A documentary on Child Support
One of the best ways to get change to come about is to use the media, and change needs to come about. It seems to me that those that are leading our country are a long way off solving the problems that hound us with Child Support. No matter if you are a liable parent or the spouse of a liable parent there is no question that to some extent you have experienced unfairness through this antiquated system.
Â
I am putting together a documentary to outline these problems and expose the often financially cripling heartache with in the IRD. I would like to get stories and interviews from both those that are affected and the powers that be.Â
Â
If anybody would like to contribute to this documentary please let me know by leaving a comment or contacting me on [email protected]
Â
I’d love to hear from you.
Peace to all,
Tigerseye
Paying child support at the very least should entitle one to some contact with their children, yet it doesn’t at all. They should go hand in hand, but no; we non-custodial parents live in an age of ‘Mc Carthyism’ – (guilty until proven innocent) which is an eternity for most of us, 10 years and counting, child 12, no contact to date over 10 years, and paid child support for 10 years.
Nevermind, i’m used to it now, it’s how the system works. No big deal.
Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Hi bull, dont be like that, it is your child that is suffering and if he or she is 12yrs then they are old enough to say whether or not they want to see their father and know what their poor father has been through, no matter what do not give up on them because they will want contact and to know the truth one day
Comment by Hadi Akbari — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Bull,
I agree with you when you say paying child support should entitle one to some contact. I would have to say that even with minimal financial support the Father should, by law, have contact. The problem is that the family court and the IRD are mutually exclusive. This is just one example of the insane indifference within the government.
Of course there is the odd father out there that is not fit to have contact with the child but that should surely be the exception rather than the rule.
Thank you for your comments Bull, it’s such a shame that our country could make someone feel so bad for so long that they can get complacent enough to use the words “big deal” when it comes to their own child. It begs the question… does the government know that it’s driving some liable parents to this extent – in fact, I’ve heard stories of suicide because of this!
This is just not acceptable!
I would expect that in that 10 years you have tried for contact, could I ask what you have done and what was the resistance?
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 1:00 pm
EXACTLY TIGERS EYE
The problem is that the family court and the IRD are mutually exclusive. This is just one example of the insane indifference within the government
I was awarded after 4 FC judges and 7 years in court that 3 hours contact under supervision is the best they could do. This was not accepted, no protection order on my part, why bother spending seven years in courts and 4 judges if this was the best they can do… it doesn’t make sense at all. I do not exist as far as i am concerned and that is the way it shall stay on my part.
Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Hi bull, it makes me sad to know you feel this way, stay positive, there are people out there who care about you and your children and if we all stick together we can f-ck this government
Comment by Hadi Akbari — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Bull, You say this was not accepted… by whom? The ex? What were her reasons? It all seems very odd.
Did you have any problems that your ex saw as being a threat to your child?
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 1:34 pm
i did not accept the judges ruling, it is a wonder i was not held in contempt of court, but – that just go’s to show you what a joke the family court really is by myself not accepting Judge patrick grace ruling. I said, i got this far after seven years and 4 x judges, it’s not good enough, good bye, i no longer exist, thank you for your time. threat ??? am i ugly.., do i look scary, i don’t know…, the matter was never raised in the court that i was a threat to the child, so the answer to your question then, is NO, i was never deemed a threat to the child, court transcripts would show this.
Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Thanks for your honesty Bull.
I hope you don’t mind me asking those questions but sides cannot be taken without all the facts.
This is indeed a tragic outcome and with your permission I would like to make a case study of this. Everyone deserves to have their voice heard and I can understand all the anger you have. Can I email you for further information?
Has anybody else willing to share similar experiences? I know I’m going through some hard times sorting through CS issues and would like to hear more.
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 2:03 pm
i have no issues with child support, (other than the obvious that if you are not entitled to have contact with your child because of the family court, then you have cases for potential ‘defamation of character’ being promoted in the family court, which is quite sick, every Protection Order issued is a defamation of one’s character, if a secondary person reads this information, judge, lawyer, police, it doesn’t matter, they are secondary in the equation and you are instantly defamed without trial, but with punishment attached)
Then you go to court to defend the Protection Order like i did and win, you are still no further ahead than when you started, you think you’d get a ‘leap frog’ out of the aquittal of a Protection Order because you proved the other party was lying, but no such thing. No one gives a damn, FAMILY COURT – WE ARE HERE TO SWEEP IT UNDER THE CARPET
Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 2:21 pm
I agree, it is a stab in the back and the heart. I’m sorry that you have gone through this much and I admire you for going at it so long. If you quit now your basically saying that their right and you’re wrong. The laws and attitudes don’t change if you lay down even after this long. When precidents are set a new attitude has to emerge.
To keep fighting for what you believe even when it all seems futile is what change is all about. You obviously still feel very strongly about the situation and no matter how many times you tell yourself it doesn’t matter…it does. When you think it’s time to give up, that’s when you need to fight harder.
Did you have legal representation or did you represent yourself in any or all of the hearings?
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 3:06 pm
if only, i’d worn that condom…
Did you have legal representation or did you represent yourself in any or all of the hearings? a bit of both, i am happy with the result in the fact i rejected the judges offer. That says a lot i think. That was when i represented myself, i gave that judge a roasting, patrick grace. He did not like it.
Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 3:32 pm
please advise me on this,my hubbys 14yr old went to live with her mum lst yr.following by her 18yr sister old who has finished school.her mum has applied for child support for the 18 yr old even tho she is working up to 30 hrs a week.other than lodging complaints to ird and speaking to 18yr old,which we have done both.we think its unfair.any help please….
Comment by dan and kat — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 3:46 pm
She will be hard pressed to get any child support as it stops taking effect at the age of 18.
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 3:48 pm
the age is 19 yrs
Comment by dan and kat — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Sorry, you’re right. Is the 18 yo on student allowance or have a full time job (30 hours or more). If not then I’m sorry, not sure what you can do. I’ll look into that and try to find something…
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Did the mother pay your hubby any child support?
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 3:59 pm
My ex works full time, she also lives with her parents. I pay child support and it makes no difference to the amount I pay – no matter how much she earns or where she lives.
It’s not fair and I hate to say it but the way the law is right now I’m not sure you will be able to get out of paying.
That’s one of many reasons I’m making this documentary.
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 4:06 pm
the mum lives with her mum,and woks full time as well.18yr old let her employers know she could only work under 30 hrs.
Comment by dan and kat — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 5:11 pm
sorry 4got to answer your question,yes mother paid payments.
Comment by dan and kat — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 5:13 pm
How do we know what nationals policy is about child supprt ages
Comment by dan and kat — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Good on you tigerseye.I have posted several times in some detail about my CS experiences.I would love to be interviewed for your documentary.
I am not able to enter NZ as they have bankruptcy proceedings started against me.This is the depite the fact that I am owed over $60,000 in CS.
They simply refused to acknowledge my claims for 2003-2007 and the mother of my daughter was on over $100,000 a year each year.I had the kid over 150 nights a year.Payed for all transport,moved house to give her her own bedroom ,garden etc.Mother did not even challenge dates.IRD sid exactly 139 nights a year only.No reason.Just pricks.I am still trying to recover the money.They say I owe over $30,000.Just rubbish.I have over 3 full big black ringbinders of correspondence and documents.38 case officers so far!!
I can also provide you with an internet channel where people can view the documentary for $1 per hour.No buffering.Can be blown up to movie theatre size so can be shown at
meetings etc.Lets get some changes made.YEAH
Comment by whanga — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Dan and Kat,
It seems to me there may be something a bit fishy going on there with the 18yo and her mother. Does the 18yo have a need for more money than what a 40 hour job can give her?
As for what the polititians say – I wouldn’t trust them for anything coming up to an election so whatever they say I’d take it with a grain of salt.
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 5:50 pm
she was working and supporting her self when she was living here after leavng school,no child support was claimed by us.she moved to her mums and to work fulltime(a jb tranfer) 3 days after she moves hubbys ex claims child support.and 18 yrs old is having gap year(haha).18 yr old keeps hours under 30 hrs a week,ex claims child support.
Comment by dan and kat — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 6:17 pm
You should apply for an admin review of that.Review officer and Court does have power to adjust the amounts.If not 19 but not at school and proven ability to support herself seems totally unreasonable.
Take the mother to the Disputes Tribunal as well.Breach of agreement that no child support would be claimed.Argue there is an implied agreement between your hubby and the mother on the basis that you never sought it when she lived with you.Also take the daughter to the Disputes Tribunal.Money is presumably going to her isnt it.Breach of promise that she would work full time and not claim CS.
Hope she will be 19 soon though.Mother must be one sour cookie.Isn’t life great!!!
At least you are the ones that can live with yourselves the most comfortably.What goes round always comes round.
Comment by whanga — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 6:48 pm
It seems some don’t yet realise that the destruction of the Family in particular the paternal family is the desire of govt.
JimBWarrior
Comment by Jim Bailey — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Whanga,
I woulod love to interview you going on what you have said, even if just to expose the obvious fraud that the IRD are trying to cover up. I’ll have to work out the finer details re filming and how the interview would happen…
My aim is to make a huge impact, Michael Moore stile documentary that nobody can ignore. I’ll also do cut down version and send to such programmes as 20/20, 60 mins and Campbell live.
Dan and Kat,
Whanga has some good advice and I’ll love to hear about how things go. With your permission I’d like to use this as a case study for the Doco.
Jim,
I don’t doubt you but could you give a reason why the government wants that?
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 7:40 pm
couple of points.18 yr old didnt say anything bout cs,hubby rang and asked about it,they were prepared for the call.There was no agreement with ex about child support for a 18 yrs old as we expected she would support herself as she had been doing here,There had been huge pressure on the kids to move there as its obvious she wanted all the child support.
we have filled out 2 ir119.notice of objection.but responce was we should lodge an appeal at family court but we choose not to to do that as there with courts costs and proberly no gains.
Comment by dan and kat — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Tigerseye,
My reasons are simple
13 years of bashing my head against a brick wall in things Family Court – Child Support – WINZ – Police and reading up on the background of Boshier and his days as the Editor of the Maoist – Check it for yourself and listen closely to Helen and her previous Ilk
JimBWarrior
Comment by Jim Bailey — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 8:17 pm
No court costs for filing a claim in the Family Court.Seems like everything to gain and nothing to lose.
There was no agreement but what I am saying is there was an implied agreement.Your reasonable expectations combined with past course of behaviour can add up to an implied agreement.Do not come on here complaining about the system if you are not prepared to stick up for yourself and fight it.That is why the sytem is as it is.Not enough people doing anything to challenge it.
Sorry to be blunt but that’s how I see it.
Very rarely that anyone does challenge things but a whole lot of disgruntled people taking action will have an impact bit by bit.If you do nothing but complain on the internet to like minded folk then nothing will change.
Comment by whanga — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Hi people
I had my first review of the child support assessment treated as a second review.
This was due to the review officer wanting to conduct the review via phonecall but she did not end up calling me and instead wrote the first report as me not showing up for the interview when her letter instructed me to await her phonecall at a nominated time. ( this took away my second chance for appeal against a review)
After having spoken to her, she conducted a second interview giving me the impression that this would be treated as a first review. Insteadit was treated as having my CS as being reviewed a second time when the first time did not even eventuate due to her own negligence. When I queried her on her first report with her in the second session I had with her as to why she lied about me not turning up when her instructions were to await her phonecalls she became very evasive.
In fact she made up all lies as to not being satisfied adequately with all evidence I had provided her and recommended to the commissioner to increase the CS to a much higher figure than I can afford while still maintaining that I did not turn up for the first session of the review.
That her second assessment of the situation was my last opportunity to get things amended.. which instead increased things by the way and that no further submissions on my part should be considered or future reviews be undertaken.
I was also flabbergasted that the Commisioner actually approved her reccomendations… NZ the land of… Cuckoos..
Comment by starr — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Hi Starr,
Thanks for your comments – I can’t believe it but I have heard of a story just like that some years ago.
Do you still have copies of your correspondance with the officer? Maybe you could give me her name and contact details so I can ask for her comments on this subject for the documentary. By the way, have you done the math? Is what she suggested you pay in line with the formula and what was the review for?
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 8:56 pm
1)Tigers-eye how many doco’s have you produced?
2)You dont seem to be aware that discussing an admin review is illegal as they are protected by the same secrecy laws that cover the FC. This is why doco’ makers and media wont touch most CS stories.
3) What solution do you propose to replace the CSA?
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 9:09 pm
Scrap,
I, like many others out there, don’t seem to be aware of much, which is why people come to this site. I will be the first to admit that. The more I look into the issues surrounding CS the more I find I don’t know… whats the problem?
I am also not bias towards one side or the other, just that which is fair and I beleive that is why this doco needs to be made. To answer your question, this will be the first doco I will produce though not the first I have been involved in.
The fact that most wont touch the CS stories is the reason why I want to, go figure lol. I more than understand that discussing admin reviews and such like are illegal and perhaps some of my questions could be refined or are completely irralivant or even tasteless but it doesn’t stop me askling to get a better idea. Is it illegal to ask or to answer? Besides, any such doco does not get aired or distributed as raw material, it goes through the proper channels of post production editing and legal censorship.
Scrap, if discussing an admin review is illegal then this site could be up for some scrutiny right?
As for your last question, I’m not proposing anything – you don’t seem to be aware of what a documantary is all about 🙂 Replace the CSA? Why? Just update it to represent the 21st century fairly by reflecting the variables… but that’s just my opinion and not what the documentary is all about.
I haven’t yet picked the camera up for this project…I’m compiling all the info I can before the first frame is recorded. But something needs to be done and I’m stepping forward.
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 9:51 pm
thanks for info into family courts,
Comment by dan and kat — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Tigers-eye,
Please don’t be offended but I doubt your altruism and given your answers would advise anyone not to participate in your proposed doco.
Regards
Scarp
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 10:27 pm
Scrap,
I’m not offendended because I can assure you I’m doing this for very selfish reasons… why shouldn’t I? I want a change and I beleive a hell of a lot of people out there want a change also. If that change comes about because of something I do I’m not going to call myself a hero or an altruist.
I’m sorry Scrap, could you explain your reasons please? As far as I can see nothing else seems to be making a lick of difference… shit is as shit has always been. Are you advising people not to take part in something that may make a difference for the better in their own lives?
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 11:07 pm
Scrap – Thanks for your sobering input Post 32 but I don’t think there’s any need to take the hostile approach in Post 35. Tigerseye never claimed to be altruistic and why should he? He may well not know what he’s doing but he clearly has some energy for this and he may be able to produce something worthwhile out of it. Change is unlikely if people keep bringing down others in flames. I would prefer to hear some good ideas and guidance being offered to Tigerseye. For example, a documentary could be made on the many injustice of the CS rules based on individuals’ stories without disclosing any identitifying details about the cases.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 11:10 pm
Hans,
You are right about post 32 and I probably did start to get a little carried away with my resolve.
Your idea is one of the many roads I have considered for this doco and it’s now top of the list thanks to you.
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 11:24 pm
Many Unacceptable Flaws Of The Child Support Act is a first resource for you Tigerseye.
There are also plenty of people here who can help you out with little stories (names and places removed I hope) to backup most (if not all) of the claims.
Comment by pete — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 11:35 pm
Thanks Pete, that is a big help.
There is so much hidden info on the web that it would take a very long time to see it all so if anybody has any pages pertinent to this doco please let me know
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 27th May 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Hans is dead right. The secrecy laws regarding familycaught and regarding spousal and child support are both unworkable in the real world. If these laws were ever to be applied literally, then neither the familycaught nor spousal and child support would ever develop and move forward in the real world.
Development comes from honest and open communication. boshier knows this.
The moaners are just people who take familycaught and spousal support seriously! They are just wasting being alive!
Get real!!!!
Even judge boshier has treated the familycaught secrecy laws with the contempt that they deserve, in an attempt to develop better quality practice and performance in the familycaught (example: the release of the Kay Skelton Chris Jones judgements). It is the employing of judges that cannot work, except with total secrecy that really scares me.
Following on from judge boshier’s good example, people who do want the world to improve should, with wisdom and care, share experiences both good and bad and help to improve these systems so that they can serve more constructively and cost effectively.
Do we want to give our children a world of extortion and fear, or open sharing and moving forward under guidance of group wisdom and experience? This has worked well for tens of thousands of years, so why would anyone want to do it differently now (except for thieves who want the protection of silent imbeciles).
I believe that Tigerseye is asking people to communicate and share, so I would be pleased to help in any sensible way that I can.
It is just as important that we discuss the successes of the spousal and child support system, as its failures. We will learn more useful experience, by discussing the successes, than the failures.
Besides, many of the failures are not inherent in the “system” but lie in lack of knowledge of some of the participants. If some idiots expect to get good service from IRD-CS without a law degree and 1500 years of training, then more fool them!
In life, if there are traps set and some cretin falls into the trap – for not knowing and understanding legislation passed, using twisted and strange meanings of english words, then he deserves to suffer for being such a docile victim.
Protection of the public purse (that funds “judge’s” benefits and legal worker’s aid, is paramount over the best interests of any child. This doesn’t have to be written down, to work well.
Surely, open and frank discussions of how people survive this innovative and extractive legislation must be to the general good.
It is also important that we discuss what motivations and values this legislation is communicating to our (sorry – her) children?
Lets scrap the moaning and get on with the job of sharing how to make the best of this situation and also discuss why men’s apathy allows it to continue to inject such values into our children?
A fool cannot learn from a wise man, but a wise man can learn from a fool!
I feel an erection coming on, in a few months, on a wet Saturday morning. At present, NZ feels like a fueled up missile with the guidance system turned off. We need to improve things a bit before the election.
If the worst happens Tigerseye, as the naysayer predicts, you can share a cell with me in Mt Eden for a while. We can pass a few hours talking and sharpening up the razor wire.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 12:03 am
Thanks Murray, I can only hope that it’s after the new prison is built lol.
You have given me a few good ideas and it’s probably a damn good time to ask some questions of our leader to be if they intend to do anything about all this, not that we can believe a word they say. It’s not hard to drop an email to those who want our votes… what do you think they’ll say?
Anyway, I have a list of potential names I’d like to give to this doco but if anyone has any cool ideas – something catchy – I’m all ears 🙂 A title that can speak volumes in just about 4 words or less.
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 1:11 am
Does anybody have statistics for the current number of liable parents in NZ?
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 1:42 pm
No im advising them not to take part in your proposed doco.
I have spent a lot of time with documentary makers who have investigated doing excatly what Tigers-eye proposes. Tigers-eye approach and writing to date does not add up.
My suggestion to Mr Hard On (I feel an erection coming on..) and Hans is to go do media relations 101. Of course this will engender more claims that I am hostile or a nay sayer but its what one expects from certain contributors to MENZ.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 2:03 pm
And my suggestion to you Scrap is to stop being so patronizing, know-it-all-better and corrosive. There’s simply no need for it. I don’t disagree with some of your observations in this case but how important is it really? To me encouragement and positivity towards each other are much more useful unless there is a strong reason to pull someone and/or someone’s ideas down.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Wow Pete!
When you read that column from your link of recommendations as to how Maintenance should be assessed and distributed in New Zealand it seems so sensible and realistic and straightforward.
In fact it seems very similar to the previous legislation before the appalling Child Support Act was enacted.Funny that!!
I am so pleased to have found this site and know that there are like minded people.Lets jam up their phones,apply for every review and rehearing and appeal possible and get some changes made.Documentary will also be good but every one of us in their own small way can make a difference by taking action.
My latest crazy thing is that my family assistance payments have been withheld
and applied to alleged CS debt.This is illegal and the IRD know it yet they persist.
Can you believe the waste of the country’s money going on?
The IRD do different assessments for Child Support and Family Assistance entitlement.
For eg I had my daughter for 151 nights in 2006.This was carefully measured by my new partner,my brother and neighbour(who provided sworn affidavits),also recorded in diaries,emails and at the school.The Family Assistance legislation requires you to have days not nights.Of course if you have overnight care you have that day and the next as well.I worked out that I had at least 170 days under their rules.However their assessment originally gave me 112 days which they soon raised to 122 after I showed them all the evidence.The mother was never asked for any evidence by the way!
When I showed them that the IRD CS division had decided that I had had 139 nights of care the answer from the Family Assistance division was that “they are different departments and they conduct their own separate assessments”.
What a disgraceful shambles this whole thing is.
I am so proud to be a NZer(yeah right)
Comment by whanga — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 3:04 pm
My personal view on the matter, Is that if you can’t see your kids then you can’t be force to pay for them. It is the kids and the fathers that are being ripped off here ! Kids have the right to see their fathers, but kids don’t earn any money to fight it, dads end up with nothing left to fight it, after paying child support, dealing with stress, probably losing the family house, etc etc. Anyway why should we be forced to pay rich greedy lawyers to fight for what is our right. Our right is to be a father !! It is our right, no one has the right to take our kids from us. But then when they do they order us to pay. Well fuck off, you can not have it both ways !! It just makes me sick. I am at least happier now that I am away from the verbal, emotional and physical abuse of my ex, but I am pissed off that I cannot see my little one. I am not a guy that is going to air my dirty washing to everyone. I never even thought to put a protection order on her, I could have, but I don’t think or live that way. I asked her to leave. Then the following week I got a bullshit charge on me for MAF.. Yes Maf, after she found out she could not get a state house, womans refuge told her that she could get my house !!
Lets face it chaps, its fucked up
Cheers
Paul
Comment by paul — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 9:16 pm
What is happening, I am watching disabled people going to prositutes. This is New Zealand entertainment !!! what aload of crap !! This country is just becoming sicker and sicker !! lets all just smoke P, steal paua and join the justice system !! Oh yeah baby !!
Comment by paul — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 11:04 pm
I like the Ihdian culture, first there is the man, then the son and then the cow and finally the wife.
I think we should have a policy that in NZ that it is first the man, then the kids, then the cow, then the dog, then the cat, then the goldfish, then the sheep, then the pig and finally the wife.
With this policy in place the wife can only talk to the pig (which they do anyway) but the pig could only talk to the sheep (which they do, called judges) but the judges could only talk too the goldfish… and everyone knows goldfish don’t talk ( a bit like the cahau’s) so nothing bad would happen and everyone would be happy 🙂 and the world would be saved !!
cheers
Paul
Comment by paul — Wed 28th May 2008 @ 11:16 pm
That’s an interesting view you have there Paul. Maybe you do want to air your dirty laundry. All of us here know that the CSA is a joke, a joke that leaves a lot to be desired. What I want to know is what angers you most about the CSA? Or is it the FC that your more frustrated with?
The problem is CS and FC are mutually exclusive. Please email me with your story so it can be heard. [email protected]
Comment by Tigerseye — Thu 29th May 2008 @ 12:14 am
# 47 fair dinkum mate, not left with a brass razoo, she got your house and the kid too…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 29th May 2008 @ 9:56 am
Hi Tigerseye,
Thank for you comments, have a look at these sites on the net areyouok.org.nz and http://www.womensrefuge.org.nz/ (which is linked to areyouok.org.nz ). After looking at these sites I am shocked at the one sided approach that is being set. I am not a in the mind set to put myself thru the drama’s of going on TV, I am a private type of person, I hate arguements and fighting. I think in general Men do not want to have to deal with this due to other commitments, paying bills, dealing with courts, the stress and strain of it all, etc etc.
I am just trying to get my life back together, I am not ready to take on the majority of the female population in New Zealand.
I don’t get the DPB or any government funding, I wouldn’t, because I don’t believe in it. Perhaps I am to proud, but I can and will look after myself.
Besides which I do not know how you are going to portray me.. It could be quite deterimental to me and my kids !!
I would suggest you look at the advertising that the government put out there, the statistics that are not given (ie protection orders against woman by men ), how about how many woman that are on the DPB, how many fathers actually have their children as against how many woman that have them, what about the kids feelings not been able to see or contact their fathers… I could go on and on but I think you know what I mean.
Regards
Paul
Comment by paul — Thu 29th May 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Check this out…
The Police Association says the public can have every confidence in the police force. (but what does the real world think ?)
Doubts have been raised about police investigations of criminal cases following the recent acquittals of George Gwaze, Chris Kahui and Murray Foreman in murder trials. (oh surprise surprise)
Police Association vice-president Stuart Mills says all three cases were difficult from the start, relying on evidence from medical and forensic experts.
(not to mention that the police we have have no qualifications, or common sense)
Mr Mills says police are disappointed by the verdicts, but it is important to remember the other times juries have been able to convict. He says in two of the cases, the investigations were hampered by refusals to talk to police.
The three acquittals have led the Green Party to call for more pressure to be put on police, as to when they prosecute. MP Nandor Tanczos says while the acquittals do not mean the system is failing, he thinks a police prosecutor’s office needs to be established.
Mr Tanczos says there are claims that in number of high-profile cases, police have picked a suspect then looked for evidence to convict. He says this can lead the police ignoring evidence. (of course when the cops pick on you they hate to be proven wrong, they prefer to walk away from the case, like little spoilt children )
The MP says a prosecutors office could review the evidence and decide if charges should even be laid. ( but the police will not like that, they could be proven wrong !! then they will spit the dummy ).
Comment by paul — Thu 29th May 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Just been watching police ten 7, Why is it that the cops talk like gangters, the accent the lanuage. ” hey bro what are you doing cuzz” etc etc. They are suppose to be up holding the Law, not being a cuzzy bro. What is all that about !! Perhaps most of the cops are gangters… I have to wonder ??
Comment by paul — Thu 29th May 2008 @ 9:25 pm
NZPOLICE are a mixture of good and bad cops – Most of my experiences with cops have been good – I had a cop from each side of the family as I grew uop and they were bloody good blokes – One locked me up for a night as the result of catching me in a pub in taniatu when I was 15 – there are no records and the other was hard on us should we be caught speeding
However a FemiNazi Cop and Judge were used by Margaret Wilson to try and lock me up in Tauranga a few years ago for helping the Tauranga protestors do a protest about Family issues outside her home – I thank God for the work of Rod Hooker who managed very clearvly to expose the tirany and embarrase the Police Procecution to withdraw the charges in court after a year or so written hagaling.
Just recently Javan now 12 and I were completing a movie about our new suburb (Beach Haven)to be verbaly viciously acted by yet another local FemiNazi COP – With Rods help we made a complaint to no avail
Onward – JimBWarrior
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 30th May 2008 @ 7:52 am
Thanks for the info Paul.
The doco evolves and morphs with just about every piece of inormation I get either online or told directly to me by those that are effected by CS. I’m at the stage of just collecting as much info as I can and for those that are brave enough to go on camera I am more than happy to let them tell their stories directly to the audience. More often than hot, however, these stories will be told anonamously by actors to protect the identities of the people who tell them.
To all that want their voices heard – this doco is not about hurting people but letting those who are in the position to make a change see the hurt that is already happening out there and at the same time opening the eyes of those who are not affected to heartbreak of the NCP. I understand there are some 400,000 parents that are effected and around 500,000 children who are effected by the CSA.
Thank you to all of those who have already contributed.
Comment by Tigerseye — Fri 30th May 2008 @ 9:31 am
Hi i have just read this forum and thought id share this experience and will try and keep it sort its the good and bad of ird.
i live in the north island my ex won a fc proccedings to move to far southisland with my 2 kids ,as part of the “agreement” to move she claimed she would go to ird and make a voluntary departutre to stop collecting cs (so i could afford flights to see my kids. 5 months after she moved i received a letter from ird stating i owed a fairly big sum in cs and penalities .i rang my ex and asked what was happening she said that she had decided not to stop ird collecting. of course lawyers had to get invovled extra and i made an admin review because i could not afford cs payments based on my previous jobs salary and pay for all flights. the review officer said they had no history to trust me to make a deduction from cs as i was in debt even tho i showed proof that cs shouldnt have been collected( via court agreement these dont hold much strength with ird apparently), i was made to promised that i would fly to see my kids for 4 times a year. i had just brought 1 set of flights (cost avg $1600) before the review came back and they dropped my cs payments by 2 blocks of 1kg cheese.whoopi? i thought. so back to fc to fight for shared costs of flights which much to my surprised i won on a condition i pay the standarded ird formula for 2 kids and pay back my debt. 2 weeks later my ex filed for admin review and some show through this review i ended up paying more than anyone else in nz if there kids were living in the same town, one of the review offices reasons was that i owed a big debt( yes the debt obtained that the ex was supposed to have stopped cs payments written in a court agreement) and i need to pay that back another reason was that i had only made 3 visits excluding that fact that i brought flights prior to 1st review which fell out of the financial year.now i had at this point given up absoultely couldnt give a flying f%#k anymore, however my current wonderful partner hadnt and decided to get stuck into ird and thankfully got put through to a team leader that actually helped us to the point i now am paying what i should pay for cs.
i suppose the meaning to the story is dont give up keep going and hang in there your kids deserve to have you in their lives even if they dont call you dad anymore and never want to speak to on the phone. and as everyone keeps saying when they are older they will want to know you.
Comment by weirdexperience — Fri 30th May 2008 @ 5:49 pm
I don’t know weird.. Is it about hanging in there to see your kids, or is more a case of putting it all behind you. I guess the answer lies in your mental stress !! and how much you can take. I have not seen my daughter for four years now, she was seven weeks old when her mother lost the plot and took her away. Yes I miss her, but I don’t even know her, should I waste my life stressing over it, too get nowhere ? I feel bad at about it. As I see it I will have too make it my life mission just to have contact with her.
I think about it a bit, I think it is a gamble to spend all my time fighting this on a little person that I don’t even know, what if she doesn’t like me anyway!!
Hey, tigerseye I am happy to tell you my story, I will not go on camera, but as you say you can have an actor to do that. So lets go for it. Tell me what you want regarding the story and I will fill you in on it.
Cheers Paul
Comment by paul — Fri 30th May 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Paul,
Thanks for that. Could you email me on [email protected] with the story so far, the way you would if you were talking to the camera. Tell it the way you would like the actor to tell the camera. Then I can ask you some questions which you can choose to answer or not.
Weirdexperience,
It sounds to me like as hard as you (a man) tried to put things right but it wasn’t until your partner (a woman) managed to get the IRD to do what they should be doing… or maybe I’m reading too much into it?
Comment by Tigerseye — Fri 30th May 2008 @ 9:09 pm
I am on the DPB as primary carer of two toddlers. I cannot afford to work with the cost of childcare. I have to top up the winz subsidy for the children as in 3.50 per hour is only just over half. When I was married I worked as a secretary and went down to part time when first baby was born. Hubby is a builder. My part time job worked out well with him working inconsistent hours etc. He was free to work wherever, whenever while I had set hours and was available for health visitor appointments, toddler groups, cooking, cleaning etc. Now that I am the breadwinner I find that I cannot support us properly. We returned to NZ some months ago and are now separated. There is hardly any part time secretarial work here and it is poorly paid, leaving me no better or worse off than not working. The Ex has been assessed to pay $780 per year as child support for one child. He is not on the birth cert of the youngest as he was 5 mths when we got here and refused to sign paternity form for me to hand in to winz. He is already trying now to take the kids midweek (I have always let him have the children as often as he likes) to get his payments down when a proper assessment is done. What is happenning in the meantime? I try my best not to have the power cut off. The telephone is a luxury that my mother keeps on for me so that I can have contact with people as I dont go out. I have asked the Dad so many times for help with shoes, living costs etc as we are desperately poor and tells me to work even though I keep explaining that I am worse off. So, no not all fathers are paying over the odds. IRD told me self employed people use “creative accounting” to get bills down all the time. In fifteen months he has contributed about $600 towards his childrens upkeep. If the DPB etc is cut on a visit basis this will be very hard on working class women who have been out of the workforce doing the caring or on low incomes. I certainly wouldnt be able to provide accommodation for us anymore. It would be a good way to force women to give up their children through financial hardship.
Comment by Ellie — Fri 30th May 2008 @ 10:57 pm
paul it may be hard now but trust me hope is something good to hang on and yes there is stress until recently i spent weeks curled up in bed with agonising stomach cramps and not until my partner gave me a kick up the bum did i go to the doc only to be told its al due to stress so even tho im now on med for my stomach ( not depression) i look forward to every bit of contact i can get.
Comment by weirdexperience — Fri 30th May 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Hi Ellie,
Thanks for you mail, it is good to hear from awoman on this site, you are a bold woman. I do not now your circumstances, but if what you say is correct and you let your ex see the kids then I thank you for that.
Some woman use the kids as a bargaining tool, and as a weapon against their ex’s. Please don’t let this happen. At the end of the day it is not the kids that are at fault. It is us and our ex partners.
I am sorry to hear of your situation, and would help if I could. However I am fighting to see my kids, so I have my hands full.
We need to have a better way of dealing with these things !!
Hi weirdexperience if you can handle the stress and stomach upsets then you are a strong man, my father died 4 weeks ago of stomach cancer. He and my Mum seperated about 15 years ago, and i know for him he could not let go. It just ate him away the stree and strain. But it is not for me to judge what to do. I hope everything works out ok for you, but if it gets to much you can always let go. remember to look after yourself !! as on one else is going to that!! and remember a dead dad never see’s their kids. What I am trying too say is don’t kill yourself over this !! For me I had to let go, it was killing me..Panic attacks, throwing up food, not being able to eat. I lost 15kg thru the worry. I started drinking too control my panic attacks, and so I could take food in. I would wake up in sweats. slowly and even today slowly I am getting my life back. The court expect me to fight for my kids, to defend myself. That is the process that is what you do. They don’t care what mental state your left in when they or your ex takes your kids.
For me, I have to take mens multi vitamins, berocca, lots of sleep and rest, soft music and self talk. I find reading to be helpful as well as comedy films.
These are the things I do to keep my sanity, I haven’t even got to fighting to see my kids. It really hurt me, It really knocked me back.
Anyway if you have the fight still left in you, I support you 100%, just take care of yourself.
Cheers Paul
Comment by paul — Sat 31st May 2008 @ 1:18 am
Hey look at the end of the day, which it is, I don’t think the government is all bad they are just 10 to 15 years behind real life. I think in 10 or 15 years they will understand the serious mistakes that they have made. Helen Clarke will get at total beating for it, as she deserves. but life will go on. They will prove that kids needs there dads. I believe this, I am an engineer with a BE also have a NZCE and a NZIM. I am a master builder, and also have a realestate cert. Telecom paid for my degree, out of 400 people they chose me because of my understanding, physco tests etc. To them I was the best of the best. I can fix anything, understand very complex equipment. I had to tell telecom about there wrong move into analoge cellular, they did not like that. they asked me to be there sat engineer. I turned it down one for the money and two because I didn’t want to move. I have the brains too do basically anything if I want.. only problem is that I don’t have the brains for a wife. They seem to see what I have have, can do, and think “well I am in my thirties, kid time and here is a guy I can take for a ride ” So guys look on the net for woman between 30 to 40 thet want to have a baby. In the poor countries they have heaps of babies, in the hope that one of them will look after them. In our world we need to have heaps of kids in the hope that they will find us in our old age. We dont want to be lonely old men, so go have a baby with any and all. One of them will come back, one of them will find you. Its not nice to be a lonely old man… so here is to pussy and having kids. lets fight this our way. Go and have kids now !!!
Comment by paul — Sat 31st May 2008 @ 2:53 am
Paul,
Our troubles with NZLaw and Social Policy go way back beyond Helen
Maybe at 0253 ones clarity on the whole picture is not so vivid
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Sat 31st May 2008 @ 8:28 am
HI Ellie,
I’m so glad you came on and left a comment about what is happening with you and your ex. The more people Italk top the more I get angry when I hear people say that not all men are bad. This always puts us on the back foot because as hard as it is for some woman to hear most of us men are actually stand up type people. I would much prefer to hear the phrase, not all men are good and you, Ellie, are experiencing the exception rather than the rule.
Like I say, I’m over joyed that you left your comment as it just illustrates what most people that are not in any of our situations think about the men (aka liable parent) which is another reason, albeit a small reason, why this documentary has to be made.
Women going through what you are going through is heartbreaking and your story, as well as ours, needs to be heard. There is a well documented case of an Australian man who commited suicide because the IRD was hounding him – due to taxes and child support he was paying 80% of his hard earned money to the government – scratch that, the government was taking 80% of his income – leaving him with just $150 a week to live on. The reason I tell this story is to let you know that you are not alone – it almost always ends up that somebody suffers. The only difference between you and the Australian is that you get to see your dearly beloved children.
I know what you are talking about when you talk about income hiding and it truly makes everybody sick. You would have to be the lowest for of life to do that. Even us good dads will pay our way and are happy to do so – we are just angered everyday about the injustice of a one faced government who paint us all with the same brush – so we fight for justice and fairness within a system that gives men no rights.
Enough rambling from me. Best wishes to you and your children
Comment by Tigerseye — Sat 31st May 2008 @ 10:54 am
Life ain’t as easy as we thought, when we were children.
http://menz.org.nz/2008/expose-the-child-holocaust/#comments
Mary at comment #16 shows that working barely pays if you are on average wage or less.
I believe she should have mentioned that a career slowly builds up a much improved income, so that a working person can usually pull ahead from beneficiaries after a few years.
Also, a DPB beneficiary doesn’t have a very good superannuation scheme (if you don’t look into the future, you will never notice this until it happens). In any case, the DPB was originally passed into law, on the basis that it was to provide a safe path out of violent and dangerous marriages, for women and children. Given that it was offered “as of right”, it was clear at the time that it was more honestly intended to provide all women with an easy path out of marriage – whether they could afford it or not.
http://menz.org.nz/2008/child-support-reality-tv/#comments
Alice at comment #3 shows that men can be mean about contributing to the raising of their own children. It seems that she didn’t look ahead to her own ability to provide for her child, when choosing to become pregnant without asking for some form of commitment? Apart from the responsibility in financial terms, there are the developmental issues about choosing to raise a child without social support from the father. In the real world, the children wear their parent’s decisions and although the Government can throw money at these problems, it can’t really protect children from the social consequences of careless or not well thought out (or even maybe selfish) parenting decisions. Congratulations with sticking to training towards your own career.
Above, in this thread, #60 Ellie discusses separated parenting, with relatively little contribution from the separated father. As “breadwinner” on the DPB, she criticises the father of her children, for paying very little (spousal and) child support. She implies he is working and earning well and hiding income. Is this the case, or is he just working very little or is he unable to work for some reason?
In any case, if parent’s career positions aren’t that strong, should they be deciding to have children in the first place?
The way that she describes it, it looks as though maybe (Spousal and) Child Support Act isn’t really the problem, it might be people deciding to have children, when they don’t really have strong enough careers to support a family and one or two houses?
Should people think about the cost of two houses, before they consider having children? It seems as though it is irresponsible to have children, if you cannot afford two houses? (In Auckland: One house and one space under a motorway bridge?)
If a couple with enough income for one house, but not two, decide to have children, then they are taking for granted the support of other taxpayers, should they decide to split.
A two engine aeroplane that can fly on one engine, is more reliable than a single engine plane. A two engine aeroplane that cannot maintain height on one engine, is less reliable than a one engine plane. This is true for single and two career marriages too.
So, a lot of problems that are held against (spousal and) child support, are really problems in the lives of the parents and unrealistic expectations of one or both parents.
Certainly, the job de-motivational issues that the (spousal and) child support act enforces, aren’t taken into account by many couples, when they decide to have children!
When accountability fails, then poor and bad decisions are allowed to flourish, even breed. One important question is who picks up the tab? Anyone is an idiot if they give away an open chequebook.
Failure to enforce accountability allows disasters to keep on piling up, in life or in a caughtroom.
I apologise, if it seems that I am defending IRD CS.
Go to http://www.legislation.co.nz:
(Spousal and) Child Support Act:
The objects of this Act are–
(4) (k) To provide a system whereby child support and spousal maintenance payments can be collected by the Crown, and paid by the Crown to those entitled to the money.
(1) This Act may be cited as the Child Support Act 1991!
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 4th June 2008 @ 12:50 am
I read #57 Weirdexperience’s post. It is sad reading about needless family vandalism from negotiations in familycaught, where a party has taken advantage of the opportunity given by the (Spousal and) Child Support Act, to make an agreement, knowing that it will be completely unenforceable in the real world. This is another example of why honest and complete information needs to be readily available to all members of the public.
The “judge” and the legal workers present have allowed (by their silence) a woman to obtain an agreement from the self represented litigant, that he would never had made if he had known the truth.
What has the “judge” and legal workers achieved?
1. woman allowed to relocate to her choice and convenience
2. children substantially denied access to their father
3. almost all of the travel costs put onto the father (despite the relocation decision being made by the mother)
4. Financial hazard to the father, due to accumulating CS “debt”
5. father loses trust in familycaught “judges” and legal workers
Technically the judge isn’t present to give parties legal advice, but to rule on procedure.
However, by standing by silently and allowing the father to fall into the trap being set for him, the “judge”and legal workers quite rightly earn the contempt of the father. (This is not to say that this is sex-based prejudice, as I know of women being tricked in other similar ways.) This mother has treated the familycaught with contempt by attempting to pull the manipulation.
So Weirdexperience has fallen into a trap, maliciously set for him, through having insufficient knowledge of the (Spousal and) Child Support Act.
This is the risk taken in dealing with familycaught without paying your own competent legal worker. There is a clear lesson here. Don’t deal with familycaught unless you are well informed and well prepared. It is important to do your homework.
Are these familycaught “judges” deliberately using extortion as a means of exploiting parents?
I believe so. Out of about 10 hearing that I have been a party to or observed, I was comfortable with the “judge’s” performance in only one (Judge Mather at Waitakere Court). A small number of observations isn’t enough to draw reliable conclusions.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
So I do have to compliment IRD CS, who have been honest to me in all but about 2% of the contact that I have had with them. Some of this dishonesty was perhaps due to insufficiently trained staff, which wasted quite a bit of my time, reducing the time that I had available for work in some cases.
It is outside of my understanding, how these familycaught “judges” could hope to be respected and taken seriously?
Do these clowns (I believe that they are more trained to be clowns or actors, than judges) understand that it is quicker to extinguish trust, than to rebuild it?
European judges do have relevant professional level training to be a judge. After starting with a law degree they can be admitted to 2 to 3 years of judicial training – only if they have no more than 1 years experience as a lawyer. They do have to pass their judicial training courses, to be appointed as a judge. They do have to be people who are respected in the wider community as being suitable to be a judge, to be appointed.
When you consider the real world impact onto children’s relationships with their fathers and also the effects of both parents losing respect for the familycaught, the inactions of these “judges” isn’t smart.
These legal workers are simply extorting from parents, not serving. They are reducing themselves to being just Government beneficiaries. Where did the judicial oath go?
The consequences of these deceptions do last for several years. In the longer run, what is this mother and familycaught teaching these children about developing intimate and trusting relationships?
No doubt, in the fullness of time, these children will make their own judgements. In the meantime, quite a lot of damage is done.
There is a clear lesson – be well prepared before negotiating in the familycaught.
Another example of deception regularly practiced in familycaught, is making agreements for international relocation. These “agreements” are rarely enforceable. Yet familycaught “judges” may apply strong pressure to make these manipulative unenforceable agreements, without giving any warning that it is really a dishonest charade to get the one-sided agreement signed. By the time the left behind parent wakes up, the children have been spirited out of the country and legal jurisdiction…….. When they apply extreme pressure and manipulation, it is often that they don’t have the direct power to force you, so agree to nothing until you know it is realistic and protective of all family relationships AND ENFOREABLE !!!!!!
There is no point in drafting an agreement, when the systems for enforcement won’t work in the real world..
Usually, you serve your children better by negotiating with good faith in the real world. Friends and family can usually help more effectively than familycaught, certainly far more cost effectively! These negotiations do take a lot of effort and time. Your children are worth this effort.
Children never benefit from dishonesty between parents. Neither does society.
I apologise, if it seems that I am defending IRD CS.
Like all vandalism, these “judges” don’t understand the real world consequences of their actions. I believe that most of them don’t care either. They just don’t have relevant or useful training or experience for cost effectively solving family problems. They sure know how to create problems!
All that is needed for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke.
How can all of the other legal workers in NZ stay silent, with knowledge about the deviant behaviours in the familycaught burning in their hollow souls? They end up wearing the same guilt.
Help your friends and family to get through these unnecessary perils.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 4th June 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Thank you for all those who have given me their stories and experiences, please don’t stop. This documentary has to be made, there is no question. I have come up with a name and I was wondering what you all thought about it:
The CSA Files
Let me know 🙂
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 4th June 2008 @ 4:57 pm
can i audition for the lead role when it go’s to hollywood, lol…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Wed 4th June 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Sure, you can play the sarcastic judge
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 4th June 2008 @ 5:44 pm
cool, luv it…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Wed 4th June 2008 @ 5:46 pm
I sent a substantial e-mail to Tigerseye email address several weeks ago and have not even had the courtesy of a reply. I smell a rat.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 11:02 am
Hi Hans,
I can assure you I am no rat – I have been getting plenty of emails. When did you send it, I’ll check my SPAM folder.
Comment by Tigerseye — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 11:08 am
And could I just mention that I have only been on this site for as long as this thread has been here… that was 27th May which is only about 10 days ago so perhaps it wasn’t really several weeks ago?
Hans, I’m looking through all my SPAM now
Comment by Tigerseye — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 11:17 am
I have in fact found an email in my SPAM box which was not supposed to be there. If anybody else has emailed me and not got a reply please let me know.
Comment by Tigerseye — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 11:28 am
Hi Tigerseye
I agree that with the current legislation it is unlikely that anyone will see changes to unfair assessments. We have shared care (of my stepdaughter) and pay hundreds to my husbands ex for no other reason than that is the current law – they do not have extra expenses because we have shared care AND we are required to pay half of expenses such as schooling because it is in our parenting order. We are making double up payments, everyday costs associated with having the child half the week, half the extra expenses and ‘child support’ on top of that. Effectively our “child support” is actually spousal maintenance and i know this is the case for many parents sharing the care of their children.
We even pointed out the policy review statement released by IRD and the minister earlier this year regarding child support assessment not being equitable but all the review officer said was yes the assessment is flawed but sorry it is not law yet – Go to your MP. I have got an officer working for our local MP digging up research and using our case as a test to put to the minister currently. The officer is an acquaintance so that is likely to be part of the reason she is helping us but also she is completely appalled that what is happening in our case can actually happen after you have done everything possible to have it changed, by the book.
It is obvious that CS is inequitable in many cases for liable parents, it is even worse for parents with shared care! We are currently paying more to have my stepdaughter than we would if we only had her on the weekends, it is completely unethical. What we really need a a whole lot of MPs to push legislation change – does anyone have any MP friends? They don’t tend to do much unless you have a contact in their office.
I have a contact at TVNZ i will email her and ask whether they would air a documentary on the flaws in the CS legislation.
Rebecca
Comment by Rebecca — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Hi Rebecca,
Thank you for your comment. It’s amazing how many people are in the same situation and as you say, nothing seems to be done about it. Like many other things no attention is paid until the general population gets wind of it so TVNZ would be a great portal for this… thank you for that and I look forward to hearing what your contact has to say 🙂
Comment by Tigerseye — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 2:07 pm
tigerseye is no rat but just maybe a saint!Go tigerseye!!!!
As I said before I am happy to be interviewed and I will give you a website to show your doco on
http://www.maxcast.com/scrapthecsa
Lets get this thing online.Professionalism and fascist privacy rules be damned.I feel a wind(well maybe a breeze) of change
Comment by whanga — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Hi Tigerseye
What makes you think that you can change the world?
You’ve only been on this site since the 27th of May.
There are many men who have tried for years to get a bit of fairness into the child support system.
That’s not going to happen until politicians admit that they can’t do without the tax that they get from children anymore.
Where do you think they got the money for the recent tax cuts from?
From fools like you and me of course because we’re stupid enough to remain living here.
Where else in the world would most of your wages go to taxes?
Up to 39% out of your wages,up to 30% for child support,12.5% for GST.
A total of 81.5%
By the time that you have saved up for that block of John Keys cheese,it would have turned green
Comment by rosie — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Something has to be done and I will be sending letters to our local MP. My partner and I have joint custody of his 2 sons and have them week on/week off 7 days/nights on and off as well as taking them away Xmas/New Year’s hols as well. We are being penalised for having them which is ridiculous when the boys obviously benefit from seeing their father every other week and phone contact with the boys the week they are with their mother. We both work very hard to earn a good living and yet their mother was very careful to secure a job working max 30 hours a week and reaps the benefits of supplemental income from the government working part time whereas we are both working more than 40 hour weeks to provide and support these kids. Where is the justice? There is no reward for my partner having a good job and income when the government is going to take the bulk of it! This is pure injustice! We have to continue to strive for change … or move out of NZ!
Comment by Joy — Thu 5th June 2008 @ 11:29 pm
Hi Tiger’s Eye,
I’d like to answer your question in comment #26 “Jim, I don’t doubt you but could you give a reason why the government wants that?” in response to comment #25 “It seems some don’t yet realise that the destruction of the Family in particular the paternal family is the desire of govt. JimBWarrior”.
It all starts to become clear when you read the article “Feminist Agenda Reaches Fruition” by Sandra Patterson, and then consider who controls our nation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10125395
Comment by xsryder — Fri 6th June 2008 @ 12:28 am
Walt Disney sat in front of his board of directors and told them one of his ideas to bring joy to the whole world. 80% of his board said he was crazy, what could he do, one man. Walt Disney later said that he would not do anything unless 80% of his board told him he was crazy to do it.
Rosie, I respect your opinion and in your defence, Rome wasn’t built in a day. I don’t remember, however, seeing any documentary about the shit that goes on because of the CSA. We can bitch and moan about the shit that we have to put up with but are any of us getting off our asses to make a change? You can sit there and judge me, telling that many before me have failed. Tell me what you have done to try and change all this totalitarian bullshit – are you going to sit there and accept unfairness?
What makes you think I can’t make a difference? What makes you think that things can’t change? Maybe coz people just want to moan about it.
I’ll accept I was wrong once I have tried and failed, until that time you can help me or critisize me – I know which one I’ll look back on and smile.
Comment by Tigerseye — Fri 6th June 2008 @ 12:30 am
Thank you for that Joy, I would really like to follow that effort in the doco. Are you happy to share the corrispondance on the documantary?
Comment by Tigerseye — Fri 6th June 2008 @ 12:49 am
Hi Xsryder, there is no reason for doing what the government is doing, they are simple people who can not read that well, they think if they put policies in place such as the good old protection order, that they are are saving themselves, in years to come the children will speak out, the prisons will full (as they are already) In this day and age children belong to the mothers, fathers have no say, but ten or twenty years down the track people will realise that government policy was quite wrong !! You just have too look at history, the wars the conflicts. It is simple people making mistakes. I have freinds that thier grandfathers where on the benefit, their fathers and now them… It has become a lifestyle, they own thier own houses and do their things, it is just their profession now. It is what they are taught, what they believe is thier right now. Same goes for the DBP its something to aim for, my ex gets $425 a week, has got the state house, she is from China and she is so impressed what she can get here !! She came to New Zealand so she would be financially secure, and she has done it. And without having to work !! She would never go back to China, in fact i took her back there for a holiday, and she hated the place. Her family live in a shack, no toliet or washing area, I have photos of how they live. I felt sorry from them so a bought them a proper house, anyway she has got it made here, She doesn’t like having our son, but it is money and sercurity for her. When in China she gave our son to the family to look after, on one of the few days she had him she confronted me saying that she was going to kill him. In New Zealand I could have done something about this, In china there is no Laws to that effect, and anyway I can not speak the language !! I am worried that my son is with her now, I got a letter from ACC that he was hurt while in her care. It really concerns me, but our Law just see’s men as the bad ones, and to defend such a case is like pissing in the wind !! It really concerns me that this can happen !! It is so wrong !!
Comment by paul — Fri 6th June 2008 @ 12:50 am
Hi Paul,
You are preaching to the converted here. My X is Vietnamese, and for her 3 days a week work (@ 14$ per hour), she lives a better lifestyle than any Kiwi I know. She has also made it clear to me that she has no intension or will to work more than 3 days per week.
While she was on the DPB she went on two overseas holidays (cash), bought a new 42″ plasma TV (cash), new lounge suite (cash), new HP computer system (cash), lived in and still lives in an almost new brick home with two car internal access garage (alone more than her current entire ‘declared income’), and goes clothes and shoes shopping every week, and dresses our son exclusively in Pumpkin Patch clothing…..how could she afford this while on the DPB, and how can she still afford this on 3 days work per week? And shouldn’t her child support be calculated on her obvious lifestyle and expenses instead of just the income she chosses to declare.
Benifit fraud, working under the table, undeclared income or financial support….it doesn’t matter, the point is that I have sent so much evidence to WINZ, IRD, Legal Services (including affidavits from people who observed her at her place of work!), that their blatant refusal to investigate, recalculate or prosecute supports my belief that the system has been designed to Benifit women.
My x is currently organising a ‘husband’ for her 17 year old niece, also from Vietnam, so that just like her aunt, she can get citizenship and bring over more relatives. My x even asked me (46) if I would marry her niece (17), and offered me enough money to put a deposit on a home (knowing that her actions in the Famnily Court caused me to lose the home I built before I even met her); the conditions being that the girl would be free to go once she got her citizenship and we would not be able to sleep together.
I contacted Immigration, but I know they won’t investigate. I have already provided evidence to Immigration about my x’s immigration fraud (admitted during a Family Court hearing and transcript sent), but like WINZ, IRD and Legal SErvices, no action taken and the fraudster enjoys a better life in NZ than I will ever. It f*#^ing sucks!
She lives such a lavish lifestyle, yet pays the bare minumum of 14$ per week child support (we have 50 – 50 share care). Also, she will probably never be asked to pay back any of her 30-40,000 Legal Aid, yet I got a letter from Legal Services within days of getting 50-50 share care asking me to pay up How did Legal Services know my circumstances had changed, and sureley they must have realised that my circumstances would be exactly the same as the mother’s). If I was able to establish that Legal Services asked me to pay up while not asking the mother to pay up, I would take thier arses to the cleaners. , every department or agency under this corrupt feminist regime is Blantantly biased against men.
Comment by xsryder — Fri 6th June 2008 @ 10:53 am
I personaly have an 8 inch black panther at the lower end of my back and it inspires me of power and control for the one thing in this world we need to know is our RIGHTS and that is my symbolicness of the “black panther” tattoo!
Comment by bull en a china shop — Fri 6th June 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Hi Tigerseye
You asked me what I have done.
I have written letters to just about every politician in this country.
I have helped my husband to write letters to the Privacy Commissioner,the Ombudsman,the IRD.
Most of my letters have fallen on deaf ears and havn’t been answered cos like I said to you,the system won’t be changed while it remains a money making racket for the government.And then most of the politicians havn’t got the balls to reply to me.
I wish the men on this site would not be too hasty in putting all women down.
Of all the politicians in this country,there is only one who has spoken out in defence of men.Her name is Judy Turner.
Comment by rosie — Sat 7th June 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Hi Rosie,
I have written to MP’s before myself and found that the replies I’ve got are heart felt and meaningless. My plan is to bypass all that. We all know that trying to get those in the beehive to sit up and take notice is like pissing in the wind. So I’m attacking the sytem, as it were, from another angle.
A lot of men have been burnt and this is a site they can come to and vent. Just like not all guys are bad, not all women are bad. The trouble is the government has made it so easy to screw over the guys… neeed I say more?
It’s time to give the country a wake up call – like actually going to the countries that are starving and saying you don’t want to sponser a child. Most of the guys on this site are not against women, I myself love women but I’m not so keen on them when they take advantage.
We are forced by law to “donate” a percentage of our wages even if the woman earns more than us… can I ask a question? How much does it cost per week to raise a child?
Comment by Tigerseye — Sat 7th June 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Hi Tigerseye
WINZ considers $139 a week sufficient enough to raise 2 children.
My husband’s ex was getting $500 a week in CS and family tax credits before she even went out the door to go to work.
For her children as she calls them,not his.
Comment by rosie — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 1:11 am
There is misinformation in comment 89 – Please clarify without hairsay
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 2:44 am
Hi there
Where is the misinformation?
I looked up IRD’s site and that’s what it said.$139 a week tax credits for 2 children if you’re on a benefit.
Comment by rosie — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 11:24 am
Tax credits are for those getting taxable income – Tell us more as to how you established the CS figure
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 1:00 pm
On Winz site it states “If you have dependent children 18 years or under you’ll also get family tax credit while you are on a benefit”
Take a look for yourself you’ll see that I’m not talking through a hole in my head.
The $500 that I was refering to came from $300 for child support and $200 for family tax credit.
Comment by rosie — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Hi Tigerseye
I am still waiting to hear back from contact re; tvnz. Also wish to advise that i have actually secured an appointment with an MP at the office has pushed our stuff through because she is so eager to see the legislation changed. I noticed many comments here regarding MPs being completely useless and ignoring these issues. I will post the our experience of the MP meeting as soon as possible after the appointment (fri 20 June).
One other point of interest for some people who are thinking of or have been through the admin review process – we received the decision from our review – it went against changing the current assessment because the legislation doesn’t allow IRD to change it for the reasons we applied (we figured this would happen). However it is interesting to note that the review officer did in fact dedicate an entire paragraph in his report to the latest media release by the minister (available on this website to view) about the flaws in the legislation as it relates to shared care. He stated that there is an obvious need for legislation change as according to the IRD statement but at this present time he can only make a decision based on the current legislation. Interesting that he would even include this in the report isn’t it?…
Rebecca
Comment by Rebecca — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 2:29 pm
# 88 How much does it cost per week to raise a child?
Less than a dollar a day if the child is breast fed.. so $ 2 a day would be more than adequate… children are cheap to keep, no more cost than to feed your average dog, any way, the mother should be workin’ if she wants to spend more, but is lazy – the one that takes there kids to mc donalds every time when the kid is hungry, you know the type, yuk… (fag in her mouth and passed out on a bottle of wine come night fall)
Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 3:09 pm
My dogs don’t cost much to feed.Thankfully I don’t have to buy them clothes or school books.
Comment by rosie — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 5:03 pm
I did a little research and figured that depending on the age of the child the weekly amout could be anywhere from $100-$180 a week. So if we use the average of $140 a week and divide that by 2 (how many parents are there for each child?) then we come to a nice tidy figure of $70.
Is there anybody out there who doesn’t want to support their kids for just $70?
I’d be happy with paying $70 a week to make sure my little girl gets what she needs.
Who wants to run away and hide in some other country away from their kids for the sake of $70 a week?
So why are most of us paying $100+ a week? Maybe I’m lucky to be on an average salary… if I wasn’t, I’d like the IRD to justify to me why they need to be taking $300-500 a week out of my wages? Especially if I only got to see the child once a fortnight.
I have given my email before but here it is again… [email protected] if you have a story you arn’t affraid to tell then email me. I’d very much like to get some on camera interviews shortly so is there anyone brave enough?
If you want your story told annonomously then let me know when you email me and I’ll get an actor to tell it for you.
People, it’s no good just talking about it…Good on you Rebecca, for pushing hard to be heard.
I’m currently setting up a web site for you all to vist, I’ll let you know when it’s up and running.
Comment by Tigerseye — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 6:12 pm
When a friend of mine was considering approaching his x to pay child support directly to her, he phoned IRD to ask what a reasonable weekly amount would be to offer her, and the IRD person said that $75 per week was the appropriate amount for half of his child’s costs. The amazing thing was that at the time he was paying almost $200 per week child support, even though his son stayed 25% of nights and he cared for him almost every day before and after school.
He appraoched his x with an offer, but because his x had recently UPGRADED her home and UPGRADED her car, she said no and applied to IRD for a review, which resulted in my friend paying even more child support, which resulted in him and his new wife having to DOWNGRADE thier home.
In Australia liable parents recieve a 25% discount of Child Support for each night per week that the child stays over. This isn’t rocket science, but simple commonsense.
In my case, for the first 6 months of 50/50 equal share care my son and I were forced to live on $180 per week (before child support!); this meant that my son and I lived on the same amount that IRD allow for a single child.
In the weeks before my x left me I phoned WINZ to ask some questions. I had left work to care for our son full time and was studying part time at university. Then my x decided she no longer wanted to work (legitimately), and eventually she got me to ring WINZ to see if we were entitled to any more benifits. We were recieving just over $400 of benifits at the time (one mature student father, one mother, one preschool child and the mother’s teenage immigrant daughter from an overseas marriage). Stupidly I asked WINZ how much the mother would get on the DPB with just her and the two children, and to my horror there was a difference of less than $10. This meant that WINZ allowed just $10 for the father’s living costs, but worse, the mother’s lifestyle would be considerably improved if the father wasn’t around.
Should it have been a surprise then that my son’s mother was gone within weeks, making a false complaint to the Police, abducting our son, applying for the DPB, and making a claim on my home (well she did live with me for 3 years and 1 week!)
One would think that Family Court judges would reign in mothers that abduct children and deny thier contact with thier primary caregivers for financial gain, but no, the judges turned thier heads so fast I’m surprised they didn’t get whiplash.
Mongrels!
Comment by xsryder — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 8:12 pm
sperm donor pays no child support, so $1.00 a day for an estranged dad is more than fair, i think i might be paying $ 1.70 a day though, (a mc donalds happy meal, i guess…) nothing wrong with that, ird are happy and so am i, no big deal…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 9:11 pm
you silly tiger, get yourself a chartered accountant, it’s worth the effort…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Hi Bull,
I’m not just a sperm donor, I’m my daughters father and I still have a responsibility to help her financially… but that’s where it stops. I just don’t want to be paying for my ex.
My daughter can’t live on $1.70 a day but any more than $10 a day won’t be going to her and if it is it’s just so her mother is trying to do everything in her power to make staying with her so much nicer than staying with Dad.
I love my daughter and it is still my duty to help her.
Comment by Tigerseye — Sun 8th June 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Well said Tigers Eye
Comment by xsryder — Mon 9th June 2008 @ 12:48 am
Permission to bitch, Sah?
I’m so deaf, I couldn’t hear anything?, so I will proceed at my own risk….
#101 – Whilst you might wish to choose how much you will pay for your daughter and how much you will pay for the support of your ex-wife, you have voted in Lational and Nabour Governments (scrap’s nomenclature) and they have legislated that you will pay an amount calculated from the number of children and your income (ie ignoring the income that your ex-wife now receives and ignoring the amount of time that you actually care for your daughter – unless the care passes 40% and your ex will acknowledge this too).
When you and I voted in these Governments, we gave away any right to choose what we will do about these payments!!!!
You cannot put the children back in the bottle.
Your only remaining freedom, is to choose how much you will work and even this freedom is quite tightly constrained by IRD-CS’s ability to assess your income. (There are many constraints in life, this is just another on a very long list.)
Whether your ex-wife is sitting on DPB or is working, this is presently ignored in the calculation. This is really why the Government wants to slog you hard, to recover as much DPB as possible. They are practically flogging a dead horse, as only the highest earning men will ever fully repay the DPB. Thus over the nation, cs will never come near to paying for DPB. This was just a smokescreen to dupe the MPs into supporting the DPB and now, to keep discussion away from the ongoing social costs of DPB.
Is it appropriate to slog men whose wives are not on DPB, the same as men whose wives are ARE on DPB?
In most domains, the buyer chooses.
When you place the accountability onto the person who makes the decision, you usually obtain the most responsible and constructive outcomes.
Then give both parents the choice of paying spousal and child support and other takes care of kids, or work part/full time and take care of kids yourself, at payer’s choice? This approach rewards competence.
Generally competent parents take the best care of kids.
If the cost of the DPB to Government is the problem, then perhaps it would be wise to address this directly. For example, to pay DPB where it was shown that there was a REAL fear of violence (as was originally discussed in Parliament before DPB was signed off) and to check that the prospective sole parent has an acceptable level of parenting skill.
I am very uncomfortable with paying DPB to mothers who just get pregnant and then apply. I don’t see that these incentives lead to providing service to community and appropriate sharing of resources. To me, it looks more like unemployment benefit/blackmail/extortion, mixed with a generous amount of laziness. Perhaps DPB could be drawn from an individual account for future health benefits and payment of victim reparation?
We must be fools to subsidise these attitudes and behaviours!
It takes more wisdom than this, to protect and serve children.
For me, to obtain the opportunity to take care of my own 2 children for 3 months, I had to agree to continue paying (spouse and) child support at $960 per month, work 40 to 45 hours per week at my regular job and enjoy taking care of my children. It was worth it. This gave my ex-wife the freedom to take a 10 week holiday through Europe. I don’t remember her coming back for any of the weekends!
I didn’t just complain about unfairness, I was pragmatic enough to sense the real world situation and make the best I could of the reality that I faced. I had to work to midnight, or 1 in the morning, to get my work hours completed. I found my(our) children and their environments sufficiently rewarding, that I could work like this.
I didn’t have enough time to checkout the legislation and discuss it with IRD and other people. I had heard that this was a waste of time. I knew I was being cheated at one level, but I wanted to share in the upbringing of my children enough, so that this was worthwhile to me.
This is why I have trouble keeping my mouth shut, when someone on DPB is saying how hard they find taking care of one child on DPB. To me, it sounds as though they are saying that they are such an inefficient parent, that they are having difficulties. If they are this inefficient, are they doing a good job? This is the paradox, that it seems easier to take care of 2 or 4 or 7 children, than taking care of one – because the parenting skills have been learned.
I get these same fraud vibrations when I see “judges” managing their caughts incompetently and then asking Government for more money!
Throwing money to beneficiaries and hoping they will do their “jobs” better, is being pretty optimistic – downright foolish actually. Drop these bumbling beneficiaries and select people who can do the job competently at a professional price level. Some people worry more what they get out, than what they put in? It’s best to stay away from these people, as far as possible.
In the time since, I have had the time to check more carefully on the behaviours of familycaught “judges” and IRD-CS. It turned out that my intuition was right. Life is a gamble. Some gambles are much worse than others, so why take the dumb gambles? Don’t go near them!
Why naively expect?
It’s better to find out the truth about what does happen and make your choices from the options that exist in the real world and not the illusions put up in the mythical world of paper legislation. Just get on with it!
I don’t like the unfairness, but why miss out on something because some parts of it are unfair?
Life is too short, to waste it on moaning. (Children’s growing up is even shorter.)
In my opinion, the biggest failing of (spousal and) child support as a broad topic, is familycaught just giving the children to the mother without actually looking into what each of the parents can offer the children. A rote solution isn’t applying wisdom or skill. It is just rubber stamping. We shouldn’t be paying real judge salaries, to “judges” that are no more than rubber stamps. These “judges” are just valueless beneficiaries of Government largesse. These wages may as well be poured down a drain or spent on drugs or prostitutes or overseas holidays for retiring MPs or “judges” incompetence redundancy pay.
Surely real life is making the best of the world that we face, today.
Take responsibility for your own part in all of this.
I saw a truck that told me, “When I work hard, I get lucky!”.
I would add – and nobody can take it away.
Fine print: Except burglars, tax, cs, accidents, mistakes, weather, breakdown, sickness, religion, miscommunications, changing our own mind,…
Give yourself better options, by working for them.
If we come back later and try to improve life – fine, but there is little point in repetitive moaning, while we are missing out and our life is dripping relentlessly away.
We can be confident that these problems will stay with us, while we attack each other in preference to working together? I suggest to support people putting forward worthwhile initiatives.
I acknowledge the pain, but positive change will come after working together, not just bitching.
Apologies about my spitting and hissing. I will clean up the mess.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 9th June 2008 @ 12:46 pm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fathers-4-justice-stage-rooftop-protest-at-harmans-home-842776.html
UK Fathers for Justice protest “A father is for life not just for conception”
Where are such protests in NZ ? Why do Kiwi men blithely accept the status quo ? Why is nobody taking non-violent action like this here ? Yes there are spies in the Fathers Groups here and Solicitors’ lookouts reading this (ASSHOLES!), but someone MUST protest, or NOTHING WILL CHANGE !!!!!!!!!
Non-violent protests should be made at NZ Women’s ministers houses like this, and at others’ that threaten us with their bias .
IT IS PUBLICITY THAT WE NEED ABOUT OUR PLIGHT !!!
Comment by Martin Swash — Mon 9th June 2008 @ 8:24 pm
When I met my husband,he was paying $200 a week for CS.
That was ok,it didn’t bother either of us.We were paying extras on top of that sum,including payments to Kip McGrath to teach his son how to read and write properly(On his mother’s orders)And we bought most of the decent clothes that his children ever owned.
Then we got married and all hell broke loose.
So are you saying Murray that that’s the way life is now?
You saw a truck that told you “when I work hard I get lucky”
I saw a truck that told me “pull over to the kerb when you’re feeling worn out”
Comment by rosie — Mon 9th June 2008 @ 9:39 pm
I am trying to attack apathy and giving up.
Yes, I do acknowledge that Child Support has a harsh side that most people do get to see. I mentioned some of my experience, I have other complaints too.
I believe that it is important, to try to see all sides and then to act, not just moan.
I cannot change my own experiences, they are history. But I sure do want to see a more workable system in place, before my own children are dragged through the same.
The present system does a lot of harm to good parenting for children. I doesn’t have to be like this.
Fundamentally, it should give incentive to parents, to be good parents, to model sharing and respect, not making agreements knowing full well they will never have to be honoured. The people who wrote the Act put more attention to making it draconian, than to making it fair and workable, to handle the different aspects of everyday life.
On this thread, there is quite a lot of criticism, maybe more destructive than constructive. I encourage people to help Tigerseye, to make a documentary to bring out the practical reality and to propose a system that helps parents to share the costs of caring for children and encourages both parents to sensibly share the tasks and rewards in the heart too.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 9th June 2008 @ 11:53 pm
I have already commented on another part of this site, but here is a good place to follow on. My ex lived with me pregnant for 3 weeks. She left and decided to go alone with the baby and her other child. She gets Maternity leave and approx $320 per week, $150 from the ex for the older child and $300 from me due to my high salary and a some holiday pay thrown in for good luck.
My baby has everything. My $300 will pay for the rent and to keep her in the style that she may have had…should she stayed with me. I dont mind paying big money for a 16 year old that will eat you out of house and home….but a 1 week old $300 thank you…2 weeks old another $300 thanks etc….
I want to support my childs needs, a little money for baby, a little to the mother and a little to save. Certainly $300 is supporting the WHOLE household including the rabbit and the cat.
Comment by Thomas — Tue 10th June 2008 @ 3:29 am
Thomas, Murry, and all,
Anybody paying so called Child Support for honourable reasons is deluded
So called Child Support is about many Govts legally but immorally funding the destruction of Family.
Many Govts simply use mostly Honourable Mens deluded arrogance to redestribute the mighty dollar
Women respond to that redistribution by using YOUR Kids as instruments to what they see as the freedom to a better lifestyle with the bonus of not having to work out the future of THIER kids with THIER kids DAD and the rest of THEIR kids paternal family.
Thus the natural family is destroyed – They probably only have to do this for a few gernerations and men will have no option but to become sperm doners – Even that most enjoyable event will eventually be taken from us
Think again my honourable deluded males
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 10th June 2008 @ 7:17 am
Until we have **Equal Parenting** perferably **HandsOnEqualParenting**, as a statute in World-Wide Family law these arguements (Illusions)are futile rambligs giving Govts tools to tighten their grip on their main funders
Or is it until men are prepared to **Equal Parent** their kids inside and outside marriage and fight to maintain that task be it thru so called Child Support, be it Family Court, be it CYFS, be it WINZ, be births deaths and marriges, we remain victums of those who destroy our families
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 10th June 2008 @ 7:49 am
Yes Jim is right again.Child Support is not what it seems.The government could not give a fuck about kids being looked after but they are trying to give women crazy amounts of control.I feel completely helpless against and battered by this system which has cheated my kids and I out of so much.
Until you have looked after your kid for 3 years in a row for over 150 days only to be told by IRD you only did it for 139 you do not know what I am talking about.There was a swing of over $50,000 during those 3 years.
Even the start of it was amazing.
My ex applied April 2003 but I was not told till August 2003.So when I cross applied I was already 4 months out of pocket.I was awarded CS in November backdated till August(not April!)then 3 months later was told that because my court order only gave me 5 nights a fortnight it was insufficient.What they neglected to consider was my shared parenting during holidays and the mothers trips overseas(during which time I had the daughter fulltime).
Never underestimate this governments ability to be completely unrealistic and unreasonable.It is with some peace that I write this from foreign lands
Comment by whanga — Tue 10th June 2008 @ 8:16 pm
The NZ CSA has to be one of the most failed bits of legislation in any democracy.
The majority of people are either unable or unwilling to confirm with it.
If this was any other financial Act it would be scraped as the failure it is. Can you imagine another tax law that the majority of people could not or would not comply with being maintained? This non-compliance increases as the draconian measures to try to force compliance increase.
Even a cursory look at the figures shows that the majority of paying parents could not comply with this Act no matter how much they wanted to. The average level of debt is approaching $10,000 per parent even if spread across all paying parents.
Can you imagine the headlines if the average tax owed was $10,000 per tax payer and increasing? The government would be bankrupt. It wouldn’t be able to balance it’s budget. It would be the greatest civil disobedience programme in NZ history. The NZ dollar would nose dive and inflation would rocket. One would hope it would bring down the government. But since we are talking about fathers it is almost not mentioned. When it is mentioned it is blamed on the fathers not the policy.
I am pretty good at history but I can’t think of a NZ government policy that has been such a complete failure.
So ask yourself. Why doesn’t the media run a story on it?
Could you imagine the media being so hush hush if 130,000 single mothers when on strike? Or if 130,000 Maori had a sit in? Or if 130,000 gays refused to pay tax? But 130,000 fathers drowning in debt and what you hear is Judith Collins saying they should be locked up. At least when there were debtors prisons the people got a court hearing.
Comment by Dave — Wed 11th June 2008 @ 7:56 pm
The scale of the problem
When the IRD publishes their annual report at the end of this month it is expected that they will report the Child Support debt is larger than any other debt by a significant margin. In IRDs annual report for 2007 it was very discreetly reported that Child Support debt became more than the Total Tax Debt. For June 2007 Net collectable debt was $1,124 million which was only an increase over the past year of $10 million. This figure included overdue student loans. Child Support Debt increases by that amount each month.
At 30 June 2007, total New Zealand child support debt was $1,167.4 million, an increase of $84.0 million from last year[10]. Of the $84.0 million increase in total child support debt, $13.6 million (16%) is assessment and $70.4 million (84%) is penalties. Assessment debt increased by 3.1% in 2007 while penalty debt increased by 11%. This is in spite of debt write offs under the The Child Support Amendment Act 2006.
Child Support Debt increased passed $1.2 billion some months ago.
“10. JUDITH COLLINS (National–Clevedon) to the Minister of Revenue: Can he confirm that total child support debt is now over $1.2 billion, including $471.9 million in assessment debt, and how does the level of assessment debt compare with 1999?
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) : Yes, I can confirm that the member is correct. The level of liable-parent assessment debt in 1999 was $179.2 million. The growth in assessment debt has, however, slowed over the last few years. It was 3.1 percent in the year ended June 2007, which compares with 15.7 percent and 8.1 percent in the years ended 30 June 2005 and 30 June 2006 respectively.”
[19 March 2008 Hansard volume646;Page 15048]
In 1999 there was $179,200,000 debt and 130,068 paying parents. In 2008 the debt is well over $1,200,000 and 124,541 paying parents. If that were to be averaged out over all paying parents the average debt in 1999 was $1,278 and in 2008 it is more than $9,635. Keep in mind that in 1999 there were no debt write offs whereas in 2008 there are partial debt write offs. In other words even if you believe [like Judith Collins] that every paying parent is deliberately refusing to pay child support they are each in debt to about $10,000.
A rational person would at least consider the concept that the policy is flawed. But why be rational when you have a chance bash fathers?
“Judith Collins: Does he agree that the increase in the number of child support debtors since Labour took office and the disgraceful level of debt are because this Government, which he supports, makes it far too easy for 120,000 delinquent parents to walk away from the responsibilities they owe to their children?
Hon PETER DUNNE: It may come as a surprise to the member to know that in 1999 the number of paying parents was 130,068, and in the year ended January 2008 the figure had reduced to 124,541.”
[19 March 2008 Hansard volume646;Page 15048]
Clearly in NZ bashing fathers wins votes. It is no surprise that men of child rearing age are leaving New Zealand at about 500 a week.
Comment by Dave — Wed 11th June 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Well, Dave,
I agree with all you have said and I’m glad to say that I’m not the media – I’m just one man who has been offered a lot of help by not only the great people on this site but many others in my own circles.
With all the help I’m getting this doco will totally rais eyebrows of the rest of the country that has no idea what is going on right under their noses. Excuse all the facial similies.
If you have a story that should be told, Dave, fill me in on it and you can be one of those that can’t just sit back and let it happen.
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 11th June 2008 @ 8:17 pm
The incoming Minister was warned about the rampant failure of the Child Support scheme. The government’s response was to write off some of the debt without addressing the problem. Even this masking of the issue has been a failure.
“Total NZ child support debt $1,167 million Growth in past year $84.0 million Growth in past year (%) 7.8% Assessment debt $456 million Growth in past year $13.6 million Growth in past year (%) 3.1% Penalty debt $711 million Growth in past year $70.4 million Growth in past year (%) 11.0%”
[http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/reports/annual-report/annual-report-2007/part-2/ar-2007-part2-managing-debt-portfolio.html]
According to IRD’s own advice to the Minister at the time, Child Support Debt could become larger than the total Tax Debt within 2 years if recent trends continue. As of 2005 total tax debt reached $1.5 billion. At the same time Child Support debt grew to over $1 billion. Total tax debt varies with the seasons over the year whereas Child Support Debt keeps increasing. This increase of Child Support Debt is accelerating. Child Support debt has grown 400% in only 6 years. The rate of increase continues to rise. Child Support Debt will be larger than Student Debt within 4 years if current trends continue. There are few reasons to think that Child Support debt growth will slow significantly without legislative changes such as debt write-offs, according to the IRDs own advice to the Minister.
“Total child support debt has now passed $1billion. As at 30 June 2005, the level of child support debt had grown to $987 million, 16% more than in 2003—04. Of the total debt, 43% was
assessment arrears and 57% was penalties.34
34 Currently there is no legislative flexibility to deal with the escalation in the level of child support penalties, which adds
considerably to the level of total debt outstanding. Also, the incremental nature of the penalties can act as a disincentive to
paying parents, which can result in them disengaging with the child support system.
NEW ZEALAND INLAND REVENUE — Briefing for the incoming Minister of Revenue — 2005
http://www.ird.govt.nz
Over time we have made good progress in managing our child support responsibilities. As at 30 June 2005, we have collected 86.3% of all child support assessed since the programme began in 1992.
However, the present level of debt presents a significant risk to public perception in regard to the
effectiveness of the child support programme. Funding has been provided in the 2004 and 2005
budgets to address the debt issue through administrative initiatives and these are now gaining
traction.
Child support legislative change
Legislative changes crucial to supplement administrative improvements were proposed in the Child
Support Amendment Bill (No. 4). The Bill has lapsed and public confidence in the child support
programme will continue to erode unless you reinstate the Bill. A key component of the Bill is intended
to bring non-compliant parents back into the child support system by providing incentives for them to
reduce their outstanding child support debt through pro-rata write-off of incremental penalties for
parents who meet their current liability and keep to their arrangement to repay arrears.”
Comment by Dave — Wed 11th June 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Some Maori policy advisers are trying address the real issues but they are lonely voices:
“As well as considering the needs of children, government policy should encourage whanau development by encouraging fathers to become involved with their children, Ms Clarke says.
She says the current child support regime actively discourages fathers from being involved with their children. The majority of child support-paying parents earn less than $30,000 per year and about 25 percent of paying parents are beneficiaries.
“It is easy to see why there is pressure on mothers not to name the father of their children.”
She says a first step would be amending the Child Support Act to ensure children receive some direct benefit from the liable parent contribution.”
[April 2003, Kathrine Clarke, Maori Caucus Public Health Association Phone: 025 930 392, http://www.pha.org.nz/%5D
Comment by Dave — Wed 11th June 2008 @ 8:19 pm
As far back as 2005 the IRD was advising the incoming Minister that the CSA needed to be scraped and replaced with a fairer and more workable system like that adopted in Australia.
“NEW ZEALAND INLAND REVENUE — Briefing for the incoming Minister of Revenue — 2005
http://www.ird.govt.nz
53
As part of our international relationships, we keep a watching brief on developments in other
jurisdictions, for example, the Australian Government recently commissioned a Ministerial task force to
review the Australian child support programme. Recommendations in the report dated May 2005 are
presently being considered by the Australian Government. Given the close nature of our relationship
with Australia, we will need to consider making changes to the New Zealand system once the
Australian Government have made final decisions.”
This system has now been rolled out and applied throughout Australia even though Australia has a far more complex political system than NZ.
Comment by Dave — Wed 11th June 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Yes I have a story to tell. I am posting this stuff here as reference for your doco so you have some hard facts and figures with respected references. It is better here because others can use it too.
It’s late I’ll tell my story another time.
Comment by Dave — Wed 11th June 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Thanks Dave,
I appreciate everything you can give me.
I have started up a new site which you can all find at
http://www.the-csa-files.webs.com
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 11th June 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Hi TigersEye, Well I have just spent the last couple of hours reading this (ok.. skim reading towards the end!).
I have been keen to do something about this legalised extortion for the 4 years I have been paying willy tax. However, during this time I have been fighting false claims of domestic violence, feeling helpless, suicidal, being made redundant, re-establishing myself, borrowing thousands from my parents in the UK so I can survive. The list goes on and on.. All the IRD say is do an Admin Review.. Well excuse me working on most days from 8am through to midnight, but I get very little time to complete confusing paperwork that mentions formulas that are not in the public domain. Why is it that the ex could walk into WINZ claim bennefits and yet I have to jumps through rings of fire and courts hearings to try and reduce my willy tax to an amount where I can afford to get out of constant debt. I could go on for ages…
Anyway.. I am keen to help and I am going to try and find the time somehow to go through 4 years or paperwork very soon as it look like i’m going to have to survive on $50 a week for the next 3 months… and try to complete the paper to go through an ‘Admin Review'(I Wish they would review their own legally extortionate policies).
Why not document this new admin review from start to finish? I read here that you can’t publish details, but surely you can change names and do things for others going through this injustice to fathers (admin reviews). If enough people stood up and took action, what are they going to do. They are only trying to protect themselves and are clearly not interested in the repercussion for the NCP & their children.
I also have some very good ideas that I believe will make a huge impact to voicing the problems raised here. However, from what I have read here I won’t be posting details. I’ll send you and email and I’ll be happy to help if I can.
Comment by Instinct — Thu 12th June 2008 @ 12:52 am
TigersEye,
I have just revisited your opening statement above – I take my hat off to you for your idea – I take my hat off to you for taking the knocks that those of us with initiative all get
I for one begun my fight with so called Child Support during Oct95 – My Sons Mother had decided while pregnant that we were not to be together OR had she planned to secure a lifestyle and once secure with the help of NZ Law and Social Policy used my Son as collateral
I am not sure to this day – However she has WON and he has lost either way.
To top it off we are practicing Church goers and thus she a so called CHRISTian – One would expect a high degree of integrity from a CHRISTian and that is why I got involved with her in the first place. It was ME that got the hard time from several churches NOT her – Even the church is rife with Sexism
I got my debt call from so called Child Support as I say in Oct95 and went into battle straight away – I admit emotionally distraught – grieving the coned relationship and the capturing of my essence, my Son by the women I dearly loved – Totally let down by most local CHRISTians – Totally ABUSED by what I thought were the pillars of our society – The Church – The Govt – WINZ (DPB) – so called Child Support – The Family CAUGHT (thanks to MBacon)- Many in society I did not know – I was a mess
I sort counselling to attempt to maintain some sanity and the ability to work – With the help of the very fine CHRISTian counsellor I soon discovered Shore Fathers http://www.shorefathers.org.nz – Essentially Men http://essentiallymen.net and an excellent lawyer who set a CAPPS order in place when I discovered my Sons Mother and my Son were about to disappear to Aussie with the support of her family most of which lived in Aus at the time
Child Support assed me on the GROSS of my Taxi turnover — The DPB funded ALL costs for MOTHERS destruction of what I thought was our family with plenty left over for a good lifestyle — I paid for the lawyer, I paid so called Child Support for, the church that my Sons Mother went to helped hide my Son as I sort to see him and on it goes.
I will continue if you are interested but for now I am off to work
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Thu 12th June 2008 @ 8:14 am
Hi Jim,
Please do continue….
I haven’t spent much time on the doco in the last week as I have been recovering from an assault. Thank you all for your stories, keep them coming. Also, if you have any sugestions for the doco I’ll be happy to hear them.
There is a lot of info that I’m slowly getting through but there is still a long way to go.
Comment by Tigerseye — Fri 20th June 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Jim continues
Working my Taxi business and eventually finding Men’s Centre North Shore, working with Jim Bagnall, protesting about the issues as I discovered them connected to Family Court, Child Support, WINZ etc, gaining access to my Son and eventually Equal Shared Parenting in time kept me busy and mildly content – I gained Taxi contracts with preschools, Kindys, primary schools, IHC, Colmar Brunton, Chelsea Sugar, NZPost delivering children to and from their homes and/or after schools and had my Son in the taxi with me much of the time and adults after the Kid work was done – Some FemiNazi’s screamed blue murder many others where complimentary and we steadily built a huge taxi business with one van and three drivers working it 24X7 except for maintenance
During this time I gave up on lawyers and represented myself with a few fumbling attempts and much guidance from those then at Men’s Centre
We met regularly with Child Support and David Udy himself for several years and seemed to make some progress
Then I got sick heart and reflux hassles knocked me for a six and I had no choice but to enter hospital and eventually ended up with seven stents and tons of pills daily – With much help from the medical fraternity and many friends at Men’s Centre and 2 very fine taxi drivers who are still close friends I never missed one day of our week about equal Parenting.
However recovery was only in part and I had to go onto a Single Persons Invalid benefit to give me a chance at full recovery which has not yet come to pass.
WINZ forced me to destroy my taxi business before they would support me and thus all three of us lost our jobs and my taxi business was destroyed because as I simply could not continue in it without working in it – We latter discovered that one can be set aside of their business in these instances as long as one does not take reward from the business – How stupid – The 2 others were more than capable of continuing without me and I would of had an income to return to as I made progress health wise – WINZ have never taken responsibility for the ignorance displayed by their employees at that time
Dr Cullen took pity on us a few years back and since then I have received 1/2 of family care from IRD – Try bring a child up one $41-0 a week.
WINZ to this day do not recognise our Equal Parenting Orders and thus I receive NOTHING from WINZ to feed and Father my Son the one week in 2 that he is with me – This has steadily depleted me of all I have and thus the Ration Shed which meets the needs of many suffering the evils of NZLaw and Social Policy.
Today I am Father in time only because WINZ give ALL NZGovt funds to Parent our Son to Mother – yet she does less than 1/2 the job and pays as few bills as possible – I fund my portion of the time I have with my Son from my Single persons Invalids Benefit and a little help from those who recognise the importance of what I do with/for him
Mother has won – My Son and I have lost as I have no funds to make MALE choices with –
The story will continue
Onward
Ration Shed – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 21st June 2008 @ 3:05 am
RE #120 The church,,my ex was and still is a good christian women ??? yeh right ! the church she is in has to this day help one of it’s congregation who in prison at present for ripping off the ird , he’s business as an accountant went to a cemertry and wrote down all the childrens birth and death date’s and claimed gst for them.
The church just claims he was led by the devil and he is a good man and will support him during prison and when he get’s out,,nice guy.(wanker).he was giving the chirch 10% of his earnings and the ird did not try and claim that back as ripped of money from the dead.
This church also runs a home care service in which my ex work’s in, she is the pay clerk !!! any way this home care worker was going to old people’s home’s and cleaning them , a couple of old people trusted this person to go up the shops and purchase milk, bread, butter etc, etc, but in most cases the home care worker had the old persons credit card and help herself to these people’s bank accounts.
This person was caught and dismissed from employment,, the media got wiff of it but the church denied any connection with this person,,,(excellent).
But the same church had it’s own lawyer who is a good christian man and my ex used he’s services to get a protection order on me and destroy my life and my children’s live’s for 10 year’s, i meet this lawyer many year’s latter and asked him why he done what he did ?? he said he was helping a good christian lady and friend out, i told him that may god strike me down dead if i lie, but i did nothing to my ex,, to deserve the protection order,and it almost destroyed me and my children over the years and that my ex was just using it as a weapon,,,he just said he was doing his job as a lawyer of the courts,,bullshit .
My ex also has a friend inside WINS and if you think the IRD and WINS are a night mare ,just think of the damage one can do to the other partner if they have a friend in the department and give the other all the info they need to totaly destroy the other parent, i am still fighting thou and will not give in as i love my sons and will not give up on them,, yes ex’s use their children as pawn chips to bargin with the IRD and WINS to suck as much as they can out of the other carring parents,,when will it stop ,,?who knows,, cheers Mark a father who has and always will be there for he’s children.
Comment by mark — Tue 24th June 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Australia – Comments on the Australian Child Support Changes.
Thanks to John Flanagan, the Deputy Registered Officer, Non-Custodial
Parents Party (Equal Parenting) http://ncpp.xisle.info
We have the facts to add to our resent perceived discussions Re
Australian so called Child Support
Onward — Jim
“““““““`
Hi Jim
Mark Bourne has asked for a few comments on the changes to the child
support system.
In summary, almost no one is happy with the changes.
Neither the custodial parents nor the non-custodial parents are
certainly happy with the changes.
The only ones who are happy with the changes are the 4,000 odd employees
of the Child Support Agency. This is because these bureaucrats will have
more resources and more power.
The changes have been sold to the Australian Government. This is on the
basis that it will save the Government money. However this is an
illusion. This is because the punitive action that has been legislated
for, will no doubt result in even less child support collected.
One billion Australian dollars is “owed” in outstanding child support as
at 1 June 2008.
As a result, more non-custodial parents will be out of work (currently
about 45 per cent) and less taxes will be paid.
The changes were designed by the Child Support Policy Branch of the
Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(FACSIA).
Patrick Parkinson signed off on the report prepared by the Child Support
Policy Branch
The Australian Child Support Scheme is fully funded by deductions from
the custodial parents’ family tax benefit payments. This is in the order
of AUS $450 million.
Patrick Parkinson said in a Senate hearing last year that there were
going to be reductions in child support payments. However this would be
counter-balanced by an increase in family tax benefits paid to the
custodial parents (that the non-custodial parents lose from 1 July
2008).
Parkinson did not highlight that the custodial parents pay for the
running of the Child Support Scheme. This is through deductions of 50
cents in the dollar to family tax benefit payments to the custodial
parents. Half of any increase in family tax benefit payments will go
back to the Government.
The main reason for the apparent decrease in child support, that
Parkinson referred to, is that there is a 24 per cent reduction in child
support. This is when the contact is above 14 per cent (1 day per week).
This theoretical reduction is illusionary.
1. I am sure that when the custodial parent realises this reduction
applies, she or he will reduce contact to below 14 per cent.
2. As from 1 July 2009, the CSA will include salary sacrifice and
investment losses back into the new formula. This will significantly
increase theoretical income (in the short term).
3. As from 1 July 2008, the CSA has also changed the definition of
income. This is to increase the income of both parents. This increases
the cost of the child and therefore the child support. For example,
fringe benefits will have an inbuilt tax factor of 49 per cent added
into the incomes of both parents (which the parent does not receive).
Depending on how much fringe benefits the parents receive from their
employer, this 49 per cent factor may well result in the parents’
theoretical income being greater than actual income! This will have an
impact from 1 July 2008. The non-custodial parent will no doubt take
action to reduce any fringe benefits that he or she may receive.
At the same time, the custodial parent will only receive 50 per cent of
the family tax benefit payments that the father would have normally
received. Therefore this increase will not be as great as what Patrick
Parkinson intimated to the Senate.
The CSA will now have more resources because they have more deductions
from the Family Tax Benefit payments.
The CSA will also have more legislative power. This is because of the
changes to the legislation that the the Child Support Policy Branch has
manoeuvred through Senate Committee hearings and through the Australian
Parliament. For example, the CSA will have a greater ability to make a
registrar-initiated assessments.
The whole problem simply has gotten worse. Non-custodial parents will
simply dig themselves in deeper. No one wins (other than the CSA as
noted above)
The Government has not solved the problem. The solution is with both
parents being involved in the decision-making process. This is without
the involvement of the Government.
Our Government has not realised this yet.
Regards
John
John Flanagan,
Deputy Registered Officer,
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting).
http://ncpp.xisle.info
““““““““““““““““““
Onward
Ration Shed — Jim
http://ration-shed.blogspot.com
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 7:37 am
Hi all for now my name is H. I’ve had about 8yrs experience dealing with FC CS lawyers; custody orders; reveiws; reciporcal agreements between Au and NZ; CSA assessments and review processes to challenge amounts deducted by IRD/Aussie debt collectors and I’m still of the belief that reciporcal agreement was enable to actually help authentic partner who struggle to maintain your childs well-being however, there are those out there like my ex-wife who see this as an opportunity to exploit a weakness.
In short my ex-wife and I are both professionals and earn decent salaries. My ex was finding it difficult financially to support our son whilst he was in my custody. My older children asked that I show some compassion to which I agreed but if I cancelled CS my ex-wife would do the same and this would be written in an iron clad order from FC she smiled and felt happy I just wanted a life which no longer invovled my ex-wife. Now bear in mind I had custody of my son since he was 8yrs old. He wanted to spend time with his mum which was cool and he left me to live with his mum at age of 14yrs. My son now lives with his mum he’s now going on 17yrs has a job in the mines. My ex kept the order boundaries etc…and Everything went fine until I started purchasing a vehicle; house and put on a 21st for my oldest son jesus i even invited and paid for my ex-sister inlaw and her hubbies night out and stay in a motel
Do you know the cow went and rang my ex-wife told her I must be made of money and my ex-wife needed to get her share It wasn’t long after that when I recieved notification that my ex-wife had filed for CS in Aussie. I laughed and told this Aussie woman that I had a legal order which states clearly what my ex and I decided on. CSA rep informed me that CSA would consider the order but advised me the courts don’t have juridiction over claims for CSA in other words anyone can still apply for child support even though there’s a legal order involved. It’s a bit of a loop hole which some people exploit. So my ex-wife got away with paying child support to our IRD and due to loop hole went outside of the order making it possible for her to claim support.
The assessment process on how they asertain how much you support you will pay, will amaze you. There’s a questionaire with 17 questions if you don’t meet criteria of one question you go to the next question etc…I didn’t meet many criteria therefore CSA basically f***ked me good. The main question which is designed to basically say,”if your debt has no direct bearing on your sons welfare please omit” so anything e.g. my 75yr old mother living with me or my oldest son whose is having difficulty with his young family; or my mortage or car repayments cost of living here in NZ etc… are class as, NOT HAVING ANY direct affect on my son. Recently my son has gained employment and has been earning a living for over 1 month now. I’ve had no notification or CSA payments haven’t been stopped, why? Because my ex-wife hasn’t told CSA because she feels my son may not like the job and therefore she wants to toy with the idea of employment just incase working isn’t for him. I’ve asked CSA to explain they say it’s a matter for the ex-wife to just phone them and they will cancel CSA but she won’t So I asked why? no one will give me answers just, I’m sorry but we can’t give you that info but please continue to hand over $400 per week and smile when you do it please digger. I’m annoyed because I have no way of knowing what I’m paying for? Is it my ex-wifes mortgage? perhaps another car or expensive wine collection perhaps? I honestly could tell you.
My son and I have always spoke to each other he has told me to tell CSA to stop taking CSA from me and I’ve passed his wishes on only to hear, No way mate your ex-wife only one who can stop your payments. I’ve told CSA about my sons job only to hear, Noway mate only your ex-wife can cancel CSA. Then my question was why hasn’t she? Isn’t that fraud? hmmm!
Listen I have no faith in the current infra-structure because it’s Aussie owned and Aussie measurements. Jesus christ atleast you get to see the faces of hookers before they f*** you. There is no personal contact whatsoever in this process it’s just STFU and pay your money.
Lol any help?
Comment by H — Thu 13th November 2008 @ 11:34 pm
H, you have been royally screwed.
What kind of imbicile drafted your “iron clad” agreement?
That is the place to seek your redress.
Your ex is just doing what she is entitled to do.
If you used a lawyer then complain to the Law Society for the imbicile’s complete lack of NZ law (and international Haugue Law) and i suggest you intiate a private prosecution. Alternatively take him to the disputes Tribunal although there your maximum will be about 1 years CS but the moral victory may taste sweet.
If you want more direct advice, talk to Scrap or myself [email protected]
Most lawyers are complete novices in the Family Court and have no understanding of Family Law. Be careful who advises you.
Allan
Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 14th November 2008 @ 9:12 am
Dear H,
Do you have the Court Order?
Kind Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09)271 3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Fri 14th November 2008 @ 3:55 pm
#126 Allan, your comment is essentially correct, but I believe that you may have misread the causes. My opinion is:
In areas of “honest law”, any competent legal worker can look up Nexis Lexis or ???, the old names were Butterworths and Brookers. Then by reading the legislation and advice, they can confidently step in and handle legal issues, well outside their personal experience.
Interestingly, when legal workers do this for issues that will be argued and decided in the familycaught, they frequently seem to come spectacularly totally unstuck!
I attribute this “surprise” to the irrelevance and misleading nature of published “judgements” and “legislation”, compared to what actually seems to pass in the dreamworld of the familycaught. The “judgements” and “legislation” relating to the familycaught are just “marketing tools” to suck in innocent customers, who haven’t done their homework. Despite what they say, “judgements” for publication are only those that convey the marketing image that suits these “judges”.
This isn’t just a matter of experienced legal workers fucking up work for their paying customers. The worst stories in this vein relate to cases involving these legal worker’s own children. This appears to show that when dropped into the familycaught, otherwise skilled and competent legal workers can come every bit as unstuck, as any self representing parent!
To me, this seems to imply that the familycaught has strayed far far far from the legislation and degenerated to a self-congratulatory self-referential world, where weighing of evidence is incompetent, prejudiced and manipulated, to corrupt at worst.
Principles of what cares for children and what damages children appear to be sacrificed, to putting parents into such a position that the more financially successful parent is extorted/pressured to pay for an appeal, to try to obtain just the lowest tolerable standard of protection for their children.
Case management is disposed towards maximising the number of “hearings” (aka featherbedding), rather than honouring the Care of Children Act’s requirement for appropriately quick disposition of disputes. A good example, is calling for a psychologist report, when none is warranted. It is just screwing wasted money out of the Government and taxpayer.
These problems in the familycaught can be repaired in weeks, when the appropriate actions are taken. This will only happen when politicians accept the responsibility for supervising the familycaught, which hasn’t been addressed within the “judicial” profession, through the last 28 years. I realise that this seems to be a breach of constitutional convention. I am only suggesting this, due to the vacuum of management from within the “judicial” hierarchy. It does bring out the point, that our constitution does not provide effective management of conflicts of interest involving “judges” and this problem requires urgent (and successful) attention from our legislators.
Our children do deserve familycaught services that meet minimum safe standards and at a cost that meets true professional standards.
In the meantime, only gamble in familycaught, with spare money or children, or wives you want to lose.
The familycaught mainly hurts those who take it too seriously, so have a sense of humour about it!
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 14th November 2008 @ 6:17 pm
An Update today I recieved a call from IRD about 4.30pm this afternoon June a team leader dealing with discruntled paying parent …myself asked me to contact our international dept which deals with issues paying parents might have.
I thanked her and stated no thank you June she asked me why? I said because I’ve had 8yrs experience of dealing with lawyers, child pyscologists, IRD caseworkers, CSA caseworkers and I probably know more about Australian Child Support than all of you put together e.g. what’s time frame of child support in WA? June aaaahhh I think it’s same as ours hence reciporcal arrangement. My answer no June in NZ it’s 19yrs old in Aussie (WA) it’s 18yrs old not the same June but never mind June I to didn’t know this until someone started taking my money then yes i decided I must know why, when, what, and how these people untilised my working dollars. June said I was probably right.
June then told me a letter written by my son along with a supporting letter from his employer attesting to the fact he has casual employment (rostered fulltime) with my details D.O.B CS reference number,tax code details and name along with his details exactly as above SIGNED in his hand sent to CSA should do the trick. It then gets CSA to ask my ex-wife hmmmmm why has your son sent in this extensive information and you haven’t alerted us to any such change in his circumstances?
Perhaps we need to take a closer look…
So yes everyone I’ve sent my son the necessary details and hopefully there will be success.
I must add if this does end I still want to carry on the fight for a review of current practice model etc… for all the other paying parents who are treated like criminals
Comment by H — Fri 14th November 2008 @ 9:55 pm
#128
I seem to remeber an editorial in the esteemed publication “NZ Lawyer” saying exactly the same thing. The Fc is a joke, it makes arbitary judgments, breaches natural justice and is an embarresment to the legal “profession”.
Hookers are more professional!
Comment by unamed — Fri 14th November 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Iv paid 16 year and not bin able to see my kids becouse she gt all doped up and here mom took the kids and left the state there is very much a need for change!!!!!!!!
Comment by Mark — Mon 26th January 2009 @ 2:04 pm