason but to get even as it is obvious from your comments and arguments??

    Comment by starr — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 5:22 pm

  70. hi, could some advise me how to post a new topic for people to make comments on?? I seem to only be able to reply to existing ones. I’d just really like someone to talk to. I’m sorry for interupting this conversation, just that it seems to be getting attention…. – cheers

    Comment by the-milky — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 5:33 pm

  71. Hi, new to this group, can someone tell me if anybody is actually driving change to the Child Support system through parliament here? I read accounts from a lot of people, some are similar a situation to mine and lots of other scenarios. I was party to a bill put to select committee 12 months ago by a Rob Kilkolly; does anybody know what happened to this effort? My situation for anybody who’s interested is a classic 50/50 custody case; I’m self employed and earn very average wage paying about $400 p/m to ex wife who makes sure she’s below the earning threshold so not to pay child support. She hooked up with a multi millionaire and drives $120k Landrover to child support review from her 3mil home in Merivale pleading poverty with review officers!! This is when she is not travelling Europe or some other continent for 4-5 weeks at a time leaving children with me whole time and you guessed it I still pay the child support while she’s away so she can get those flash Italian clothes she wants. LOL, absolutely unbelievable that a relatively wealth nation still has laws that can let this happen. We must have the numbers supporting us!! Done the parliamentary letter thing, got the Peter Dune standard issue letter, I’m not prepared to accept this.

    Comment by Jason — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 7:46 pm

  72. Having skimmed a lot of this it appears that it’s the same story over and over again.
    In the last three months I have been reassessed 3 times, first is the standard, then the July reassessment and now I’ve had another one, because I submitted the form to say I have a new baby – and of course they’ve picked up on a slight (and belive me, it was slight) increase in income. So instead of going down, it’s gone backup again and backdated. I questioned that since they haven’t backdated the birth of my son – response, it went through the registration system in July, which is interesting since I sent it off in the first week he was born.

    The thought of submitting a admin review crossed my mind – but I can guarantee it wouldn’t go well – basically I just earn too much money in their eyes. Of course they are happy to alleviate me of that issue as fast as possible.

    My wife and I have a very tight budget, but everytime I talk to IRD, I get the impression that I’m rich and I deserve to pay every cent they tell me too.

    MP’s don’t care – this whole subject is far too hard to do anything with – with the upcoming election next year, there will be another mention made on CS, and it will magically disappear as it has done every other time in the past.

    One thing I do know – unlike my ex, I cannot afford holiday’s, I cannot afford ipods and I damn well cannot afford to go skiing… I have worked hard to get to the income level I’m on now – but I really wonder where the worth in it is because everytime I’m paid there isn’t a lot left over when a quarter of it goes to CS.

    Comment by Shane — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 4:06 pm

  73. I have been read all the above with much interest.
    Nine years ago I paid out my ex Kathie Ellery a sum in excess of $400000 from the sale of our farm which was held in a family trust and I was forced to sell by order of family court judge Ingles.I was continually refused access to my children and gave up on the fight.I met someone else 6 years ago and we married.My new wife persuaded me to try and stay in touch with my children so we tried to start contact only to find my ex had married and moved to England with the children.I managed to get an e-mail address and started contact with my daughter but my son refused contact. They returned from England in November 2005 and I got in touch with the children. I had difficulty with my ex over contact and at that time she had found out that my wife and I had sold a property and purchased a farm in Australia.This prompted an Admin Review.Which went badly and the review officer Penny Weaver of PN decided that I should pay a figure based on the value of the assets owned by my now wife and I.I had not had an income since Aug 2001 and was supported by my wife while I tried to build up a business.I appealed the review decision to no avail but I then went for a review because of our changed circumstances.The review officer appeared to be supportive of my application but his decision was that it was too hard for him and I needed to take the matter to the Family Court.This I attempted to do on my own own. Late the afternoon on the day before my hearing I was served with papers from a Crown Law solicitor acting for IRD who were now making claims on maintenance based on the value of our assets and back dated to 2001. I pannicked and at the hearing told the judge that as Crown Law had become involved I need Legal representation.The judge Hikaka became aggressive towards me, accused me of wasting the courts time, granted me an adjournment, but awarded costs against me sum $3000.I have since employed a barrister in Wellington at great cost. Crown Law have recently applied to have the matter heard in the High Court which to my Barristers surprise has been granted and we are gearing up for a Test Case fight.My wife has had to give up work because of stress we have been unable to farm in Australia and are renting in NZ. We have spent over $25000 in legal fees so far and have $300 in the bank and life has turned to s–t.I will be 60 at the end of this year and my ex is 44. The only positive so far is that my barrister has gained me contact with my children by Court application.I am usure if the rest of NZ men realise that if this High Court case goes bad then we will all be assessed on our assets and not our income.I have considered applying for legal aid to fight this but my Barrister won’t comment on this suggestion.Perhaps I had better start praying.

    Comment by Ian — Sat 11th August 2007 @ 7:23 am

  74. Good luck is all I can say. I have been seperated for over six years & pay c/s for one child. My partner & I have two pre-school aged children & as for most parents with young children times are very tough. I recently phoned IRD to discuss whether we might be eligible for an administrative review to ease our financial burden. It transpired that we would not be, but to my surprise what followed was a lecture on parenting & the ensuing responsibilities. I was also advised that as my son was lived with my ex wife & her income far exceeded mine (not including my c/s payments) that he was in the “best place”. Apparrently what makes the best living environment for children these days is affluence. Sorry folks, no longer are love, affection,or a genuine interest in the child (or any other children affected by the IRD’s extortionate formula) a factor….parenting is now assessed by the thickness of your wallet according to the lovely lady at the IRD. What also truly impressed me about her was her ability to formulate an opinion as to the suitability of placement of a child with absolutely no background knowledge at all. I realised very quickly how weighted the system is against non-custodial parents & that the ignorance & prejudice that exists within the department is unsurpassed. My instinct told me I had hit a brick wall at 100mph. Reading other peoples experiences above I think we have made the right assessment just to take a deep breath & let it go. Unfortunately most of the above seem to have had their reviews brought about or instigated by there ex-partners so probably a slightly different scenario. If from your point of view though the wheel is wobbly – you are probably better to just let it fall off than to try & fix it as you may well buckle it in the process.

    Comment by J Duncan — Wed 23rd April 2008 @ 4:44 pm

  75. I have 50/50 shared custody of my three children and my x has asked for a admin review as I have stoped paying through a private arrangement as I ahve had a change in financial circumstances which means I earn no where near what I would have been assessed at and our private arrangement was based on . She is asking that the review disregard this change in circumstances and assess me on the old income which means I would pay $900 per month , which we can’t afford and would mean we would have to sell our house and go renting ….I have always had 50/50 shared custody and my x is remarried and both hosue holds are earning almost the same money ….is any of this taken into account sounds by the commensts on the site that I am in for a losing battle??…if I produce financial evidence that I can not afford to pay $900 what happens then ??…

    Comment by Richard — Thu 15th January 2009 @ 11:18 am

  76. The answer here is maybe. If you have TRUE 50/50 care and you can prove it that is your first hurdle. The calculation will only be borne on your income and your ex’s not the household income so if those are the same then 50/50 care would cancel out any CS payment to one another, if you earn more then you will have to pay the difference of over and above her calculation.. i.e say you are calculated to pay $100 and she was calculated on paying $80, you will only have to pay the $20 only. The calculations are based on your income and the full percentages i.e 24% for two children less a single living allowance on your full taxable income (before tax).
    As for your previous income being taken into account, sorry to say this is very very very possible. It all comes down to why you have a reduced income some reasons are acceptable and you will be calculated on current income others will not this is at the discretion of the admin review officer (Hope you get a nice one). If you lost your job say due to current cutbacks from you employer then you should be ok, but they normally base your income on what you can earn, not what you are earning if you have a reduced your income. Say your care type can earn $50k per year and you were earning that, but you take a lesser paid job and now earn $30k you will most likely be calculated on $40+ from my experience, as for loosing your house etc, telling them that will not work even if it is true and depending on how you present that it may be detrimental as from there perspective you should have thought of that before changing jobs!!!
    $900 per month is quite a lot for shared care so I would be surprised if it is made this high unless your ex has no income and her new husband earns the money as his income is not taken into account and neither is your wife/partner.
    Hope this helps

    Comment by SNMP — Thu 15th January 2009 @ 11:39 am

  77. Thanks for that ….the reduced income is from a rental property that we tried to sell to move into our existing property but of course the market fell over and so we have rented it out for the mean time but it is running at a $20k loss which we have to pick up .( but this loss can be claimed against my income for tax purposes and also for assessment of income for C/S) …the 50/50 shared care ok as we both agree that it exists ….it’s just the previous comments really do scare me and if we get a dickhead as a review officer , then we are in the crapper and that means so are our children when they are at our house ….it should be all about the children , my partner and I just want to get on with our own lives and provide for the children ( including her daughter who is with us full time ) , but it seems IRD don’t want this to happen ….x is asking for the loss from the rental to be disrecarded whcih means I would be due to pay $905 per month on a 50/50 shared custody situation …how fair is that ????

    Comment by Richard — Thu 15th January 2009 @ 2:04 pm

  78. Hi Richard,
    From my horrible experiances what the IRD “dickheads” do is access a guy on his possible potental income. ie you are deliberately causing yourself a loss (by not selling the rented house) therefore it is your choice and you will likely
    get accessed on what the property could be earning or as less the equidy. Their stupid thinking is likely to be you should sell the property that makes a loss and use that money to pay CS/child tax.
    Don’t tell them anything they will screw it around in some twisted way to get your money. That’s from my sad experiance. I never did pay the buggers they came after me. Two old croans came to my work place I chased them down the road with the truth. I owed $40k said the IRD which was mostly penilties. My x agreed to accept $13k (private deal) cause she didn’t know what the figure was. Then the dipstix at IRD told her it had been $40 and I got it in the neck but nothing could be done as the deal had been sealed. I thank my lucky stars and God above every day! Cheers I wish you good luck my man!

    Comment by Raspberries — Thu 15th January 2009 @ 2:44 pm

  79. I have 50/50 shared custody of my three children and my x has asked for a admin review as I have stoped paying through a private arrangement

    Question – if you are paying through a private arrangement I don’t understand how IRD could could accept an administrative review.
    Do you have a formula assessment from IRD?

    I have had a change in financial circumstances which means I earn no where near what I would have been assessed at and our private arrangement was based on . She is asking that the review disregard this change in circumstances and assess me on the old income which means I would pay $900 per month , which we can’t afford and would mean we would have to sell our house and go renting ….

    Your correct course of action if an assessment is in place is to estimate your income. This can be done if a 15% or greater decrease in income has occurred.

    I have always had 50/50 shared custody and my x is remarried and both households are earning almost the same money

    If IRD have assessed you and found you have shared care you can claim CS against the mother. Given income parity it would reduce your payment to close to Zero.

    ….is any of this taken into account sounds by the commensts on the site that I am in for a losing battle??…if I produce financial evidence that I can not afford to pay $900 what happens then ??…

    Before anyone can provide guidance you need to clearly outline the circumstances. Get IRD to send you out all their pamphlets (or download them) about CS it will give you a basic grounding . Admin reviews are a complex area of revenue law so relevant details are economic.

    For clarity if an IRD admin review officer finds that you have the ability/capacity to pay at $900 a month the reality is that is what you will be required by NZ Law to pay. Look to the powers of IRD for how they will collect it.

    You need to clearly state the relevant details as it is extremely difficult to offer any guidance based on the information provided.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 15th January 2009 @ 6:03 pm

  80. Hi,

    Sorry to change the subject somewhat but I am worried that IRD CS are going to completely drive me under financially in the next financial year. Last year I was made redundant and was given a payout of about 40K (gross). About 10 days after receiving my final pay (c/w redundancy cheque) and leaving my old job, I started a new job with another firm. The new job pays about 10 K more than the old one so I’m not complaining too much about that. BUT I have been told by the halfwit IRD CSR I spoke with on the phone a short time ago that my 40K redundancy cheque will be regarded as income and I will be assessed on my 2008 – 2009 PAYE + the redundancy cheque, from April 1st 09. This has the effect of increasing my payments by about 50% which will make it impossible for me to live as well as support the child that I have in my care. She has two in her care and I have one in my care. Can anyone tell me if redundancy pay is regarded as earnings from a CS assessment point of view? If it does it REALLY SUCKS because I will be paying champagne CS on a beer income. Shite this pisses me off!! That bludging scab, who doesn’t spend a cent of the $1080 I give her each month on the kids, manages to profit out of any financial windfall I might receive. What about all the anxiety and money and time that went into losing my last job and finding another one?? No one compensates me for that. Also, can anyone recommend a good lawyer and/or accountant who could help me? Thanks in advance.


    Comment by Tony — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 2:00 pm

  81. If you don’t do something the answer is yes you will be calculated on your redundancy amount as it is income… So your best option is when you calculation comes out in Feb for the coming year write to IRD applying for your income to be estmated for the coming year to be a set amount ( i.e $50k… Not the $90k you got last year. But this amount needs to be correct as if you get it wrong you will be penalised but you can update the amount through the year if things change. Good luck but get in early before they send the entitlements to your Ex…. As the reduction will no doubt cause a Admin Review… (Did for me..)

    Comment by SNMP — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 5:08 pm

  82. Hi Scrap .

    The private arrangement was losely based on an IRD assessment but the admin review has come about as she applied to ahve me assessed and then I applied to ahve my income reduced due to loss from a rental property….which the IRD accepted with regards to tax rates…..ex is asking for this loss adjustment to be excluded from my assessment for CS which would make my payments go back to $900 from the reduced rate of $220 per month which is the assessment with the loss adjustment applied ….hope this helps

    Comment by Richard — Tue 20th January 2009 @ 9:23 am

  83. Thanks for the advice SNMP. I will certainly do that although I am certain that she will respond by subjecting me to yet another admin review. Worth a go though. I’m currently in the process of responding to the 5th Admin Review she’s put me through in four years. When my eldest boy came back into my custody last December I had IRD adjust my living allowance downwards and chase her for the huge sum of $71 per month which she was liable for. She’s having a big hissy fit because this means that she ends up being out of pocket by about $250 per month. Funny how these custodial parents are sometimes so pampered by IRD that they actually expect that they shouldn’t have to pay anything toward the support of THEIR children!! It should be interesting though because I found that her year to date earnings aren’t much lower than mine + she gets buttloads from IRD and WINZ with Working for Families and other payments that she’s managed to wangle out of the system. I think she’s panicking because she knows that if my boy is still living with me after April 1st she will be reassessed BIG TIME, ha ha. Anyway I have lost all previous Admin Reviews even when I was able to prove that I didn’t have enough income to support the two kids in my care plus pay her $650 per month to support the one child in her care, while she got away with paying me $69 per month. If they come down in her favour again this time I WILL TAKE THE BASTARDS TO COURT! I don’t care how much it costs me. I have kept the documentation from all previous reviews and these corrupt, biased Admin Review Officers need to be exposed. Watch this space..


    Comment by Tony — Tue 20th January 2009 @ 10:23 am

  84. Careful Tony,
    Re court: Read my post #8 and point ‘7’ towards the end.
    And Tony, a good accountant? Perhaps I can help email me at [email protected].

    Comment by Raspberries — Tue 20th January 2009 @ 11:16 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