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

Miriam Long – Admistrative Review Officer

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 7:18 pm Thu 26th June 2008

Miriam Long is an IRD Administrative Review Officer based in Wellington.  It has become increasingly apparent that Miriam Long appears to hold a grudge against male liable parents. I have dealt with a number of Dads who have been at the reciving end of Miriam Long’s administrative review decisions.

I am in the process of coordinating a complaint to have Mariam Long stopped from hearing administrative reviews.

If you have experienced the Long hand at an administrative review please leave a comment and I will contact you back.

If you are a dad taking part in an administrative  review of Child Support Tax and you are told that Miriam Long is your Review Officer demand another Review Officer.




  1. Well done Scrap

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 26th June 2008 @ 11:43 pm

  2. Surely she cannot be half as bad as Mark Miller from North Shore?
    Could we perhaps have a link to a photo of this Miriam Long so as to have someone to focus our contempt on?
    I had another shocker from Napier whose name escapes me but will come back with it.The files are so huge that it will take some time to find.
    If you can do this kind of thing then I am going to have a crack at getting Mark Miller removed too.
    So you just get some complaints together and write to the head of IRD Child Support then keep ringing every day till they get sick of you and do something.Is that the process?
    I have been studying your guys Republican Party website.
    What kind of percentage of support do you have?
    Is there any hope of getting sufficient proportion of the vote to get some representation in the beehive?
    Most of my friends do not know of your policies.Looking at them they do not seem unreasonable.
    All being fair and equal any men with any sense would be voting for you.
    A vote for any party with Helen Clark,Judith Collins,Sue Bradford or Peter Dunne in it seems suicidal so you guys are a good option.
    Good luck.You have my endorsement and support for what that is worth!

    Comment by whanga — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 12:23 am

  3. Does Miriam live at [address removed by moderator at request of IRD]
    She was only paid $8,000 or so in legal aid in 2006 and 2007 respectively.So not busy in that field.This does not include her payments from IRD.
    Does she specialize in doing Admin Reviews?
    Why would someone want to get involved in that kind of work.Consider their mindset if you will?
    Must be desperate for the paltry $150 or so per hour(including travelling time) that IRD pay out so these “people”
    Being banned may hurt her and have some bearing on the standard of Restaurant she eats at in Brooklyn every night.

    Comment by whanga — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 1:03 am

  4. Careful – Bureacrats and there contractors need to be taken to task as I do in the WINZ area however its those who have created the system that need the hardest knock while most certainly riding the system of the sick that follow there decrees.

    Good on you James – Go Hard my friend


    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 8:18 am

  5. It never ceases to amaze me….the systems that IRD and WINZ have in place and the lengths they go to get every last cent they can from a father, while there appears to be the flimsiest (if any) systems in place to prevent, investigate or prosecute for DPB fraud.
    How many fathers who are being tortured by IRD and WINZ, have complained and provided evidence to WINZ and IRD about thier X-partner defrauding the government, with no or neglible action taken?
    Shouldn’t the resources and staff allocated to preventing, investigating and prosecuting fraudsters be at least equal to the resources and staff allocated to torturing liable parents, who are essentially being forced to cover the costs of their X-partner’s fraud. Extortion!

    Comment by xsryder — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 10:25 am

  6. Hi guys, I am sorry for changing the subject but i think it is real bad seeing these police officers getting aqquited of their charges after bashing a poor helpless young man in his cell, when you need the police they are nowhere to be seen and when you dont need them they are in your face, sad isnt it?

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 11:28 am

  7. Hi guys, I am sorry for changing the subject but i think it is real bad seeing these police officers getting aqquited of their charges after bashing a poor helpless young man in his cell, when you need the police they are nowhere to be seen and when you dont need them they are in your face, sad isnt it?

    Please keep on subject. If you want to discuss this then post yourself.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 1:02 pm

  8. Miriam Long is a review Officer I refuse to have. She did two for me and they are bad. I understand hers to be the case where Mummy earning $197,000 is assessed to pay the mimimum of $775 a year. In several areas UoF have collected reports on Review Officers and blackballed those whose decisions are peculiar (read anti-male if you so wish.)

    Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 3:20 pm

  9. Dare I suggest reading – Woman: Not in Her Place? – at the Ration Shed for a few clues here – Onward

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 7:46 pm

  10. I see the spies have been watching us again, that’s how they spend all the Child support money obviously, tossers !

    Comment by Martin Swash — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 8:20 pm

  11. Yeah,awesome joke ay!I published her address which was so ridiculously easy to find just by googling her name.
    It was the first thing that came up.
    She complained about someone building something in her neighbourhood and did not use a PO Box as an address for service.
    I did it just to see if it would be removed or not.
    I was not trying to suggest that anyone bother Miriam or anything like that.
    As Jim so rightly says it those who create the system that need the hardest knock.
    At least it shows the pin-headed sexists at the IRD Child Support read this site.Maybe,just maybe one or two of them will take notice and instigate some change from within their appalling department.That really would be the best for change to come from within.
    I really have no idea how those “people” go to work every day and/or sleep at night.
    It will probably bring me another audit.I have had them before because I am a male who will not be shafted without standing up for myself.Bring on your audits you sad tossers.Last time they audited me I got a great accountant and got a $17,000 retrospective tax credit.It was about 3 years ago and still they have never advised the result of their audit.It was such a joke.Lots of officers and cassette tapes and the same questions asked again and again in different ways.
    I really fear for the future of NZ if this IRD child support department and the laws they discriminate by are not radically cleaned up.

    Comment by whanga — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 9:07 pm

  12. There is more about Mark Miller and some other sad stories on the blogspot
    NZ Child Support Truth.

    Comment by whanga — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 9:30 pm

  13. So IRD have requested the removal of the address.

    Given that the address is public domain one wonders why they waste taxpayer money doing so. (Search the PDF and the address will pop up)

    What IRD should be doing is having all Miriam Longs decisions that have crippled male liable parents reviewed and her conduct investigated.

    I will lay money that IRD cannot find one male parent who earns $197,000 paying the minimum. Miriam Long’s decisions against male liable parents continually see their assessments increase.

    Just this week I am aware of a decision by Miriam Long where a father who is unemployed and cannot find work has been assessed as having the “potential” to earn over $80,000.

    This is a common experience of male liable parents who experience the
    Long hand of maid Miriam.

    Maybe IRD will supply figures of how many male liable parents have ended up in debt after a review decision by Long. I know a few!

    Child Support believe it or not will become child support truth before the election. Officials are responsible and will be held to account as will politicians.

    What really scares them is they have no idea of what is going to happen and don’t realize that the campaign has already begun.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 9:52 pm

  14. I had a Miriam long decision this week from another unemployed Father who she deemed should pay child support on a salary of $55,000. He doesn’t have it and is flat broke but Ms Long wants him bankrupt but of course he looses everything and still keeps his Child Support debt which survives even bankrupcy.

    Perhaps they wonder why guys dissapear overseas.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 27th June 2008 @ 10:45 pm

  15. Miriam Long clearly likes to see men commit suicide. Perhaps someone will do it at her home; we all know the address now. But the problem isn’t just this one man-hating psychopath. She is allowed to do what she does by the legislation that was designed to enslave men in the service of women.

    Comment by blamemenforall — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 1:10 am

  16. Hi Martin, you are right, the spies are watching, cypfs social workers copy these blogs and use them in court, they tried that with another blog i was on but what they dont know is we are good friends with all the people on that blog

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 11:08 am

  17. The changes to child support recently made in Aus sounded interesting. Does anyone have any information about how liable fathers are finding the new regime there?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 10:05 am

  18. Too early yet for getting a feel for the Aussie changes. Lots of squeals from custodial parents (mainly women) and the changes are pretty bureacratic and yet to find out how much a nightmare that is for the CSA (IRD) themselves and non-custodial parents.
    Word in NZ IRD is they like the changes but won’t venture there till have been well bedded down and shown to work in Aussie. Also Dunne will never allow the research money that went into the developments there which were backed with a default concept of shared care and fat chance of that coming in here in the current political climate.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 1:40 pm

  19. Have had M Miller and have to say he was not the worst one I have had, Edwards (12 Admin reviews in total from this one) would be the worst and is very one sided but did have the pleasure of making her inforce the same punishment on my ex when I was the custodial parent but she did not like it only little bit but enjoyed putting her through the discomfort. The best review office I have had over the years would be R Webb was a fair a just officer compared to most.

    Comment by SNMP — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 10:27 pm

  20. Unfortunately Roger Webb isn’t doing any admin reviews at the moment. He is now working full time for IRD on other matters and has almost nothing to do with Child Support. Roger was fairly unusual as he doesn’t have a Family Law background. His area of expertise was in employment law but he did a lot of Child Support reviews to offer some balance to his practice. His departure has left a big gap in Tauranga admin reviews. I liked him so much I once choose to have my review heard in Tauranga which is 500kms from my home base.
    Roger’s decision were not only fair and reasonable he was able to explain very well how he came to his decision and outlined at the initial interviews matters he would need to weigh so people understood where he was coming from and felt that the decision he would reach would consider both sides in a balanced way. “Just” isn’t a word that can be appklied to Child Support in my view. While it sits to allow one parent to repeatedly attack another therre is no justice in that. The very crude 40% of nights for shared care is unjust by definition. Thankfully both the UK and the Aussies are working on changes tro these areas in their CS reforms.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Thu 3rd July 2008 @ 5:24 pm

  21. Tu Ne Cede Malis

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 10:14 am

  22. Our superior Australian friends are considering moving to an Income Shares approach, which more fairly takes into account the costs to the non-custodial parent.

    The paper may be downloaded, from the bottom of the following page:

    Look particularly closely at page 14 onwards.

    This material could perhaps be used as supporting evidence, for a Departure Review taken from IRD to the familycaught, particularly when the custodial parent has a high income or asset level?

    Where a parent feels that the existing child support formula is quite unfair, the use of this material may support a case for retrospective changes to assessments, possibly resulting in refunds running to many $thousands.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 2:17 pm

  23. The Aussie system is now in place and a happening thing over there,
    Income sharing formula as you say, shared care from 25% of time and at a sliding scale based on contact and other good idea is that overtime and second jobs are not liable for CS while a guy rebuilds after separation.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 5:46 pm

  24. Hey SNMP, which “Edwards” are you talking about? I just had a Christine Edwards do my review and yet to see the decision. I had Stewart Benson last year… I felt he was very fair.

    Comment by GM — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 9:39 pm

  25. At #22 above I gave reference to an Australian paper, by Patrick Parkinson.

    A much longer paper, giving the background to these proposals (now implemented – says Allan Harvey) is available at:$file/best_interests_children_summary.pdf

    Both of these papers are dated 2005.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 11:16 pm

  26. At #22 above I gave reference to the summary of an Australian paper, by Patrick Parkinson.

    A much longer paper, giving the background to these proposals (now implemented – says Allan Harvey) is available at:$file/best_interests_children_full-%20report.pdf

    Both of these papers are dated 2005.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 11:22 pm

  27. Australian Child Support Re comments above at 17-18-23

    I have contacted several Australians re their knowledge of the effects of changes to Child Support – I have had the first reply and have posted it the Ration Shed E-Group

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 4th July 2008 @ 11:27 pm

  28. Hi GM.. Yes Christine was the one I had as well. I would be expecting it not to go your way especially if it was the custodial parent that asked for the review. My last Admin Review where I was the liable parent I ended up paying 47% of my income for two children.. So it did not go well for me and almost sent me bankrupt.

    Comment by SNMP — Sat 5th July 2008 @ 8:55 pm

  29. Can anyone provide me information about Christine Edwards? I have a guy I’m supporting had a review with her last week. Rude, arrogant, intimidating were three words he used. She refused to disclose her qualifications or location. He is a bit green but he was told by IRD she was a “specalist” they used for difficult cases. I couldn’t find her listed on the Family Law Section of the Nz Law Society.
    Allan Harvey
    You can reply directly to me on [email protected] if you choose.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 7:14 pm

  30. Allan, The best information I can give you is don’t be male… His comments are mild compared to my own thoughts and all I can say is thank god my kids are all grown up now and left home so I don’t have to deal with pieces of work like that lady again.. Have had 12 decissions completed by her and none have gone well even when one of them I was the custodial parent. She is not to be trusted and her decissions are boarding on illegal, if you are left with little more than the dole from your take home pay you are doing well. By no means are her decissions “fair and just” as directed by the act..
    Happy to share my filing cabinet full of my details and her decisions if it will be of any help.

    Comment by SNMP — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 8:05 pm

  31. Hi SNMP and others,
    If you or others have paperwork to share about Reviews or Court decisions UoF is happy to accumulate and study them. You can forwad stuff to me at [email protected] .
    Under s124 of the Child Support Act we are probably “Advisors in the sphere of Relationship Counselling” as well as personally I am a bona fide social worker and public servant. (This last sentence was a party political broadcast for the snoops on this list who are most welcome and also most welcome to check my credentials.)
    If you e-mail me I can give you address details for a posted submission or courier as well. Sounds to me that collecting data on Christine Edwards would be a service to men. She would not be the first review offiver who shows open bias, nor the first review officer blackballed for their bias.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 9:34 am

  32. Although presenting some practical difficulties, it may be possible to trip up those Admin Review Officers who cannot resist shafting men and enriching women at every opportunity. It would require two similar sets of parents working together. Both could “separate” for a short time and engage the CS system (unless they were couples that had already separated). One couple would have the mother in the liable parent role while the other couple would have the father. Both custodial parents then apply for admin reviews on the same grounds with very similar cases involving only minor differences in figures. If the Review Officer then favoured the woman in both cases, this would be used as the basis of a formal complaint to the Officer’s professional organisation (they are usually lawyers). With publicity, the complaint would draw out numerous other cases that would be added to increase the strength of the complaint.

    In the meantime, please, those men who have been shafted in either the custodial or liable parent role, make formal complaints to the officers’ professional bodies.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 3:28 pm

  33. The difficulty is the Colonel Secret Squirrel of the IRD says thou shall not tell about your Admin Review decisions on threat of torture, further Tax investigation and further contact with your ex.
    If taken at the exact wording used when posted your decision you get into shit even showing it to your solicitor or local UoF advisor in “Marriage Guidance”. Absurd those trusted and noble advocates should be barred from helping people out with advice.
    IRD will argue around s124 of their act but hey write to me; I’m a very public spirited servant, a bone fide social worker and a well respected and trusted advisor in the sphere of relationship counselling. My contact details remain [email protected]

    Comment by allan Harvey — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 4:04 pm

  34. Dear Allan and Hans,

    Section 124 deals with Court Proceedings and the Courts requirement in trying to maintain secrecy.
    Administrative reviews are a rung lower and not priveleged to the same.

    Kind Regards
    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    (09)271 3020

    Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 6:32 pm

  35. I absolutely agree Paul,
    However IRD staff led by Colonel Secret Squirell think secrecy is paramount and that we must never know that some CS staff are normal humans and might fart or harbour emotions like empathy etc. They are by the letter of the law they dream up even if it is way beyond the legislation.
    You will see by my posts I’m openly inviting them to have a crack at me if they so wish. We need some test cases and I feel very secure.
    I normally keep a copy of the Act beside me when I need to phone them as their knoweldge of their own Act is appaling and their interpretatioin of legislation shocking.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 7:10 pm

  36. GM (#24)

    Stuart Benson is a poisonous little queer with an inferiority complex and, based on my experience, an issue with being dealt a hand in life that includes a penis.

    The a*se-wipe threatened to throw out my support person even though I had confirmation in writing from the CSA that I could have someone present.

    Then threatened to remove my living allowance etc etc etc. and then magically set my income at $60,000 and instantly created a “debt” of over $2000 on which the CSA merrily levied 10% (for doing abso-f***ing-lutely NOTHING).

    You have to love living in New Zealand and being TAXED for having children :-((

    Comment by Ethos — Thu 24th July 2008 @ 2:19 pm

  37. Hi Scrap,

    Great to see you are still busy with all of this on top of your other responsibilities.

    The only real answer to NZ child TAX is to throw out the baby and the bath water.

    Take the 2.4 BILLION dollars paid annually as “sole parent social security benefit” (or the “DPB” if you are a Sue-the-slapper follower).

    The CS Act apparently exists to facilitate “benefit recovery”.

    This means that the “child support” you pay is given to the government if you EX is on a benefit like the DPB: your kids see NO MONEY FROM YOU!

    But we (every working NZer) pay TAX to cover ALL benefits. And we have laws that prevent “double dipping” (Government taxing us twice for the same thing).


    Hang on, they ARE taxing us twice for the DPB.

    Here are the numbers so you can understand how worthwhile it is to collect “benefit recovery”.

    It costs about $75 million a year to run the CS agency part of IR.

    Each year they collect (approx.) $150 million in “benefit recovery”.

    So this means there is about $75 million recovered after costs out of an annual DPB bill of $2,400 million….and that’s way less than 5%.


    Why are we paying so many people to polish their bums on taxpayer-funded seats when they are so TOTALLY UNPRODUCTIVE?

    Your guess is as good as mine, but until the current system is replaced (reform will never do it and tweaking something that is so FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN is another complete waste of time) Clark, Carter, Cunliffe, Dunne and Sue-the-slapper will keep on TAXING US FOR HAVING CHILDREN.

    Comment by tweedledumb — Thu 24th July 2008 @ 2:41 pm

  38. how do ird put a caveiet on someones house, my partner was a bit behind in child support and without any further ado, no previous letter telling they had done so they threatened to sell his house in 10days,, how can his ex push them to do this…… the way I went and sorted it with the ombudsmen in Christchurch, ( i had to be pushy to get a appointment) and she sorted it in 24 hours and returned the $1200 they claimed he was behind and took out of his business account, and then his ex was stopped from applying for reviews for two years,,,she has made up for it since though, has this happened to anyone else

    Comment by Karen — Thu 24th July 2008 @ 3:45 pm

  39. All the Family Caught and CSA crap is designed to maximise income for the government to pay for the massive amounts of womens DPB/Social Security payments. It is best for Men to leave the country where the wife is, under current legislation. You will always be completely screwed by the government agencies.
    The government wants you out of your kids’ lives, but the future consequences of gangs and delinquency will one day show that families needed fathers and the government were only interested in money and let society rot

    Comment by Perseus — Fri 25th July 2008 @ 12:44 am

  40. I am sorry you (and others) take this attitude Perseus.
    Kids need Dads. To leave is to opt out and contibute to a completely matriarchial society. In my view Fatherhood is a noble calling and I’m not opting oiut just because it has a few financial costs. My costs are worth much more than mere dollars.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 25th July 2008 @ 10:43 am

  41. Well said Allan – I have taken much stick from Men because I opt to Father my Son on an Invalids Benefit because of well documented Heart and reflux hassles. I have had NO help from WINZ and have done my best to berate the current Govt into changing the way DADS are destroyed when they are on Benefits – Being a DAD is NOT negotiable withever the statis of the Father.

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 25th July 2008 @ 12:12 pm

  42. I had a Long review on 6/4/2009. I believe she had already made her decision before I even arrived. She took no notice of the facts showing a loss in our bussiness for the last 5 years,& decided I should have an income of $58000.00 when it is in fact zero.I wish to take this to the Family court and would be gratefull for any advice.Have battled for 13 years and had enough.Can someone please help.

    Comment by John Feast — Mon 11th May 2009 @ 9:06 pm

  43. I’ve been there Allan…
    flat broke and so sleeping on the garage floor of a mate in order to not play rent
    and meet the child tax payments.
    It was harrowing.
    IRD were viciously unconcerned about the plight of myself and no doubt thousands of other fathers.
    It remains one of the darkest periods of my entire life.
    IRD have a long history now of such misandry and it is best to avoid thier clutches if at all possible I reckon.

    Comment by Skeptik — Mon 11th May 2009 @ 10:47 pm

  44. Taking matters to Fanily Court is a difficult task on your own. I have helped several look at the possibility and most opt not to continue. Flick me an e-mail at [email protected] and I can go over things with you.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 11th May 2009 @ 11:22 pm

  45. Allan and Jim,
    I agree kids need Dads,
    but don’t forget the fact remains that through the processes of some fundamentally grotesque laws many men in NZ are reduced to being slaves of the state once they divorce /seperate
    – and then they’re systematically broken.
    That effectively means thier ability to father is smashed.
    Not only that it often means thier ability to even care for themselves is severly hampered.(I’ve met guys sleeping in cars to meet their child tax payments and afford the supervised ‘access’ that uncorroborated accusations of domestic violence have wrought on them.
    We’re talking here about the full brutal Orwellian force of modern day fem-faccism.
    Better then to retreat to safe territory which may very well mean leaving NZ.
    I wish I could think of a verbal phrase to describe the process in all it’s horrors.
    Perhaps others here have such a phrase that could be useful in conversations?

    Comment by Skeptik — Mon 11th May 2009 @ 11:23 pm

  46. I know that some guys feel that way. Unfortunately some even suicide.
    However such actions are terrible for children. It is absolutely the worst legacy you can leave your children. The trauma can go on for several generations.

    I once submitted an affidavit to the FC that outlined how I felt that is a way of directly bringing the issue before the system. It was never discussed in Court but Judge Neal three times informed me, “I have read your affidavit Mr Harvey” but it was clear he was going to seek other strategies to ensure the contents of the affidavit were never up for examination in Court.
    I walked out of Court that day without a PO so it worked for me.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 11th May 2009 @ 11:43 pm

  47. Just curious…How do you eat and pay the power and phone bills etc on zero income? Cheers

    Comment by Dawn — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 2:38 am

  48. Better to leave NZ than stick around paying exorbitant CS and other taxes thus being filched – the money only ends up paying the people who systemically abduct your children AND OTHER FATHERS.
    It’s a no-brainer.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 8:15 am

  49. We know who you are Skeptic et al.
    It may work at the moment but we are plotting with the Hauge Convention to chase you and extract every last cent wherever you go.
    Just like Aussie will offer no place to hide we plan to make the whole world that way.

    Comment by IRD Officer — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 11:09 am

  50. It may work at the moment but we are plotting with the Hauge Convention to chase you and extract every last cent wherever you go.
    Just like Aussie will offer no place to hide we plan to make the whole world that way.

    You may think this humorous IRD Impersonator, but consider what happened in Zimbabwe when the government was finished dealing to the white farmers. It then turned its attention to everyone else – and the laws, prisons, brutal enforcement officers and widespread corruption were so bedded in that there was next to nothing anybody could do about it.

    Not everyone reading this board is a father, or particularly affected personally by any of these laws – yet. But everyone is one bureaucratic error away from becoming caught up in it all. You are no exception.

    Comment by rc — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 12:02 pm

  51. The part of the administrative review where your ex is allowed to see all your accounts and balances etc is against the law, but of course the IRD is above the law.

    Comment by Scott B — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 12:29 pm

  52. To IRD Officer… of course you are an IRD officer!

    Comment by Scott B — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 12:30 pm

  53. After a while under pressure bureaucrats or others who defend their position against presentations in probative fact, crack. They change their game plan and invariably qualify their position burning bridges or by defending the lighting of new fires.

    An impersonation, or for legitimate reason an exposure to comment by an IRD officer is not unexpected in an environment when pressure is on practiced culture likely unlawful. It is interesting the officer features a comment relative to the Hague convention, which is either working knowledge or personal experience: I would suspect the latter.

    The main point to amplify whether bureaucrat or citizen, is that the author is vicious and in the rush to threaten the readers of the site that they will eventually be brought to justification for the error of their ways is a complete absence of comprehension that there is another and neglected argument. That argument is the child. It is woeful that those any with the power of present social and legal practice would write in reply, and in viciousness, excluding the reasonable access a child should have to be protected by a balanced and fair debate.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 12:59 pm

  54. OK, they’ve finally driven me to a point where I can no longer live in NZ. The bastards expect me to pay $1600 per month for 3 kids, one of which is 18 and is working under the table. I am expected to give her almost one third of my net income. How the F is that fair! $1600 per month is way more than it costs to raise 3 kids! Can anyone tell me how hard it would be for the IRD Nazi’s to track me down if I get a PAYE job in Oz and will I be assessed on the same criteria as if I were in NZ? I have read conflicting info on this? Thanks in advance.And please don’t anyone tell me to apply for an Admin Review! Been there 4 times so far and won’t waste another minute of my time on those anti male retards!


    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 5:03 pm

  55. Here’s another biased review officer to add to your list.
    Jennifer Anderson of Dunedin. I’d be interested in knowing how other mens reviews went with her.

    Comment by Joe — Thu 18th March 2010 @ 11:31 am

  56. Two of our members have had recent experiences with Admin Review Officer Mark Miller. Apart from looking like a complete twat with having the world’s most ridiculous moustache, the man is an utter arse and bully who suffers from short man’s syndrome. We recommend that when faced with an adminstrative review you expressly ask not for Mark Miller, which is your right. Cut off this twat’s sucking on the State’s teat and make him earn his living like we have to. JB for GerryMen.

    Comment by GerryMen — Tue 23rd August 2011 @ 2:24 pm

  57. Just wanted to note – for the record – I recently lost an admin review with Miriam Long. My sons’ father hides his income through working offshore and channelling 70% of his income through a family trust, to avoid paying child support. It’s very hard to find evidence of that sort of thing other than a big flash house and overseas trips, which just ‘suggest’ he’s earning a lot more than he says he is (38k). But if Miriam Long had wanted to, she could have just gone with her gut – she doesn’t always side with the women 🙂 I’m not too bitter – the trust he is channelling all his money into benefits our kids eventually, so they’ll be looked after. And at the end of the day, we have to remember, it is all about the kids. Just a bit harder for me in the meantime 😉

    Comment by Sarah — Fri 15th June 2012 @ 1:01 pm

  58. #58..good to see a female lose and it is suppose to be all about the kids and not how easy it can be for you

    Comment by Ford — Fri 15th June 2012 @ 1:31 pm

  59. #57 i meant

    Comment by Ford — Fri 15th June 2012 @ 1:32 pm

  60. @ Ford #58.

    #57 is just someone taking the piss.

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 15th June 2012 @ 2:29 pm

  61. worries…and they can piss all they like

    Comment by Ford — Fri 15th June 2012 @ 2:43 pm

  62. Aye an entitlement princess
    wishes Miriam Long had “gone with her gut”???
    Is that another way of saying ignore all the evidence provided, forget the idea of due process and the novel concept of justice, just decide on “Big flash house” must be loaded. Lets sting him.
    Troll looking for a wind up I reckon Ford

    Comment by Mits — Fri 15th June 2012 @ 5:13 pm

  63. haha not trolling, no. My post meant just what it said – I admit I had no evidence of what he was earning. It’s very difficult to get hard evidence of what someone else earns. At the end of the day, it would have to be “gut” – if someone can sustain a $503,000 mortgage and two week trips to Rarotonga on $38k taxable income, good on them. And even with industry inside information that nine firms in the industry pay three times his taxable income, I still couldn’t catagorically prove that he earned more – I had no bank statements, or pay slips. No wind-up was intended, I was just saying – decisions can go both ways. No one wins. And at the end of the day he walked away from our three gorgeous boys – so there is a loser, actually everyone loses, especially our children.

    Comment by Sarah — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 3:46 pm

  64. Sarah,
    I think you most definitely are trolling.
    First you piss and moan about what your ex is paying in ‘Child support’ behind his back.
    Then you call him a loser insinuating he’s a deadbeat Dad who abandoned his kids.
    I’d love to get his side of the story. I wouldn’t be too surprised if he has his reasons for being distant which don’t match with yours.
    Read the banner at the top of the site Sarah. It says:

    “promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience”.

    All you’ve given us is a clearer understanding that there’s one more woman (amongst millions more) who feels entitled to enter a male space and sling off uncorroborated accusations about a man. Very unoriginal, abusive and entitlist. What’s new, just another modern ’empowered’ woman I see.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 4:21 pm

  65. Sorry if I’ve peeved everyone off – you’re right, I didn’t read the top of the site. I didn’t realise what it was for, just got my knickers in a twist over a decision that didn’t go my way and launched right on in! Yep, always two sides to a story 🙂

    Comment by Sarah — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 4:34 pm

  66. Repty to Sarah#65

    And Sarah..Your attitude is so typical of a Kiwi woman mindset and you wonder why ‘where have the smart men gone’ see link below…And yes Sarah I will never ever associate myself with a Kiwi women ever again..

    Kind regards John Dutchie who has escaped the feminist cesspit called N.Z……………………Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 4:42 pm

  67. And for the record – I never meant he was a deadbeat loser – he’s got a good job, he works hard, he’s actually not a bad guy – what I meant was he’s lost his kids. And they’ve lost their Dad (two out of three have, anyway – one still holds out hope!). I just hope sometime soon he’ll wake up. I’m not going to give up on that. All this angst and anger is really no good for anyone. Give yourself a hug!

    Comment by Sarah — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 4:45 pm

  68. Haha – I’ve found myself a smart man. He’s 43, earns $165k a year, has three degrees, and is completely besotted by his own three children. There are lots of you left!!

    Comment by Sarah — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 4:47 pm

  69. Reply to Sarah#67

    Well Sarah I don’t need to give myself a hug I have an amazing, beautiful, intelligent,loving Asian lady partner for that,and I don’t longer abode in Feminist N.Z …

    And as for a hug..from a Kiwi woman ..thanks but I will politely decline your generous offer…I would rather hug a venomous snake then hug a Kiwi woman

    Kind regards to you Sarah… John Dutchie …Who has escaped the feminist cesspit called N.Z Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 4:58 pm

  70. Told you it was a troll
    “Haha Ive found myself a smart man” earning mega bucks so thats why Im on here moaning that Im not getting full whack from the first man.
    Give me strength
    Entitlement princess I reckon

    Comment by Mits — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 5:15 pm

  71. Sarah.. i bet he dosent see his kids because of you..your posts only go on about money..golddigger

    Comment by Ford — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 8:31 pm

  72. He sees his kids because of me. We split up because he chooses to live and work overseas, always has, always will. He’s as good a dad as he can be, he just pays $400 a month for three kiddies, may be unreasonable but I don’t think that’s right. The point I was initially making was that even if women think they’re in the right, when push comes to shove, without evidence the system will not rule in our favour – which is as it should be, even though it doesn’t suit me personally. Not all men are horrid, I know that, as I found a good one. And not all women are either. Lets not give up on that, for the sake of the kids.

    Comment by Sarah — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 10:48 pm

  73. Reply to Sarah#72

    ‘Lets not give up on that, for the sake of the kids.’….More of the same Kiwi woman feminist spin machine ….Rubbish…Its about ‘Me’

    Kind regards John Dutchie who has escaped the feminist cesspit called N.Z”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 5:08 am

  74. I see Sarah traded up.
    Typically hypergamous and STILL out to extract more from her ex.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 5:45 am

  75. Meanwhile the UK steps into the 21st century and finally recognizes fathers as EQUAL parents.

    this from a news report on the matter at –

    “Why the sudden reversal in the U.K.? Well, about one in five children from a broken home in Britain loses touch with the non-custodial parent (almost always the father) within three years and never sees them again. The social costs of fatherlessness can no longer be borne. So the dramatic turnaround represents acknowledgement of a truth that has long been apparent to anyone not blinkered by ideology: the absence of fathers in children’s lives is producing very bad social effects that exhaustive research links with fatherlessness: loss of self-esteem, truancy, delinquency, promiscuity, risk of sexual abuse, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, poor intimacy abilities in later life – and many others.”

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 6:28 am

  76. Bring it on! We need a law that forces men to take responsibility for fathering their children! I know most of you are battling to do so, and good on you – I’m sorry you have to battle. But there needs to be a legal consequence for the few men who don’t get involved with their kids. It’s heartbreaking to see the impact of fatherlessness.

    Comment by Sarah — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 8:35 am

  77. Reply to Sarah76

    ‘We need a law that forces men to take responsibility’ Really ….???….The same old …same old … Kiwi woman feminist spin machine in action..

    Any decent,caring honorable Man that sires a child/children to a Kiwi woman is a complete fool…Oh that includes me too…but that is a mistake I vow upon my blood to never ever make again…

    Kind regards John Dutchie who has escaped the feminist cesspit called N.Z”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 9:14 am

  78. about some legal consequence for all the women who lie and manipulate and use their kids and the courts to play their vindictive spiteful games..thatll happen when hell freezes over

    Comment by Ford — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 10:35 am

  79. #75..goes to show with all womens hype and bullshit about not needing men and can do it on their own..they cant..wherever a woman is involved..its a fucken mess

    Comment by Ford — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 10:42 am

  80. Of course we can’t do it alone! And I agree, some women are worse than some men. Unfortunately legal consequences are the only way to get through to them. It’s broken families that are the fucken mess – not just men, or just women. Disaster. And very sad.

    Comment by Sarah — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 10:59 am

  81. unfortunately the legal consequences are mainly enforced upon men

    Comment by Ford — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 11:01 am

  82. True. And as a mother of sons I see the education system designed around the needs of girls. Somewhere, something needs to change. The child support act is being reviewed, that’s a start. Submissions close soon – I hope you’re making submissions!

    Comment by Sarah — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 11:32 am

  83. lets hope its all sorted before your sons grow up and have kids to some manipulating cow..and i bet your not making submissions are you..why would you when the system works in your favour

    Comment by Ford — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 11:38 am

  84. I am actually – my partner pays the maximum $2518 a month and his partner earns $80 an hour as a contractor. The bill proposes that the custodial parent’s income is taken into account – is only fair – so I want to make sure that proposal follows through!

    Comment by Sarah — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 12:18 pm

  85. Oops not his partner – his ex. I’m his partner O_o

    Comment by Sarah — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 12:19 pm

  86. Sarah says – “there needs to be a legal consequence for the few men who don’t get involved with their kids.”

    Duh! As if there are no consequences. How blatantly daft.

    There are consequences for the many millions of men across the western world who don’t get involved with their kids.
    It’s called Child support, or as some of us refer to it Child Tax: the very thing you’re so keen to collect.

    Why are you here on a site for “promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience” spreading such ignorant misinformation?

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 5:19 pm

  87. #80..ill rephrase my comment of post #79..when a woman wants to separate as its mostly women that instigate divorce and separation and she wants to raise children on her own..all sher does is create a fucken mess..i.e self-esteem, truancy, delinquency, promiscuity, risk of sexual abuse, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, poor intimacy abilities in later life – and many others.”

    Comment by Ford — Sat 23rd June 2012 @ 7:12 pm

  88. #86 – I’m here because I want to understand. Who are you wanting to promote a clearer understanding to? Without testing each others understanding I don’t think we’ll achieve change – each side will present their case to policy-makers and politicians untested, and risk looking extremist. As an example, I’d like to see legislation requiring 50/50 care and imposing convictions for abandonment if either party didn’t provide that care. No child support, just 50/50 care and 50/50 splitting of bills. At the moment we don’t have that – so yes, I’m collecting child support as the other parent chooses life overseas. There’s a lot of anger and woman-hating around, no doubt individually it’s with good reason. But I’ve personally received the other end of a bad situation and refuse to believe all men are wankers 😉 will sign off now, anyway, as there’s lots to do and I just seem to be peeving people off on here. All the best.

    Comment by Sarah — Sun 24th June 2012 @ 10:10 am

  89. Reply to Sarah#86

    ‘imposing convictions for abandonment’…Really Sarah…And do you think all Fathers want to abandon there child/children…????

    And what about ‘imposing convictions’ on Kiwi Mothers that lay blatant false sexual allegations on the child/children Fathers…Because Kiwi women/mothers feel ….’Empowered’… to do so…???…And with there Kiwi women Feminists in the background with there encouragement words of ‘YOU GO GIRL’…!!!!

    Kind regards John Dutchie who has escaped the feminist cesspit called N.Z”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 24th June 2012 @ 10:46 am

  90. Im one of those fathers who has lived overseas since my breakup in 2006. A breakup that had me in depression and unable to work for 18 months with ongoing emotional problems becz she had an affair with a 14 year boy, ruined the marriage, our finances but escaped prison and kept the kids. Not her fault Im told. My life went from the hustle and bustle of family life to silence.I went as far away as I could to try and recover even just a small part of the man I could vaguely remember being, and spent all i had doing it. Poor decision but I only see that in hindsight. 6 years after the split i have reached a point of healing and forgiveness while still working on the alcohol problem it led me into. I talk to my ex nicely now and she with me. i hold no grudge. I can give her a hug when i see her and i wish her all happiness. I see my kids from time to time, all 5 of them. I want to see my 6 grandkids too. Emotionally Im still fragile but doing ok.

    I made a new life away from NZ. I could go back. I could become more involved in my family, but starting over again at my age seems like a huge mountain to climb. I pay my ex support each week for the kids still at home. I have no assets, no savings, but I do have some debt now. Recently had a huge bill from IRD for unpaid CS. I can never pay it. I cant even pay the interest. But will try I guess.

    I agree its only fair that men should be near their kids and have them 50/50 and pay a fair amount if they cant be there. Perfectly fair.I did ask for them for a year but was not allowed.

    Its just that sometimes when things happen and your brain is totally screwed up from a bad situation, and youre angry and depressed and bitter and spend years not caring if you live or die, and then realise if you go back you will be unable to survive because of huge CS, except by living under a bridge, fairness is the last thing youre thinking about. Cheers

    Comment by Clobbered — Sun 24th June 2012 @ 1:19 pm

  91. #90..the system has no morals

    Comment by Ford — Sun 24th June 2012 @ 1:37 pm

  92. Reply to Clobbered#90

    I really feel for you Clobbered

    Have you Feminist Kiwi women read Clobbered post…????

    And by the way Kiwi feminist women, what would have the outcome been if a… ‘Man’.. had sex with a 14 year old girl… I will tell you right now…He would have been sentence to a term of imprisonment..

    Kind regards John Dutchie who has escaped the feminist cesspit called N.Z”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦Free at long last

    And if the Man did escape a term of imprisonment… Then all of you Kiwi feminist women would be screaming blue murder …Am I correct Kiwi feminist women…????

    However if the situation is reversed and its a Kiwi feminist woman who had under age sex with a ‘Boy’…then that is considered a Kiwi woman been ’empowered’….’YOU GO GIRL’…

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 24th June 2012 @ 1:51 pm

  93. Reply to Ford#91

    Beg to differ Ford…The system holds the Male accountable for there so called morals.. However the system holds there morals of the ‘pussy pass’ syndrome for them poor, innocent, down trodden Kiwi feminist women….

    Kind regards John Dutchie who has escaped the feminist cesspit called N.Z”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 24th June 2012 @ 2:02 pm

  94. Sarah,
    Those women who really want to understand men’s experience actually show respect by shutting up and listening.
    They support a male space by only asking questions to get clarification if need be.
    The questions they ask aren’t baited with facetious sarcasm to create a shit test reaction, nor do they use leading questions either.
    They don’t jump into a male space and start grandstanding their views on men’s issues, nor putting down men as deadbeats behind their backs.
    They don’t go bellyaching about how much money they get from one man on the one hand and gloating about how much money they get from another man on the other, whilst trying to give an air of reasonable fairness with talk of 50 – 50 sharing.
    Such behavior does nothing to promote a clearer understanding of men’s experience.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 24th June 2012 @ 4:27 pm

  95. Reply to Clobbered @ #90.
    I’m sorry to hear you give such an account.
    In my experience of decades of listening to men give similar accounts it’s far from surprising however.
    Do you think it’s a good idea to be seeking out others offline for support to deal with such dreadful circumstances?

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 24th June 2012 @ 5:35 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

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

Skip to toolbar