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

Child Support and Shared Care

Filed under: Child Support,General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 3:01 pm Mon 25th June 2007

One of the major barriers to achieving presumptive shared care is a fair and reasonable child support system to support the presumption.

There is no doubt that the current Child Support Act 1991 was designed at a time when shared parenting was a “rarity” and the assumption was one custodial parent and one liable parent was the norm.

Talking to a number of people it is obvious that very few people actually understand how the variation of the child support (TAX) for shared care actually works.

So how does the Act cater for shared care?
– By adjusting the living allowance, the percentage applied or both.
– Here is a summary and some examples.

Remember the formula is (a-b) x c = Child Support (TAX) payable

a=gross (before tax) income
b=living allowance
c = the child support (TAX) percentage

Where parents share care (40% of the nights, 146 night a year) shared care exists. Under this situation both parents can claim child tax as both parents are effectively custodial parents.

Many parents have disputes over this and IRD ignore court orders as having little relevance.

A parent may have a Family Court ordered parenting agreement that states care is shared 50/50 and IRD will not act on that alone as they maintain they want to “know what the real situation”.

It is also possible to have less than 40% of the nights but have “substantially equal shared care”. The same formula application would apply.

How much does the Percentage Change?

Shared Care Percentage Adjustments

Let’s look at a family where one parent is in receipt of the DPB and the other with an assessable income in a range from 30-80K and has shared care of a single child and has not re-partnered.

Note: Figures are generated using IRD 150 and are for the tax year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. Living allowance is $24,919.

So what’s that produce? Many would argue a blatantly unfair result.

Shared Care Payments for parents

Remember the entire Child support collected will go to “recovering the DPB” and no money will pass directly to either parent for care of the child.

The DPB recipient will stand to loose $730 for sharing care with the other parent.

Note, if the other parent is not receiving a benefit they can choose not to collect any money from the DPB recipient. This of course increases their payment by $730 per annum as no offset occurs.

Note how the more the working parent earns the greater the contribution required.

The formula serves well to recover a benifit but actually discourages shared care, the best outcome for children, by :
-Costing the DPB a significant ammount of their income
-Attempting to equalise income between households (effectively spousal maintenance)

Have a look at the figures above and for a 50/50 share of care and answer this question : How on earth is the result fair or reasonable.

I will publish more examples of how shared care works and the anomalies if requested.



N.B. Comments on this thread will be moderated and any off topic will be deleted.

Copyright James Nicolle 2007


  1. Scrap, this is exactly what we are dealing with. You say that neither parent gets any money but this is untrue. The parent that is not on the DPB does get the money, which obviously is minimal. The IRD do not always offset the amounts, they did last year briefly for a few months and then the new bill came in and it’s back to the old way.
    At present we are paying roughly $200pm and get $68 from her. We are caring for the same child for exactly the same anount of time (we have 50/50 shared care) and actually end up paying out more for his care when you add on after school care etc
    The mother of my stepson seems to do very nicely with her DPB and certainly doesn’t seem to be any worse off for “losing” $730. But then you have to remember that the DPB recipient does not have as much to pay out as they are also in line for cheap housing, cheap childcare, free lawyers etc.
    I don’t wish to sound bitter but we have had a lot of aggro from our DPB recipient and to be quite honest have no qualms about collecting the $730 from her to go towards our son’s welfare. At least we know that the money we receive is spent on him.
    Is anything going to happen about this?

    Comment by pomcat — Mon 25th June 2007 @ 5:30 pm

  2. effectively what the IRd is saying is that even in a 50/50 split it costs more for those on DPB to raise a kid than the person that is working. I don’t follow this logic. how can the same kid cost more to raise in one household and not in the other??

    Comment by starr — Mon 25th June 2007 @ 7:00 pm

  3. You say that neither parent gets any money but this is untrue. The parent that is not on the DPB does get the money, which obviously is minimal.

    Pomcat – I think you misunderstand me. Regardless of IRD action the payment by the DPB recipient only offsets a portion of what the working parent is paying. What is paid by the by the Working parent is the (assessed amount – the offset amount.)

    Be offset mechanism a statement adjustment by IRD or a pointless exchange between parents who have 50/50 care it is still effectively offsetting a portion of the other parents payment.

    People really should be asking the question why in your situation

    At present we are paying roughly $200pm and get $68 from her. We are caring for the same child for exactly the same anount of time (we have 50/50 shared care)

    should you be paying anything at all?

    The current system cannot support a presumption of shared parenting and your situation shows how difficult it is financially for working parents subject to the current Child Tax system.

    Shared care calculations for child support should be a costs sharing – time acknowledged model

    I know many parents in your situation, share parenting one works and one is on the dpb and the Child Support (TAX) formula is outputting the same ludicrous child support (TAX) situation.

    The purpose of this can only be to collect revenue, nothing to do with the children.

    Thanks for the comment.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 25th June 2007 @ 7:22 pm

  4. effectively what the IRd is saying is that even in a 50/50 split it costs more for those on DPB to raise a kid than the person that is working. I don’t follow this logic. how can the same kid cost more to raise in one household and not in the other??

    A very good question star.

    What Were They Thinking?
    The Development of Child Support Guidelines in Canada. might provide some guidance on that. The Canadian system is the same ilk as the NZ system.

    thanks for the comment Starr

    Regards Scrap

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 25th June 2007 @ 7:55 pm

  5. I have a question, but it maybe a bit off topic. If a male has two children with different mothers and whom he is paying CS for, how is it calculated? Is he charged the 24% being for two children and then is it split between the two mothers giving them each 12% or is he charged 18% per child because of two different mothers?

    Comment by wendy — Tue 26th June 2007 @ 10:24 am

  6. Wendy an interesting question.

    I will take your example and explain step by step in another post as its not as simple as it seems.(no surprise there!)

    by the way your not off topic.

    Thanks for the question.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 26th June 2007 @ 12:47 pm

  7. Behind this is another major stumbling block and it is this. The IRD don’t want the family court making decisions on child support. If you have a court order that includes some form of shared parenting cost, they won’t acknowledge the order, they will just tell you to get the order changed if you don’t like it. You can end up in a situation where you are paying court ordered child support. If the mother refuses to present the order to a reveiew the father is made to pay twice on child support costs.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 26th June 2007 @ 2:38 pm

  8. Bevan,

    I’m going to stage a protest outside the British High Commission to support Michael Cox in prison in the UK.

    I am happy to put a date on it that you can make. Will you make it down for the protest?


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 27th June 2007 @ 1:46 pm

  9. My ex works, is not on the DPB.

    We have one son, aged 10.

    I am a high income earner, almost $80k.I am also a shiftworker, meaning I cant quite make thr 50/50 shared care, but have shared care nonethless.

    On average my ex cares for my son 3 days a month more than I do. I pay her $350 a month by private agreement.

    I’m now in the postion because of my son’s age to care for him 50% of the time. He wants this too.

    Can I apply to the Court for 50/50 shared care and agree to pay half of all his upbringing costs without having to pay her?

    She doesn’t want this of course.


    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Fri 29th June 2007 @ 4:56 pm

  10. After searching the internet I came across this website and would like some advice or if anyone can point me in the right direction regarding Child Support.

    My partner has just been through an administrative review which he applied for under Ground 8. We have shared care of his son and to put a long story short – we know for a fact his ex-wife is earning a lot of extra undeclared income and the child support caluclation therefore isn’t correct.

    We included my partners statement of financial position the IRD asked for and I included my salary but not my share of expenses (I don’t think it is his ex-wife’s right to know my finances) and also proof from the Companies website showing the ex as a director/shareholder of two companies and she also works fulltime.

    Basically the IRD declined our application saying
    ( a ) there was no evidence she was earning extra income
    ( b ) that my salary was under stated even though I rang them to see what my last years taxable earnings were to put on the financial statement and
    ( c ) that at the rate my partner earns his next financial years child support will increase again.

    The ex also got a friends accountancy company to provide a letter to the IRD about their “lack of income” from the companies.

    Is there any information or help anyone can give? We’re so tired of being treated rudely and unfairly by IRD.

    Comment by cutiepie — Wed 2nd January 2008 @ 4:52 pm

  11. Hi Cutiepie – Yes I know where your coming from…..

    Ive sent numerous letters to the IRD dept,United Future & National party regarding shared care and c/support. We too have shared care of my husband’s 2 children however IRD still require us to pay his ex $1k pm……we are constantly wondering why…when he have them HALF OF THE TIME AND HALF OF THE EXPENSES…All letters,emails etc to IRD fall on deaf ears!! Why would they care, it doesnt affect their livelihood (or lack of) due to the crippling ‘formula’ driven payments required to be paid for the ‘benefit’ of the children…If we didnt have to pay out $1k pm to his ex the children would benefit even more because when they are with us we would be able to afford this and that… our punishment for fighting to have shared care for the last 3 yrs (which was another cost in itself) is to have the children more (fantastic) but you still must support the other person’s lifestyle when she hasnt got the children???? Makes sense to some monkey in IRD!!!

    Comment by Karen — Fri 4th January 2008 @ 8:49 am

  12. Hi All,
    My husband and I have a shared care arrangement with the children’s biological father and his wife for over 9 years now (successfully) and the kids say they have four parents. We also have a Family Court Approved Shared Parenting Programme here in Taranaki. We wrote our own programme based on our experiences/knowledge with share parenting (co-operative parenting), how we as parents ensure that this works for the benefit of the children. So far we have received positive feedback regarding the programme. We have never gone through the court system to do shared parenting and what makes it easy is the fact that as four parents we put the children’s best interests first and we are like minded people. The Family Court Judge has told parents (parents have given us this information) that our programme is unique and is the only programme in Taranaki and possibly NZ.
    On the other side of the coin, my husband also has experienced the worst from his previous marriage regarding children in all forms.

    Comment by Molly — Fri 4th January 2008 @ 1:20 pm

  13. Hi Molly

    Can I view this parenting programme online somewhere??

    Comment by Karen — Fri 4th January 2008 @ 4:13 pm

  14. Hi Karen,
    We do not have our own website for our parenting programme as being court approved does not allow us to give up our day jobs so to speak. We do have a pamphlet and I guess you can make enquiries via the New Plymouth Family Court. We are ‘The Shared Parenting Company’.

    Comment by Molly — Fri 4th January 2008 @ 9:11 pm

  15. Heya,my husband and i are have an awful time with his ex, we have been at court 5years and are sick of trying to get to a shared care arrangmnt, she will only give us this if we agree to continue paying child support,or if we agree to the current arrangmnt of 5 nites we can wipe child support!makes no sense and she is calling the shots, we also have 2 children together and are sick of this,what to do?

    Comment by Stepmummy — Tue 12th February 2008 @ 3:52 pm

  16. (SIGH)

    I’m a guy. I live on my own. I pay my ex wife $350 a month under a voluntary agreement (income based would be higher) for our 10 y/o son but administered thru IRD.

    I have Shared Care. My son now spends 50% of his time with me, and we have a great time together. His mother is in a defacto relationship..they have nice cars, nice house etc etc. I dont.

    I suggested we should both just share his costs. She disagreed.

    I then offered to pay ALL my sons costs…his school fees, school uniform, casual clothes, footwear, dental and health bills. All she had to do was to pay for his food while my son was in her care.

    I thought it was a good deal for her….and I wanted to put the remaining money (if any) in my sons Kiwisaver account for his future education on top of the money I save for him now.

    She earns $400 a week after tax. I earn $1000 after tax. I pay something towards his clothing …i.e when he needs clothing, or other…like a new bike or Playstation. (yeah I spoil him…but he knows that)

    I have realised that my ex wife pockets the money I pay her in the name of child support. Child Support….it is misnamed…it should be called something like SMFC….’steal money from children’.

    In effect she is stealing money not from me, but from my son. My son is my sole heir and I am 53 years old.

    Well, she wiped out our bank accounts thru EFTPOS cash transactions over a 3 year period whilst having an affair and in her cunning plan to leave me. Left me broke. I was left with $23.

    So how can I provide my loavable 10 y/o son with a Uni education?

    I hate the thought of helping to pay my ex’s mortgage instead of just finanially supporting my son.

    Can I do anything more? I think not.

    If ex was honest, she would accept a 50/50 share of the cost of bringing up our son. But for her to refuse me the RIGHT to pay all my sons educational and clothing needs is just…a rip off and gross injustice to my son.

    I am seriously thinking about REFUSING to pay the next IRD monthly account.


    Comment by Morris lindsay — Wed 13th February 2008 @ 12:21 pm

  17. Why do we have to line these womens pockets and leave little else for oursleves, we have 2 other children who miss out so we can pay child support to my hubbys ex, and yep she spends it on smokes and booze.She hasnt had a partner since my husband and her split, and wont leave us alone, court costs eat up the rest of our money and shes just happy continuing getting her money.
    What can we do to when all we want is shared care and cant get it because she doesnt want to miss out on her child/smokes/clothes support!

    Comment by Stepmummy — Wed 13th February 2008 @ 1:55 pm

  18. Don’t you love it how these women have endless supply of money/legal aid and can afford to keep going back and forth to lawyers??? Why do fathers who want to be involved in their kids lives get sucked dry by vindictive witches with nothing better to do? And why don’t the government agencies see this???

    Comment by cutiepie — Wed 13th February 2008 @ 2:18 pm

  19. My husband & I have just gained 50/50 shared care and believe me it doesnt mean it gets any better with the ex…….like you we are bitter we are still required to pay $1k pm to her. Just this last weekend my stepdaughter asked her dad to buy her college stationary. Now she’s been explained to that dad pays mum each month a considerable amount of money for her expenses,clothes,schooling etc etc..But when your dealing with a 13yr who is very much like her mother – she tried it on.He explained he gives her mum $$$ to cover all her needs…so when the mother rang the daughter at our place she said tell your father to buy the stationary for you and I will buy you a school bag!!!! What the hell is the $1k pm for when she only has the kids 2 weeks a month and we cover all their food, clothing etc when they are in our care…How does one stop themselves from slipping down that big black hole of debt when we have my 2 children to support plus my husbands 2 children and his EX’S lifestyle…I just wish someone in government would realise how OLD the Child Support Act is and how badly a revamp it needs for these step mums and dads trying to make a better life for their kids!.

    Comment by Karen — Wed 13th February 2008 @ 8:35 pm

  20. Someone should set up a petition on this site, and tell anyone in our same situation about this site, and we can see how much support we can get to try and change the way things work, im sick of of so many people i talk to being in the same situation, its time someone gave fathers a good go, and realise they are just as important as mothers, and not the second rate parent that the court makes them out to be, My Hubby is a fantastic daddy and im proud of how hard weve fought to try to get our wee princess with us.

    Comment by Stepmummy — Thu 14th February 2008 @ 12:36 pm

  21. Great to hear that you have 50/50 care
    In the eyes of the IRD this is not the amount of time you have with your kids but how may nights they spend with you.Must be over 40%.
    Your X needs to talk to the IRD and tell them you have 50/50 care and stop payments made by you.You should not be paying anything.
    If the inland revenue do not listen, then go directly to the ombuddsman they are brillant and will help you imediately. They take unfair treatment very seriously.
    I have some amazing stories myself this is a snapshot of some of the events that has happend to us.

    Comment by Doc — Fri 15th February 2008 @ 8:40 am

  22. This doesn’t make sense to me.According to the IRD calculator,my husband would still be paying his ex $172 a week even if he had shared care with his children.
    We’re already in shit street without a paddle.I cannot see his greedy ex ever consenting to giving up her financial support even if the Ombudsman’s office was to say so,which I doubt they would.She’s ever too needy and greedy and devious.She’d convince them that ‘her’ children would suffer if her ex didn’t support her.She will always need her children to ‘support’ her.

    Comment by rosie — Fri 15th February 2008 @ 6:44 pm

  23. Dear Stepmummy,

    Start up the petition on this site and others, with an inclusion of all the National weekend markets, major grocery outlets etc… to fill out the petition

    Seems overwhelming and daunting, doesn’t it?

    Step by step, word your petition, refine through critique, and then post it.
    Positive response, start expansion, Apathy, smile and be happy with what you have somehow relegating negativity to unconcerning.

    More than happy to promote your future petition.

    Kindest Regards
    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    (09) 940 6236

    Comment by Paul Catton — Fri 15th February 2008 @ 10:51 pm

  24. Hi Doc

    Pls tell me more. The furtherest we have got with IRD is – You are already assessed at the shared care level (40%) and that we do not qualify to have our c/s payments changed!!! So if you have any help in this area it would greatly be received! Fixed int rates on our mtg are due to expire….they are going up 2.4% in a couple of months….Thats a big increase…do you think IRD cares???Maybe when we stop our a/p to them and they try and take money out of our bank account (which there is none in there) they might realise we ARE STRUGGLING! – but hey why would they care………..

    Comment by Karen — Sun 17th February 2008 @ 5:52 pm

  25. It is a bit unclear from some of the posts, but is everyone with shared care claiming c/s as well as paying it?

    Comment by artemis — Sun 17th February 2008 @ 7:20 pm

  26. I look after my 10 year old son almost 50% of the time.

    I pay my ex $350 a month, by private agreement, put have to pay it via the IRD.

    I earn over $80k a year, ex works 20 hours a week. She has a partner who works and she is not on a benefit.

    I think my ex and I should equally share the cost of our sons upbringing. Ex says she cannot afford that. Fair enough, I agree the needs of the child must be met.

    I then stated I would pay all of our sons educational needs, all of his clothing, his healthcare in every respect. In short all ex had to do was feed him while he is in her care.

    Better yet…I told her truthfully that I would still be paying $350 a month, but not to her…into my sons bank account. From this account I would deduct his school fees, clothing and health costs.

    I say if she agrees, our son would have in excess of $20,000 in his bank when he is 19. That would be a good start for his UNI education.

    How can she refuse? If she does, then she rips off our son for $20,000.

    I think its a damn good offer…isnt there anything I can do legally here?

    email is [email protected]


    Comment by Morris — Sun 17th February 2008 @ 9:40 pm

  27. Artemis

    Yes we claim c/support from my husbands ex wife and we get $72 a month towards my step children – We try not to spend it all in one go!!! Thats all we get because she CHOOSES to work minimal hours and why would she work any harder when gets a salary from us of $13k pa.

    Comment by Karen — Mon 18th February 2008 @ 7:37 pm

  28. Dear Karen and all,

    What you are facing is an adherance to Legislation by the IRD.
    50/50 is just that in general perception, our 50% we cover, their 5o% they cover, simple equation, however the Law was not written with this simplicity in mind.
    A challenge needs to be made to the High Court regarding the same propsition as being is it “fair, just and equitable for all parties”, ESPECIALLY THE CHILD/REN for the continuance of the scenario you face.
    As my own case is now starting to loom before this higher judiciary perhaps we should all look to how we may achieve a piggy back of this scenario highlighting IRD’s stance of inequitble 50/50 child sharing, with perhaps referral back to Parliament for consideration or an evolution of the Legislation via Judicial precedent.

    Kind Regards
    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    (09) 940 6236

    Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 18th February 2008 @ 8:22 pm

  29. A challenge needs to be made to the High Court regarding the same propsition as being is it “fair, just and equitable for all parties”, ESPECIALLY THE CHILD/REN for the continuance of the scenario you face.

    Shared Care has been the subject of much discussion in the Courts (all levels) and interpretation is consistent.

    The change is required at a parliamentary level the Courts cannot change the law

    Going to Courts merely keeps the heat off politicians who have promised change and never delivered. Courts do not initiate change politicians do!

    Comment by Scrap_the_CSA — Mon 18th February 2008 @ 9:41 pm

  30. Dear Scrap,

    Courts are forums that have an arbitor to hear argument between parties and provide direction utilising interpetration of the Law passed by Parliament or utilising their own judgment and evolving Law (Precedent)thus becoming the common Law.
    To date you may have had much discussion Court, with interpretation being widely disputed.
    However there has not been the resolve by any to ensure the matter be concluded correctly, Judgement favourably or otherwise or referral back to Parliament from the Judiciary, indecision is not an option in Law.

    I have shown the resolve to place my matters at the District Court level, they
    were unable to provide directive thus have referred the matter to the High Court for answer, an answer is requested and answer must be given.

    As the District Court directed my questions of IRD Child Support making deductions, I had to litigate with Crown Law, The Minister for Justice, The Minster for Courts to ensure that the Directions of the Court were followed and my success deems that this is now to occur in April.
    Although I have only two questions posted by the District Court, submisissions and further exposure of the IRD best practice can substantiate far greater impact within the Court, and externally if optomised.

    Let us start to strategise for the optimum.

    Kindest Regards
    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    (09) 940 6236

    Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 18th February 2008 @ 11:16 pm

  31. I don’t think some women realise the repercussions of getting child support through the IRD or trying to get as much as they can from their ex partners.Eventually huge penalties will accumulate if their partners can’t manage the payments, which will one day be taken out of their children’s inheritance and go to the governments coffers.
    Maybe its time that some of them thought of their children’s futures instead of their own greed.

    Comment by rosie — Tue 19th February 2008 @ 6:47 pm

  32. I can’t get my head around the child support system at all.
    Whoever invented it must have been smoking what silly Sue smokes.

    Comment by kenny — Thu 21st February 2008 @ 7:25 pm

  33. Hi All,Currently doing 50:50 shared care of my little boy, as well as paying through the nose to my ex in child support. Could write a report much the same as above comments but would rather get on and start a movement for change. have no idea where to start or how. The system is unjust for those doing shared care. I have approached my local MP ( John Hayes )in Masterton. He would like to see literature ( I feel he is only interested due to elections approaching).
    Am open to all suggestions on how and where to start. Unfortunately in all of these cases it is the children who somewhere along the line are affected.

    Comment by Greg Sandall — Thu 21st February 2008 @ 9:38 pm

  34. There are ten posts headed under IRD and a further ten labelled Child Support.
    Without getting into specifics and IRD Public Opion received 55 comments almost all condemning an unjust type of formula for the collection of Child Support (AKA Parent Tax)
    Please refresh yourself with the circumstance of cases that can be alluded to, maie sure that clear and informative dialogue has eventuated irrespectove of markings required to legitimise

    Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 21st February 2008 @ 11:58 pm

  35. Paul,

    You need to speak plain engish as

    “Please refresh yourself with the circumstance of cases that can be alluded to, maie sure that clear and informative dialogue has eventuated irrespectove of markings required to legitimise”

    makes no sense.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 22nd February 2008 @ 10:44 am

  36. Scrap is right.
    The change is required at a parliamentary level.The courts cannot change the laws.
    No one should have to go through the stress and costs of trying to challenge this law.
    But so many are just prepared to sit back and not do anything about it.
    When both parents contribute equally to their children’s care,no money should exchange hands.And that is what everyone needs to get the politicians to realize.
    The system as it stands now is all in favour of those greedy ones who want money for themselves,not for their children.
    Like in any kind of situation like this,those affected need to do something about it.Like refusing to pay etc.
    You may get penalties added on but eventually it may get through to these dull brain politicians that their formula is not acceptable.

    Comment by rosie — Fri 22nd February 2008 @ 7:17 pm

  37. I agree with Rosie and Scrap that change is required at parliamentary level. Writing blogs back and forwards will get more and more slowly involved, but not in the numbers needed for politicians to sit up and take notice.
    I only discovered this site last night after becoming totally frustrated that my ex can’t understand why me paying her $6000/ year when I am a solo dad doing 50:50 is unfair. the worst part is she beleives she can’t afford to put any of it a side for his future education. I can’t control where my childs money is being spent. Certainly not on him.
    It is a relief to have found this site and to know there are many others in the same boat. My limitations for starting a petition is lack of inderstanding of the current system, wording a petition so it grows in momentum, and lack of computer skills which limits the power of reaching out to many people.
    All ideas welcomed.

    Comment by Greg Sandall — Fri 22nd February 2008 @ 8:40 pm

  38. Greg,

    Info on petitions at.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 22nd February 2008 @ 9:14 pm

  39. Greg, you and I are in EXACTLY the same position here. Food aside (since we are doing 50/50 Shared Care, how much does it cost to otherwise bring up one little boy….NOT $6000 a year to be sure.

    I have written extensively to both local Policitians, Lesley Soper and Eric Roy, and neither one has even had the guts to reply!!


    furthermore I have offered to cover my all my sons financial costs excepting food when she is in her care. DECLINED. What does that tell us. We are subsidising our former wives…thought the DPB did that when they couldnt earn enough money to look after themselves. Welare clearly counts Child Support as being an income for the poor fems!

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Sun 24th February 2008 @ 4:27 pm

  40. Not exactly a shared care issue as it doesn’t apply to me as my daughter lives 2 hrs drive so its not an option.

    But the bit that really bewilders me about Child Tax is the fact that no matter how much my daughters mum earns it makes no scrap of difference to the amount I pay. Now I find out she has found some sucker to marry. Her partner is taking on the responsibility of marriage and all that entails but the punitive law tells him that he is not required to take on any financial responsibility for my daughter as my payments do not change yet when I married my partner my living allowance went up and when we had our two children together my allowance went up again. (albiet a miniscule amount but thats another gripe) That tells me that due to the responsibilities I have taken upon to care for a wife and family that I need to have a little amount reduced to pay each month to care properly for them. Yet he has no such responsibility since its all mine apparently.

    Child Support is a one way street? You bet!

    Comment by Mark Lloyd — Tue 26th February 2008 @ 10:30 pm

  41. The New Zealand child support system is extremely one sided and has tunnel vision.

    My situation is this;

    I am extremely lucky as my ex partner and I share a very good friendship and an extremely good working relationship when it comes to my son (3 years old) which I could only describe as second to none.

    I am on a 4 days on 4 days off roster and over an 8 day week I have my son all my 4 days off, of those 4 days off if a I required to go to work, more often than not, I arrange child care for my son at my own expense. Also to note, I am averaging 96hours a fortnight too. On a 7 day week, it varies anywhere from 3 nights to 5 nights. A week that I have him. This in not including the 7 weeks annual leave I get. So I effectively have him 50%+

    I already share all his expenses, like clothes and any living expense.

    To add another spin to it my ex partner owes me a considerable amount of money and we have come to written agreement. The written agreement was done prior to the shared care thing and stated rather than money exchange hands, I will pay $100 per week to her debt instead of her for child support and her pay me $100 towards the debt.

    My ex is having to go on the DPB and now IRD are now telling me that it is $160 a week I have to pay on child support (based off my income and living expense — I live with my 16 year old daughter from a previous relationship). They are not interested in any agreements I have made.

    So effectively I am required to pay 100% of all costs of my son even though I am doing more than my share anyway and the harder I work the more I pay.

    Just as well it is an election year, I will be sending a letter off to all major partys as it is totally unfair.


    Allan Proudfoot

    Comment by Allan Proudfoot — Fri 29th February 2008 @ 10:04 am

  42. To Allan Proudfoot.

    Welcome to the club. I am in much the same position as you. Fairness is just a joke in this Country. I have written to most Politicians but they wont answer.

    They wont answer because they know there is a problem, they know it is unfair, but for any Politician to elect to do anything about it is Political Suicide.

    From the Government point of view, and I quote directly from their site, NZ Immigration Packs, “Child Support is money paid to support children when couples with children are not living together or have seperated. The money is paid by the parent who is not living with the children to the person whom the children live with”

    Well, its just not true is it?

    If both parents share the custody of their children equally, one parent (the higher income earner) always has to pay the other parent.

    It is disgusting and unfair. Which makes all Policitians disgusting and unfair.

    We all need to strike. We need every paying parent to become aware of a National Strike….a day on which every Father in NZ refuses to pay the so called Child Support until every NZ citizen recognises the unfairness of the system and supports a NationWide Protest.

    I am all for providing for the needs of the children. But the Govt is so stupid it cannot see that the money we Dads pay just does not go to our children now or to their future welfare.

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Fri 29th February 2008 @ 11:50 pm

  43. hey every 1 im new to the seprated father game me and my x hav a 6 month old sone and we just split wot r my rites when it comes to my sone i need all the facts i can get as not to let the x get the upper hand i was pretty much a stay at home dad working part time and earning just as much as the x when we where togeather and we now hav 50 50 with his cear and wot not. im not tring to be spitefull towards her i just dont want to end up paying all my money the little that i do hav to child support if it was up to me i would hav all his cear and expenses i help me out guys my email addres is [email protected] if ne 1 wants to send me sum info it would be a greate help

    Comment by james — Sat 1st March 2008 @ 1:56 pm

  44. Allan

    My husband and I are with you -to strike on a particular day to increase awareness on Shared Care. We have been paying c/support diligently each month of $1062 and we are now at our wits end mentally and financially….we too have no disagreement when it comes to the children needs BUT we fell by having them 50/50 we are doing out part to help raise them. (when they are in our care we cover ALL expenses) so why should we continue to cover another adults LIFESTYLE!!! Tough if she cant financially be viable – GET BACK TO WORK and work hard like the rest of us are doing!!! Name the day and we’ll be in support with you!!!

    Comment by Karen — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 1:45 pm

  45. Sorry about my spelling in the above post. Having one of those days!!! 🙂

    Comment by Karen — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 1:46 pm

  46. Thanks Karen.

    For me, this is a case of I have been here before, had this about 12 years ago with my daughter, nothing seems to have changed!

    In a matter of interest, my ex partner and I are very good friends and she even agrees with this… In order of fairness and I am not sure of the legality of it but she is also looking at saying I have day to day care my son and I legitimately pay her “Child Care” of the half share that she loses out on (or there abouts).

    She has no plans on being on the DPB very long, but for now it is a move that even I see as in the best interest of my son and her other children.

    I have contacted Steve Maharey, my local MP, whom I have contact before with over unrelated matters and found him really good. I m awaiting his reply, hopefully he will contact me back soon.

    If I do not get satisfaction there, then I will contact people in the media like John Campbell.

    At least now I do not have to go in to sort out child support with my son sitting on my knee like I had to with my daughter 12 years ago. If I did not have my daughter sitting my knee I was treated like a leper and a bad father that was trying to get out of child support.


    Comment by Allan Proudfoot — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 3:28 pm

  47. A further point I haven’t seen mentioned so far…. My son and his ex have had 50/50 shared care from the outset, and my son was the primary caregiver for most of the time before separation. The ex went on the DPB. Both receive accommodation supplement. The ex is treated as the primary parent so gets the full accomm supplement. My son can only get the single rate, which is a lot less (max $100) even though his rent is more than hers. Ex is now working and has moved in with the boyfriend, so he (son) is going to see if he can switch to primary caregiver for accom supplement purposes. Don’t fancy his chances.

    Comment by artemis — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 4:24 pm

  48. Scrap,
    thank you for the site re petitions. I shall continue more research before compiling anything.
    It is interesting ( although being a menz site ), that there doesn’t appear to be any woman on here that are complaining about paying their ex partners more for child support than they receive.Surely there are woman out there earning more than the male.
    I do assume all those that are doing shared care, especially 50;50 have also applied for child support. It is a little hypocritical to aply for child support considering I don’t beleive anything should change hands, however if I can reduce my payments by $50/month then I my as well.
    My ex has just agrred to do an arrangement out of IRD and will accept $300/mth as opposed to the $600/mth I am about to start paying. I still don’t beleive I should pay anything, however I don’t have much of a leg to stand on. Either except the $300 agreement or continue at $600 through IRD. Think I will take the $300/month and continue to fight politicians.

    Comment by Greg Sandall — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 5:26 pm

  49. james
    in response to your question, and hopefully someone more informed than I can help you, however as far as I know regarding your rights.
    If your ex goes on the DPB, you will be liable to pay child support. If your ex applies for child support ( but is not on the DPB) you will be liable to pay child support. You can however also apply for child support.
    Depending on whom ever has the higher income will determine whether you end up receiving or paying.In my case because of my eanings last year I am about to pay $600/month which is off set against her earnings of which she pays me $40?month… so I will actually pay $560/mth.
    The best you can do is to come to an arrangement if possible away for IRD of where neither pays the other.

    Comment by Greg Sandall — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 5:34 pm

  50. Greg here is a comment from Judy Turner on the child support ammendment bill no.4

    But for me one submitter stood out from the rest. He was a dad who had never ever before considered making a submission to a select committee. He was so passionate about his experience and the conclusions he had come to regarding liable-parent payments that he was motivated to drive for hours to come to Wellington and appear before us. He is the custodial parent of his two girls. When his relationship disintegrated and battle lines were drawn, he came to the realisation that no one was going to win in a war that was about to erupt over the care arrangements for his children–least of all the children.

    He proposed an alternative approach that involved him being the primary caregiver, but with his children having both scheduled and spontaneous contact with their mother whenever they wanted. At his suggestion, and by mutual agreement, no money would change hands. His comment to the committee was: “I feel that if anyone should pay, I should be paying my ex-wife for the privilege of being the primary caregiver.”

    Comment by rosie — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 5:54 pm

  51. Greg

    Yes we applied for c/support from the other party when we got shared care….Im like you – we believe no money should be exchanged between parents in a shared care situation – however we decided to collect c/s off the other parent (all of $72 per month) to help bring down the horrendus $1062 we are ordered to pay….God knows what the new c/s amount we will be required to pay for the 2009!!!!!!

    Comment by Karen — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 8:41 pm

  52. Rosie, Interesting comment. I am very privileged to have my son. My ex is german and when we broke up she decided to return to germany. i put a stop to my sons passport ( age 8months), until I had time to sort things I wanted agreed upon to protect my interests as a father from the other side of the world.Long story short she decided once in germany that life would be better back here with me doing shared care. Lucky for me and the boy.
    My son can now only go away on holidays, with NZ being his habitual home.
    Yes I feel privileged.However not enough to prop up my ex savings plan.

    Comment by Greg Sandall — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 8:58 pm

  53. For the third time in a row I have been shut down during a long response to issues and answers involving Child support.

    I have the answers. I have solutions.

    Internal Affairs keeps shutting me down.

    Censorship lives. Democratic rights do not.

    The SFO under Sturt once labelled me as one of the most 10 dangerous people in this country. That was fact since they emailed my lawyer and accountant with that information.

    Their names were John Harrington of Harrington & Partners.

    Rex Chapman of Cruickshank Pryde & Company.

    I was never dangerous in the violence category, just that I was a strong Unionist and never stopped asking questions until I got the desired result.

    i would be suprised if this comment makes MENZ, as I have 3 times over made the suggestion how we can win. The Govt however loses face, lose the election, and has to account for 10’s of millions of dollars in ‘lost funds’, money lost which was paid to the IRD for Child Support, but which never ever reached the recipients.

    What happened to the money? Who stole it?

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 9:03 pm

  54. Morris,

    Please use Plain English and spell out “how we can win” Nothing else, no noise just the steps required and how the outcome is to be achieved.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 9:11 pm

  55. I have not been shut down. Amazing. So far.

    The answers are:

    Approach you Unions for support.

    Take out Full Page Adverts in every major newspaper.

    Explain how unfair CS impacts on new families.

    Ensure that such ads clearly show how the children themselves can suffer from excessive CS payments.

    Offer to pay ALL of childrens costs rather than pay so called Child Support.

    Offer to put money into a KIWI SAVER account after paying your childrens educational expenses yourself. This is their future. Michael Cullen has to agree, so does every Institution involved with Child care.

    Form a Union. Make it NZ & Aus wide….we have tens of thousands, maybe millions.


    I will be shut down one way or another.

    In the meantime i will pay for the first full Child support campaign in the southland times.

    Anyone want to help?


    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 9:29 pm

  56. Does that answer you Scrap?

    You have been arguing for years now, but achieved nothing have you?

    Would you like to work with me and the major UNIONS to achieve something not for the parents but the poor damn kids who get the rotten end of the stick?

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 9:35 pm

  57. Here is a question for you…

    I have two child, my eldest to a previous relationship lives with me, my second in currently in 50/50 shared care agreement…

    Now how many dependants do I have? How many do IRD say I have?


    Comment by Allan Proudfoot — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 9:35 pm

  58. Or you could try doing what I am doing.

    Redoing there C/S assessment based on having 1/2 a dependant and 1/2 a liable child, along with using half the liability factor for each child in a shared care agreement and sending The Minister, Chief Executive and Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the The Ombudsmen, a bill for what I am being over charged.

    Doesn’t solve the fact that I should have to pay a thing but it would raise some awareness.

    Comment by Allan Proudfoot — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:05 pm

  59. You have been arguing for years now, but achieved nothing have you?

    Thats obviously your view Morris.

    No, looking at what you propose, I will decline your offer.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:10 pm

  60. I have two child, my eldest to a previous relationship lives with me, my second in currently in 50/50 shared care agreement…

    Your just being difficult Allan LOL That you should put the Child Tax Gestapo through such complicated mathematics. You must understand the first law of CS Maths 1 + 1 = 345678909.

    The law is an exceptional ass in the circumstance you describe.

    Its one of those situations where parliament knew that this act would produce unjust and inequitable results but don’t care.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:18 pm

  61. No I just got the attitude that if I am going to be charged for something then it has to be accurate!

    Morally and reality says I have one and a half dependants and liable for half a child. Not one dependant and one liable child as the law states.
    I do however thing the entire system is a crock. Most relationship breakups that involve kids end with the mother keeping the children, and the house and car, and the father leaving with little or taking debt with them and then he is stung with a huge child support on top of that.

    It should be case by case basis and all these factors should come into it.

    Comment by Allan Proudfoot — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:30 pm

  62. To Allan Prodfoot Only

    I would say this…..

    You have a financial reponsiblity as a father.

    I am sure you want to assume the responsiblity as you should.

    The difference is making sure you provide adequately for your kids. You had pay for em.

    My thoughts are that every parent should meet the needs of the children.

    They are only kids after all. They depend on us. If we dont meet their needs then they do it themselves. Its called burglary and theft. They do time. Well, if i was starving…yep, I would steal to survive. we all would.

    Theoretically if you cant afford to pay the Child Support, you are supposed
    to be able to get Govt Support.

    yeah, we know its a joke when it comes down to Child Support.

    IRD…dont listen. IRD laugh when a Dad commits suicide. IRD ignores Govt statistics regardingNZers leaving the country. IRD dont care about homeless kids. CYFS loves it becuase they enjoy Helens finanical support at taxpayers expense, but even more they get to sexually abuse the kids.

    Kinda hard to protect the kids when the GOVT really doesnt want to.

    We can change it though.

    If we all stand together, we can win.

    This GOVT will and has undertaken every conceivable effort to undermine any person or group who promote fairness regarding child support.

    It represents literally Billions of dollars to the affected Countries, not in to terms of so called Child support, but what those countries would have to pay in Social Welfare (DHB) if Child Support payments were reformed in that those payments were made only in the respect of the needs of the chi;d.

    I hope u get me here.

    If any individual (unlikely) or organisation (possible) breaks the back of unfair Child Support, then it will literally break the backs of the Countries involved.

    How many women woukd immediately claim Govt support to aid their welfare if we ever proved excess CS were wrong? Ask Cullen. It would break the back of this country. AND MANY OTHERS.

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:33 pm

  63. Allan,

    The previous system used to be based on individual circumstances.

    Those old politicians that Morris refers to gave us the current mess and to keep the DPB the Union movement supported it. The hansard record of the debate is fascinating reading. Remember this legislation came into being in the same year as the Mother of all budgets.

    The legislation was a copy of the Aussie Act which was based on work done by a Wisconsin by a guy called garfinkel

    <blockquote>A similar idea is to expand the child support system to provide more income to fatherless families, again for the entire population. If the father did not pay support, an assured benefit would be paid to the mother. It is also claimed that the assured benefit would raise work effort among welfare mothers because it would not be reduced if they worked, as welfare is (Garfinkel 1992).

    When garfinkel conducted his work the system was designed for transfers between benificaries and low income earners as applying this formulaic approach to other groups produces grossly over calculated support awards.

    Taxman like it because its easy to administer.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:49 pm

  64. To Morris Lindsay

    “You have a financial reponsiblity as a father.”

    Agreed, but I am not financialy reasonsible for the mother of my child. That is what I am arguing!

    Like I said earlier, I not only work in excess of 96 hours a fortnight but have my son all my spare time, I cater to all his financial needs and living costs whilst with me and fork out half of everything else like clothes etc.

    What I also havent mentioned is his mother has left me with a huge debt which she accepts but is unable to gain finance for. So not only I have a huge choke hold on me for the next 4 years, but have to fork out child support in excess of already going over and above.

    We also enjoyed a simple agreement on this, it basically ment I paid a sum of money directly on her share of debt instead of me paying that sum as child support and her giving it back towards the debt. IRD not interested in this at all.

    Go figure…

    Comment by Allan Proudfoot — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:53 pm

  65. Agreed, but I am not financially responsible for the mother of my child. That is what I am arguing!

    see What Were They Thinking?The Development of Child Support Guidelines in Canada for an excellent explanation of spousal maintenance components of CS formulas.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 11:03 pm

  66. Scrap, the link ‘What were they thinking?’ doesn’t seem to work.

    Comment by julie — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 11:53 pm

  67. Julie try

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th March 2008 @ 8:01 am

  68. Hi, I’ve been very interested in some of the comments on this site. My situation is a little different in that I, being the mother, am not the primary care giver of my daughter but subject to paying child support to my ex. I differ again in that I am under the Australian child support system as my daughter schools and lives with her father in Australia even though we have joint custody. I most definately believe that I have a raw deal in that I pay AUD$450 per month in addition to airfares during school holidays and the fact that to access my child ie. aim to fly to Sydney 2/3 time a year to follow up on her progress at school and to keep a close relationship with my daughter etc is not taken into account. Each time my ex decides that he needs more money he lodges an application for more child support and beacuse he has clocked up a huge credit card debt I appear to be paying off his debt. The fact that I don’t have credit card debt (a mortgage and leaky home doesn’t appear to be considered debt!)it appears I have to finance his debt! I am all for a change to way child support is calculated and I know that the Australian child support agency is revamping it’s system – so I will let you all know if a more fair and just way of calculating child support is implemented.

    Comment by Nyree — Tue 4th March 2008 @ 11:40 am

  69. First of all an apology to Scrap because clearly he knows what he is doing and has consistently offered damn good advice over the years.

    Isn’t public awareness part of the solution though?

    I mean its about fairness and when I read back through the posts here, I feel so darn sorry for so many people.

    The people who know of this site and relay their sad cirmcumstances are only a handful of the affected population. There are probably 10’s of thousands of us if the truth be known.

    If we publicly advertised this site for people like us, and tried to get a petition going, how many would register? How many other fair minded people would sign a petition to change the CS Act into a fair system?

    I believe we few individuals have little hope of achieving a desirable result, but if we can get support from well wishers and other similarly affected people, then surely we have a chance.

    I can reach 850 people in one hit at my workplace. We probably have hundreds of high income earning guys here who would immediately sign a petition.

    Public awareness is the key. How unfair CS affects the very chilren we try to care for is another key. There are lots of keys.

    So how did the petition against Sue Bradfords Anti Smacking Bill gain so much momentum?

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Sat 8th March 2008 @ 9:47 am

  70. A question.

    A helpful IRD employee (yes there is one) just suggested to me that I could care for my son 5 nights a week. We studied my shiftworking hours closely, and yes, I can indeed look after my 11 year old for 5 nights a week.

    I currently care for him 3 nights in an eight day week under Shared Care.

    The advantage I have is that son wants to spend more time with me.

    IRD says this would make me the Custodial Parent and I would not have to pay the child support bill of $600 per month. I would of course pay all of my sons costs as my ex does not earn much.

    Is this true?

    I presume I have to hire a lawyer and persuade the Family Court to allow me to take over the role of Custodial Parent.

    Does anyone have any information?

    No, she works 20 hours a week and lives with her boyfriend who is a high income earner.

    Any advice would be much appreciated.


    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Sat 8th March 2008 @ 10:07 am

  71. First of all an apology to Scrap because clearly he knows what he is doing and has consistently offered damn good advice over the years.


    An apology to you also, you haven’t given up the fight either! Have to get back to the boy but will pick up on your observations early next week.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 8th March 2008 @ 12:37 pm

  72. Hi all,

    I just want to advise that Hon Peter Dunne has responded to me about child support & shared care. Without saying it, his underlying tones say that there is a problem with Child Support and shared care and he is interested in how the current legistration can be improved.

    Out of this, I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that for each child in a shared care arrangement you have one (1) dependant and one (1) child that you a liable for in the Child Support assessment.



    Comment by Allan Proudfoot — Fri 14th March 2008 @ 6:36 pm

  73. Allan, Im not quite sure I follow your comment on each having one dependant and one child that you are liable for. The point is, surely, that in the shared care situation there is only one person being considered the liable parent as opposed to the two that there should be. Are we not fighting for the acceptance of both parents being the Custodial parents and not just the one being liable?

    Comment by pomcat — Sat 15th March 2008 @ 1:21 pm

  74. Apparently there is some legislation being reviewed in parliament at the moment.This is according to my local MP John Hayes.
    I would like some help with this next question.
    John has asked me to come up with some bullet points that mainly refer to my situation as a 50:50 shared parent.I request that if you have a good bullet point then share it and I shall compile then before taking to John who said he would take it to parliament. Small start I know.

    Comment by Greg Sandall — Sat 15th March 2008 @ 1:41 pm

  75. Hi there guys, i just wanted to say the past 12yrs my wife has paid child support for two children she hasnt even been allowed to see, they will take her money but wont let her see her children, how bad is that?

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Sat 15th March 2008 @ 2:55 pm

  76. To pomcat:

    Basically Peter Dunne told me the in a 50/50 shared care agreement, for purposes of the child support formula, for each child in a shared care agreement, both parents have 1 dependant and 1 child they are liable which changes the living allowance for each parent.

    Just though I would point it out for other parents in a shared care agreement.


    Comment by Allan Proudfoot — Sat 15th March 2008 @ 3:57 pm

  77. How do you get 50/50 Shared Cared?

    I am confused and so is the IRD.

    One IRD employee tells me that if I simply want to stop becoming liable to paying Child Support, then I have to care for my son 5 nights a week.

    My current situation is that I give care for 3 nights a week, ex gives 4.

    A role reversal does NOT work according to the IRD. If I care for my son 4 nights a week, she does 3 nights, I still have to pay Child Support of $558 a month.

    Why does it have to be 5 nights a week rather than 4, when the IRD state clearly that ” Child Support is money paid to support children when couples with children are not living together or who have seperated. The money is paid by the parent who is not living with the children to the person whom the children live with” ?

    I have finally confused the IRD to the point they have openly admitted they dont know what to do, because they have simply never before been placed in the situation given below.

    1/ I will look after my son for 4 consecutive nights. My ex will then care for him for 4 consecutive nights, which offers perfect 50/50 Shared Care. However I am a shiftworker and can offer additional care in school holidays, meaning that over a period of a year I care for my son MORE than she can.

    2/ Because ex and I still need to provide for our sons needs, I have additionally offered to cover ALL of my sons cost. His school fees, his school uniform, books, field trips, casual clothes and footwear, his healthcare and dentalcare.

    3/ I have additionally offered to put a guaranteed minimum of $200 a month into his bank account for the next 8 years, (He is 10) to help him fincially in the future.

    4/ Ex would receive no Child Support (maybe the minimum $62 a month), but would basically only have to feed him while he is in her care.

    5/ In this way I can ensure my son is not only well clothed and his educational needs met, I can somewhat provide for his future.

    6/ This stops my ex from spending the current $558 a month paid to her in the name of Child Support on the Pokie Machines and instead gives my son a better deal all round…including a lump sum to start him off with a University education.

    Its good…its very good. And IRD say they have never seen anything like this before.

    Well, at least it goes to show that I am interested in my sons upbringing today and in the future.

    I dont mind paying child support at all. I just hate my ex using it on the pokies.

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Sun 16th March 2008 @ 6:22 pm

  78. I don’t have personal experience with this, but speaking in general terms it seems to me that IRD have to give you a decision within a reasonable timeframe, together with the reasons for it. Then you have a basis to determine if you agree with the decision or not, and can request a review.

    If IRD don’t provide you with a decision and / or the reasons, then you have recourse to the Official Information Act and the Ombudsman.

    The OIA is very powerful and has set timeframes for reply. It is not necessary to make a request citing the OIA but it wouldn’t do any harm.

    My take on your proposal is that it doesn’t fit the rules, so is likely to be turned down. I assume there is no possibility of a private agreement to remove the whole thing from IRD.

    Comment by artemis — Tue 18th March 2008 @ 6:24 am

  79. Artemis,

    Your faith in reasonable due process in child support by IRD is amusing.

    All they are legally required to do is state that “you do not meet the criteria under the Child Tax Act”

    The recourse is to judicial Review an expensive, complicated process with it being unlikely that you will be successful as IRD have unlimited legal resources to defend themselves.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 18th March 2008 @ 7:48 am

  80. Hi guys, just thought some of you might like this info
    Petitions Team
    Office of the High Commisioner for Human Rights
    United Nations Office at Geneva
    1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
    PH (41-22) 917 900
    Fax +41 22 917 9022

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Tue 18th March 2008 @ 9:09 pm

  81. Artemis, Scrap

    I’m not going to take on the IRD. I know better than that.

    I’m simply undertaking an Administrative Review, which I expect to be declined.

    IRD dont make the laws. They just enforce them. Rigidly.

    The plan is to subsequently approach the Family Court.

    To the FC I am saying I care for my son more than my ex (number of overnights), that I also intend to takeover the entire financial cost of his upbringing in every respect. I am also sweetening the pot by honestly stating that the ‘balance’ of the remaining Child Support I currently pay will go into his bank account and will be used to pay for his University Education. Maybe the FC & IRD can enforce this if they want to. I don’t care. I intend to do as I say.

    All my ex would have to pay of her own accord is food while son is in her care.

    It works like this. Rather than pay CS I put $400 a month into a nominated bank account. From that account I pay my sons school fees, school uniform, exercise books, field trips, casual clothing, footwear, healthcare. Nothing else. All other expenses come from my own bank account.

    I have done the math.

    I expect to be able to save at least $200 a month for the next 8 years. This is a good start in life for a young man aged 18. No, he wouldnt be able to access the money at that age, there would be strict controls, and unless he wanted those funds for a University Education, he wouldnt be able to use the money until say age 25.

    I expect Michael Cullen and Peter Dunn will applaud. They should.

    Everyones circumstances with this damn outdated law differ. But I bet you there are a significant amount of men out there who wouldnt so much mind paying the exorbitant cost if they knew the money they paid was being directly spent on their children. And the balance going into their bank accounts for their future welfare.

    I can afford to pay. Most high income earners can afford to pay.

    I just say, lets make sure the excess funds actually go to the children, and benefit the children. We hear of parents ripping off WINZ. We never hear about parents abusing the Child Support System for their own gain.

    My call is, lets protect the welfare of our children for starters, and make the recipients of CS accountable for the expenditure.


    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Tue 18th March 2008 @ 10:03 pm

  82. Morris,

    You need to be very clear that the Child Tax Act is a revenue act and does not give a toss about what is best for children.

    You need to be very clear on this if going to the FC.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 19th March 2008 @ 7:43 am

  83. Dear Morris, in your last paragraph, you used the word “accountable”. Very important issue, when it comes to protecting any vulnerable person’s interests. Responsible people are willing to be held accountable, are even keen that they are publicly seen to be accountable.
    By contrast, the familycaught doesn’t do anything important in public, it tries to move all of it’s actions into private, where it acts outside of any working systems of accountability or quality control. I don’t think that the present familycaught workers would be capable of working in an open, publicly accountable environment. They have taken “no-fault” access to divorce, to be no accountability over all issues, certainly over parenting issues which affect children. I don’t believe that they have the skills to evaluate responsibility issues, they take the easy way out!
    Against the background of our present familycaught and Parliamentarians who mostly don’t want to address problems in familycaught, then – although your sentiment is wise and constructive – I don’t expect that you are likely to receive constructive support from familycaught, for your parenting plans.
    Besides, it it really ethically right, that you try to “purchase” access to give parenting, from the mother of your child? It seems to me, that this feeds the very attitudes, that are a barrier to allowing many good fathers (yourself and some mothers too) to providing the best that they can for their own children. We do need to address the basic causes of the systemic failures within familycaught and the Parliament that approves the legislation.
    It is Parliament, that sets out in the legislation, that below 40% the non-custodial parent’s contribution is seen as being of only entertainment value for the child, so that the costs of this care are “discounted to nothing” in the “child support” calculations?
    There is a need for public debate, on the VALUES that our legislation should be based on. The legislation of the last 25 years contains many wacky and self-contradictory values. If we wish to provide better parenting for our children, we need to discuss these issues directly and drive the outcomes through Parliament, into the legislation. At present, it seems there are lots of tears and little action for improvement.
    While fathers fail to advocate for equal treatment, under these laws, these problems will continue and may well get worse.
    When parents cannot have confidence that familycaught will support constructive parenting plans, then unfortunately it is unwise to have children in NZ.
    Best wishes for your plan. If I can help, then please tell me off-list how you would like me to help.
    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 19th March 2008 @ 8:11 am

  84. Morris,

    With your approach (as outlined) in the Family Court. expect to loose totally.
    As Scrap says; “It is a revenue Act”. That is one of a Judges starting lines every time a CS case comes to the FC. Judges have very clear instructions that mummies tax (her personal pocket montey) must be collected. Child Support has nothing to do with the best interests of the child. As you yourself say, you can pay and they will absolutely insist you do. Her solicitor may even make a counter claim for some more just to teach you a lesson that Mummies money needs to be paid each month by the 20th or else its 10% penalty and then 2% every month for ever after.
    Of course expect costs for both her lawyer and IRD’s against you if you try the argument you propose above.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 19th March 2008 @ 8:16 am

  85. To Scrap, Murray and Allan

    Thx for all the feeback. Not really what I wanted to hear, but certainly a great deal of food for thought.

    I am applying to the FC initially for one thing, and that is increased time with my son. Now that he is 11, he can certainly stay with me more often.

    I am doing this through the Variation Clause in the formal Shared Care Agreement which was brokered by my sons lawyer 3 years ago and approved by the Court. This gave me 3 nights a week with my son.

    The biggest thing here is my beaut boy is standing firmly on my side and has stated he wants to stay with me as much as possible. This would be 20 overnights in a month. This is more than the 61% threshold.

    Oh yeah, I can win provided my ex and her partner dont coerce, threaten or bribe my son to change his stance.

    The only possible glitch is that one night a week I would have to pick him up at 8.30pm. Is it too late for an 11 yo? I dont think so…he told me his mother puts him in bed at 9pm each night. So do I, earlier if he wants to read in bed.

    Do I have a problem?

    Who knows? Wait and see i guess.


    PS, even if i win this, it doesnt mean i am going to back off this issue…its just so totally unfair.

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Wed 19th March 2008 @ 2:55 pm

  86. Your chance of getting 61% care is highly unlikely. Her solicitor, and C4C are not stupid. Although I don’t know the case details I would stongly advise not getting your hopes up AND don’t play with your son’s hopes either. If the above post was seen by her solicitor or C4C I would think you would have quite a job to maintain shared care. I’m sure her solicitor, and some judges, would see such comments as almost grounds for supervised access.
    Get smart, get off here, take some confidential advice from those who have experience.
    I don’t know where in the country you are but try or for some considered advice that won’t have the potential to torpedo your case like such disclosures here.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 19th March 2008 @ 11:02 pm

  87. THX Allan,

    But you have misinterpreted my comments. And I can see why now that I have reread my own comments.

    My son knows nothing about Child support or Shared Care. It was he who constantly complained that he didnt get to see me often enough. I frequently asked my ex if we could come to some common agreement between us to increase my sons time with me. She simply refused to respond.

    My son additionally has just cause to spend less time in his mothers care, but of course I cant get into that subject.

    I had carefully explained to him that I too wanted to spend more time with him, and that it was possible, although he would have to be prepared to make certain sacrifices. He said he was willing to make those sacrifices, which largely revolves around him getting out of bed 15 minutes earlier for one morning of the week.

    He understands that in order for us to see more of each other I have to apply to the Family Court. He understands that the Family Court will appoint a lawyer to act in his own best interests, and that he will have to truthfully tell that lawyer in his own words why he wants to spend more time with his father. He has been through this before. He has no fears whatsoever about telling his lawyer why he wants to stay with me and he has very strong grounds indeed.

    My mistake was in saying ‘my beaut boy stands firmly on my side”

    That should have been written as ‘my beaut boy stands firmly by my side”

    He knows that I enjoy his company and that I want to see more of him. Yes he knows I get lonely. But that is all he knows. When I told him that the only way we could see each other more was to apply to the FC, he told me in no uncertain terms that he would stand by my side to make this happen.

    Allan I was so worried about your comment I took the matter immediately to my lawyer who is the best available. I showed the lawyer the comments I had written on this site.

    Sorry but you are way off beam. First thing is as you said, you dont where I live. Second is in this district alone there are 4 people by the same name. Third is, who can prove I actually sent the comments? Fourth is, have I caused any harm to my son thru the link? Fifth is have I caused my son any emotional harm by talking to him about an event that is going to happen anyway? No I have not.

    You really think the FC would not recognise the request made by my son to spend more time with me? No, it is in fact a common request. And there is a wealth of information out there today which supports the fact that boys of that age will benefit immensely from spending more time with their dads rather than their mums.

    The last time I went to the FC, I found the (female) judge to be very open and frank and friendly. My ex did not attend the Hearing at all. The Judge had no hestitaion at all in the SC Hearing, and offered a great deal of advice/help.

    Since that time my son and I have enjoyed our time together immensly. We relish our time together. And we want more. We stand together.

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Thu 20th March 2008 @ 10:08 pm

  88. From reading through this site, it would seem to me that there is a general lack of understanding of the big picture.

    Look at my situation…..
    I married (for life) to a divorced catholic. I had been earning around 40% of the household income. We had saved to cover the shortfall when I stopped work so I could stay home with our child – he then earned around $70K + car. We had another child. We sell our rental assets (small amount of equity), bought into a business he is to manage. Salary around $110K
    We build a house. Living expenses exceeded salary, and we lived partially off our equity until the business is generating additional income – expected to be 15months later. We then foresee that we can meet our living expenses and start paying principal on the home.

    My husband fails to perform in the business. The stresses are gaining. Over 2 years we downsize house (and area) twice to reduce overheads. We have very little equity left. I continue to encourage and support him. I offer many good suggestions for the business. He is fickle about focusing on work and is not a very believable leader to the 10 staff. Business continues to drop. He leases a lovely car at $1100 p/mth, having totally cast aside my objections. I encourage him to follow his sales strenghts and work extra hours to cover the admin, saying I’m happy to carry the load at home. He continues to spend less time at work, and is not focusing on work. I develop a serious illness. He is uninterested in supporting me. My health returns and look to balance our lives through having enjoyment with friends etc. He stays home. He offers me no friendship, only criticisn. I am on the receiving end of emotional abuse, constant let downs, put downs, lots of mind games against me. Tension is high at home. There is no team work. No co-operation. He underminds all my direction and consistency with the kids. He starts doing things with the kids he knows are against my beliefs and tells the kids it’s a secret. (by this time we have one in primary, one pre schooler). There is no value in the business asset with uncertainty whether that will change. Our assets have been significantly eroded. I cannot tolerate the lack or support, friendship or team work anymore. I can see that it is affecting the kids (being brought into the games). We try marriage counselling – I want to work through the issues and I raise these fully. I learn he is passive aggressive, so he has been playing me for years and will not take accountability for his shortcomings. The marriage is seriously damaged. We split.

    Now onto child maintenance and sharing care…
    I don’t qualify for DPB because he earns $110K so CM is higher.
    He earns $7K per months after tax. All of that and more WAS needed to run our family.
    I have been full time Mum for 7+ years, and our family was structured around making sure the kids had me there for their preschool, after school, holidays sick days etc. So I could run the home and give them quality time.
    When my youngest starts school, the maximum I could hope to earn is $400pw during those hours, and I have no idea how to manage the stress of working and running a home alone, let alone how to ensure their QUALITY care for the 12 weeks of the school hols, their sick leave, their afterschool needs etc.
    The amount of Child Support calculated by IRD does not even cover 70% of the rent of a house near the kids school. How am I to cover the car, food, clothes, power ($200-400p/m alone!), hair cuts, medical, kids birthdays and their friends presents, sport, activities, insurances to run our family on a portion of the money that was previously totally allocated to this.
    How is it that he is now (according to IRD rates) only required to contribute around 22% of his income, when a couple of months ago more thatn 100% of it was needed for us to live, and eat.

    The rights of a guardian:
    My children attend his catholic school. He has bombarded my kids with catholism when he visits as that seems to be what my ex needs to do to make it OK to walk out on 2 marriages by age 43 AND be a good catholic. So the kids get an overloaded dose through him and school. I am a practical fair person but MY rights and beliefs get pushed aside.
    I cannot leave the area and move 40 mins away to a cheaper town, because he has guardian rights and can block them being moved from the school.
    My son is being constantly teased by his cousin at that school. I can’t raise that as the inlaws are a large local group and they appear to dispise me. He has sold them many over dramatised “poor him” stories so they believe I am “evil” and they cherish him. He needs to “man up”, but the that “family love and support behind him” he will continue to evade the reality of his responsibilityes and return to the warmth of their unconditional love.
    They wind the key in his back. He will do the opposite of whatever I request so I have learned to say nothing – hoping that if he doesn’t know about what I think is fair then he cant (passively aggressively) sabotage it.

    Shared Care:
    I am a wonderful Mum to my boys. They love both their parents. They stay with me still in the family home (for now), and I move out of the house one day each week after school until they are asleep, and also for 3 overnight stays alt weekends. Their dad comes in to stay with them in the faimly home. We can’t afford two houses.
    My ex wants 50/50. He loves his kids, but he gives in to everything they want so they are demanding in his care and shortly after seeing him.
    I offer love, fun, respect and support but consistent boundaries.
    He will push for shared care. That will mean I cannot move to a cheaper area, I will loose maintenance and the impact of affordability from that is huge. This is not “pocket money” as rudely suggested by step mum’s and child maintenance paying Dad’s ahead, but a meagre contribution towards part of the cost of housing and food for the kids. Everything else is extra – their clothes, sport, gifts, medical, school, etc etc. Child maintenance is not an amount the ex has a play money. It is a contribution to part of the cost of food and shelter.
    In my situation, I can not earn the amount my ex does.
    I could earn half if working full time, but then have the cost of care, and am then unable to raise my boys according to what was “our” standards were.
    Why should those standards change. Why should the children no longer have Mum right behind their needs because their parents separate.
    Without kids I could easily support just me, but I have, love and want my boys. This means I sacrifice my earning and dramatically increase my living and housing costs.

    The boys are lovely kids. But they need A home. A base. They need A place to keep their “Stuff”. They need can handle the differences in our two parenting styles for the 5/14 days a fortnight they see their dad. They could not expect to cope with the inconsistencies if the care was closer to 50/50.
    I offer them consistency and boundaries. Fun, laughter and love. Why would they benefit from being thrust into shared care and therefore becoming of no fixed abode with opposing styles.
    They need a home and a regime to follow. They also need good access to the other parent. But most of all they need some co-operation (although I am unable to get this from my ex).

    It was through no fault of the kids (or mine really) that I became a single parent. It seems to me that there is too much support for the “poor Dad’s” and it fails to recognise the need for stability for the kids, and the economic reality of raising them.

    Comment by bgs — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 12:21 pm

  89. Normally i would have got angry reading a story like yours, but i got so bored half way through with all the minutiae and details ! Mmmm, big story ?

    The majority of dads here and throughout the world are SOOOOO angry because the state routinely TAKES Kids off them and puts them into poverty by MAKING them pay C.S under threat of prison. It is a great injustice, what you describe as the “big picture” is the opposite, it is your little picture. Maybe you should read of the terrible things that men have to go through here on Menz and of the demonising of men, by ALL the hysterical “Domestic Violence” campaigns.

    My lovely cupcake was a REALLY violent woman, and took out a Protection Order saying that i was the violent one, and i was OUT OF THE HOUSE ONLY IN WHAT I WAS WEARING ! She stopped me completely seeing my sons for 3 months (then only with supervision by Dr Barnardos) AND THE LAW ALLOWED HER TO DO IT, i had to fight like crazy in court just to see my own kids, MOST MEN DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS, then you find that it is a waste of time even trying to defend yourself BECAUSE OF THE UNJUST WAYS MEN ARE TREATED BY LAW ! Many men have stories 10 times worse than mine too. What you are describing is simply what happens during divorces, but NOT UNJUST . Our injustice comes from the law and the secret corrupt practices of the “Family Caughts” and the feminist jurisprudence. I think you should read more about fathers’ rights

    Women make routine false allegations of domestic violence, it is how we are treated by the law and the Child Support government bodies, what you are saying is mostly financial and emotional stuff, Not the big picture at all !

    Comment by Martin Swash — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 12:43 pm

  90. The financial relevance links to the child maintenance issue.
    I totally disagree with woman who restrict access to the children to get back at their husbands. This fails totally to consider that the children love and need both parents in their lives.
    The issue of violence is another matter – and never benefits children.
    I would totally prevent access if my children had been subjected to seeing violence against me. I do understand that it is bloody difficult when the woman is the unfit parent, or has been violent (I have a fiend in Melbourne in this situation and it is a disgrace the process he has been subjected to).

    But I am totally against shared care. Children need A base, and good access to the other parent. Ideally a regular pattern but additional access as needed. They need consistancy. They need to be totally removed from the conflict between the two parents.

    The best outcome has to be to look as the total picture which includes the childrens needs for both (non violent) parents in their lives, but also the economic realities of how to achieve that.
    Slamming the Mums through this site as money grabbing, as having “pocket money” etc etc is inappropriate.

    I have a friend who works full time, earns a good income, received no settlement when she split from her violent husband. He was assessed at being required to pay only $80p/mth as he hids his income through his business (sole trader maximising expenses and taking lots of cash out). He has one day a week supervised by his family (she didn’t want Barnardos). He appeals each year costing her $10K (remember she got no settlement, receives no maintenance and is trying to parent them 7 nights 6 days and hold down a big job). Last case he got 1 night a week extra, and counselling to help him become a good father and they will review in 3 months because they’d like to give him more. He is fighting for 50/50 which will see HER have to keep a family home AND pay HIM maintenance. There is no court awarded counselling for her stress or violence. It all seems stacked in favour of the father. It is hard financially for woman.

    The kids are deemed to benefit from 50/50 care when the reality of that trhusting them into a life of no fixed abode and being reaised under generally conflicting regimes is most definaetly not going to benefit them. Nor will it provide the practical financial support for a typically career stunted Mum to be able to cover the costs for her home and still maintain the level of care and support for her children.

    Comment by bgs — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 1:00 pm

  91. Typical woman, mainly interested in money, i will rememeber you when I AM ALL ALONE ON CHRISTMAS MORNING , having had my sons stolen from me by a violent woman making false allegations of violence against me, which is typical scenario btw.

    You obviously read virtually NOTHING of my post, well the bottom line for you is that men are beginning to fight back after 30 years of unfettered feminism, we have had enough of injustice, we have had enough of the demonisation, enough of us have been so abused, our numbers are growing, we are wiser, women are not used to men fighting back, BUT, sister, YOU HAD BETTER START GETTING USED TO IT !

    Your dull financial tales are NOTHING when compared with grave grave injustices that men face EVERY DAY in the family caught system , SISTER!

    Comment by Martin Swash — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 3:37 pm

  92. BDS there are so many contradictions in the financial claims you have made in your story I don’t know here to start. He earns $110k and you need 100% of this income to live. Hello? You claim that it is not fair that you get 22% of $110,000 = $24,200 to feed 2 young children.
    The other things you complain about are so trivial it just leaves me cold.

    You ex must have been a saint to put up with you.

    “He will push for shared care. That will mean I cannot move to a cheaper area, I will loose maintenance and the impact of affordability from that is huge.”
    Clearly this is why you don’t want shared care. I suppose at least you are honest.

    Lady if you wanted to stay a house wife you should not have separated. You got separated so now you have to earn a living like everyone else in the world. It was your choice.

    Shared care is best for your kids. Be an adult and put your children’s needs first. Stop expecting others to fund your life style choices.

    I don’t think you have the faintest idea about how much pain, suffering and hardship fathers on this web site have gone through.

    Comment by Dave — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 6:02 pm

  93. Guys,

    BDS is focused on herself like most post modern feminist women. We are focused on the best interest of children as the vanguard of a 21st century solution to parenting post separation.(Equal parental rights and responsibilities)

    BDS is trapped in herself created personal circumstances and presumes that a father is nothing more than a blank cheque to support her latte, lace and lingerie lifestyle.

    BDS lacks comprehension of the resilience of children when care is shared and quite happily promotes parental alienation.

    Shared care is the 21st century solution for kids post separation but the ilks of BDS only see the money, not the kids.

    Ive gone beyond trying to reason with the this generation of women as they lack the intellectual capacity for objective debate – they are focused only on the subjective and try to claim this is objective.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 9:57 pm

  94. The law considers it important that after separation the mother can maintain a similar standard of living for the children (and of course for herself) that existed prior to the separation. Another principle now embodied in law is that the standard of living of one parent should not be substantially different from that of the other parent. These principles allowed Paul McCartney’s wife to fleece him of tens of millions of pounds simply because she lived with him for a couple of years. Utterly ridiculous.

    These priniciples deserve scrutiny. If a parent choose to separate why on earth should (s)he expect to continue to benefit from the other parent’s industry? In the long run the children are likely to benefit from the financial or other success of either parent. Why begrudge this? The current system discourages success, out of some misguided desire to equalize both parents’ economic situations.

    These principles are mainly designed to make feminism convenient. To make separation seem as benign and normal as possible. To enable (mainly) women to avoid consequences for their decision to choose “independence” when their partner no longer pleases them. The principles are usually applied only for the benefit of women. Nobody, least of all the IRD or Family Court, cares if a father’s standard of living plummets even though that also means his provisions for the children will plummet. The current system seems in fact designed to ensure the father’s lifestyle is damaged as much as possible.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 3rd December 2008 @ 3:37 pm

  95. Don’t forget guys, there’s plenty of us women who are also seriously compromised by the ridiculous laws – we share our money and the heartache of fathers who are abused by the crap system. Surely if you take the fathers and the supporting partners and unite – action something – IRD and Family Court have to change?

    Comment by Annieb — Wed 3rd December 2008 @ 5:06 pm

  96. Poster #95, yes, I agree. However, it has been incredibly difficult to get like-minded people to work together. Political change is what’s required. That can be achieved by increased democratic voting for policies in the desired direction, large protest action, stunts that make a big impact, or armed revolution. The last one is clearly unacceptable and NZ’s police and armed forces too strong, so it will need to be the first three. Little seems to have been achieved by reasoned argument, appeals to those in power, contributions to select committees etc. The feminist power base is unresponsive to reason or morality and will not compromize unless forced.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 3rd December 2008 @ 10:55 pm

  97. There is an issue that will need to be addressed in trying to make CS fairer. That is the DPB. The State extracts as much reimbursement as it can for the DPB, because if it didn’t then many couples would use it as a convenient way of increasing their combined income. Separation would become even more attractive, and sham separations would become common.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 4th December 2008 @ 11:40 am

  98. I understand that in UK, benefit data shows 1 million more couples separated than census data. This figure has been considered to be a “statistical aberration”, but when it crossed the 1 million mark, even though it is “Politically Correct”, it could no longer be ignored!

    When I lived there and looked into buying a house, I found out that as a married couple, you could only get a mortgage rebate once for a married couple, but an unmarried couple would get it twice over. Working backwards, this showed that the UK Government valued the possibility of married sex as being worth &8 per night (about $25NZ), whether you had sex or not!

    Even if you divorced, the tax department could assess your tax as if still married, for up to 10 years. (Looking around, I couldn’t see any local women who I would marry for &8 per night, whichever way the money was paid.)

    As a result of the values enforced through the benefit/tax system, people are responding in kind, in their millions.

    Net result, the UK Government is now embarking on applying much increased pressure onto DPB beneficiaries, to get them to go to work. No longer are they to be treated as “sacred cows”, beyond the working responsibilities that good parents live up to. Certainly marriage isn’t all beer and skittles. It does take compromise and tolerance. Those who stick with it, usually do get good long term benefits, socially and financially.

    In terms of CS and DPB, I believe that if one parent wants to claim DPB, then the other parent should have the first option of saying NO, I will take care of the child myself. This would provide a degree of protection for the Government, from extortion by solo parents. It would often ensure that the child(ren) had better and safer parenting too.

    Work, as a selection process, incidentally contains more assessment of parenting skills and resources, than the present familycaught custody process, which is more focused on asset-stripping, than protecting children from poor parenting. (I may be being provocative, but think it through, there is a scary amount of truth in what I am claiming. Especially scary for the children who are being sacrificed to the Paramount interests of these legal “workers”!)

    This would usually be a better way of taking care of the children, as often then the child would be in a family group, rather than 1 child and 1 solo sacred cow, which is too small a grouping for good parenting anyway. (Incidentally, working people have essentially passed a selection process against low level psychiatric problems, which solo sacred cows usually haven’t passed.)

    Your enemy isn’t feminism at all, it is the financially self serving entrenched system of super-beneficiaries, the familycaught legal “workers”. They get laws passed, which offer illusory power to perjurors, without prosecuting them. Then they use “Protection Orders”, to prevent the parents from talking, so that they are unable to Protect their assets from the legal “workers”.

    Never before in human history, has so much been taken from the stupid-poor and given to the greedy-idle-rich. The laziest of the lazy, the slowest of the slow=reserved judgements, are the “judges”. Oh that these people were made to follow legislation.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 4th December 2008 @ 4:39 pm

  99. I agree with everything you say Murray, it has all been about maximising income for the government/legal workers and to compensate for the excessive DPB spend since the allowing of unilateral divorces in the 1970s. I liked very much your idea of “I believe that if one parent wants to claim DPB, then the other parent should have the first option of saying NO”.

    One thing that I must add is that it is all an INTERNATIONAL agreement, NZ just follows the other countries. It all started in the USA. One day it will end there too, when fathers are valued more, or more likely, when society becomes SO bad that something will HAVE to be done.

    But it will take a HUGE change in attitude for the government to forget about screwing men financially. Maybe a new world war is a more likely outcome , then there will HAVE TO be a temporary change in attitude toward men. Previous wars have given an impetus to increased equality of women, the next one will see a decrease in those rights. Governments will never be able to promote “Female equality” while conscripting MAINLY men

    Comment by Martin Swash — Fri 5th December 2008 @ 4:25 am

  100. Men are the war heroes?????

    Look closer, surely being trapped in the situation of being cannon fodder is experiencing reduced human rights, not having a more priviledged position?

    Under cover of “war”, most people have less freedom to protect themself and are far more defenseless against beaurocratic execution, for example by being assigned to particularly dangerous tasks, or shot by their own officers while deserting (shell-shocked).

    All these laws have been passed, by men and women, who are comfortable with them. Perhaps this is because they don’t see these laws as ever being likely to apply to their own family?

    We have a big communication problem within our own society, in particular to the majority of men.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 5th December 2008 @ 3:51 pm

  101. There is a logical way to short circuit the exploitation of millions of men (and some women) from getting unilaterally and without fault thrown out of their marriages (defacto or non defacto) and then coerced by threat of sanctions including ‘fines’ through to imprisonment (the latter much less likely for women) lest they refuse to pay child support (tax).
    It also avoids the creation of yet another generation of under -parented (raised in mother only households with fathers banished)and socially maladjusted/uncivilized offspring (note rising levels of crime, drug abuse, suicide amongst young ‘adults’).
    Firstly avoid pro-creating anywhere under western feminist law.
    Why add to the pool of feral under-parented kids and shaft yourself by doing so?
    Secondly agitate politically for abolition of no fault divorce (a feminist shibolith as most divorced men get routinely blamed for the woman’s decision to opt out of marriage) and for the re-enfranchisement of both parents.
    Spread the words “marriage strike”.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sat 6th December 2008 @ 1:20 am

  102. What I do not understand as the primary caregiver for our children is the fact that fathers think that we as mothers take the money and spend it ourselves. Sure the money I receive in child support assists paying for the mortgage on the home to keep stability for the chilren in their lives but this is ultimtely for their benefit. I do not have the luxury of keeping it in a seperate account and paying for “gifts” for the kids with it, it pays to keep a roof over their heads. I supplement the income by $300 a week in which I can then pay for their clothing / school fees and everything else a child needs, food for instance. I think the men on this forum need to take a good hard look at themselves. It is not mothers “lining their pockets” with child support, they are raising YOUR children. However they choose to supplement their income the money ultimately goes to raising the children. In my case keeping a roof over their heads and stability in their lives. Do you think it is possible to raise a child or two on thin air? Come on now, be realistic.

    Comment by Lyn — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 12:07 pm

  103. Lyn,If you are the primary care giver and the father has little or no contact with the children than I have no problem with the father paying chilkd support. However if the father has shared care and you both have the same amount of time to work and earn then why should one have to prop the other up.There are plenty of mainly mothers out their whom are lining their pockets ( haven’t as yet heard of any fathers lining their pockets). Example Father pays $30k per year in child support. He has very little to do with his children. One child has now left home and is at university. The mother refuses to help the child financially, yet the father cannot get the child support for that child paid directly to the child, therefore the mother is pocketing $10k for a child not living in her care. Is that fair ???
    i find your comment mothers are raising YOUR children absurd. The children are not just the fathers… or did you forget child birth.
    In regards to 50:50 shared care do you Lyn see it fair that the more I earn the more I pay the mother ( whom decides not to work as much) as being fair??
    Does our child cost more to raise in my house as opposed to his mothers??Does he really cost 12% more to raise when he is not with me??

    Comment by Greg Sandall — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 1:49 pm

  104. Lyn,
    In addition to everything Greg says which all makes perfect sense to me I add this.

    What part of – You’re trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes with a guilt trip that it’s putting a roof over children’s heads whilst conveniently overlooking that your’e OWNING a house in the process don’t you understand?

    I reckon you need to pull your head in big~time luvvy.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 8:08 pm

  105. lol you’re so funny. It doesnt matter whether I use my own money to pay for the home or earmark the child support, they equal the same amount. Either way either my money or the child support pays for the upbringing of the children and pays for the mortgage. Makes no difference, all money goes towards the children’s upbringing. You need to take a serious look at yourselves and think before you speak.

    Comment by Lyn — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 10:11 pm

  106. lol you’re so funny. It doesnt matter whether I use my own money to pay for the home or earmark the child support, they equal the same amount. Either way either my money or the child support pays for the upbringing of the children and pays for the mortgage. Makes no difference, all money goes towards the children’s upbringing. You need to take a serious look at yourselves and think before you speak.

    Comment by Lyn — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 10:11 pm

  107. Greg – yes I am the primary caregiver 🙂 I hear your point in relation to 50/50 shared care or 40/60 whatever the actual calculation is and understand your frustration. My point is made on that of a primary caregiver basis.

    Comment by Lyn — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 10:25 pm

  108. Lyn,
    You’re obfuscating.
    There’s no escaping the fact of the matter that you’re being given money to buy a home with – a very valuable asset not everyone can afford.
    I’m sure there are many who’d love to avoid the stress of being under a bosses nose and work at home unsupervised, spending money someone gave them on themselves and kids whilst PURCHASING A HOUSE.
    YOU need to take a serious look at yourself before YOU speak luvvy.
    You should also be grateful for the hard work that is going into putting a roof over your head.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 10:32 pm

  109. You miss my point. I *AM* working. I own my own business which allows me to be there for my children both before and after school…LMAO you make me laugh …I am working my ass off to support their needs …I am NOT a DPB beneficiary Skeptik. Pull your head in.

    Comment by Lyn — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 10:36 pm

  110. Lyn,
    You still haven’t got it.
    You’re getting money from someone and using it to buy a house FOR YOURSELF.
    As you yourself said –
    (quote) “the money I receive in child support assists paying for the mortgage on the home”.

    Hoist in your petard luvvy.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 11:05 pm

  111. you are splitting hairs here Skeptik, and not worth my time. What I am saying is that I earn the equal amount myself and it does not matter whether “I” pay for the children’s upbringing or use the money for the mortgage. I could easily say the money all goes into one account, xyz from him xyz from me, his could be utilised for food and clothing / school books etc, mine for mortgage. This is a no brainer. Obviously you are severely lacking or have had your vision clouded by a mother who has not been so kind to you.

    Comment by Lyn — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 11:07 pm

  112. Obfuscation and denial rules the day Lyn.
    I’m not paid to be your psychotherapist and break through your denial.
    Amazing rationalizing.

    My mother would clearly agree with me too.

    Chow luvvy.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 11:13 pm

  113. If the children are to have significant time with their father then he also has to pay for a house so he can provide a roof over their heads while they stay with him. His expenses in doing so are not much different from that of the “primary caregiver”. Why then should he pay any more than a proportion of the actual and reasonable costs incurred for the children? Surely the only fair concept of “child support” is paying for direct child-related expenses, and then only for any days less than 50:50 that the paying parent is prepared or able to have the children under his care?

    There is also the issue of who decides that one parent is the “primary parent”. Many, probably most fathers would prefer to be responsible for the children half the time after a separation, but they are not permitted to do so. A rebuttable presumption of shared care would bring about many more 50:50 care arrangements in which no child support need change hands at all. We have laws now providing equal opportunities and equal pay for equal work regardless of gender. If there is good justification to restrict one parent’s time then I would support that parent paying for the difference in time, even though that may be against his or her wishes and will be somewhat unfair. Of course, if one parent chooses to have the children less than half the time he or she needs to pay for the difference. This is realistic. What we have at present is the financial exploitation of men in favour of women, to the detriment of children in most cases.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 11:33 pm

  114. Hallelujah for Hans!
    Common sense prevails!
    You’ve clearly got more patience than I for the likes of Lyn.
    Thank-you for spelling out matters so clearly and fully.

    Care to ask others on this forum what they think of you buying a house whilst getting ‘child’ support?

    Comment by Skeptik — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 8:25 am

  115. I have not bought a house on child support. I owned the house before hand. I simply pay the mortgage as I would pay the rent on a property. The rental on a property is more than my mortgage LOL so whether I pay someone elses mortgage or my own is irrelevant.

    Comment by Lyn — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 9:36 am

  116. She still doesn’t get it……sigh……


    I wonder what’s on telly?

    Comment by Skeptik — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 9:50 am

  117. I understand quite clearly that women who enter this site are persecuted for raising children that are left by their fathers and whom then are put down when they continue to provide for said children from what is rightfully given to them by the IRD in Child Support. All money that enters my house goes to support the children whom I am raising and this includes the home.

    Comment by Lyn — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 9:54 am

  118. Spot the logic…….Duuuuuuuur ->

    “I owned the house before hand. I simply pay the mortgage”

    Another entitled Madam playing the victim…….yawn


    …..anyone seen the remote….?

    Comment by Skeptik — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 10:36 am

  119. So if you used half the brain you proport to have their Skeptik you would understand that if this said mother paid the rent she would be in a worse position than if she retained her house and paid the mortgage as the rent would be some $300 more a month. Oh dear. You really have no idea on logic do you.

    Comment by Lyn — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 10:41 am

  120. I would suggest that posters stop passing personal insults and stick to debating the issues.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 1:27 pm

  121. Lyn,
    You could always have moved to somewhere cheaper to rent. But no doubt like many modern women you expect to be kept in the manner to which you’ve become accustomed. Indeed I hear from some of my American friends that in certain states over there under feminist jurisprudence such an arrangement has actually become enshrined in law.
    Whatever way you frame it, whatever excuse or rationale you dream up the bottom line is a man is paying you child tax and you’re using it to feather your own nest by buying a house. Period.
    What’s more I know several women in NZ who’ve done exactly the same.
    They collect the money, answer to no-one about how it is spent, spend their time as they please working, not working, some mix of the two, then have the brass nerve to complain about their lot in life and how they don’t get a fair deal.
    I don’t have a problem with people buying houses, but when they hide behind ‘it’s for the children’, whilst not acknowledging that they themselves ALSO benefit from getting a nice assett bought,
    when they obfuscatre with XYZ + ABC x RST = $jdhdjs83129!!@?*,
    when they say they owned the house already then backslide and say that the child tax is paying off THEIR mortgage,
    then I’m convinced something is sadly awry and I’m not being spoken to truthfully.

    Now you may choose to take umbrage at what I’m giving you as feedback Lyn.
    You may choose to view it as insulting. That’s your perogative and I’ll respect you all the less for it.
    But the alternative is for me to remain silent and in effect render myself PC.
    Pathetically correct.
    And look where that’s gottten men in recent times eh?
    Too polite to say what’s what in their opinion.
    No I reckon there’s a time for politeness and a time to call a spade a spade.
    ANd no amount of insulting my mother (who you’ve never met)and personal digs are going to change my mind now, not after hearing so many contradictory and just plain untruths from you.
    Go figure.

    Comment by Skeptik — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 10:58 pm

  122. umm no I can’t move somewhere cheaper to “rent” darling because I want the children to be as close their father as they can be, that’s the type of mother I am and when the children are both under 8 years old it is very important to them, so is stability in their family home.

    Comment by Lyn — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 11:26 pm

  123. Lyn,

    Closeness to their father is important to children throughout their development and into their adult life. Look at the social indicators for children raised in sperated families and see for yourself the impact on a childs development where the father is excluded from the childs life.

    Consider sharing the care of your children with their father, it will be of great benifit to them.

    I wrote this thread because child tax is unfair and unreasonable and this is particuarly apparent where care is shared. This article proposes a cost sharing – parenting time acknowledged child support methodology. It is based on the costs of rasing children, sharing those costs between parents based on the time the child is with each parent.

    At the 50/50 mark neither parent pays or recieves.

    This child tax system serves neiter parents or children. It is still modelled on a liable and custodial parent.(one parent family) It exhorts horrific sums from parents who share care 50/50 – there are a lot of us.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 11:57 pm

  124. Lyn,
    Yeah right.
    Any excuse luvvy.

    Comment by Skeptik — Thu 15th January 2009 @ 12:48 am

  125. While this item is very interesting, some things presented are wrong and others unclear.

    The 2nd table has these flaws:

    Without explanation, a figure of $730 is introduced. What is this?
    The column “CS paid per Annum (Without Shared Care” is incorrectly calculated. If you use the formula (earnings – living allowance) x 0.18, the first row should contain $914.58 in this column instead of the $3,033.18.
    The first row is a particularly strange scenario. If you use the shared care formula, the earning parent would have to pay $609.72 but would receive $730. Therefore, the earning parent would stand to receive $120.28 unless the $730/year was an absolute minimum a parent who shares care had to pay in CS. If that were the case, the state effectively removes money from the poorest of broken families.

    I also read: “Note, if the other parent is not receiving a benefit they [presumably the IRD, sic] can choose not to collect any money from the DPB recipient. This of course increases their payment by $730 per annum as no offset occurs.” This makes no sense to me.

    While the material presented is very interesting, these issues should be addressed so that it can be posted to MP’s to get their opinion.

    Comment by Pete — Mon 9th February 2009 @ 10:26 am

  126. Lyn, if that is the case then you would not mind your child support being paid in vouchers (like food stamps) so that the money could only go on basics like food, clothing rent etc. Lets go 1 step further and make DNA tests at birth compulsory. And then let’s go anther step and have tests after a seperation to determine who is the most suitable parent for the children where the starting point is 50% shared care. Go into any NZ city on any given night and ask any woman over 20 if they have children and where are their kids …. the responses are as concerning as they are common. School fees are optional and to be frank they are negligible. I pay $27000 (yes 27 THOUSAND) a year and the childrens mum has not worked for 13 years. I have custody of the children for 35% of the nights (just under the 40% needed for shared care (as orchestrated by her legal aid barrister in the custody hearing where I could not afford legal representation). The mother is living in a family owned house (owned by her sister) and she is claiming rent assistance (state paid house … nice).
    Please don’t pretend that women are not lining their pockets with child support … my children’s mum gets upset with me when I am late to pick them up because she wants to get away to Hanmer springs for the weekend. 2 days at the hot pools … $40 …. 2 nights accommodation $200 …. Dinner and drinks at the pub $100 ……….. Paying for it without having a job … PRICELESS.
    Spare it !!!

    Comment by steve — Thu 19th February 2009 @ 8:23 pm

  127. So, Lyn …. when the children turn 19 you will be moving out of the house, selling it and giving the proceeds to the children. I mean given that they bought it with the money their dad gave them through child support. What you don’t understand or see is that your children will grow to have little to no respect for you. They will see you as a charity case and dad as the goto man when they really want something done. You can’t have a lot of respect for yourself and if you do I’m sure time and wisdom will open your eyes.

    Comment by steve — Thu 19th February 2009 @ 8:33 pm

  128. I have just sent this email to my case manager. It is irrefutible evidence that the current law is wrong, unjust and needs a complete overhaul. I don’t know who defined the logic of these business rules but they need to be sacked and possibly jailed for defining such garbage.

    …. I have been looking into our finances in the medium term and found some interesting facts. These figures were results of using the child support online calculator (on the IRD website) for 2009.

    As you know my partner is pregnant. When she has the baby our child support bill will be reduced by about $190 a month. So you can reason that the IRD think it will cost $190 a month to care for a child. I will still be paying $1715 for the 4 girls, which is $425 per child – per month.

    As you also know I have my 4 daughters for 35% of the nights (plus 3 dinners per fortnight).

    Based on those facts IRD are effectively saying that :

    1. It costs me $190 per month to raise 1 child for 100% of the nights.
    2. It costs the non-paying parent $425 per month to raise 1 child for 65% of the nights
    3. It costs me $0 per month to raise 4 children 35% of the nights.

    I don’t know how I can make the absurdity of this law and it’s calculation parameters any clearer. I would ask that you forward this onto your manager and ask them to do the same. I will be sending this information to as many other officials as I can.”

    I can hear it being deleted from my case manager’s inbox as I type ….

    Comment by Aussie-In-NZ — Sat 21st February 2009 @ 2:16 pm

  129. Aussie in NZ, im hearing what your saying. I have shared care of my 2 kids, and am currently paying about $150 per fortnight. However the ex is now only working part time so ive gone online and come march 1st il be paying about $220 to $230 minimum. I have to pay extra because the other parent chooses to work less, the kids are all school age so there is no reason why she cant work, how is this system fair??? The even crazier thing (but not an option coz i wouldnt want to spend less time with my kids), is that if i chose not to have 50% of the care I would only be paying about $330ish per fortnight, shouldnt it be double what id have to pay with 50% of the care? Once again how is this system fair!!!!

    Comment by Paying Parent — Mon 23rd February 2009 @ 9:54 pm

  130. Also my wife and I have full custody of my step daugther (whom we dont recieve child support for as the father is unable to pay) yet it only reduces the amount I have to pay by $10 per week!!So apparently it only costs $10 per kid per week to look after, so if this is the case I should be paying $10 per week for 2 kids in a shared care agreement. Not $110 this system is crazy!!

    Comment by Paying Parent — Mon 23rd February 2009 @ 10:11 pm

  131. The question is When will we be reimbursed for the error. I say “when” because IRD will make us believe that we should be grateful for the change (when it comes) but they will owe millions of dollars for their error (and it is not a law change it is a correction of their error).

    I still think that if enough people got together there are some pretty big class actions in waiting.

    Comment by Aussie-In-NZ — Mon 23rd February 2009 @ 11:01 pm

  132. Thans Scrap, this indeed echoes the sentiment of many frustrated people in NZ.

    I am currently offering to pay ALL of my two sons expenses. I have 50% share of them, and I’m not talking about night, I’m talking days and nights.

    And yet, the potential for a Child Support Assessment still weighs heavily in the air. Until recently I was able to negotiate this ‘amicably’ with my ex-wife. However she has recently indicated that she will not agree sign away her rights to claim DPB, even though this may result in my being assessed for child support.

    After speaking with every level of the IRD I can get to, the family court and two seperate lawyers, it certainly appears that the IRD have carte blanche rights to over rule and ignore any order of the land.

    Even when I am volunteerily offering to pay for ALL the expenses, this still does not seem to be enough in the eyes of our wonderful collection agency.

    I pray for the day we see equality in our Child Support system and I wonder why it is so hard for our law makers to see and understand the greif and heartache ignoring this laws has had on a populace of caring parents.

    Frustrating and sad.

    Comment by uktuatara — Mon 9th March 2009 @ 3:56 pm

  133. Firstly I would like to say that at least Lynn is using the Child Support on her children in around about way and not using entiley on herself (cigerettes, drink, partying). But I also have a son who has to pay child support even though they have 50/50 caring. He has to pay full time child care,(which mother takes advantage of for free), rent, food, clothing, but IRD say this isn’t enough and charges child support as well, when will this stupidty end, and start thinking of the child(ren)first. They need both parents to love them not have the Government making it hard.

    Comment by Chris — Tue 10th March 2009 @ 9:51 am

  134. They need both parents to love them not have the Government making it hard

    They are not making it hard, they are making money. The bean counters have the steering wheel and money is King in their world.

    The families commission initiated a independant report into this very issue back in March 2008. They interviewed 10,000 parents from the system (equal amount from both sides). I have heard that the report is complete but is not being released by the govt.

    IMO child support is a big money spinner for a country that has very little natural resources of industry to draw funds from and pay for infrastructure. I would like to know how much of the child support defecit currently on the govt books is actually a write off that they refuse to record as such. God knows they have chased many hard working paying parents out of the country and keep recording the debt (with penalties) when they know it will never actually be collected.

    Basically, those of us from the deeper end of the gene pool are being asked, more and more, to rescue those in the shallow end. The strong can get tired of supporting the unmotivated and they leave the pool to have a rest (called deadbeats when they do). It snowballs and you eventually have a society dependant on welfare. Makes it easy to control the population (all be it a weak and lazy one).

    The merits of the current system can be easily and quickly evaluated with one question. Has society improved since the introduction of the family court, child support etc or has it gotten worse?

    If you are unsure of the answer … watch the news for a week. I think we have had 2 babies killed this fortnight. Watch them sit on the results of the families commission report as they know the findings will overwhelmingly show that a change is needed, that they are stealing from paying parents. The internal (unpublished) justification for not releasing the results will be the “current economic situation”. Whatever the reason … it is morally offensive and borders on criminal.

    Comment by Dad — Tue 10th March 2009 @ 12:23 pm

  135. I confused, I have 50/50 care of my children
    (work and provide daytime care) I pay as much rent as my ex,
    I feed & cloth myself and the children as much as she does.
    my living expenses should be more because i’m not home all day, I
    have to travel to & from work aswell as pick up and drop off kids because
    their mother “hasnt got any petrol” ever.
    Why does she need more disposable income than me?
    Can quit my job and collect money from her…haha yeh good luck with that.
    Is it my fault my ex has no desire to work?
    Should the children be disadvantaged whilst staying with their father?
    Why does the mother who spends no more time with kids than I do get to complain about
    not having enough time or money to buy food for the kids.
    Why do I loose every weekend to give her a break from the hard week of doing nothing.
    Note: Both kids preschool age, spend days at my mothers house(including days
    under ex’s care whilst shes at home eating fast food playing playstation).
    Why do all taxpayers have the burden of supporting the DPB for someone who only has the children as much as she does to collect benefits.
    I would love to not work and stay at home with my kids but I cant, WHY?
    WHY ANYTHING? I cant even make more money doing overtime because I gotta pick up the kids, not to mention pay more CS.
    This makes me want to leave NZ, but I cant leave my kids.
    What do I do because I have run out of assets to sell to afford to have a home for my kids

    Comment by Justin — Fri 17th April 2009 @ 6:07 pm

  136. You’re a man. That is solely the reason you are treated this way.

    From Angry Harry

    I don’t know who you are, Sir, but I can tell you what you are worth. If your partner was to cut off your penis tonight, the world would laugh.

    Check out the link and welcome to the real world.

    What a Piece of Sh*t is Man

    Comment by julie — Fri 17th April 2009 @ 6:14 pm

  137. Steve –

    While I sympathise with your situation, don’t place single Mum’s all in the same category.

    I have an eleven year old boy who I have raised as primary care-giver for over nine years. The first few years, the boy’s father paid a grand total of $50 per week; I agreed to this amount after repeated threats that if I ‘took him to the IRD’ he would claim custody. Disturbing really – “I want custody/shared care so I can save myself money.” Not – “I want custody/shared care because I would like my time with my child.” In fact, directly after our separation I would offer my ex more time with my son; this was more often than not declined because, you know, rugby, boys night out etc.

    Further, your comment about mothers being in town not knowing where their children are is utter rubbish. In my case, my social life has been sacrificed for primarily my son, full time work and obtaining a higher education (coming to the end of a four year degree). Unfortunately, I was made redundant last year so was forced to go on the DPB – the first time in my life. I hate it. It’s demeaning and degrading. However, the level of study I am doing doesn’t allow me to work full time. Yes, I could give it up but what would be the point of the last three years? I’m doing this to better the life I can give my son, better myself and contribute to society. Because WINZ sees me as asset rich (I have a home I have been forced to tenant because I cannot afford to stay in it) I get a grand total of $220pw to live on. I am residing with relatives to survive. Yes, I am getting rent on my property, however, it doesn’t cover the Mortgage – not that that factors into WINZ’s calculation table. Further, the boy’s father is waving shared care under my nose which means that I lose a chunk of my family tax credit and some of the $220 a week I receive on the DPB. The shared care comes about after moving into the same area as my ex-husband who now has our son now for two nights a week (for the past three months). Just for the record, my ex lives in property worth over half a million dollars overlooking the ocean. While I appreciate he could also be feeling the pinch of the economy, it seems unjust that I stand to lose funds because he parents for two nights a week. As primary care giver I still have to pay for my sons winter school uniform ($140 in total – and, no, WINZ doesn’t help out with the cost), his soccer fee’s, his haircut – oh, and small things like food and shelter.

    I am not bitter, angry or upset — nor am I trying to punish my ex-husband by claiming as much as I can because he has a lovely home! We are indeed good friends and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him as a man and a father. The point of my post is this: while I accept there are those that do fleece the system — as is the case with any system — majority are hard working decent woman who truly do have their children’s interests at heart. Further, as above, in some cases being on the benefit is far from lucrative.

    – J

    PS: Skeptic; I can only imagine what you project onto your children. Yikes.

    Comment by J — Fri 3rd July 2009 @ 11:56 am

  138. i dont mind paying a set ammount in child support, but what i dont find fair is that if i do overtime at work to recover that ammount as it does take away my quality of living as i have a lot of outgoing bills, that if i do overtime my child support for the next year will be assessed on the earnings i made doing overtime and not my usual working week and they will raise my child support, and if overtime is not available to me during the next year i will be totally in the crap unless they adjust it immediately and we know the ird dont hurry for no one they will get around to it if they see your situation is valid but you will struggle until then. please tell me if i am wrong that there is no way you can earn money not to have it unfairly taken from you, ird dont understand that you are not only paying child support for your child but you are also spending money outside of that to raise your child like clothe and feed them and entertain them when you have them and that alone can be up to $100 on top of child support payments. ( i have my son 2 to 3 nights per week)

    Comment by paul — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 5:32 pm

  139. If custody is shared 50/50 nobody should have to pay child support. It’s very simple. IRD has got that side of things horribly wrong. The money does not “line the pockets” of the primary caregiver. It lines the pockets of the bureaucratic machine. I raised my daughter without any financial assistance from her father. He paid no child support at all. I work two part-time jobs and gained my degree before she was five. At the time her father was a reprobate but I did everything I could to ensure he was involved in her life, as I believe a child needs both parents equally. He has now turned his life around and has an excellent relationship with his daughter. Single parent bashing is completely counterproductive. I experienced it from wider society as I was working my ass off to make a decent life for my child, while her father chose to shirk his responsibilities. Luckily he has finally come to the party. We share custody and neither of us pay any money to IRD. Whatever our daughter needs we both provide. I worry about the children of some of the people contributing to this forum. Your anger is toxic. Hating the mother of your children causes far more damage than having to part with money you’d prefer to keep. Using your children to veil what is really seriously unresolved hurt at your relationship failures is also damaging to them. Pay what you have to and suck it up. Be real Men or Women and get on with being good parents. It’s only money.

    Comment by Jen — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 2:45 pm

  140. It’s only money!!??? That’s easy to say if you have money to burn and the amount IRD takes from you in Child Support is inconsequential. I have been on both sides of the Non Custodial/Custodial parent divide and I can assure you that, in both cases, I would be better much off if IRD kept right out of it. I have always provided for my children and always will however the IRD CS assessment formula often has very little to do with the welfare of the children. Take this case for example; not so long ago I had custody of 2 of my children and their mother had one child in her custody. I wasn’t earning a hell of a lot and was in fact earning significantly less than her when all of her under the table income, tax dodges etc was taken into account. However IRD decided, in their wisdom, that I had to pay her $680 per month (after offsetting) and she got away with paying me about $100 per month. Only money you say?? Well, I needed money to feed and clothe and educate them and pay for medical expenses etc etc yet I had this ridiculous financial burden placed on me and two of my children thanks to a stupid IRD CS assessment system that never takes individual circumstances into account. I had to borrow money off my mother to pay for luxuries such as groceries and clothing for the kids.. Only money!!??? Good grief!!!!:(

    Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 3:51 pm

  141. Hi Jen,

    I agree with your sentiment that single parent bashing is counter productive, I also agree that if care is split 50/50 down the middle, that IRD should steer clear and seek their revenue elsewhere.

    “Pay what you have to and suck it up” I have slightly more issue with 🙂 Most of what you describe as toxic anger and mother hating is more than likely the frsutration of having worked through a troublesome process many times, and come out the end of it no better off, or in some cases worse off than before.

    I have been able to settle child support outside of the system, and it has been like a weight lifted from around my neck, however; ask me six months ago and you would have found me angry, frustrated and screaming ‘WHY!?’ as I battled through a nonsensical system where all I wanted was equity.

    It was not to shirk away from any responsibility, it was frustration at being part of system where I was always coming off second best while trying to do the right thing NOT for me, or my ex-wife, but my children.

    Toxic anger and hate are not healthy, nor are they productive, however for many, myself included they are an unfortunate reality to work through until we have an equitable system that rewards both parents, man or woman, cusotdial or not, for doing the absolute best for their children, who in the end, are the shining lights at the end of a usually painful process.

    At any stage my out of system settlement could come down around my ears, for it has no basis in law or legislation – which is unfortunate, it is simply based on goodwill. Until then, I’m thankful and grateful.

    Goodwill is often hard to come by in these situations, so I count myself lucky.

    Comment by uktuatara — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 4:32 pm

  142. mmm…I look after my only child, a 12 year old son for approx 200 nights annually.

    I live on my own. I pay my ex $420 a month. She has a job, lives with a high income earner..they have a flash house, several cars etc

    I buy my son what he needs…clothes and good food. I also take him away on holiday at least twice a year (this is very expensive), and I do it because my ex has never taken him away on holiday in 5 years. I paid for his new bike and cellphone because my ex refused to purchase these things. I help to pay his school fees.I frequently buy him new Playstation and computer games. I take him fishing. I save $100 a month for his future needs (education)

    I cant understand why I have to pay my ex $100 a week when I look after my son most of the time and pay for the expensive things he wants (needs).

    It costs according to a recent TV documenary between $70 – $100 to raise a child. So why I am paying my ex $100 a week when he is with me most of the time and I at least take him away over school holidays when she won’t? I cant really afford it in the long term..I’m 55 and need to save and I know its going to hit me hard in the long term…but I love my son and respect he needs to have a ‘holiday’ now and then.

    In the meantime my ex has bought a new laptop for herself, a new car.

    She has resisted IRD efforts to bring us together to come to an amicable solution with their help.

    There it ex does not need any money from me in so called Child Support. Why should she?… since I care for our son more than she does? My costs in this area are far greater than hers.

    In effect the money I pay her provides for her new computers and cars and her nights out…she doesn’t care for our son’s future…she only cares for herself and that was her attitude throughout our ill fated marriage.

    Toxic anger? Yes. Hatred? No. I have accepted my responsibilty to bring up my boy as a fine young man on a ‘no matter basis’. The ‘no matter basis’ simply is that in 5 years or so, I will most likely commit suicide…I will have a mortgage at age 60 when my son is 17.

    Even so, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have provided the best possible care for my son, that I have saved for him, that I have given him the things his mother has refused, such as a bike.

    My son is my sole heir…and it will give him a decent start in life…hopefully a Uni Education and a great career.

    I just dont understand why my ex refuses to help bring up our son to this degree.

    Comment by Morris — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 7:52 pm

  143. Hi Lyn

    Just joined this thread. “I hear you barking big dog” your situation sounds very similar to mine.

    Unfortunatley it seems that some of the blokes on this site automatically jump to the conculsion that women dont work. Hard concept to grasp I know these days given that we are all working in such a male dominated workforce…yeah right! next they’ll be moaning that we took their jobs and that we still don’t work…it’s all part of forming a minority group that can then jump on the band wagon of being persecuted so they can claim the benifits and pass the remote!


    Comment by Sarah — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 8:50 pm

  144. The same could be said about the Feminist movement I suppose Sarah. As far as I’m concerned none of this should be about the gender of the parent. It should be about State institutions (mainly IRD and The Family Court) protecting the rights of children and ensuring that an environment is created where they have equal access to both parents. Unfortunately the current apathetic Family Court and brain dead IRD CS taxation system does little to foster this. In an ideal world we wouldn’t need a Family Court or IRD Dept to intervene at all but, human nature being what it is, the children are often regarded as hostages, by either parent, and used to advance their own selfish agendas.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 9:13 pm

  145. In two more years your son’s legs will determine where he lives regardless of any Femily Court Order. My daughter was 14 when the Court of Lies Judge awarded me custody of her and my younger son. Her Court of Lies appointed solicitor told the Judge that ‘she is 14 years old and regardless of any Court Order her legs will determine where she lives’. She had been alienated against me … bla bla bla… I didn’t see her again for 7 years but all is sweet now and the alienating mother is paying the price for the rest of her life I imagine.

    Anyway I’d work towards that goal. If you really do put more time in to your son then his legs will prove you correct. The money part won’t buy any credits with kids. Only a genuine interest in them earns credits. I would let my ‘flesh and blood’ know what his options are regardless of any feminized counselor suggesting it is child abuse to do so. Any good solicitor should inform his/her client of their options without anyone shrieking “CHILD ABUSE!!!” As long as it was handled in a careful way, especially having respect for his mother, it could work out well for everyone except I.R.D.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 9:18 pm

  146. Hi Had Enough

    You are absolutely spot on. It is the same as the feminist movement and has this yielded happy results?….NO…if not we would all be living happily ever after and we wouldn’t all be on forums like this!

    I totally agree that it should be able to be worked out without the help of the IRD/CSA and mediators/councellors seem like a modern day way to print money.

    If only parents could see beyond the gripe and grow up but as in most cases it takes 2 to tango! while one may be up for being reasonable the other may not….I guess thats why we are all here….trying to make some sense of it all!

    Comment by Sarah — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 9:28 pm

  147. I listened to the wizard one day in cathedral square, he was talking about equal rights and basically said the women had been tricked by what he called “the big fat factory owners”. He said they were tricked into into working in the factories because the owners needed to increase production. Corperations stirred up the womens liberation movement and next thing we knew the bra was being burnt in the street. He went on to say that women never used to have a boss, never had to deal with peak hour traffic, the threat of being unemployed or any of the other stresses that comes with having a job. And here is the GOTCHA … women have historically lived longer than men, but those trends are changing, women are now getting ulcers, loosing their hair and suffering from stress related illnesses.

    In summary he pointed out that production is up, the fat man is laughing, the family unit is in tatters and women are now more equal, in that they are dying earlier than they used to.

    Well done.

    Comment by Steve — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 10:00 pm

  148. Your Male-Bashing is offensive.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 10:23 pm

  149. I know that it seems everything has gone against you. All I can say is kids deserve the right love both parents and they will see through all of the crap through their own minds.

    Often we think that we are there to protect our kids from the parental issues, but through their lives they are smart enough to form their own opinions….some may be a long time in arriving but rest assured they always work out the real story and can see through the rubbish. “Kids just know” all you have to do is look back to your childhood and your forming opinions as you grew up.


    Comment by sarah — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 10:30 pm

  150. this child support system is flawed. Check this out.
    Doing 50:50 shared care.Both parents liable to pay.
    Mother has decided to become full time student therefore not earning therefore liable for the minimum.
    Father aims to work any spare hours child not in my care.
    I, father, went for an administrial review under the grounds the mother is not contributing to her income and won. Result she pays me more.
    Mother then applies to the family court ( I assume on legal aid).
    Now having to defend the IRD Desicion at my cost.
    How much more is the mother paying ….. $8 more per month…. a mere $2 per week. The system only encourages parents to be bitter.

    Comment by greg — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 11:11 pm

  151. It’s definitely flawed Greg. I have been in a situation similar to the one you outlined and I always ended up having to pay the mother large sums of money despite the fact that I was taking on the majority of child care responsibilities. The Admin Review officers would always rule in her favour despite the indisputable evidence I would present them with re child care costs, my household expenses, income etc. It seems to me that IRD and The Family Court are the last vestage of a bygone era where the woman was considered a chattel of her spouse (or ex spouse) and needs special consideration due to her implied inferior status as a female. It would be very interesting to conduct an experiment with IRD and present them with two identical cases where one parent was applying for more money in CS payments from the liable parent. If the success of the custodial parents application was determined by their gender I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. I notice that gender politics is often brought into this debate. As someone who gets very pissed off when I see the tired old 1960’s woman as victim feminist cliche’s used I get equally irate when I see men taking on the role as victim. I often wonder though if the State (particularly IRD and The Family Court) has gone the full circle and in trying to support women has in fact ended up penalising men purely on the grounds of their gender. It certainly seems that way but we are all influenced by our own experience I guess.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 8:26 am

  152. Erm what naivety all the biassed family courts and child support is SIMPLY to raise income for the governments , each judge and army chief requires millions of $$ after all

    Comment by Man from rio — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 10:20 am

  153. You’re so right! Child Tax, Carbon Tax, Male DV etc etc … it’s all a con. We’ve been lied to for money. Our children have been abused for money. There is no democracy. Our puppet politicians display acts of obeisance to the United Nations and their masters. It’s all explained very well in the following video which includes a portion on child tax:
    (over 1hr long but worth watching)
    Global Warming or Global Governance

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 11:05 am

  154. “There is no democracy.”

    Speaking of which, after weeks of relentless attempts to discredit the anti-smacking referendum, I notice that I have until the 20th to send in my vote, but no voting papers have yet arrived. No other electoral issue would have cut it this fine – has anyone else not been delivered their voting paper yet?

    Comment by rc — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 11:22 am

  155. So Jen you raised your daughter with no help from the father. And managed to do it all on two part time jobs. I take my hat off to you well done. And a degree to boot thats so fine. And now Dads come to the party and seen the error of his ways so everybodies happy
    You were so astute to keep IRD out of it. As my readings of these topics has usually shown its IRD that can usually muddy the waters.
    Usually this is due to claiming of the DPB opening the doors for IRD.
    I have to take you to task though on your “suck it up and pay what you have to pay”
    Ahhhhhhh but if it was only that easy, forget that the $$$$s are sposed to be for the children. Sit back and suck it up as the custodial parent squanders the childs entitlement.

    Single parent bashing is counter productive
    Its almost as counterproductive as trying to fit every non custodial parent into the “I dont want to spend my money” stereotype.
    And if only it was “only money” you seem to have forgotten that there is a child involved

    Comment by mits — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 5:05 pm

  156. I to am an ex husband and father of 2 boys, 9 and 12. I have the 12 year old 50% of the time and 9 yera old 3 out of 14 nights and half of all the school holidays. I think this amounts to shared care. when we split my wife got a little over 50% about 700k which she brought a nice freehold home and some change, still works 10 hours a week, has a flat under the house, a live in boyfriend and $110 a week from me plus the full wff and familiy tax credit. i am unemployed after being made redundant 9 months ago but still pay as per our original agreement and now have a mortagge tah gets bigger every week as i am not eligible for any more than the basic rate of $184 of which $110 she gets. I think its time to recognize the greed that some people inflict on there ex (of 23 years) where she cheated and abandoned our marriage. I consider i incur the same amount of costs as her to keep, maintain, educate and nurure our children as i/we have already paid for our housing needs, she can keep the ftc and wff but i think i should have some resite from my weekly payments as it in no way recognises what my costs are.

    Comment by Shaun — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 9:32 am

  157. Shaun,
    That is a horrible situation for you.
    What are you going to do? Are the IRD not takeing the C/S from you?
    Regards JT

    Comment by Raspberries — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 9:50 am

  158. No IRD are not involved as i have a private arrangement with my former wife as at the time i was working i had the children as per i do know and incurred some expense in after school care etc which i was happy to do. We had worked out a formula that regardless of income as hers was 20k and mine 50k (which would have been about 1k per month via ird, even with shared care)that the kids cost about 150 per week each without accomodation expense as we both have households to maintain so given they where half hers and half mine i would pay half every week with a small discount to recognise the time i had them, what i didnt realise i was getting no credit, or even knowledge that the wff was about $200 per week, even when i had them and now i think well you can still get/claim that until i find employment and then resume the financial agreement we had made. My home is on the market which is unsettling for the boys as they know i cant find a cheaper home as close to them as my current one but the bank wont extend me much more available credit without an income.I have a live in flatmate which helps enourmously and am not complaining about my finances, but more about the attitude of the “deemed” primary caregiver and teh attitude towards what they consoder and absolute entitlement.

    Comment by Shaun — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 10:07 am

  159. Shaun, you would almost certainly be better off going through IRD, at the moment anyway. You would then be paying the minimum child support and your former wife would also be paying you – probably also the minimum based on your info. IRD can then offset one against the other. As a shared care parent you can also get WFF, provided you meet the work hours requirement. I think that is 20 hours for a sole parent. You can agree to go back to a private arrangement later. Your former wife does not need to be the deemed primary caregiver unless she is on the DPB, which I assume she is not (or you would be paying via IRD). If she is not on the DPB and if you want to, you can apply for the DPB yourself. In which case both of you would have to pay CS via IRD. I think I have all that correct, having done similar recently, but no doubt someone will say if it is wrong.

    Comment by Artemis — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 10:31 am

  160. I have thought about that as i could conceivable go on the dpb with one and she could have the other but i am mindful of having it both ways when it suits me as she works ina familiy business and is secure in employment but if i get another medium paid job she could then apply the ird calculations against me and i could be worse off for not honouring our original agreement. I feel the best thing is she be more reasonable ond waiver any payments from me till i find employment again as her income is still upwards of $700 a week. If i went on the dpb (i have enquired) they would reduce her wff entitlement by $20.00 per week and she has said if i pay the existing $110 plus her wff shortfall then i can, but feel blackmailed and extorted.

    Comment by Shaun — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 10:35 am

  161. Also, I wonder if your former wife is declaring rent from the flat under the house (for WFF and CS assessment purposes). And you may be able to get accommodation supplement yourself, which may allow you to keep your house.

    Comment by Artemis — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 10:35 am

  162. Have calculated it all and though we are both on the shore in auckland, my mortgage is not a standard monthly payment but a line of credit taht goes further into debt each week and is at about 95k so the monthly debit is only about $700 added to the loan so not enough to qualify unless i convert it and restructure it to a 25 year principal loan but the bank wants me to apply for that structure and it wont be approved a sthey are income lenders.The flat under the hous eis not disclosed nor is the new man or his income, albiet he is a student (at 35) at the moment and works part time and gets a student allowance and pays his ex $27 a week for their child. i have said in jest to my ex wife that she is lucky he is not her ex as she would have got and would get nothing. I also gave her $6500 from my redundancy as a goodwil gesture late last year. Foolish i know. Essentailly i am covering him as well it feels some times as i pay all the school fees and trips etc although she pays music and sports levies. Not abad mum jsut struggling to accept the consequences that through her choices and actions i am no longer resposnible for her qulaity of life, just that of me and my children.

    Comment by Shaun — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 10:44 am

  163. Shaun, she can’t stop you going on the DPB, though I do see that you want to stay on good terms. You can be on the DPB with shared care of one or both children, you would not get the full amount for two children though. You would have to prove you have both children at least 40% of nights. If you go on the DPB she will get CS assessed by and via IRD, and it will likely be the minimum. She cannot make you pay more. I don’t think you should be concerned about her WFF – not your issue. (Although if she is not working 20 hours a week she should not be getting WFF.) What is your issue is looking after yourself and your children, and that is your priority.

    Comment by Artemis — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 10:45 am

  164. I do hear you but i have 11 more years of child support and do intent to be gainfuly employed some time soon and contribute to society and my family productively but realistically a woman scorned… do iwant to save myself $20,000 estimated now for what could amount to 20k a year for the next 10 years. It is only fear, rationalised and supported by what i read here. I know i am entitled to the support we have discussed but then in 12 months time she can claim entitlement to, to a new $80k a year job and the ird assesment that goes with that.My only issue is, is the short term gain- worth the potential long term gain, and i thing her wff is actually the ftc as she is under 20 hours but as we dont discuss her income etc, only mine i dont actually know how it works.

    Comment by Shaun — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 10:55 am

  165. You can be on the DPB with shared care of one or both children, you would not get the full amount for two children though. You would have to prove you have both children at least 40% of nights.

    Totally incorrect that DPB is reduced when shared care is in place. First in first served gets 100% of DPB and full rate even if they only have the children half the time. This is the issue Jim Bailey has been confronting for years and years.

    You are also not correct about Benefit entitlement. 40% (3 nights a week on average) is the Child Support (IRD) standard for shared care. Under WINZ you need to follow the Social Security Act and have the kids more than 50% of the time for a DPB. The Act says 60% (to match the 40% in Child Support Act) but if you speak to the Office Manager they have discretion to reduce it to 50% (or some require you to show i day more than 50%).

    With the planned removal of the Training Incentives DPB is less gold plated as a benefit these days.

    If you do manage the DPB thing a helpful Dr may assist in obtaining Child Disability Allowance for a “moderately serious chronic condition” as an extra little top up from the taxpayer. Thanks to Women’s refuge for that advice. You might like to ask your local refuge for the name of the local doctor who is an easy touch in that matter.

    What a useless amount of fine print I have absorbed over my time in this business.

    Comment by Allan — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 11:03 am

  166. Thanks for setting me right Allan, sorry if I gave wrong info.

    Comment by Artemis — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 11:09 am

  167. Yes WINZ now accept split care after a case we took to Rotorua High Court. One child in primary care (more than 60%) one parent and the other ion the others care(60% or more) is one way that 2 DPB’s can be paid out.
    Winz hate it and fought it for many years but now will comply (although still reluctantly).

    Comment by Allan — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 11:11 am

  168. Thanx for that. I assumed tah having one 50% and the other 30% might equate to one at 80% which puts me over the threshold of 60% and means she can still get whatever she gets, though just for one.although there are loopholes in the system my primary goal is to preserve what integrity remains between my ex and i as parents in common and not to complicate it at the expense of our children being the pawns in our income aspiartions, whether they be tax payer funded or earnt through employment. Are you saying that if she was not employed taht we couldnt have 1 child each and go on the dpb seperatly?. In addition to all this and it may help next year is my eldest son wants to live with me primarily and spend alternate weekends at his mums due to the adult influences at that address.That could result in me adopting the position of 1 each and then i will be only repsonsible until he is 18 and youngest is 15 and all over again, though i can see them both coming eventually.The she can pay me as i have paid her.

    Comment by Shaun — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 11:12 am

  169. Well said Scrapy…….

    I have two children and share care 50/50 with my ex wife.
    She choses to leave and runs off with one of my friends.
    # weeks after leaving she gets a flat and he joins her in the flat with total disregard to the childrens welfare.
    This guy has a conviction for indecent assault on a woman????
    My 14 yr old daughter is in his prsence 50% of the time.

    I now have been taken to IRD and requested to pay $1000 ( yes i have a decent job and earn a decent salary) a month for the right to see and raise my kids every second week. My ex has 6 socures of income and hides 3 of them in cash jobs ……………..
    On top of this my ex is saying that we share the costs on top so another 200-300 per month to pay school and sports fees and cell phone etc.

    I find it nothing short of a joke when i see that my money gets a spa pool and tramp and swimming pool at the other house and i cant even give my kids 10 dollars pocket money.

    Those mother on here may indeed have their childrens best intrests in heart but it is mother like my ex who just go to prove that greed and selfisness are evils of our changing ways of life.

    If all things were considered i am glad that this evil ex is out of my life and the funny side of this is it is probally cheaper paying the child support then having her live with me…certainly better for me emotivly…

    She chose to leave the income i genaratored and still want to have her hand on it…50/50 should be you earn your money and i earn mine and we split the bill related to the children and get on with our lives…….

    There its easy bring on the perfect world……TUI AD Yeah right.

    Comment by Loving_dad — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 7:59 pm

  170. Reward for being a working citizen

    Fair is Fair.

    Cs is calculated on the non custodial “CAPACITY TO PAY” then why does the Living Allowance (pathetic amount) based on the social welfare benefit for a single person on an invalid’s benefit (forget the fact you are a tax paying working man, for the purposes of CS the government accords you no more value than someone who can’t work..

    Child’s Responsibility should mean equal opportunities, equal access, equal rights, equal financial commitment, equal responsibility even after separation, because there’s always a reason for separation.

    I do not see a reason why Custodial parent cannot go to work after the child attends school, at least part time and have some financial responsibility. This will make them get off the benefit and work.

    1. The formula components for the 2010/2011 child support year:
    Minimum formula assessment annual rate: $815
    Maximum assessable income: $120,463
    Living allowances:
    – Single person with no dependents $14,158
    – Partnered with no dependents $19,379
    – Single/ Partnered with one dependent $27,417
    – Single/ Partnered with two dependents $30,234
    – Single/ Partnered with three dependents $33,051
    – Single/ Partnered with four dependents $35,868
    Now lets compare
    Living allowances
    – Single person with no dependents
    31/03/09–$13,964.00 31/03/10– $14,158
    – Partnered with no dependents
    31/03/09–$18,858.00 31/03/10–$19,379
    – Single/ Partnered with one dependent
    31/03/09–$26,425.00 31/03/10–$27,417
    – Single/ Partnered with two dependents
    31/03/09–$29,096.00 31/03/10 –$30,234
    – Single/ Partnered with three dependents
    31/03/09–$31,767.00 31/03/10–$33,051
    – Single/ Partnered with four dependents
    31/03/09–$34,438.00 31/03/10–$35,868

    Child support can be calculated using the same data used to calculate the so called “LIVING ALLOWANCE” From the invalid’s benefit………..FAIR

    – Single/ Partnered with one dependent $27,417- Partnered with no dependents $19,379 = $8039.00 per annum
    or CS amount set as a minimum and if NCP’s wish to pay more than that then that’s their business. It shouldn’t be up to our Socialist Govts to impose harsh child tax penalties on hard working Kiwi’s who are trying to get ahead in life. AND BOTH parents should pay for the upkeep of their children NOT just the NCP.

    The cost to raise a child can never be accurate to calculate on the “capacity to pay” for one child in question and for the other child living with the NCP be calculated on the invalid’s benefit.

    Children are just the same and should be treated no different.

    One of the most exploitative and child-unfriendly aspects to our child tax system is that it funnels the father’s financial contribution through the mother. That way, the children do not get to see the father’s role. In a sensible system fathers would be able to provide directly for their children’s needs, buying them clothes, education, computers, vehicles etc. This would contribute to father-child bonding that will benefit the child throughout life, and to important modelling about being a father, provider and protector. The long-term social effects of the child tax system in marginalizing and stifling fathers’ roles and modelling will be seriously bad.

    My child has been told by their mother that I do not contribute to his bringing up he is made to believe that I couldn’t give a rats arise about them and this is reflected the pathetic CSE system where IRD takes all my money “infact more than it cost to raise a child and this leave me with no money to buy anything extra for my child and for me to hand it over, my ex is in a very good picture that she is the only one buys thing for our child”. I am happy to provide the NEEDS for my child but not happy to keep up with my ex life style.

    The current child tax system destroys families!!

    CS system cannot possible work on an Income Based System. It leaves kids in poverty, and on the other hand leaves a single parent with more money than they need top raise a child.
    The cost of raising a child between the age of 0-13 is no more than $100 a week. I say this from pure experience. Nothing more.
    People disagree. Mainly woman. Govt disagree. Ird subsequently disagree.


    Comment by Disappointed NCP — Thu 11th March 2010 @ 6:14 pm

  171. The State encourages you to become depressed, quit your job and apply for a Sickness Benefit and pay $12.75p/w in Child Tax and become entitled to State House with subsidised rent to escape extortion because you have a child. The State is farming our children because it is so lucrative.

    Here’s an interesting read: Illusions of Freedom (This site is banned in Australia so if you’re from there and the link doesn’t work blame your government. Use a proxy site or change your dns settings)

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Thu 11th March 2010 @ 7:05 pm

  172. Disappointed NCP, I couldn’t agree with you more on everything you have said. I show my 12 year old the bills from the IRD, so he knows I not only pay for his expenses while he is my care, I also pay for (more than) his expenses while he is in his mothers care.

    Now the reality is that x looks after him for 2 weeks. I look after him 2 weeks. I provide further care for him though during most school holidays and often take him away on holiday trips. X has taken him for a long weekend on just one occasion in 5 years.

    X has stated that I must provide him with casual and school clothing while he is in my care. X refuses to help pay for the big things in his life…new bike, Playstation and games, cellphone or its upkeep.

    Now why should I pay her anything? She works and lives with a high income partner. I live alone.

    I have offered to directly pay for all my son’s expenses in their entirety, so in effect she only has to pay for his food and the electricity he uses. Nothing else. She refused, and here’s why:-

    She gets $420 a month in CS. She cares for him 2 weeks a month. So she gets $210 a week to care for our son. At $100 a week in expenses (I agree with you) what does she do with the remaining $110 a week (or $220 a month or $2640 a year)? She does not have to pay for any babysitters or any other care.

    Fact is, X contributes nothing financially toward our son’s upbringing. Fact is, I am subsidising her and her partner, and yet their combined income is greater than mine. My expenses are far greater than hers because of the holiday thing and on a day to day basis I run up a huge mileage on my car while she lives within walking distance to his school.

    I budget like this…$10 a day for food = $70 a week. $30 a week for everything else, but that equates to say $1500 a year for clothes, uniforms and other educational/sporting activities….yeah, its a bit tight I know. No room here for computer games or birthday or Xmas pressies.

    Point really is that X is not contributing. Dad is paying all, plus clearly subsidising X.

    Noteworthy is that X & her partner live in a flash house, twice the rateable value of mine. They lave late model cars…My car is 12 years old. They have 2 dogs and an exotic cat. They go out for expensive meals. I don’t. They both smoke heavily.

    It’s just not fair really. I agree with you that the cost of raising a child should be realised, but $100 a week I think is too tight. The IRD tried to do this, but the idiots inflated the cost by claiming the xtra cost of purchasing a larger home and the interest on the mortgage among other absurdities.

    Comment by Morris — Thu 11th March 2010 @ 8:46 pm

  173. I work full time and look after my child 42% of the time, basically friday night to monday morning. I pay child support to the Ird, but my ex/child get none of it because she’s on the dpb. I don’t have too many hard feelings against her because she’s helpful exchanging nights whenever i want. I wish she would get a job with her 2 completely free days, but really this is not my call… Even if she did get a job it would have very little effect on any cs i might receive from her. I totally understand the need to pay child support , but it should be based directly on the shared care percentage. 50/50 should mean no child support. 60/40 a little support, 70/30 more etc… I really don’t understand why i could have my boy 60% of time and still have to pay my ex for the privilege??? While she could have moved in with some wealthy guy… It’s crazy!!!

    Comment by Reuben — Sun 18th July 2010 @ 7:08 pm

  174. Reuben, it IS crazy. Read my above posting. My ex works increased hours now, so I (only?) pay her $400 a month. And yet I look after our son more often than my x.

    Why is that? It is because I work my guts out 12 hours a day for 2 days followed by 12 hours a night for 2 nights in a very dangerous job. Shift work plus the danger involved attracts big money (is $80k big money these days?) while my x sits on her fat backside in an office for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week. I earn more than her, its that simple. I put the effort in, she doesn’t..because she doesn’t have to, since she lives with a high income partner.

    Her income combined with her partners income exceeds my income, but nevertheless I have to pay ‘them’ $400 a month, even though our son lives me most of the time, and I have just one income. They don’t need the $400 a month…I suspect it pays for their wining & dining while I never go out since I’m either working or looking after my boy.

    Yeah, its crazy, but then so are the uncaring wealthly politicians, most of whom who have never personally experienced times of poverty or personal injustice.

    The worst thing is as NCP points out, it does nothing for the kids here. In fact it does the opposite when Dad can’t afford to spend money on them, but mum can.

    Violence with teens? yep. No wonder. The Dads either have to run away or accept a life of poverty when faced with harsh unfair child support. Either way the children grow up thinking that their dad doesn’t care about them. Children need fathers and male role figures..without that they grow up as uncaring and unwanted.

    Well, I rambled on enough, but good luck anyway.

    Comment by Morris — Wed 21st July 2010 @ 9:18 pm

  175. my situation a bit different – she has the kids, the house etc and instigated the split. She also earns $150K +, me $80k so of course I pay $1300 or so per month CS. I am now going to take shared care, and she will end up paying me – my contract has finished, tough times in job land etc. so will be great to do more with my 6 & 4 yrs olds. I will work around their needs whereas she just wants to work on career. The less I earn, the more she will pay me, perfect. Watch the shit hit the fan when she gets that!!

    Comment by Mark — Thu 23rd September 2010 @ 1:32 pm

  176. go Mark, thatw ill teach them not to have their cake and eat it to. I have shared care of my two and pay nothing but get nothing, it is the best thing having your kids as close to permanent as poss and in fact my teenager only goes home every other weekend so perhaps i to should ask for some money. regardless make the most and enjoy your kids.

    Comment by sh — Thu 23rd September 2010 @ 3:30 pm

  177. Mark, perhaps you are wrong. You say you earn 80k, she 150k. Both of you can afford to cater for the kids financially on an individual basis.

    There should be no child support payable by either party where the sharing of the kids is equally shared, and their costs are equally shared as well.

    Yes I know this debatable, but not many parents out there have a shared income as high as yours.

    I have never liked the attitude ‘the less I earn the more he or she will have to pay me’. Surely its about the kids and their basic needs..good food, good clothing, good education, and keeping up with the toys that other children have.

    I earn 80k too, but I resent the fact my ex claims 5k a year off me while my boy is mostly in my care most of the time, that she spends nothing on our son, yet lives with a high income earner such as your ex.


    I dont know in your case. Perhaps you are right. I see your point. How can we make it fair, given that Children’s needs are not, and never can be, related to the income of their parents?

    In my view your children are somewhat lucky to have two high income parents. Most don’t.

    Comment by Morris — Thu 23rd September 2010 @ 5:57 pm

  178. Thanks for replies guys, some further info from me.I spent time not working and full time child care for the girls as the ex’s career looked to be a better bet – I also spent a lot of time supporting her in that career.Our family home is on an Island, effectively I cannot live there and earn reasonably, whereas due in no small part to my help and support she manages to work from home 2 days per week. If I live in town for work, very hard to see my girls more than every second weekend, and ex is not very supportive of contact. She would rather have a succession of nannies care for them than their father. I will remain posting on this fairly unique situation as I am determined to see the best outcome for my little girls.

    Comment by Mark — Thu 23rd September 2010 @ 6:11 pm

  179. A very sensible post indeed and it reflects what I’ve been saying for a long time to the politicians. I do agree with you on the cost of $100 a week to raise a child, because I’ve been tracking that subject closely for six years now and my spreadsheets cover every single aspect from food, clothing, electricity, school fees, school trips and the like. I am not wrong here and neither are you.

    I can actually prove the cost of raising a child through receipts and pure experience. The people who disagree are the people who have a hidden agenda. Of course women will disagree with the facts, so will the Govt and the IRD, simply because the truth if it is recognised will cost the country a bloody fortune in Welfare.

    Women simply can’t stand on their own feet. Most of them are so fat and lazy the pure thought of having to work to help support their children drives them into a frenzy. Hey, why work when your husband has to pay for the kids and to support you as well? And if he doesn’t earn enough, well shit, its only a case of applying for a benefit isn’t it…and then the Govt has to pay.

    Of course then, the women don’t agree with the cost of raising a child and of course the Govt will not recognise the real basic costs of same…and if they don’t then obviously the IRD have been instructed to ignore reality.

    And they did…they produced a ludicrous statement to NZ, stating that it cost $250,000 to raise a child. Ummm…why haven’t most families gone into bankruptancy if that were true?

    Comment by Morris — Fri 24th September 2010 @ 6:05 pm

  180. Good on you for the last remark, because it show genuine concern for your little ones, and yes they will grow up better off with their Dad being directly involved in their upbringing.

    Money? Child Support? I think now that IRD needs to look closely at every individual situation rather than this blanket policy. Income Based CS is just ludicrous as we all know. This system is wide open to abuse and ultimately harms our kids in so many ways.

    I have one good understanding Politician down here. And God help us all, she is a woman! She has helped me and my son so much. Her name is Lesley Soper. I trust her.

    Good luck Mark, I am writing submissions to Parliament on this CS subject and so should you. Again I say there can be no blanket policy, and each case must be put before a panel with honesty at the fore.

    Comment by Morris — Fri 24th September 2010 @ 6:29 pm

  181. I have shared care of my two children under the age of 6, week on week off. Ex is on the DPB, me on benefit, is their any financial support for me from WINZ or IRD. Have been told I am entitled to $67 a month, what can I do. Obviously it takes a lot more money to feed two healthy young boys. Help…

    Comment by JOE — Wed 13th October 2010 @ 2:32 pm

  182. I would suggest havinga child each and both going on dpb, it means former wife may be $80 pwk worse off but you could give her that out of your benefit and you will still be much better off, as long as you are 40% of care giving and it sounds like 50/50

    Comment by sh — Wed 13th October 2010 @ 2:50 pm

  183. I have my kids for 3 and half weeks during the school holidays am I required to pay child support when they are in my care?

    Comment by John — Fri 24th December 2010 @ 12:25 pm

  184. #183 afraid so john..just as women on benefits etc still get all their child benefits/allowances when the children are NOT with her..
    #181..apply for child support

    Comment by Ford — Wed 15th August 2012 @ 7:58 pm

  185. im a 31 year old mother of a two year old girl! this system is not always against the male.!
    ALL because my ex signed papers first he has been able to claim the DPB while he already raised his first child as a sole dad ( never worked in over 15 years!) – i am not working but a student with added costs of setting up a house hold all over again, and travel costs to and from class, i have also been sick! how is it fair, when he receives more money for doing LESS, and has less weekly cost, at least im trying to better myself for our child!? we are 50/50 shared care!
    screw him and the system

    Comment by Lynda — Sat 13th April 2013 @ 2:58 pm

  186. Dear Lynda,

    I am not knowledgeable in this area. I had heard several years ago, that even if not first in, the mother could just apply for DPB. Then it would be removed from the father and given to the mother? I have heard this several times from different sources, so it might be true.

    Have you tried this?

    Best regards, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 13th April 2013 @ 3:16 pm

  187. Why are you encouraging the fight, Murray, rather than pointing out the obvious.

    Lynda, men have faced this situation for decades. You work and pay taxes for social welfare then you have to pay child support for another person’s DPB. Join the club; it is not a fair system is it.

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 13th April 2013 @ 4:26 pm

  188. Lynda that Family Court is available as your adudicator in a medieval contest of wills and “rightness”. They provide a retiired knight in (very) shiny armor to come rushing to your aid. The Legal Services Agency will provide you with virtually unlimited funding to pay a more junior knight (in less shiny armor)to repeated jousting events with whatever legally aided knight your ex wishes to engage for stupid medieval contests like this.
    Alternatively you and your ex could talk and agree on matters.

    My money is on the white knight representing the fair damsel.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 14th April 2013 @ 9:55 am

  189. PS we taxpayers I’m sure will be thanked by Lynda and her ex and the wonderful brave junior knights (huge law office retinue included) and esteemed shiny knight and Court staff, and legal aid minions who get to decide which black holes our valuable taxes disappear into. Tis a wonderful service we taxpayers provide.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 14th April 2013 @ 9:59 am

  190. Dear Lynda,

    sorry that I was not clear about my own agenda. I have often suggested that familycaught$ is often cruel and unfair to women also. I have had my head bitten off by some men who argue that in their own case (as seen by them), they were the only one maltreated. I have tried to talk with and listen to a wide range of people, including quite a few women. I have heard their stories and looked over their situations and in many cases they have suffered similar rigidity and refusal to see evidence that many men face. In my own opinion, in some cases they have been treated more cruelly that the average man and often receive scant social support in their plight.

    Listening to oral presenters at Law and Justice Committee, I was struck by the amount of pain in the mother advocate’s voices. Just the same pain as in men’s complaints about familycaught$. It wouldn’t seem so difficult for them to negotiate together, if the judges applied incentives to support honest negotiation and against dishonesty and bad faith.

    I do believe that it would be possible to have a much fairer more child protective system, but it wouldn’t be based on the adversarial culture that rewards legal workers so well. It would be based on sorting out the perverse incentives in Social Welfare benefits and would apply the existing Family Court Rules and Acts in their plain english meanings. My submission

    Where the familycaught$ supports dangerous, selfish parents, they are not just doing nothing useful, they are actively endangering the children. This joining the dangerous side approach, guarantees that the dispute will continue until something breaks. See Kay Skelton or Christine Bristoll.. Honest good faith negotiation protects families, but it cannot happen when a parent is actively rewarded for bad faith behaviours.

    So best wishes for your situation. MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 14th April 2013 @ 1:41 pm

  191. I’ve found myself now separated from my wife who blindsided me. Have enough to deal with there and trying to convince her we can survive this let alone discovering that even though we are sharing care 50/50 (3.5days each, although they stay the ‘4th’ night at hers) because she doesnt have a job i have to pay child support.
    I changed my hours because i didnt want to be a weekend dad. I gave my employer 2 options and it just so happened that it meant 3.5 days, 4 teas and 3 nights, as opposed to 3.5days, 3 teas and 4 nights.
    How is that fair, i still have to support them yet its costing me more!
    Id cross the political spectrum for the next election…actively campaign for anyone if they would fix this injustice.
    Barely functioning with cramming my 45hrs into 3.5days without this nonsense.

    Comment by Dana — Sun 17th November 2013 @ 7:52 pm

  192. […] 관련 내용 구글링 해보면 한국 커뮤니티 말고는 이런 내용이 하나도 없습니다. 심지어는 뉴질랜드의 남성인권(…) 웹 포럼에서도 소득의 80%씩 뺏긴다고 주장하는 사람은 아무도 없다고 하네요. (클릭) […]

    Pingback by 뉴질랜드가 페미니즘 때문에 망해간다는 헛소리에 대한 반박 - 키위의 블로그 — Sat 29th May 2021 @ 11:37 pm

  193. […] 관련 내용 구글링 해보면 한국 커뮤니티 말고는 이런 내용이 하나도 없습니다. 심지어는 뉴질랜드의 남성인권(…) 웹 포럼에서도 소득의 80%씩 뺏긴다고 주장하는 사람은 아무도 없다고 하네요. (클릭) […]

    Pingback by 뉴질랜드가 페미니즘 때문에 망해간다는 헛소리에 대한 반박 – — Thu 2nd September 2021 @ 2:14 am

  194. […] 관련 내용 구글링 해보면 한국 커뮤니티 말고는 이런 내용이 하나도 없습니다. 심지어는 뉴질랜드의 남성인권(…) 웹 포럼에서도 소득의 80%씩 뺏긴다고 주장하는 사람은 아무도 없다고 하네요. (클릭) […]

    Pingback by 뉴질랜드가 페미니즘 때문에 망해간다는 헛소리에 대한 반박 – — Fri 3rd September 2021 @ 7:40 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

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

Skip to toolbar