MENZ ISSUES

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

Support for the women regarding child support

Filed under: Child Support,General — Julie @ 9:53 pm Tue 18th September 2007

Hi All, I had recently written a post for women to get us all together to fight as a team so that we can do our best to change situations regarding child support.

I took the post off because I felt that I had used harsh words and felt that maybe I might be taken the wrong way. But I meant it and I still do. This Child Support system is unfair. And I know, just as many of you do, that when women get nasty, they go all the way. Sorry for not reposting something sooner. I know situations aren’t getting any better.

There are other groups like the Salvation Army and many more that are feeling the overwhelming sense of being unable to help people. Everyone at least knows someone, if not a client then someone personally who is affected in a negative way. We need to start somewhere and we can’t do any worse. We have nothing to lose but much to gain. And we can rally other groups for support and target who ever it takes.

We don’t have to live this way. We can do something about it, that is we can try and at the same time help others like us in this situation.

I am not sure exactly where we can work together as I don’t think this site is the right place to have females taking over but I have a site and if that is not appropriate we can use a site that was activated just for child support if Scrap_the CSA is OK with it.

Hi Scrap, I guess I am asking for your guidance on this.

But even if need be, we can start a blogsite for free.

Anyhow contact me if interested:

julie@singleparents.org.nz

or simply leave a comment.

34 Responses to “Support for the women regarding child support”

  1. Mark Shipman says:

    Julie,

    If I can assist in some way, I’m more than happy to. Especially where the aim is to make the situation better for all of our kids.

    I heard recently of two girls – daughters of a separated Family who are now Fatherless.

    My understanding is CS was not the issue, but he left us without a note and without warning so I suppose we will never know.

    Anyway, if I can offer assistance, information or advice and can fit it around paying the bills (CS doesn’t go away) then please just ask.

    Stay healthy and happy,

    Mark Shipman
    Proud Dad of 3 Wonderful Youngsters

  2. margaret says:

    I know there are fathers out there who do there best for their children and should in some cases have custody of them, and i have heard the moans and groans of women having many fathers to lots of chioldren, but, there are men out there who have lots of children to many women, my ex husband has seven children to three difrent woman and pays hardley any child support because of this.

  3. Bevan Berg says:

    With so many different situations you would wonder how one law that is inherently focused on returning revenue to the crown could do justice to these individuals. If you look at the “child support debt” it is $2.00 penalty for every $1.00 Child Support “Debt” The child support hoax is right up there with bracket creep, and forestry credits.

  4. julie says:

    Hi Margaret,

    Welcome. It is good to have your input.

  5. rosie says:

    Hi Margaret
    It sounds like you were married to a rotter.But not all men are like that.
    I am married to a good man who is being ripped off by his ex-wife to the tune of $294 a week.And she still can’t afford to pay for the children’s school fees or the dollar or two that it costs for sports each week.Even tho she works as well and collects $199 each week in family tax credits.
    She’s sitting on a gold mine, while we have to struggle to find money for food for our animals and ourselves.
    On part of my husband’s wages,he has to pay 39 cents in the dollar in income tax plus 24 cents to her.A total of 63 cents in every dollar.
    A large part of that money is not going to his children,but to her bank account.
    The amount of money that my husband is paying in child support for his two children,would more than cover the costs for raising your ex-husband’s seven children.

  6. Karen says:

    Rosie

    I too are married to a good man who pays $350 a week to his ex wife for his 2 children. We also pay for their medical insurance and into a schlorship fund for their education. My husband also gets taxed at 39 cents in the dollar. My 2 children live with us and because of the huge amount in c/support I work fulltime to help support our family. The ex wife chooses to work 23 hrs a week because with c/support and ‘top ups’ she is earning as much as I am working fulltime….and she’s funding her bank account quite nicely. if we pay $350 a week is IRD then telling me if she contributed also $350 of her wages a week to the children that they cost $700 a week to raise….I dont think so, more like we are funding to help pay her mortgage because she ‘chooses’ not to work any harder….

  7. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Rosie and Karen,

    You are reflecting a very common situation. The reality is that what is paid has nothing to do with the cost of supporting children.

    I will follow-up with a post when I get some time after the weekend.

    Julie, no objections. Will email you off-list as I think this could be a joint initative of Parents for Children and Single Parents Trust.

    Sorry for delay in replying but its school holidays and junior comes first.

    Regards

    Scrap

  8. julie says:

    Hi Scrap and Mark,

    I understand how busy you both are. Women do want to help you because it helps them and their husbands too.

    I am sure that most women do not want to take the lead but just want to help however they can. We can be an asset.

    PS. I have skype now.

  9. rosie says:

    Hi Karen
    Have you ever tried writing to politicians? I’ve tried.
    NZ First, in which I was once a financial member,have not bothered replying to me.Winston has gone down hill fast in my eyes and I have reminded them of next years elections.
    I have had a sanctimonius reply from Peter Dunne.Goodbye Peter.
    Bill English did offer to help,but only because I was in his electorate.
    Pete Hodgson is a nice guy who did try to do all he could to help us.I’m sure he’s now feeling slightly embarrassed,because the IRD’s powers were much stronger than his.
    Helen handed my letter on to Mr Dunne.
    Well done Helen.
    And she had the nerve to attend the funeral in Auckland of the woman who’s power was disconnected,and died.
    Has she ever attended the funerals of the men who have died because of her callous and strictly enforced IRD’s actions?
    NO she hasn’t and she hides those statistics from the world.

  10. Bevan Berg says:

    I’m really feeling a bit insulted here. You talk about all the politicians who don’t support you. What about the ones who do, even if they are not represented in parliamnent at this time.

  11. julie says:

    Bevan,

    I’m really feeling a bit insulted here.

    The Republicans are the only political party who cares to do something about child support issues to make it fair for the side that pays.

  12. Benjamin Easton says:

    I don’t quite agree with your analysis as fair Rosie and I ask you to think about it retrospectively to identify if we in fact have a problem in how we have collectively approached our problems. I argue that for your comment it is clear that we have and for what you have missed in what you said, it is important for you to reconsider the events as you have presented them.

    Bill English is the politician to whom you are supposed to go. You are not obliged to vote National in order to have your voice directly heard and the points that you would make that challenge National are thereby pertinent to the politician. This as far as I am aware is why we have voting in electorates.

    Optimally where the Republican’s continue to contest the election under the banner of Republicanism where Bevan should by now be aware that the authority of English Law was constituted under the ceding of the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi, without as required the direct authorisation of the Confederation of Chiefs of Tribes. Either apathy or complacency or dishonour to the oath required to be taken of politicians will empower the Republican’s to believe that this arguement holds no effective necessity in justifying our nation where maintaining that republicanism is a legitimate response to the improprities of constitutional law from our past. I ask Bevan to be aware that in order to accomodate this argument in favour of the Republican’s being able to avoid the demand behind what I say, he will have to get a different response from the Council of Chiefs than the observation that I make. When on Te Tii Marae on Waitangi Day (the lower marae) I directly asked the Chiefs if they had any such signature. They replied that they did not. I did not need to ask them if they were satisfied about the way the have been treated, which is directly inconsistent to the Declaration of Independence 1835. As far as I am aware the menz movement want truth and a removal from values that unlafully discriminate agaisnt sons and daughters and unlawfully as indirectly discriminated against fatherhood. Fair enough. Does that give us the licence to ignore other facts that are just more simply inconvenient for us to give our attention?

    Saying this, and for having said it before and for it not having been directly registered with the Republicans in a manner that confronts the problem for its truth rather than abandons it for its difficulty I would tend to agree with Bevan that a pperson looking for better protection of farthers’ issues in the next elections would presently get the best response from the Republicans. My belief is that the Republicans are going to have to do something extraordinary to directly challenge the practicing administration of democracy in New Zealand if they are to have any chance. For being constituted under a banner of Republicanism, fatherhood is a coattail issue. So logically it would be consistent with politics and unique if teh Republicans faced all of the truth. To that end they should visit Te Tii Marae on October 28th on Independence Day. Then they should find out what the truth is in relation to indigenous peoples issues in order to have any credibility to challenge others under their main banner. If they are not prepared to face this truth then there can be little credibility given to how they would and will approach the issue where they seek our confidence supporting dads.

    For my part I have published that I will cycle between parliament (Wellington) and parliament (Waitangi) leaving Wellington on the 10th and arriving on Waitangi on the 28th. I would be carrying a petition. But I cannot now go. Noelle’s case requires me to be in Feilding at different stages in that period. There is no honour or integrity on my part if I suggest I help her validate and justify the perception she has of her circumstances before the Bench, where they are complex and detailed if I just up and toodle off in the middle of these affairs. Additionally, and a point I would ask you to consider carefully Bevan, being far more aware of what I am talking about than others – nga tangata whenua through the Council of Chiefs do not yet seem prepared to receive what I bring. They need more support. I will postpone the trip until Waitangi Day. I don’t advise voting for the Republicans unless they send a delegation up to Waitangi on October 28th as a demonstration that they are prepared to navigate in the national waka with the truth as the guiding star.

    Most respectfully,
    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

  13. rosie says:

    Benjamin,you sound as if you’re a very intelligent guy.One who thinks above the average every day person. But the problem is,I like so many others can’t understand what you’re saying.So is there any chance in condensing what you are actually saying,so us commoners can understand it.Please don’t take this to heart.I’m not taking a dig at you.

  14. Benjamin Easton says:

    Not edited:

    When you stand against an oppression that allows a woman to perjure the Court on two occassions, and that accepts it reasonable for a Judge to instruct a jury that this perjury is acceptable practice, and you go before the Court of Appeal on two occassions asking them to “tell the truth” about their judgements where they disguise what was said and applied for in the Court and when you had applied to the Chief Justice to interfere with the proceedings because the top Justice in the second appearance before Court of Appeal was the Justice who subscribed to relaying falsehoods as truth in the first appearance was presiding in the second, and when “I” separated this information proving that if they could possibly be right then a Registrar had lied giving me the jurisdiction to use the Court giving the case jurisdiction asking the Ministry of Justice to investigate that registrar and that the investigation that was undertaken did not cover the facts and I asked for the instructions of that investigation to be given to me under the Official Informations Act and it was ignored and that a letter to the Ombudsman complaining that the letter was ignored was ignored and that a series of complaints to the Human Rights Commission proves that a law on constituting a disempowerment of rights for a child to existing guarantees protecting that child are broken for that law and being told that the executive are allowed to directly abuse children in reply and that any investigation to merit an inquiry on the unlawful indirect discrimination against fatherhood has to be put before the Human Rights Commission in a way that identifies that discrimination so that it is clear to the Crown Soliciter and then later to put in that equation to the Human Rights Commission on a similar example supporting Judy Turner for her actions of challenge on the Minister of the Courts for failing in the Family Court Matters Bill to protect a father under the Family Proceedings Act to know who if a child is his child where the same requirement does not exist for the mother because “she is” the mother and have that challenge demanding that the Human Rights Act separates and limits any preferential treatment for women to that section of the Human Rights Act alone, ignored and to be living directly in challenge using the unemployment benefit to stay alive living off a weekly cash flow of (now) $37 where without paying consistency to that challenge I mitigate the functionality of that challenge for its consistency and for putting into the Ombudsman a recognition that the latest presented complaint that the Ombudsman has ignored is a necessity to validate an earlier complaint that is justified to a presentation before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee and that submission on seeking justifications behind a New Zealand First Bill on deleting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill need the validation of that submission to be heard where it requested that Margaret Wilson for when she was the Attorney General “cheated the requirements” that were demanded as “Shall be preferred” into not being preferred Order herself to appear where as the now promoted and senior Speaker has the authority to make herself appear to explain this action rejected from the Select Committee without notation of that (as a citizens’ legitimate) submission’s request being lost to process, and that on request of Lynne Pillay to explain how this could be as it ignores the public interest ignored – all the while having to put up with having only had some 40 odd hours contact with my son and daughter because of an improperly applied and invalidly constituted as subservient to the Act Domestic Protection Order, and that that protection order was applied under unreasonable circumstances and those circumstances under the scrutiny of the jurisdiction of the Family Court was tested as not being able to be tested by that jurisdiction where that admission is in direct contrast to the provisions of natural justice which require that no bias in any Court can preside particularly in any circumstances that are directly under any application order, act or ommission for the jurisdiction of the Domestic Violence Act and that constiutionally those acts and ommissions about which I reply are in direct consistency with the Crimes of Torture Act and that where this falsely applied jurisdiction falls back directly to the authority of independence (or comity) of association between the Executive and the Judiciary and that when this point is factored into a request with Radio New Zealand National nine to noon presenter Catherine Ryan her presenter replies that they too do not comprehend what I am talking about because it is not in plain English and that when I reply to that comment writing as you have asked me in a way that if those who read wanted to understand what I have said would be able to understand what I have said, to that Directer refining teh point made into a more broader as acceptable spectrum, that reply too is ignored and that underwriting all of these events is a similar and identifiable inconsistency in the constiution of teh country where our English version of the Treaty of Waitangi is in fact invalid because it specifically in part has not been properly authorised to the specifics of its jurisdictin within the specifics of the jurisdition from which it was ceded and that involved in a challenge exposing the corruption of lawyers I get a phone call to say that I still cannot see my children on a visit to Auckland unless this is under supervised conditions where the original perjury was declaring to the Court on the two different occassions that there never was any violence, or any alleged as bad behaviour that caused the falsely consituted protection order to be taken out in teh first place, where the primary protections that allow such bad and illegal behaviour of lying in court to be protected is because the present gender agenda being implimented into New Zealand society as commented is unlawfully indirectly discrimatory agaisnt fatherhood as it is improperly constiuted and protected to neglect children to their rightful assocation with their dads: THAT, for you to think that I could take any kind of offence that you don’t get what I am saying is really quite delightfully silly.

    Of course I don’t take any offence Rosie and no you are not taking a dig at me. Thank you for the opportunity to reply. I think I might have left some baggage somewhere in the above paragraph but I am not quite sure where.

    Most respectfully,
    Benjamin.

  15. rosie says:

    I’m sorry for what you’re going through Benjamin.I will never understand how some women can stoop so low as to deny their ex partners the right to have contact with their children.My husband and I have just started along this journey to hell.I can see in the near distant future,the same thing happening to him.He was served a tresspass notice today from his ex when she was in the company of a woman who he thinks was from women’s refuge.The most ridiculous thing about it,is that it was her who used to attack him.She is so evil,that it scares me to think just what she may invent next.We both wish you all the best Benjamin.

  16. Benjamin Easton says:

    Again Rosie thank you for the opportunity to reply. Today, in terms of harnessing this monster that exploits circumstances best to provide to its own end no matter the detriment caused to any other party is a good day for fathers as Bevan and Paul Catton are my witness.

    The point I can make in reply to your comments where what you expose is an imagry to conjecture, propability by implication through allegation, loyalty, disloyalty and rejection of any other principle that could possibly reject a causal affect to which an incumbent power subscribes is that your influence by loyalty to your commitment is the strongest of all of these probabilities or possibilities together. It is the only thing that you can control. So it is very special to you. Were society has worked dilegently to exploit its freedom to expand no matter the cost where that cost can be harnessed to expand you desribe succinctly the emotion necessary to counter that expansion. I would still argue that that consideration can only be found in one institution. That institution is the institution of marriage – between a man and a woman. That instiution is our goal as it is before God and it is the only place where our functionality should be protected to such a discipline. We should not force marriage because that directly compromises to a different authority that union’s relationship with God. We should protect and embrace that institution because it protects to the commitment between two individuals naturally entitled to procreate within that cohabitation their need for unity before God – whatever that truth may be. We have compromised this and that is what you witness, as you give me support for challenging in the fashion that I so choose.

    I do not believe that I have any entitlement to direct my anger towards my former wife and her behaviour under the above principle, yet the anger inside me, that I choose to quell and reperss for my belief is admitedly extraordinary. If I hurt anyone as relative to my anger, invariably I would hurt my son and my daughter so I am bound for my expression to respond to my adversity in a function dedicated to the processes of peace. This means, for your welcomed empathy, if how I am acting in reply to a situation that is not dissimilar to your own, that I believe your focus is best centered on those who support that issue of unwelcome support that hurts every person involved in your husband’s circumstances. You need to challenge directly the Women’s Refuge for how they could protect any event that is open to the manipulation of an individual who requires that protection under necessity to be nurtured. Your husband cannot do that as he would try. Only you can do this. Julie is likely to give you support for what she has said but that is to be determined if you choose to focus directly on the problem that is hurting you, your husband and “any” children of your union.

    I’m OK thanks. I desperately miss my son and daughter but have to do this in order for our reununion to be fully and properly realised: I, as do you if you want in the end to be effective have no choice.

    Get stuck into the Women’s refuge for how they hurt you as a woman. Then, one way or another you will on track to comprehend exactly everything that I may have been saying 🙂

    Benjamin.

  17. rosie says:

    My husband thinks we should just get on with our lives and think how happy his ex will be when she’s getting $14 a week. Thanks to the right honourable Dr Cullen for enlightening people like us.

  18. rosie says:

    A lot of finance companies have bit the dust

  19. Benjamin Easton says:

    More than is sustainable I would venture, but this is still to be determined – as we all watch that spot.

  20. Karen says:

    Hey Rosie,

    well our fight has just started with the ex wife over care arrangements too. We had a lawyer and have now ‘ditched’ her and have the wonderful help of Union of Fathers. It broke my heart to go to one of their meetings and see all these dad’s and I take my hat off to some of the younger dad’s whose kids live 3 or 4 hrs away from TGA and they are fighting to see their children. These ‘woman’ should think themselves lucky to have an ex partner who wants to remain in their kids lives rather than be a drop beat dad who couldnt care less to what happens to the kids.I have 2 children of my own who live with us and 2 step children who visit every second weekend. We are trying to get 50/50 care but the mother says NO. No reason just NO. We live 3 kms from her and we back right onto the kids schools.When I separated my ex husband was mucking the kids around with seeing them so ‘I’ made – suggested we go to counselling because I believed our kids had a right and needed to see their dad on a regular basis. My kids now have a great relationship with their dad. He lives in Rotorua and he sees them every second weekend, every school hols and he comes over for any schooling or sports events.Last week me, my husband, my ex husband and his partner had a BBQ with the kids. It was fantastic. The way I see it my kids are so lucky to have ‘4’ parents who luv and care for them!! BUT on the other side we have an ex wife who after 4 yrs will still not talk civil to my husband and wont even look or acknowledge me….I dont want to be her friend by any means but it would be nice for her children to see we could be civil to each other in their company???? So hi ho hi ho off to court we go to fight to see my husband’s children more. Funny isnt how some woman forget it takes 2 to create a child…..and how they are quite happy to make it hard for the kids to see the dad’s but quite happy to sit back for their ‘pay day’ each month from us!!! So to all you dad’s out there – we too feel like giving up at times BUT at least you can all look back and your children when older will know ‘ YOU FOUGHT TO SEE THEM’ and you will never have the ‘what if’ in the back of your minds if you didnt try!!! AND another thing that keeps my husband sane – he just counts how lucky he was to leave her!!!

  21. Benjamin Easton says:

    That’s the spirit Karen,

    Now all we have to do is to get this fight out of the Court and for sensible sane human beings to organise themselves so that these monstrous acts of using children as common garden utensils to have a dig at someone you want to cover in nitric acid, but cannot: can be curtailed without the legal cost/compost to further by cultivation in hatred.

    Go the Union of Fathers!

  22. rosie says:

    Karen send me an email and I’ll tell you what my husband’s ex wife has just done.It’s almost unbelievable.
    oscarwild222@hotmail.com

  23. rich a parsons says:

    hi barry ,the fundamental reason for communication is to impart understanding at the reciept point,in the majority of instances i think you may have flunked.

  24. karen says:

    it’s a shame so many men don’t pay,but then there are those that suffer through admin review after review, my partner’s ex was so good at claiming extra dosh that we went through with ministrial review to stop this (and her claims of expenses for her other children) and then went to the ombudsman to get back what the ird had taken illegally out of his company’s account, ird should be named in that they provide a case manager who know exactly whats going on, if anyone needs help dealing with them I have had years of experience. In this case a woman(wellington ird) who was contacted by the ex and she added a extra “0” to my partners account making arrears 12,000 instead of 1200, a court departure found this was actually how much was overpaid,,and still ird get away with it

  25. rosie says:

    The family court are not concerned about who would be the best parent.The one who earns the most dosh will normally be the liable parent.

  26. rosie says:

    Hi Karen
    You must be another Karen.Would you like to contact me privately please.See post 22.
    It’s about a rather unusual admin review that I would like some advice on.You never know who’s looking in here and the IRD won’t have received their letter yet.
    Cheers

  27. Tigerseye says:

    Hi, I’m new to these posts but feel strongly for you all as I’m also donating to the IRD slush fund.

    I have had enough and I know this is my time to do something about it.
    I have read so many posts on this site and noticed one unusual thing about all who have gone before me… the attempts to bring reason to the government. Why? Our voices don’t seem to be heard even though there are a lot of us making noises.

    I’m going to attempt something else, something that I have seen work time and time again on other important issues. I’m not sure if anyone has attempted this, I may be the first… I’m going right to the top. Forget the MP’s and forget the PM, I’m talking about John Campbell!

    Lets face it, outside of those that are effected by the wild animal called CS, our plight as fathers is rarely acknowledged. Even if John C can’t change the ideas of the Government at least our story would be heard and understood. I’m going for the sympathy vote here folks!

  28. cb says:

    hmmm, the campbell ramble, no thanks ….

    just leave the country is the best alternative if you have a bone to pick with the way things are done in new zealand.. conflict is everywhere, so what…

  29. julie says:

    cb, I understand where you are coming from but running is not the best first answer.

    And sometimes I feel overwhelmed myself with all the negative.

    Tigerseye,

    You are right to want to do something and I want to encourage you too. If you want to step up to the media, so will I if allowed. And I hope their are others also.

  30. cb says:

    typical woman cliche that i was expecting to hear – i must have esp, but i am an australian by birth so i take your cliche elsewhere..

  31. cb says:

    agree to disagree, it is the first and best answer when you do not wish contact with your offspring, but you did not understand my argument until now, so you are excused for your ignorance… (hope you learnt something)

  32. rosie says:

    Hi CB
    I learnt something from your post.That you are a nasty creep.

  33. Tigerseye says:

    CB,
    Wouldn’t it be great if everything could be solved by running away from our problems. The bad news is it doesn’t work. If I took the satirical advise and went to Oz, which by the way is where my Father lives and always has done (get the picture?) the recipricle agreement between Oz and NZ would eventually catch me up.

    As an aside… I mentioned my Father – I’m half Ozy – because I thought I should draw attention the fact that even though he is my father he has never paid a cent to my Mother who raised me here in NZ. I won’t go too far into that, though I will say I have no feelings at all about my father aside from the fact that I call him dad. I’m not that person, I love my daughter and I have no problems paying my fair share for her well being. The problem is that, both here and overseas, we as fathers are not being treated fairly.

    It makes some people, for sure, want to chuck it all in and run away from it. But what kind of a human would that make you?

    I live 5 mins drive from my daughter but only get to see her for 8 hours every second saturday. Does that make a difference to CS? NO.

    So, there is conflict everywhere, so what… So I don’t want my daughter to grow up in a world where nobody can stand up for what they believe so I have do lead by example don’t I.

  34. whanga says:

    Hi Tigerseye
    If you and your daughter want to see each other more there is absolutely no reason why you cannot.At least one night a week during weekdays and every weekend is minimum.No way the court will give you less than that.You seem like a reasonable guy.If you want me to draft an application for you,correspond,mediate with the mother whatever I will help you for free.
    I have done this over 100 times.I am fairly good but do not like charging money anymore because of the unpredictability of the court.I help people I like and who I believe are worthy.Men,children and women alike.
    if you are happy with one meeting a fortnight that is fine but if not PM me or email me kiwigaijin@gmail.com and I will help you.Confidentiality etc guaranteed.I hold a practising certificate as a lawyer.

Leave a Reply

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