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

The Tax Woman and the Csar

Filed under: Child Support — Scrap_The_CSA @ 8:28 pm Tue 2nd October 2007

Recent changes to the Child Support Tax Act gave the Tax woman the legal mechanism to initiate an administrative reviews against parents.

The Tax woman calls them Commissioner Initiated Administrative Reviews abbreviated to C.I.A.R (Pronounced Csar like the autocrat) .

First you will receive a letter like this.

Dear Mr XXXX,


I write to advise that your case has been selected for a possible Commissioner Initiated Administrative Review (CIAR).

A recent change to the law allows us to initiate such a review if after reviewing a paying parent’s financial position, we consider the child support they have been assessed to pay,does not reflect their ability to provide financial support for their children.

The enclosed booklet Helping you to understand reviews (IR175),
explains how the process works (refer to pages 29 to 33), including what involvement the custodial parent has in the second stage of the process.

Current child support payments
Your current child support assessment is calculated based on your income for the child support year ended XXXX

$ XX,000.00.

Table of Child Tax Payments (as assessed)

If you consider your liability has not been calculated correctly in terms of the formula,(for instance, your living allowance is incorrect), please let me know as soon as possible.

Establishing your current financial position
So that your financial position may be established, please complete the enclosed questionnaire advising of your current financial position and return it to me by (date) in the enclosed envelope. If you think you will have any difficulty meeting this time frame, please let me know.

This information will help us decide if your case is suitable for a CIAR.

Any queries?
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me on 0800 486 666 extension xxxx

Yours sincerely

Tax Woman

Included with this letter will be a 5 page form that the Tax woman asks you to “please complete.”

These forms are nothing more than a “fishing expedition”. Its euphemistically titled ” Details of Current Financial Position Questionnaire ” . IRD can obtain all the information without you making it easy for them to hang you. For your information I would not complete the form.

Peter Dunne, Minister Responsible for Child Support and United Future leader is responsible for Child Tax , pushed CIAR Reviews through Parliament. REMINDING you Peter!

Speaking of United Future while trumpeting shared parenting they fail to comprehend that without a fair and reasonable child support system it simply cant work.

In fact the their Made in New Zealand discussion document portrays the party view of paying parents parents.

Child Support

The child support system in New Zealand exists to try and ensure that parents fulfill at least part of their parental responsibilities for the sake of their children. It is not an area that the state enjoys adjudicating over. However, it is a necessary intervention when separated parents? cannot reach their own agreements.

Untrue : If a “custodial parent” is on the DPB then the Tax is collected by your Tax minions for “benefit recovery” or spousal maintenance. Its nothing to do with supporting children.

One of the difficulties that the child support system faces is the growing number of registered cases that it is involved with, and the associated challenges of growing child support debt.Inland Revenue has put a great deal of effort into collecting child support debt over the past five years. In 2002 just over $31 million of debt was collected. In 2006 this figure was more
than double at $67.6 million. However the growth in debt is rising faster than it can be collected which is a serious concern for IRD.

You know why Peter! The system is fundamentally flawed and creates the debt and you dont want to fix it. Your obsessed with compliance not fairness. In case you have forgotten we are coming to your electorate to REMIND you.

Formula and rules for child support will always be a balancing act between what liable and custodial parents? would like to see happen. Having said that, one way to encourage compliance within any system is to try and create a perception that such a system is as fair and reasonable as possible.

Be real Peter its about what your officials want and you don’t care about what parents want. You promised that your officals would consult on shared parenting and child support but have we ever heard from them? No.

Bit like ignoring Kiwis as you did over section 59 you don’t listen to parents you know best

Australia has had many of the same challenges as New Zealand and has made changes in an effort to recognise time and money spent by liable parents with their children. Now the Australian system caps payment obligations above certain income levels.

Well their used to be a cap but I am certain that Hansard shows that United Future (all at the time) voted for its removal.

Do you forget telling us that it would cost too much revenue to implement similar changes to Austrailia?

The language of this document tells it all United Future sees parents separated from their children in terms of liability and custody not as equal parents.

Dont worry Peter we will REMIND you and your electorate of how Family Unfriendly you are. We will REMIND them of your role as a political chameleon. We will remind them that you are a Tui ad politician.




  1. Is the letter real? Isn’t that discrimination to use the word tax “WOMAN”

    Aren’t we mean’t to be PC and use “OFFICER”

    Comment by julie — Tue 2nd October 2007 @ 9:21 pm

  2. BTW Scrap, do you know what is happening with parents who owe child support tax and leaving the country?

    Comment by julie — Tue 2nd October 2007 @ 9:23 pm

  3. I just recently went through this exact process. The “Commissioner Initiated Review” in my case was actually initiated by the children’s mother through what I saw to be vindictive motivation; I expect the process was invented mainly to provide an easy route for spousal-support beneficiaries to extract more from fathers. In my case the papers arrived a few days before I was due to be out of the country for a time. The Child Support people were not willing to delay the initial hearing with the Admin Review Officer until my return to enable me to attend. But they did facilitate my self-representation through e-mail. Following this hearing, IRD decided not to pursue the “Commissioner Initiated Review” further. I’m not sure what would have happened if the review had proceeded, but I guess the Commissioner would then have unlimited powers to invade your privacy and to ruin your life more than the current system already does.

    Regardless, the ex has now turned to the Family Court to continue the persecution, and I suspect other men will find the same happens. I’m not sure where I can send my bill for the time, expense and and stress-related treatment this nonsense will have cost me. Certainly, there is no consideration at any point for the impact on any working relationship between separated parents, and the damage to children from ongoing destruction of parental goodwill and co-operation.

    For anyone else faced with a Commissioner-Initiated Review, I am happy to provide a bit of suport as a lay person who has already been on the receiving end in this new move towards feminist totalitarianism.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 3rd October 2007 @ 11:20 am

  4. Oh, sorry, I forgot to give my e-mail: [email protected]

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 3rd October 2007 @ 11:22 am

  5. Hi Hans,

    Yes the Child Support Act is a good weapon for harrasement after seperation.
    I hope you didn’t get Robbie for your review. His findings are more unpredictable than Roger Webbs.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 5th October 2007 @ 3:23 pm

  6. Allan,
    That’s about ALL it sounds like, at the tax-payers expense as well.
    Must be good to be able to use other peoples money to your own ends.
    I thought that you weren’t allowed to leave NZ if you had any significant debts (likes of Student Loan, Fines, Child Support).
    I could be really wrong too, but I know a young fella here (one of my apprentices) that tried to leave for Aussie a few months back that was stopped at Customs for having un-paid Child Support payments, I mean for God sakes, he was only going over there for a holiday of 3 weeks (well deserved too, I might add) and see his sister.
    I really threw a wobbly when I heard about that he would not be allowed out of the country, he was in tears when he called me from Auckland airport, apparently his travel agent never thought to tell him of this fact before he booked the tickets. 🙁

    Comment by MikeT — Sat 6th October 2007 @ 5:46 pm

  7. IRD and data matches with a number of Government Departments.

    I believe that this includes customs. My understanding is that this data exchange is made legally valid by the Tax Admin Act.

    IRD cannot order customs to stop you traveling as alleged Child tax debt is not a fine imposed by a court.IRD legal opinion shows this is in breach of the bill of rights. The simple reason being that it is detention without due process ! (AKA detention by order of tax official)

    IRD however can obtain an arrest warrant from the family court and have that enforced at the border prior to departure.

    If people are seeing others who are detained at the border for child support debt without warrant from a court then there is a problem.

    But it needs to be clear what power was used to detain them was there a warrant or order from the family court?

    Data matching means they know who is going to be flying so it would be pretty easy to get a warrant from the court.

    I am aware of parents who travel who have alleged child tax debt and who are not detained.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 7th October 2007 @ 5:10 pm

  8. Mike T, it sounds like it has already started. I will have to speak with customs. How does all this go about so quietly?

    Comment by julie — Sun 7th October 2007 @ 5:35 pm

  9. Scrap is correct. It is illegal for customs to prevent a NZ citizen from leaving the country due to child support debt. The guy must have an unpaid court fine.

    Note however that if National get in then there will be a law passed to prevent people with child support debt leaving the country.
    Hence get out before or shortly after the next election.

    Comment by Dave — Tue 9th October 2007 @ 5:15 pm

  10. So if you owe Child Tax don’t vote for national or being stopped at the border will be the least of your worries.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 9th October 2007 @ 5:43 pm

  11. Scrap,

    Way back in July 1997, tax law was amended to move the “burden of proof” from the Department onto the tax-payer. Not sure if this applies only to income tax, but the effect is that when the Commissioner says “you owe $xxx,xxx,xxx” and you say “oh no I don’t”, the Commissar says “prove it!”.

    I’m guessing it will be a very small step from this to stopping Child Tax “debtors” (hahahahahahaha) at the border because they have a “debt” that they must disprove before leaving.

    My personal feeling is that the biggest issue will be what happens when a business sends an employee overseas on business and the employee gets stopped at the border?

    Will the Department refund all of the costs incurred by the business?

    I guess not 🙁 ……given their current attitude.

    Somebody asked if the letter is for real. It is very real – I have one just like it and I dearly want to determine just how I was “selected”…I’m guessing the Department use a similar method to the one Himmler used during WW2 to select candidates for the gas ovens and labour camps…

    …oh dear

    Comment by Ethos — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 5:52 pm

  12. Dave Henderson did warn us all to “Be Very afraid”

    Comment by rosie — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 6:28 pm

  13. Scrap,

    Question 9 in the House today was from Judith Collins to Peter Dunne as Minister of Revenue: “Is he satisfied with the level of child support collected from liable parents during the last financial year; if so why”.

    The question was a set up. Her supplimentary questions were angled into leaving the country, seoparating the view of United Future and National, where Peter Dunne argued that stopping liable parents at the border was amount to exposing this group to conditions not warrantable for any other citizen. I was trying to listen to whetehr or not he directly said “no – never” but there was definatelyu an angle in his answers to say that this was the policy. Judith Collins returned that there was a differnce between them in their thinking and the Labour benches erupted saying that JC was declaring National Policy. They, of course, were right. Yet Judith Collins got in the last and accurate shot when she wanted to table two documents proving that Peter Dunnes previous statemetns were the same as National’s position.

    There is a change. This isn’t my department but it is of considerable significance if Peter Dunne is varying his policy direction. Do you agree with Judy Turner that Peter Dunne is changing his policy on Child Support?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 24th October 2007 @ 2:43 pm

  14. Sorry not Judy Turner in the last sentence of my previous comment but – Judith Collins.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 24th October 2007 @ 2:44 pm

  15. You guys make me sick. So does your misogynist rantings. The fact is, if you were honest and upfront about your incomes, the mothers of your children wouldn’t have to pursue you for support. How dare you steal from your children. Peter Dunne is a hero.

    Comment by Isabella — Thu 25th October 2007 @ 4:49 pm

  16. Hi Isabella
    You make me sick too.How dare you comment on something you know absolutely nothing about.If you have children,then tell me,does it cost you $242 a week to support one child?Because with my husband’s ex wifes family tax credits included,she is receiving $483 a week for two children.And that is before her wages are included.My husband has just had major surgery for cancer and out of his income after our mortgage was payed he was left with $128 a week.Peter Dunne may be your hero but to many,he is a thief.Have you ever asked the women who receive child support as to where the interest that is added on to late payments go to? Not to them I can assure you of that.He steals from children as well.And he is one of the main causes for the suicide rate in men being so high. WHAT A HERO.

    Comment by rosie — Thu 25th October 2007 @ 5:55 pm

  17. Isabella,
    I cant believe that if you have looked through all the comments on this site,you end up saying the things that you have,I can only assume that you are being well looked after by the IRD or that you are in a happy relationship,most of the men here have been and are going through HELL,of course we are not getting out of our commitments to our children but we are all intitled to a life,in my case my ex wife did not complain when I was paying her over the top in a private agreement,but when I got a promotion at work which meant I could scrape through and by a reliable car she pounced,went off to the IRD to get her CS didnt tell me for months,so she got 2 lots of payments GREAT,are you one of those types of women???SO LOOK BACK AT THE COMMENTS AND DIGEST THEN TELL ME WITH AN HONEST HEART THAT THESE GUYS ARE BEING TREATED FAIRLY

    Comment by kenny — Thu 25th October 2007 @ 6:23 pm

  18. Im with you Rosie and Kenny…too many ex-wife’s think the ex-husband’s should pay for the marriage ending. Many men leave their wives because they are unhappy BUT they DO NOT leave their children. Most men are happy to support their children financially – meaning THE CHILDREN NOT the ex’s mtg,power,ph,fuel and lifestyle. Ex – husband’s have those costs themselves……and no hand out is given to them!!We have an ex wife that chooses to work minimal hrs, gets top up’s from Working For Families and a c/support of $13k a yr (so on average – we have just ‘battled & won’ 50/50 care of my 2 step children and she now has the cheek to ask for us to pay school fees & uniform & clothing for the kids (since we obtained shared care and she is bitter about that)on top of $13k a yr.She goes on to tell us that all her friends get xtra help from their ex husbands above the c/support payments (and I bet their ex husbands dont pay them $1062 a mth)…..’all her friends’ can you just imagine their little club – bitter ex wives who hate men!!! Sad really…..So our answer to her is if she is finding things tough financially is “we’ll have full custody then”??? – imagine her reaction……Her meal ticket of $1k would stop….My ex husband pays me $450 a mth. My children know their dad helps support them financially.Question though and I know its formula driven…….but how come some children are worth $450 and others $1,062 a month. Can someone enlighten me on on how a child cost’s $531 a month??? Who’s the thief now???????

    Comment by Karen — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 8:40 am

  19. Isabella,

    I think you should slow down and say what it is you want to say. You have described the rantings as mysoginist. I don’t think you have grounds to make this allegation from anything I have yet written. And I rant more than any.

    The collective points that are being made in regards to gender inequity or equality (whichever term you prefer) is that men are the targets of a violence that is set to protect women from facing up to truth.

    There are truths that have been identified – proved – and those truths include your reply. I am asking you to describe why my writing is mysoginst. Why?

    1: Was the COC Bill put in properly? Did it protect women to have babies by removing for that woman the necessity to provide the child with their rightful and protected association with their dad?

    2: Are there specific programmes built to consistency with the Domestic Violence Act 1995 accomodating and recognising Parent Alienation Syndrome as domestic violence?

    3: Which is more important for the child (a) retaining a healthy and protected association with both parents after a separation or; (b) providing the custodial parent after the separation with the same level of income to which they were accustomed before the separation?

    You have missed the point of my question about Peter Dunne comprehensively and have spat vehemence into your reply. I am asking James if Peter Dunne has changed his policy as Judith Collins has alleged.

    That’s a simple question. Judith Collins has made an allegation. James is our best equipped to answer that question.

    If James says yes there is a change of policy then I can legitimately question your understanding of why he is a hero. Do you support Child Tax defaulters being stopped at the border or not? If you answer with a more carefully weighted reply we could debate reasonably which policy is more sensible to the single principle of in the interests of the child.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 9:21 am

  20. BTW:

    Well done Karen, congratulations!

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 12:22 pm

  21. Isabella,
    The comments from the others here are well balanced and to be honest well thought out! Your display of anger and frustration clearly typifies what the average paying parent has to deal with!
    I am in a similar situation to most here. I have an ex wife and 2 kids with her and pay as per the IRD calculator. My ex works full time, makes exceptionally good money and I pay every week without fail. I currently pay $270 per week.
    I have another child and partner from a new relationship. The difference of payments before my daughter was born to now is around $30 a week less. My new partner works part time and we have built a modest house worth around $450k. We scrimp and save to buy anything and pretty much live week to week.

    My Ex, has a new partner and they are considering buying a new house. They apparently cant afford much either, they are having to look at places for $700 -$800k and ideally need 5-6 bedrooms.

    It is a little hard to accept that I am continuing to pay for my ex wife’s extraordinary living standards at the expense of my new child and partner!
    My kids are well looked after and I am pleased that they are cared for, but I struggle to find fairness when she lives the luxury while I struggle to pay the bills!
    It is not only me that finds this difficult, my new partner feels like our child is 2nd rate in this whole event!
    What worries me most is when my new daughter asks why she cant have colour TV’s, Xbox 360’s, new bikes etc like her older brother and sister! There is no equity in this sad shild support system!

    Comment by Paul — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 2:36 pm

  22. Isabella,
    The comments from the others here are well balanced and to be honest well thought out! Your display of anger and frustration clearly typifies what the average paying parent has to deal with!
    I am in a similar situation to most here. I have an ex wife and 2 kids with her and pay as per the IRD calculator. My ex works full time, makes exceptionally good money and I pay every week without fail. I currently pay $270 per week.
    I have another child and partner from a new relationship. The difference of payments before my daughter was born to now is around $30 a week less. My new partner works part time and we have built a modest house worth around $450k. We scrimp and save to buy anything and pretty much live week to week.

    My Ex, has a new partner and they are considering buying a new house. They apparently cant afford much either, they are having to look at places for $700 -$800k and ideally need 5-6 bedrooms.

    It is a little hard to accept that I am continuing to pay for my ex wife’s extraordinary living standards at the expense of my new child and partner!
    My kids are well looked after and I am pleased that they are cared for, but I struggle to find fairness when she lives the luxury while I struggle to pay the bills!
    It is not only me that finds this difficult, my new partner feels like our child is 2nd rate in this whole event!
    What worries me most is when my new daughter asks why she cant have colour TV’s, Xbox 360’s, new bikes etc like her older brother and sister! There is no equity in this sad child support system!

    Comment by Paul — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 2:36 pm

  23. Oh dear, I seemed to have touched a nerve haven’t I? Not sure who to start with really. Thanks for your comments, Rosie and Karen. I regret to inform you I know a whole lot about what I’m talking about, otherwise I wouldn’t have commented. I think it’s really said and really telling that women are attacking me and only because they’re now in the situation where they have hooked up with a man who happens to be paying child support to another woman! It’s so sad when women knowingly get with men who have children who they must pay for, then begrudge it because it “shortchanges” them. My heart is breaking – not.
    Why do you get so hung up on what the ex wife receives when you should be happy that the children are well provided for, maybe you should just focus on your own lives. Child support is necessary for the children. No matter what the ex spends, it indirectly funds those children’s food, housing etc.
    Kenny, you’re just whinging. You made the children, you pay for them.
    Benjamin, when I get struggle through your grandiose verbosity, the bare bones reveal nothing but vitriole. Sorry. Paul, you also are breaking my heart. The same tired old bitter and twisted comments from men are what I’m saying makes me sick! You can all attack me however you wish. Just to give you some insight, I’m raising two children alone. I have an immensely rich ex husband who does everything he can to get out of paying child support. Unfortunately, he chooses not to see them as he may have to spend another few dollars on them over and above the “exorbitant” amount he already pays. He manages to pay a minimal amount because he can wangle it that way. He and men like him go to extraordinary lengths to hide their incomes. I have a problem with your comments because you only see your side and you’re so bitter that you can’t see the good that child support does. Not only does it contribute to your children’s wellbeing, but it reinforces to those children that you care. Me, I work and raise my children singlehandedly and I do a bloody good job of it. I have deliberately chosen not to get involved with a man who has children and an ex for fear of becoming an embittered old stepmother who begrudges that he has to support the children he has created.

    Comment by Isabella — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 3:01 pm

  24. What the hell? I’m so angry at you women. Men I expect this stuff from but you women are so caught up with the bitterness that comes with having partners with exes and children. All you seem to go on about is what your partner’s ex has and gets. Why do you care? Just know that your partner’s child support is for the good of the children and nothing else should matter to you. How dare you attack women like me who struggle on year after year trying to get the economic and financial truth from our exes and a fair amount of child support! I do ALL of the work, ALL of the nurturing, ALL of the feeding, clothing blah blah, and contribute a much greater percentage of my income to my children that their father does. Don’t you get it? Are you all so narrow minded and tunnel visioned that you can see nothing else? I may sound as bitter to you as you do to me but it comes from years of fighting for a bit of fairness. Seriously, wake up. Your side isn’t the only one. And there’s a rant from me.

    Comment by Isabella — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 3:11 pm

  25. Isabella,

    Not all men are as horrible as the experience that you seem to have had. But your irrationale rant to start with didnt really help your cause!

    I think you miss the point because of your bad experience. I have not heard anyone say that they dont want to pay or that they shouldnt pay a fair amount!

    I dont begrudge paying for child support, never have missed a payment nor hidden any income. I dont think that I should have to support my ex and her lifestyle choices.

    I also have the kids on a regular basis and spend plenty of time (and additional money) on them. Dont assume that I am the same as your ex!

    Dont use your poor old me, bitterness and bad experience and blame it on all men or assume that they are the same! I talk to my kids everyday and play an active part in their life!

    I am interested to know your feelings about the payments showing that I care about their wellbeing, does it mean that I dont care about my new baby because I cant give her the same things that I give to my other 2?

    I actually would have thought that the actions of love and support and respect would have shown more than money, but it seems that for ex’s that this the most vital part!

    All I ask is equity! I am not asking to not pay, nor am I asking for anyone else to pay. What I want is for all of my kids to be treated fairly and that my ex is paid to look after the kids, a contribution to what the kids cost and need. I dont expect to have to pay for excessive expenses to make her life significantly better! Do my kids really care the difference between a modest house and a mansion? Does this show them more love??

    Anyway, have to go, I have the kids this weekend and dont want to be late getting them!

    Comment by Paul — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 3:49 pm

  26. Dear Isabella,

    What you fail to grasp is there is not two sides to this problem of Child Support, but many.
    You are faced with a seperate set of circumstances that Rosie, Kenny, Paul, Karen etc.. contend with.
    This should not provide reason to attack what they feel is unjustified, neither should any attack be forwarded towards you due to your feelings that you also are being shortchanged.
    What is highlighted through this debate is that “the legislative formula for all” does not appease neither provides fair, just and equitable resolution for all concerned.

    Kindest Regards
    Paul Catton

    Comment by Paul Catton — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 3:58 pm

  27. Paul, fair comment about my initial comment. For you to say, however, that you have never heard anyone say they don’t want to pay or pay a fair amount is probably true because not many men are stupid enough to say it outright. The reality is, many many men DON’T want to pay and begrudge it. Also, many men (or women) DON’T pay or don’t pay as much as they should as determined by IRD. If you think every liable person is willing, then you must be living in la la land. Don’t twist my words either in that I think every man is the same – of course I don’t, how can they be? I just know that many men are not paying child support and if they do, are whingeing about it as you are. So many of them leave the country just to avoid it. I really think you’ve missed my point about how payments show you care. For a child to realise his or her father (mother) hasn’t paid child support and won’t is extremely hurtful and damaging. If the parent shows no other interest in them, at least they know they’re being provided for financially.

    How dare you drag me into your misguided and erroneous (but typical) stereotype of the ever-grasping-for-money-ex-wife. I am not one of those and have never been. I know they exist but maybe your experiences have taught you that all women are the same? I want wants fair for my children, not the most that I can get.

    Instead of saying I am attacking what everyone is saying, maybe you should consider their attack on me and appreciate how much this issue stirs up people’s feelings. No I shouldn’t have begun that way but over and over and over I hear men moaning about child support and their partners moaning about the child support they pay. I’m tired of it. I’m an ex who receives child support and has to fight for every bit I get in spite of the fact that I do the rearing entirely my own. I would give away the child support in a heart beat for my children to have a loving and supportive father who has their best interests at heart but unfortunately that’s not to be. I commend you for being a devoted dad, your kids are lucky. For my part, I think I’m lucky too.

    Comment by Isabella — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 4:24 pm

  28. Isabella I’ve been in your situation myself.You say you get some financial support from your ex husband.You should consider yourself lucky,cos I got nothing.My experience did not leave me feeling bitter towards all men.But what I can tell you is,the situation I am in now is making me damn angry.You said that the money is for the good of the children.That is a laughable statement when what you should have said is that it is for the benefit of the ex wife.You didn’t answer me when I asked you if it cost you $242 a week to support one child.You couldn’t answer me cos you know it does not cost that.By the way I think I did a pretty good job in raising my children alone.My son is married to a woman who has a little boy from a previous marriage.My son and his wife support this little boy.His wife gets no child support yet there is no animosity between all of them.As my son said,’We don’t want any hassles’This child spends each weekend with his dad.The difference between my daughter in law and many other women,is that she is not greedy or vindictive and her child is growing up in a loving and caring environment where he will not be taught to hate.Sorry your experience has left you with bitterness.I hope you won’t be passing that on to your children.

    Comment by rosie — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 4:34 pm

  29. Oh dear Rosie, I’m bitter? Read what you just wrote!
    …and I hadn’t ignored your question because I had no answer for it, it simply got lost in the mass of criticism I got back from everyone and I forgot. So, in answer, it is my belief (and I’m pretty up with this since I live it), it costs far more than $242 a week to raise one child. I don’t know what you’re factoring in when you tote up the costs of raising children but you’re obviously neglecting a few things. What a person (mother usually) spends on rent or mortgage a week is all part of what it costs to raise a child, along with power, telephone, rates, insurances, groceries, bus fares, hair cuts, doctor, optometrist, petrol, school expenses, parties, presents, clothing, sports fees, internet fees, babysitting, holidays, I’m sure there are more. It isn’t just the cost of food for a child for a week, it’s everything. Children are expensive. You, since you are a parent, should know that. So no, $242 is often not enough to support a child for a week. The two parents should be paying equally towards the costs of their children and I pay far more than that myself per child per week. You have to work it out per annum. Some weeks are cheaper than others. This really is such basic stuff, although somehow I don’t think you’re gonna get it. …not being able to see the wood for the trees and all that.

    Comment by Isabella — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 9:58 pm

  30. By the way Rosie, how do you know so much about what other income your husband’s ex is getting and what the hell business is it of yours anyway?

    Comment by Isabella — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 10:00 pm

  31. I’m not interested in what my husband’s ex earned.It was her who told the world what she earned on dating sites.Not that that helped her cos she’s still like you,home alone on a Friday night.
    Have a great night
    Cheers Rosie

    Comment by rosie — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 10:38 pm

  32. Isabella,

    I made it very simple. I put everything I am saying into three questions that you can understand. Now, instead of insulting me all you have to do is answer them.

    Nothing else. Why be rude?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 27th October 2007 @ 10:22 am

  33. Cheers Rosie, I would’ve replied earlier but was on a really fun weekend away. After a busy week at work I actually cherish my Fridays on my own and look forward to my busy weekends. I’m not a helpless, weak and needy woman who feels I only have worth if I’m with a man.
    Benjamin, I wasn’t being rude, just trying to tell you how pompous you sound. I’ve known many people like you and actually I didn’t need you to make your questions simplistic so that “I can understand”. How typically patronising from someone who feels the need to try and impress everyone with their words and “knowledge”. I’m well educated, know how to spell (unlike many people who have commented) and my comments don’t look as though the apostrophe monster has vomited all over them.
    Anyway, you’ll all be pleased to know this is my last comment. I can’t be bothered with people like you all. None of you sounds particularly educated, or unbiased or open to any sort of criticism or difference of opinion.
    You can all carry on seeing the world from your tiny perspectives and being absolutely and incredibly selfish. Try and remember the children that you either made or chose to associate with. They’re the ones who matter, it would do you all good to remember that.

    Comment by Isabella — Sun 28th October 2007 @ 6:22 pm

  34. If you had such a fun weekend away Isabella,there would have been no need for you to reply to me or anyone else.

    Comment by rosie — Sun 28th October 2007 @ 9:50 pm

  35. Hmmmm. Isabella rants from a single viewpoint, and refuses to understand that every situation is unique, and not identical to hers.

    Consider this Isabella, if you will….as the majority of men are NOT like the obviously lower form of humanity you chose to partner up with (Speaks volumes about your judgement, which is sadly lacking in this discussion too), the majority of men actually WANT to spend time with their children, and cherish the 2 days out of 14 when they have their kids. What this means is that the BIGGEST single domestic expense (Rent or mortgage) will be higher for these men than for a childless man in an otherwise comparable situation, for the simple reason that no man wants his kids to sleep routinely on the floor in a sleeping bag. So, they have to rent or buy a house that will be too big for their needs 12 days out of 14. Then, the children need toys too. My goodness, another expense. Now, we can’t have them running around naked on weekends, so the dad has to buy clothes too. Oh no, another expense!

    So while dad has major expenses too, where the children are involved, this is not taken into account, which is why dad has to scrimp to get by, while mum has spare money to holiday in exotic places (during the school holidays, when the children are with dad), all the while trying to tap dad for more money because she doesn’t want to spend the child support (or any of her own earnings either) on the children.

    You stated that you’d never get involved with a guy with kids because of the problems the greedy exes cause, I’ve seen many cases where single women with children are actively targeted, as they often have more disposable income that single women with no kids.

    Such a shame that the supposedly “good” education you have received has not been able to remove your blinkers.

    Comment by Frank — Mon 29th October 2007 @ 12:08 am

  36. It is a shame, Isabella that you have decided to not to return to the list and appear to us the advantage of retreat as an admission of everyone elses guilt.

    I don’t mind if you think I am pompous because you do not give me an answer to mind. I agree with you that I am uneducated because I simly didn’t go to school.

    Yet I do take exception to your assesment that I have partonised you, because that is improper. I have asked you questions that you can understand. You have boiled down my writing to claim that you understand what I am saying. Apparently then you are in the minority. I am always fending off others, academics as well, (my father even in some of my earlier writing when he edited some texts – and he is scholastic) who can become quite angry that I am not clear – so – I am hardly being patronising by trying to bring my writing into a place where it can be read.

    Additionally, if you note what I wrote, I stated that it was all of my writing collected into three questions, so; these replies as relative to gender inequity or equality (whichever term you would prefer) was written for anyone.

    If you aren’t prepared to answer, other than to rebuke me again, then it seems I am given the task to reduce the language to an even finer description of the objective points I am making.

    Hopefully, Isabella isn’t alone and many people have understood what I have said – more, hopefully, fully comprehend what it could mean.

    I am not sure if any have been to jury trials. There the lawyer, either defence or prosecution, (the one I imagine with the greatest to gain from the argument) will instruct the jury on teh difference between the object and the subject of the trial. This is my discontent with Isabella retreating. She hasn’t separated the objective principle of the questions that I have raised from the subjective, leaving – and claiming that she is not rude, calling me pompous.

    The questions go unanswered and the Uruweras are scanned for terrorist camps as the camps of terror are largely left alone.

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fatherscoalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 29th October 2007 @ 2:07 pm

  37. It is a shame, Isabella that you have decided to not to return to the list and appear to us the advantage of retreat as an admission of everyone elses guilt.

    I don’t mind if you think I am pompous because you do not give me an answer to mind. I agree with you that I am uneducated because I simly didn’t go to school.

    Yet I do take exception to your assesment that I have partonised you, because that is improper. I have asked you questions that you can understand. You have boiled down my writing to claim that you understand what I am saying. Apparently then you are in the minority. I am always fending off others, academics as well, (my father even in some of my earlier writing when he edited some texts – and he is scholastic) who can become quite angry that I am not clear – so – I am hardly being patronising by trying to bring my writing into a place where it can be read.

    Additionally, if you note what I wrote, I stated that it was all of my writing collected into three questions, so; these replies as relative to gender inequity or equality (whichever term you would prefer) were written for anyone.

    If you aren’t prepared to answer, other than to rebuke me again, then it seems I am given the task to reduce the language to an even finer description of the objective points I am making.

    Hopefully, Isabella isn’t alone and many people have understood what I have said – more, hopefully, fully comprehend what it could mean.

    I am not sure if any have been to jury trials. There the lawyer, either defence or prosecution, (the one I imagine with the greatest to gain from the argument) will instruct the jury on the difference between the object and the subject of the trial. This is my discontent with Isabella retreating. She hasn’t separated the objective principle of the questions that I have raised from the subjective, leaving – and claiming that she is not rude, calling me pompous.

    The questions go unanswered and the Uruweras are scanned for terrorist camps as the camps of terror are largely left alone.

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fatherscoalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 29th October 2007 @ 2:10 pm

  38. Isabella disappeared as quickly as she arrived here, without explaining how she would have survived financially if she didn’t have children.She would still have had to pay a mortgage or rent,power,telephone,rates and insurance and internet fees.According to her,$242 a week was not enough to support one child yet $128 a week was enough for two adults to live on.
    And she said she was well educated????
    A quote from an outgoing local councillor:
    “I question the meaning of the description ‘intellect’ which is a God -given quality rather than something bestowed by the academic world.That’s why we have so many idiots in leadership”

    Comment by rosie — Tue 30th October 2007 @ 5:37 pm

  39. Ah well Rosie, Isabella seems by her rantings to be one those hard done by people who can only see their own troubles. She is right, everyone else is wrong. Sounds a bit like me ex…..

    Comment by Frank — Tue 30th October 2007 @ 10:53 pm

  40. Forgot to add – she appears to think that as her ex is a b’stard with no time for his children, that every other man is the same. She is very quick to label the men here as misogynists, while displaying definite misandrist tendencies. Unforunately, the FC and those who have crafted the whole child support regimen are her sisters-in-arms (or castrati-in-arms) as far as misandristic behaviour goes.

    Comment by Frank — Tue 30th October 2007 @ 11:04 pm

  41. Isabella
    Have you thought of going to the Family Court and filing for a Parenting Order giving your ex-husband shared custody? I know you’ll say he doesn’t want it, but surely the Court can order him to take shared parenting responsibility. I know you’ll be prepared to give up shared parenting as you’ll know it’s in your children’s best interests, and after all, you are doing so well putting them first.
    Naturally, once you have the Court Order assigning your children into yor ex’s care half the time, you’ll be freed up to engage paid employment, as you’ll no longer need to be at home all day every day whilst they are at school. With your new-found income, you’ll be able to contribute financially on an equal and fair basis with your ex husband regarding providing financially for your children. Or you might agree with him to call child-support quits, and each merely provide out of your own means for the 50% of the time you have them.
    I know you won’t have any problem with any of this as it is clear from the little you have revealed about yourself that (1) you really do want him involved in raising your children, (2) you don’t hold any malice toward him for leaving you, even though all your marital differences were of his doing, (3) you really are a nice cooperative co-parent, (4) whether or not he is paying, you don’t simply see your ex as a meal ticket – ‘screw him for all I can’ – type provider, and (5) You’re not really generally personally abusive towards other people.
    Let me know how you go in organising this.

    Comment by Frank & Earnest — Wed 31st October 2007 @ 9:21 pm

  42. Great point Frank and Earnest.

    I’m not certain if this idea has been tried. Nor, on the other side of the coin do I believe any fathers have taken out protection orders against their former partners for withholding court ordered access.

    I’m no advocate of citizens using the Family Court in regards to the care of their children after a separation under any circumstances. This is the duty of teh state to take a responsibility for the negative affects it thrashes on families muddling with thier circumstances balancing our lives to ecomonies of market and capitalist demand. I prefer by far that we should develop mediation to an effective level so that families splitting have every idea what is in store for them before they could get to any place of arbitration undertaking a plan that recognises their general circumstances and maps their likely troubles: yet, while those who run the system are so deeply entrenched in their own self importance that they could ravage financially their fellow man, neighbour and wider community, we have to do something to compete against the pain inflicted. So we should use the rules to their best effect.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 11:38 am

  43. A letter to Mr Dunne – lets see if I get a response.

    Dear Mr Dunne,

    As the Minister of Revenue I would like some advise from you and your party on the above matter.

    My husband and I have recently obtained shared care (50/50) of his 2 children aged 13 & 7 after a four year battle. We persevered for so long because we believed the children need both parents in their lives to help bring them up equally.

    We currently pay child support of $1,062 a month to the children’s mother. This was based on a shared care basis of 40% of the nights. As we now have shared care of 50% IRD say the formula assessment does not change. Now – we have no issue in supporting the children and their financial requirements BUT we cannot survive by paying the above amount aswell as the new costs incurred by having the children equally. Can you please tell me – why the formula assessment should stay the same when the following occurs:

    1) Mother’s cost go down as we have children 26 weeks a year.

    2) Our costs increase due to food, power, fuel, clothing, school fees, school uniform, sports activities, doctor’s visits and any other misc items while they are in our care.

    3) Mother can now obtain more hours of work due to the children not being in her care for 50% of the time – and this then will help government pockets because she will no longer need ‘top ups’ as she currently chooses to work 20 hrs a week, receive Working for Family top ups and child support of $12,744.

    In most cases Child Support seems to be some sort of ‘child tax’ on the liable parents income rather than a cost on what the children’s needs really are. If we are paying $1,062 a month then IRD are telling us that the other party should be contributing the same… 2 children a month costs 2,124 to keep. Now by being ‘kept’ this shouldn’t mean the custodial parents mtg,power,food,fuel etc etc because liable parents have those costs aswell and I’m sure 80% of liable parents would agree – that they would dearly love to have their children on a fulltime basis too.

    So now in our case WE BOTH ARE EQUALLY LIABLE PARENTS.So the question to you and your party is shouldn’t child support be null in void and when the children are in a shared care situation like ours that the children be supported by that parent for the week by their own financial means???

    When parents separate they leave their partners not their children and like us we are happy to contribute to the children’s well being and needs on a ‘fair and equal’ basis – so when will the Minister of Revenue look at the Child Support Act – which is over 15 years old and look at current situations in New Zealand. We all hear how huge the unpaid child support debt is in NZ so why not make the system a little more fairer so liable parents don’t default & help them not become financially crippled or worst bankrupt!!

    Can formula’s not be weighted on how much time is spent with the liable parent e.g.,20%, 30%, 40% or 50%? and in shared cared situation of equal time costs for the children be taken care of by the parent caring for them that week!! and no further payments need to go to either parents???

    Your advise on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Comment by Karen — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 1:33 pm

  44. Karen

    My feeling is that you will get an acknowledgement that your letter has been received, and then hear nothing further. You should possibly address a similar letter to Mr Key, and ask him what his party plans to do about the grossly unjust child support regime in place in this country.

    Further to the very valid points you have raised, IRD sets the amount NCPs have to pay, but do not take any responsibility to ensure that every last penny is spent on the children. Consequently, I’ve funded overseas holidays for my ex, while she’s constantly moaning that she needs more money (She gets $1700 a month for my two children as it is, FFS!) for the children.

    Comment by Frank — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 5:24 pm

  45. Karen

    You do know that you can apply for child support from the childrens mother, don’t you? IR156, page 14 shows that not only does the percentage drop from 24% to 18%, but that your husband can also start claiming child support from the childrens mother.

    Comment by Frank — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 5:47 pm

  46. Hi Karen
    That was a great letter but you’ll probably get a reply from Margaret Denny (who is an IRD employee) which goes along the lines of this…
    I acknowledge and note your views on the matter. I have referred your comments on to …..
    Yours sincerely
    Hon Peter Dunne.
    Karens husband’s ex wife is clever enough to work part time so that her child support liability will only be $14-40 a week.Which goes to prove that child support is not for the children.

    Comment by rosie — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 6:23 pm

  47. Hi Frank
    I forgot to add that I had a reply from John Keys office which said that they were going to have a complete overhaul of the child support act and that my letter was being forwarded on to Judith Collins joke joke.
    Which can only mean a huge increase for liable parents to recover the debt owed in penalties.
    But that was before the experts agreed that the fatter you are,the more at risk you are of developing cancer.

    Comment by rosie — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 7:13 pm

  48. Karen,

    that’s a good letter.

    The English lawyer father’s supporters (I’ve temporarily forgotten his name sorry), who has refused to pay child suppport, was imprisoned and released, and last week was reimprisoned to finish his sentence contacted me with that info. I hope that Father’s for Justice will resend me the information with a more direct description of how England is reacting to the same problem and have promised them that I will write to parliament as I do, relevant to the situation from an NZ perspective.

    In that letter, I will draw the readers attention to this site and this post and I will include you by BCC in that letter. It may in the end mean little to the political readers of my letter, because as Ron Mark in parliament once replied in parliament to a situation, there will not be a politician in parliament who has not been exposed to these problems, yet that won’t detract from what I have got to say and what it is in my letter that they will be forced to comprehend.

    What the menz movement do not yet have is any commitment to rally into any kind of group and form any kind of crowd. We are clustered individually into our own home based sets where we are prepared to challenge an administration that has the ability to gut a family of its finances, its integrity and its emotions, for either not understanding the problem, or more maliciously as many suspect exploiting that situation. The letter will be titled Peter Dunne.

    No matter any result from any reply, from any politician it is important for everyone not to lose heart when you get stone walled. Literally (and passively) – we just have to use bigger stones.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 4th November 2007 @ 2:09 pm

  49. Hi All,
    I have been reading with interest on topics contained in this site and enjoy the comments made.
    My sons father and I have been doing a Shared Parenting (Co-operative Shared Parenting) arrangement successfully now for 10 years without any lawyers or Family Court involvement. We don’t pay any C/S to each other and all agreed costs are shared equally. Our son was two when we separated and I knew that his father and I were separating from each other, not our child. Of course we had issues in the relationship as a couple, but we both worked together for the well-being of our child and put adult issues aside.
    Just a suggestion to Karen, could you not apply for an “Urgent Departure Order from the Formula Assessment” via your lawyer or application to C/S IRD. I must admitt in the early days IRD really worked hard at trying to get some sort of imbalance of time shared to ensure I would get paid an amount. I got rather annoyed with the call centre as I believed IRD were leaning toward pushing for a parent (me) to become dependent on the other for C/S, even if I was willing to say I had our son an extra hour more than his father. I am sick of some woman claiming C/S based on greed.
    Best of luck Karen.
    Regards Molly

    Comment by Molly — Sun 4th November 2007 @ 3:14 pm

  50. Hi Molly,

    Thanks for your comments. Like I say – we have no issue in supporting the kids – in fact would have them fulltime if we were allowed…… need mum and dad and they need to be supported by both parents fairly!!!! We already receive c/s from the other parent $70 a mth……goes a long way huh???? NOT. I have 2 friends that have had shared care from day 1 and like you theyve never had c/s from each other but agreed to pay for the costs when the children are in their care. Some people cannot be so civilised and put the children first!! because your right your relationship as adults broke down but not that relationship with your children….what grates me is when the other parent ‘relies’,’expects’ the hand out when they are not prepared to get of their backside and work as hard as the other parent to continue to support their children. Ive thought about a departure order but is this opening up a whole can of worms when IRD are so blinded to see what is fair for all parents involved with c/s.

    Comment by Karen — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 7:19 am

  51. Hi Karen,
    Seek some advice from your lawyer. I have remarried and my husband and I have been to hell and back with his ex regarding C/S. I know what you are going through, we have been there only worse than you could ever imagine! The Family Court Judge will make a decision! Take care Karen
    Regards Molly

    Comment by Molly — Tue 6th November 2007 @ 5:32 pm

  52. Still no reply from Peter Dunne’s office – any suggestions who I should send the letter to now….

    Comment by Karen — Mon 12th November 2007 @ 9:57 am

  53. Please see the response from Judy Turner – United Future to my letter I sent to Peter Dunne.

    My understanding is that the care is calculated on “bed-nights” not hours spent (which I agree is silly). I have talked to the Minister previously on this matter and he has ordered some work to be done in his department to look into this problem with the hope that cabinet would approve changes to the way shared care is calculated for child support purposes. UnitedFuture considers the current method of calculating child support to be a very blunt instrument, and that it creates huge unfairness. While changing this was not part of our current, negotiated Supply and Confidence agreement with the Labour-led government we are certainly intent on doing all we can to get the government to consider the changes needed. I have sent this e-mail to both the Minister and to IRD staff for their perusal.


    Judy Turner (Deputy Leader)

    Comment by Karen — Mon 12th November 2007 @ 10:28 am

  54. Well done Karen!

    For a display of equally respectful as practicable measure to build a united future James Nicolle or Paul Catton are likely our best to reply with direct meaningful dialogue between us, the disaffected, and those with the capacity to calculate our existence.

    This, by that view is to say that Judy Turner is offering an opening to draw sense into a department that can do so much hurt and harm by missing the damage that is inflicted by concentrating on money instead of the people who are supposed to be served by its instrument.

    Hopefully, James or Paul can also give you a reply. And we can all begin to consider and concentrate on these practical measures as our political position, putting pressure on the administrators requesting that they stop beating us up, damaging our relationships with our children for fiscal irresponsibility instead assisting us through.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 12th November 2007 @ 6:59 pm

  55. You guys have made me very scared.I have had a 5 year battle with IRD over Child Support.By my calculations they owe me $70,000.They say I owe them $32,000.It is all to do with shared care.I have always been very careful to have the 146 nights but they never acknowledge it.They just say 139 days each year and refuse to bend.One year even the mother said 140 nights(actually it was 149 that year) and the IRD still assessed as 139!I have just spent the whole day making yet another affidavit for yet another court case.Family assistance is the same.Never once have I been paid.One year they assessed as 115 days(although Child Support said 139).When questioned about this anomoly they said they do not share information with CS.I have had 38 different officers write me letters or make decisions in the past 5 years not one of them reasonable.I have kept diaries,email correspondence,calendars,affidavits of my neighbour and my new wife confirming days I had my daughter everything but it has not made one scrap of difference.I have been audited twice.I escaped to overseas in May and thus can no longer see 3 of my children.If I open a bank account the IRD automatically cleans everything out.After reading this forum I am too scared to go back into New Zealand so will stay away which is tragic but what can I do?

    Comment by whanga — Tue 13th November 2007 @ 9:31 pm

  56. Sorry I should have explained that Family Assistance rules are 122 days.Th reason IRD keeps assessing me at 139 is that they are scared that if it becomes 140 I may have an argument that I have shared care under the second wing of the policy .I have lived in Whangaparaoa and my ex and my daughter in the city.Not once has she picked up or dropped off my daughter.Her income is well over $100,000 a year mine has consistently been below $20,000.(although the IRD have regularly assessed my income ay between $40,000 and $60,0009.I have kept a 3 br house with a section so my daughter(8 yrs old) could have a proper life.Her mother lives in a tiny apartment.
    I have paid half for clothes was on the PTA of my daughters school etc etc.However in May this year I said enoygh is enough and left New Zealand.I have seen the shorts of David Henderson`s movie.I wish his problems were 10% of mine.I really do not believe that a lot of people out there know about what is going on in NZ.The IRD are a law unto themselves and will stop at nothing to prevent children having a proper relationship with their children.I joined in some of the protests at lawyers for the childrens houses last year.Bloody good fun but more must be done.

    Comment by whanga — Tue 13th November 2007 @ 9:50 pm

  57. Good for you Whanga for writing.

    First, there is a skerrick of hope, yet it is distant and dependent on many unlikely factors. But that cannot stop hope from being hope!

    Why I don’t register to the formula of child support and look at it froman analytical view is because the principle instituting its provision is corrupted as money: the value over the child. That’s why I ask that our demonstrated as skilled analysts James Nicolle (Srap) and Paul Catton take these question on in a manner that create a direct challenge on the IRD. I respect for them that it is hard to do this kind of work and as James says – the little one comes first every time – or words to that effect. Fair enough. After all this is teh principle that is advocated if reform is ever to be found. Yet without the army of skilled challengers the capacities of production are limited to the kinds of ends reserved for partimers and the not so resourced.

    So where I call myself the Political Busker, prepared to challenge the injustices, where I reject that challenge on principle there is a vaccuum. Paul Catton, obviously is in the direct fight and achieving this month so it is unfair to challenge him, and I know for James’s previous contributions he works hard at it challenging Peter Dunne on formula and the like. Yet I don’t endevour to comprehend what he writes. I suppose this makes me aggressive – I apologise James.

    Yet, if being inefective for the argument it doesn’t limit a possible solution to the problem. I cannot remember if I have canvassed that idea on this site but wrote dorectly to Gordon Copeland. I suggested an amnesty on money not collected in exchange for reestablished relationships with the child. He replied in favour – as I remember the letter of response – and I will reread it before quoting him directly, because if the quote is solid then it holds that component of hope.

    Gordon Copeland split from United Future on the policy direction change repealing s.59 of the Crimes Act 1961. This was termed the anti-smacking Bill. GC was a list elected MP to United Future, where there were three MP’s. He has made I believe useful contribution to tax laws and I have read favourable things on his contribution and those less favourable. Michael Cullen is intolerant of his questions, answers and policy focus on most replies to those questions and sometimes watching from the gallery I can comprehend the complexities of the answers and tend lean (as often I will) to the logic of MC. Yet GC has asked a question in Parliament that I haven’t heard anyone else yet ask directly where he was patsied in guffaw and deception by Steve Maharey claiming that everyone thought it was ideal for mum and dad to be the one’s bringing up the children. That simply isn’t true of him or cabinet where there is a direct policy engaged to negate that effect by allowing single mums and lesbian couples to have babies where knocking dad out of the picture for the child – being under 18. So good on him overall. He engineered a Hansard masterpiece for that single question.

    GC’s vote is with National. He has prepledged it looking I imagine to capitalise the nominal single party entry to parliament for a seat of getting more under MMP. Two I suppose -I don’t know the figures off hand.

    That pledge will be important under such conditions if voting is tight this election which I would think could be predictable, depending on how the more social and delicate issues are handled as they rapidly charge into view. It will certainly be among the most interesting election in history I reckon and there is a long long way to go yet!

    And it’s his policy effectively if he matures it and it is sound policy so he owns its credit. So the hope in that is that the method accomodating the idea is feasible. I don’t mind working on this as we get closer to the election. So it’s a sort of pledge from me as well.

    Optimally the Republican’s will pick it up as well and work through its meaning and implimentation. If the social system has begun by that time to respond to the need to impliment a change of social planning on separations being focused on plans instead of punishmentthen there would be a tide of fathers knowing htat they could reunite with their children without being crucified for the massive financial burden, as for you that drives them away from their children.

    So don’t be scared. Write to Peter Dunne anonymously and suggest that this is what you need to get you to return to New Zealand. And by the way -tell him that the reason you are out of NZ isn’t because you are running away from your responsibility to your childre, but because his department has forced you from the country because to stay is to die.

    The address is:

    Peter Dunne
    Minister of Revenue
    Parliament Buildings
    New Zealand

    As JimBWarrior would say “Stay strong stay calm”.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 13th November 2007 @ 10:19 pm

  58. That guy Peter Dunne knows nothing of reality.I told my story to my MP Lockwood Smith.He did not want to know about it.I asked if he believed me and he did not reply just said he was busy.
    I wrote a 3 page letter complaining of an IRD assessment 3 months ago and then got a letter back saying they did not consider it an objection as I did not use the word objection.The legislation does not say I have to.38 officers have looked at my case.38.Have you got any idea what that must have cost the taxpayer?I have also been to court 7 times with the IRD over Child Support and have 4 more cases coming up but am now to scared to go back to NZ so will probably have to let them go.Most guys take take the kind of stuff I have had thrown at me,commit suicide,get depressed.I refuse to be called a liar by IRD.I was extremely careful to have my 146 nights each year.This whole system is appalling and bringing NZ down.I know JimB Warrior.Seems like he has mellowed somewhat.If anyone can give me more info about this prevention of child support “debtors” being stopped at the airport I would be very grateful.

    Comment by whanga — Tue 13th November 2007 @ 10:37 pm

  59. The last question time I heard covering the issue was between PD and Judith Collins. JC was accussing PD of changing his policy. Sounds like she was right. Meaning that CS defaulters were not going to be stopped at the airport.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 14th November 2007 @ 12:22 am

  60. Im Busy parenting so havent answered some questions on this thread, but will do so later this week.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 14th November 2007 @ 9:42 am

  61. I cannot believe that it is legal to stop anyone travelling where they like.It is the right of a citizen to have a passport.Yet one of the first posts here said that had happened to someone.I rang IRD today and they said they cannot do it

    Comment by whanga — Wed 14th November 2007 @ 11:50 am

  62. See comments 7 and 9.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 14th November 2007 @ 2:55 pm

  63. Hi All,
    All of the issues raised regarding C/S and Shared Care can be easily sorted by the other parent, simply by saying, I don’t want to be receiving C/S when my kids father is doing the required amount of hours (or what ever is required). Unfortunately it appears that some women base C/S assessments on greed and continue the IRD battle by not wanting to resolve anything. I believe that the parent receiving C/S enjoys IRD being the attacker.
    Now my husbands x is married and never puts her husbands earnings into her statement of financial means, however every year I am required to provide my earnings to IRD and Family Court and my earning are taken into account. Now his x via the courts also demanded that my husbands earnings be increased up to $100,000 as she estimated that he had the earning ability of at least this amount (Yeah, I wish!!!). He actually earns $55,000. Every year the x demands a weekly payment of c/s at $800.00 and even recommended that my husband and I take on secondary employment to meet her financial needs. We have a designated IRD person that deals with our tax details as we were alerted to his x receiving information from my husbands file. How were we alerted? She put copies of IRD statements and letters addressed to my husband in her affidavit. We wrote to IRD and lodged a complaint. IRD’s response was that should his x request information under the ‘Official Informations Act’ she would receive this information anyway so it was given to her. WHAT!…… so they really think we are that stupid, that Act would be utilised to gain info from her file not ours. We are still thinking about what to do with that one!
    My husband has always paid child support and has never refused to do so.


    Comment by Molly — Wed 14th November 2007 @ 10:19 pm

  64. Hi Molly
    You should make a complaint to the privacy commissioner who is investigating a similar complaint right now.In this case my husband’s ex became a nominated person on his IRD file through a phone call that he never made a few months before she left him.She even changed his address on his file to hers this year so that when she went to the IRD for CS, he never received their letter notifying him of his payments.So that she could get payed doubly (they had a private CS agreement) And the IRD have told him that it is not their problem and that he has to pay twice.
    The police are looking into it now.

    Comment by rosie — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 8:21 am

  65. Far out – whats this world coming to ladies. Isnt it unbelievable what is going on with the IRD dept.I cannot believe so many people are affected and it falls on deaf ears continually. Molly – Id luv for you to be my husband’s ex wife. At least you have the sense that the whole situation is about the children and not about your hate & greed to your ex husband. Hell we prob would even sit down and have a coffee like I do with my ex husband and his lovely partner!!!Doesnt it make you wonder what these bitter woman are actually teaching their kids…..I keep thinking why should if in 50/50 shared care – should ANY money be passed between parents when they share the costs of bringing the kids up equally??? Please if someone can make me see something that Im not seeing NOW Id appreciated it – because this is doing my head in. All I say is im in this battle for the long term with IRD. We have another 11 yrs of c/s to pay and that equates to $175k. So you can see whose mtg is going to be paid off before MINE!!!

    Comment by Karen — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 8:40 am

  66. Thanks Scrap,

    on the issue of arrest – there must still be an intention to prosecute the parent with debt leaving the country.

    What are the grounds for prosecution and can this be forced?

    I ask this because I seek to be prosecuted for my debt. I want them to take me into Court so I can reply, OK -now bring me my son and daughter.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 10:30 am

  67. I sent a letter to my local National MP Bob Clarkson. I had a reply this morning from the elctoral agent and they would like more info on the situation.They also asked my husband to sign a privacy authorisation so they can go to IRD and discuss…….not holding my breath but at least I had a reply within a day of sending the email……… much for Peter Dunne’s reply. Ive sent him a letter now and wont be holding out for a reply!!!

    Comment by Karen — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 12:42 pm

  68. I do not understand all this fuss about privacy unless you have something to hide.IRD will not even send me emails as they are concerned about privacy even when I request them.
    Anyway I think the fact that we are even discussing that it might be possible for the government to stop people using their passports to go in and out of the country is incredible.What have things come to? I imagine that 90% of child support “defaulters” have a legitimate reason for not paying.Why should they be persecuted when the IRD is too useless,lazy and prejudiced to do their job properly and prove that a debt exists.My case has shown that once they make a “decision” based on the other parents lies there is nothing you can do to change their minds.
    My father is very sick with cancer and I would love to return home to see him and have my children see him before he dies but I will not risk it till I am absolutely sure my passport will not be taken away.

    Comment by whanga — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 6:19 pm

  69. Hi Whanga
    If I had your IRD number, your date of birth and your address,I could get a male friend of mine to phone the IRD and become a nominated person on your file too.It’s as simple as that.And the most stupid thing about them is,when my husband requested that all the information that his ex had received from them be sent to him,they included her IRD number.

    Comment by rosie — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 6:58 pm

  70. Hi All,
    Were you also aware that if a paying parents earnings is estimated as an increase by the Family Court, the IRD instantly jump on that and put the paying parent into debt of many thousands due to the new estimation. So I guess if my husband wanted to go overseas he would be arrested at the airport for c/s debt, not due to him not paying, the new estimation that throws the paying parent into instand debt.
    yes Karen, we would probably be sitting down and having coffee, talking about the kids and just getting on with it. Some woman want to punish there x partners/husbands and any contact via the IRD, Family Court or whatever is still contact isn’t it, whether its positive or negative it allows the parent with obvious issues to have control over the lives of the children, x husband and his new wife.
    My husband and our sons father are all going on the school camp together, how good is that!


    Comment by Molly — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 7:24 pm

  71. PS. I Know her birthdate and her address and if I was to be as devious as her,I could easily have had my husband’s child support payments stopped.

    Comment by rosie — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 7:26 pm

  72. Thats fantastic Molly. I have just spoken to the National electoral agent.He tells me that in the last 18 months there have been 2 ‘rehashes’ of the child support bill both both have been a shambles and thrown out. He said A third attempt is currently underway. Like Ive learnt – dont hold our breath??? but hey at least more and more people are listening with one ear…..He tells me we are paying at the top end and he will call IRD to discuss…..another thing I wont hold my breath about BUT fingers crossed aye…..

    Comment by Karen — Fri 16th November 2007 @ 10:11 am

  73. Your doing fantastic Karen,

    at the end, what they are missing is different ideas. They will be stuck in tehir financial institutions of money on every turn. They will not recognise that a presumption of equal shared parenting takes the child out of the argument in a separation. Once the child has been extracted from the arguments between the parents then fiscal security may be measured and later set against the high demands of politics balanced to social necessities. The only way they are going to define social necessitiy is by recognising that teh problems they possess are beyond the capacity of the established and performed democratic processes. This means they have to look at different ways to develop policy where the problems continue (in whatever sector they exist)are maintained and bear negative effect over all society. That was an elaborate formula (like child tax itself) to say talk to the people.

    Gummint if it is to develop as representative of teh people needs to comprehend that presently it is exclusive. The system of select committees (this is absolute fact Lynne Puillay) are being corrupted.

    Keeping pushing Karen your return is direct to every child subject to this sad condition of human neglect.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 16th November 2007 @ 10:26 am

  74. Hi Benjamin – Would you suggest making an appl to the family court(self litigation) to get c/support reassessed??or am I wasting my time????

    Comment by Karen — Mon 19th November 2007 @ 2:23 pm

  75. I’ll be back down in Wellington on Wednesday. I’ll have a bit of time then to start looking through the Child Support Act. I’ll get back to you then. Optimally others will have already have built a tool kit you can use. I know that Allan Harvey is skilled and expereinced and I’ll put you onto his address with his phone number when I am back in Wellington.

    So in short, don’t do anything else.

    However, as you are talking in the area of appeal you will need to get better familiar with, and better prepared to counter (with your own practice) the protocols of that system. I’m happy to help you with this before you make any application. You’ll see what I mean pretty quickly once your claim starts to progress.

    Before you do anything, or prepare yourself for any kind of affirmative action in the Court – consider – how much (approximate percentage) of the facts you think you need to evidentially present are ready as electronically transferable?

    Good for you – nothing like a bit of confidence to rattle an oppression!

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 19th November 2007 @ 5:07 pm

  76. Karen,

    I don’t recommend Court.
    It is a very complex piece of revenue legislation its only concerned with collecting money and thats what the child tax police at IRD exist for.

    Email me with a contact phone number and ill call you to talk about the CS situation.

    [email protected]



    Comment by James Nicolle — Mon 19th November 2007 @ 8:57 pm

  77. I cannot comment on James’s post not being familiar with the Court processes on the CSA but as have been asked a question and that the CSA argument is building intend to pursue applying my experiences of the Court process into how that process can be used, or is manipulated by its elite consumers to the detrminent of those unfortunate enough to be deeeply confined to its gender and social manipulation.

    Optimally both contingencies will not only be considered by Karen but can develop in such a manner that they are directly accessible to any reader caught into the confines and wounds of those CSA manipulations.

    Immediately if James’s is a long term plan by practice that reduces the impracticable living restrictions of all parties involved in Child Support arrangements before the equation of how much money is awarded to one party by the other, his practice will gain the momentum from every and any reader seeking assistance in how to overcome the finacial and social pressure that is ruining their family lives after a separation.

    The submission to the Fielding Court is taking longer that I thought and my contribution is already up to 23 pages possibly with more to come rather than needing to refine the bulk. Noelle’s submission is up to nine pages and the annexed material will be well over another 20 so it is quite a hefty document taking another day to compile.

    I’ll email you on Friday Karen and give you the weekend to contemplate my views.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 20th November 2007 @ 3:48 pm

  78. Comment by Liz — Mon 4th February 2008 @ 7:32 pm

  79. Well I went back to NZ and then left again and was not stopped.I learnt from my tenant that the IRD have been sending people round with bankruptcy proceedings for alleged CS debt too.But still no stop at the airport.Was rather looking forward to it actually.Did not see my 3 kids or my sick father while i was back.Too scared of letting their mother know I was there and her alerting IRD.Fascinating to read on another thread of other peoples problems with the IRD lawyer Mark Miller.He is supposed to be an independent review officer.I thought it was just me and my children that he had cheated.Comforting to know that he is not discriminatory and simply cheats all fathers that come his way.What a country you people are living in.Unlikely I will be back!Am slowly getting over having no contact with my children and hope the same goes for them as regards me.Great to discover the power of having unconditional love for their Mum and for Mark Miller and all the other deluded people at IRD.Has allowed me to move on with peace and purpose.Life is not a rehearsal and we must make the best of it.

    Comment by whanga — Fri 21st March 2008 @ 6:22 pm

  80. karen and Rosie, Massive Congratulations in joining this site and passing on your experiences.

    ( i have a feeling “Isabella” was Dunn in Drag ) Trying to win some points – no chance on this site.

    This issue is affecting both Man and Woman, both parents, and particularly great parents who have the unfortunate situation where they are trying hard to do the right thing by children to another relationship – I know couples who both have children from other relationships – and BOTH are being Extorted for money by Child Support under very horrible circumstances. Huge demands for arrears, back dated reviews out of thin air – one for $70K they dont have. Assessments based on what you have the POTENTIAL to earn – how open to abuse is that? All horrible stuff, targeting anyone with Assets – they can extort money out of. Its got nothing to do with your actual INCOME.

    So once we all understand this is a PARENTAL issue, lets get on to discussing the TRUTH behind the Child Support Industry.

    Katen and Rosie – were you aware we have over $2 BIllion currently owed in Child Support payments.?

    Did you know that $1.5 BILLION of that is PENALTIES.

    Having been through the review process we all know it is by DESIGN – UNFAIR, not based in INCOME,, is NOT BASED on FACTS . Decisions made against you are not able to be challenged – while you can of course try – you will NEVER get a result in your favor. NO matter how much you spend – time or money. Even the lawyers I have spoken to have told me the law is complex – even for them, and you will never get a positive result. they have turned this into a BUSINESS – a lawyers comment.

    Furthermore – the systems representatives can discriminate against you, breach your civil rights and your bill of rights, with impunity, because the Human Rights commission – while they get plenty of complaints – are NOT ALLOWED to investigate. Can you believe that????

    So a system which is all these things is probably the cause as to why most people REFUSE to pay the demands made of them – man or Woman. No one in there right mind would pay under these circumstances – Which is why the PENALTY Industry is SO HIGH.

    What you now need to know – is the GOVT leverages BORROWINGS against that DEBT – So KAren – NOW you understand why DUNN will NEVER agree to reducing your Contributions when you have 50/50 care – no matter what you do. The incentive is to INCREASE DEBT and PENALTIES – not reduce them.

    This is a BUSINESS – using Children to leverage Borrowing against DEBT – Parents need to wake up to this and realize all the changes being made – will only INCREASE DEBT. The more DEBT – the more they can BORROW against it. Simple Reverse Business – creating wealth from debt.

    And don’t waste time with DUNN – he just a minority party puppet given the worst job with the worst portfolio – he is expendable – you will never see anyone from cabinet with this portfolio …..this is a systemic issue which goes right to the top of the food chain – All “Services” of govt are being turned into businesses to the detriment of the public. And this one sickens me to the core , because I have seen first hand how my child has been harmed, and then used to extort money – but not for her benefit.

    Comment by hornet — Fri 16th November 2012 @ 6:12 pm

  81. hornet, you do realise that you have replied to posters of 4 years ago?

    Comment by Luther Blissett — Sat 17th November 2012 @ 11:25 am

  82. No did not, but sad to see the same shit still ongoing – just different customers in the same game…….

    Comment by hornet — Sat 17th November 2012 @ 12:58 pm

  83. Yep, same old shit year after year. I notice Jonkey is claiming that if he died today he would have left NZ in better shape than he found it. Of course, as far as our economic welfare goes his claim is ridiculous; people are poorer, hurting and many losing jobs. Regarding the social situation from men’s point of view (and therefore ultimately for women’s interests), it’s fair to say that Jonkey’s government has contributed to a slight change in attitude away from worshipping every crackpot claim simply because it came from a feminist. However, as far as actual policies go the record has been poor. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs is still soaking up millions of hard-earned tax dollars while almost nothing is spent by government on forwarding men’s welfare or on seeking true gender equality. The Family Court Review has failed to recognize men’s concerns and should its vague promise of family mediation centres bring about improvements, working against this will be proposed severe reduction in free relationship counselling and the proposed encouragement of false allegations because they will make Family Court participation free. Jonkey’s government has done nothing else to encourage family integrity. The sexist White Ribbon propaganda campaign continues to receive government funding while nothing is done specifically to protect men who continue to be the most frequent victims of violence in our society. Changes proposed for criminal justice will focus only on crimes most likely to be committed by men while crimes involving signficant female offending are left alone. Sexist laws that discriminate against men such as ‘male assaults female’ and ‘infanticide’ remain on our books. The dishonestly named ‘child support’ system continues to exploit men in huge numbers, sending many to financial ruin and/or suicide. Male suicide remains at about 4 times that for females yet this disparity is almost totally ignored in suicide policies.

    Sorry Jonkey, big talk but hollow and indefensible. NZ is no better at all even though you could quite easily have made it so.

    Comment by Luther Blissett — Sat 17th November 2012 @ 4:30 pm

  84. Luther @83,
    That was a fine concise summary of all that didn’t get changed during Key’s tenure so far.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 17th November 2012 @ 7:04 pm

  85. Luther, agreed – we have seen a total destruction of small business in this country – both parties have done little or nothing to PROTECT business for New Zealanders = rather as I have said before, there PROGRAM is to allow all production and raw material to be sent off shore – so they can rape us all of GST and Import duty – on everything having to be imported back into the country. Take for example a PRIMARY sector by product industry – Cow Hides – we have closed all our tanneries – lost all those jobs here in NZ, so all hides are now sent to Aussie to be processed and we have to RE-IMPORT it back if we want any. I know many in this industry alone who struggle to get good quality leather to work with – and have to pay a premium to import our own products back into the country – it goes on and on – we sell raw logs at the expense of the many timber mills we once had – employing people, giving people respect. And we wonder why our timber prices are so high – we grow the stuff here, but because its all foreign owned they want GLOBAL Rates for it – we have lost the plot.

    Muldoon – ex IMF director, Brash = Reserve bank governor – JONKEY as you say – another from the banking/finance industry, these people have never run a company, hired staff and had to graft in business to succeed. Mortgaged homes to start companies, Thats why they have no idea how to grow an economy from within.

    Then look at the divorce “industry” – look at how many great small businesses are lost to New Zealand each year, because of this totally unfair division of property = in many cases after only 3 years of relationship – I am a product of that loss – another great NZ company lost, because some maggot entered into the relationship for the 3 year minimum for Money ONLY……my mistake, I entered for the right reasons, but was snookered, lied to, cheated.

    Does anyone quantify those statistics – how many companies do we lose each year – to unjust property division – or because ONE PARTNER wants the money out of it = over employing people – I know farms were once protected to some degree – because we at one time recognised the importance to our economy – but have we also looked at other business sectors and looked to ensure they are protected in some way………we cant afford to have good companies close there doors, just because someone wants the MONEY – the CASH, over all else that matters – a company should be protected in some way from that. If we have any left to save………

    There is only so much you can take from people, in raising taxes – which seems to be the ONLY current solution – ultimately you end up like Greece and Spain, where the people finally say ENOUGH – No Your not taking my home, my pension, my lifes work to pay your DEBT.

    Comment by hornet — Sat 17th November 2012 @ 7:11 pm

  86. And with current extraordinarily high interest rates New Zealand is running we send more money offshore through our banking system every year than the total amassed child support penalties the IRD is trying to collect.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 18th November 2012 @ 7:00 am

  87. Hornet # 85. You are right about this Government destroying small businesses by its policies. First, GST increase, next fuel tax increases (which then attract additional GST!) and now Companies Office charging $45.00 for annual company registration! Only a small amount of itself but yet another expense that small businesses have to absorb. And, of course, there is more….

    I am working harder now in my 60s than I did in my 20s and I am earning far, far less. I think it is time to close the business and stack shelves at Countdown. A better rate per hour and no unpaid tax collector duties for John Key and his cohorts!

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Sun 18th November 2012 @ 1:20 pm

  88. #87 I have seen so many of your generation doing just that – shutting shop – cant be bothered with the hassle of running a business and employing staff – far easier to sell up, and work from home or as you say – work for someone else. Isn’t that a waste, they have created so many road blocks and regulations, and compliance costs and have destroyed any hope or incentive for good people to run a businesses.??

    And the travesty of all this, they rather send work offshore, to places where there are NO COMPLIANCE costs or regulations -because – surprise surprise its cheaper…….

    This false “wealth” creation by increasing debt – is endemic across all facets of our lives – and its inherently the way in which industries like banks make money – through penalty and charging for services…… this mentality is all we see from govt – we DO NOT see any incentive to GROW business, or to make things easier and less expensive – quite the opposite = its all about PENALTY…..keep penalising you for doing well and taking more and more.

    And so back to the CS system – that is ALL IT is – another business based on PENALTY.

    And as I have said, this tactic has a limited life span – because one day there is NOTHING left to take…..what do they do then????

    Comment by hornet — Sun 18th November 2012 @ 6:48 pm

  89. I see many americans are also now wanting CHANGE – for the better…..

    Comment by hornet — Sun 18th November 2012 @ 6:55 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