Non-resident Father’s Perspectives on Paying
“It’s not just about the money”: non-resident father’s perspectives on paying [109 KB PDF]
Key words: child support, fatherhood, non-residential fathers, meaning of money
Abstract
We examine fathers perceptions of paying child support using in-depth interviews with 26 separated or divorced non-residential fathers in Australia.While the majority of fathers agree that continued financial support of their children is important, child support is a difficult component of their lives. Difficulties arise not only because of the financial costs, but changes in the father-provider role after separation. The payment of child support is viewed as a continuation of the provider role, but fathers have little or no control over how much money is contributed and how that money is spent. Consequently, most fathers question the amounts they have been assessed to pay and how the money is being spent on their children. These responses suggest that policy reforms aimed at changing non-residential fathers child support behaviours need to be sensitive to non-material aspects of the payments not just capacity to pay.
On the surface this looks great but consider the underlying ideology of the researchers as seen in the language and methodology.
I will leave readers to consider the article and comment..
Note that this sort of research is all about child tax compliance and how to increase. It presupposes the validity of a child support tax.Officials here at the Family Commission are “researching ” into the “costs of children”. They also accept the validly of a child support tax.Its all about collecting revenue and nothing to do with supporting children. Its an unjust an unfair system that produces ridiculous results and puts “liable” parents into financial slavery to IRD.
The only way to make politicians do anything is to make Child Support an election issue. That means putting it an keeping it on the election agenda by direct action.The only ones who can change the current mess are the politicians, but they are not doing anything because we let them get off easy! There are three months till an election its time to start getting active.
Imagine the press turning up to Wellingtons IRD call centre where a “tent City” has been erected by parents who pay child support tax. Imagine if that happened in Wellington, Christchurch, Auckland, Tauranga….
Regards
Scrap
Caring dads are slaves to the government in reality. It is best to get out of the country Dads ! It is the government who let these mad women do this to us, the government can pay for them. The MPs and judges will only only care about us when their massive tax payer expense accounts are frozen. No slavery !
Comment by Perseus — Tue 29th July 2008 @ 11:14 pm
So called Child Support. like the so called Family Court. like so called Child Youth and Family Services. ETC are named (Spin Doctored) to give the illution that they are helping agencies – Everytime you use their name you are telling yourself and the recipiant of you speech-/-writing that you agree with the illution – In a sense one fights against thier own concversation, their own writing every time the name of the so called helping agency is used
Someone listening-/-reading what you are speaking-/-writing of in relation to these so called helping agencies is immediately confronted with the confusion and thus nominates the speaker-/- writer as strange or at the very least a little bent
Take this thought into the public arena including Parliament and you are most likely to get a vote against change that will not so called improve the helping agency.
It might be easier to get accurate name changes to these agencies than to change the legislation that the helping agency operates under
Just a thought
Onward
Ration Shed – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Wed 30th July 2008 @ 12:36 am
So called non residential Fathers is yet another term that one automatically assumes the DAD walked – Those of us that have been bitten by any of the so called helping agencies begin to realise that DADs-/-Fathers-/-Grand Dads etc. that have had their Kids stolen are assumed guilty by the most unobservant in society so your beaten the second you nominate to critisise any helping agency
Whats the answer?
Onward
Ration Shed – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Wed 30th July 2008 @ 12:44 am
Why do we only imagine such a stance as “tent city” outside the IRD? I’m live in Wellington – hands up who else lives in or close to the windy city. Like you say Scrap, it’s time for action but lets not just talk about it.
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 30th July 2008 @ 9:42 am
Hi Tigerseye,
I also live close to Wellington. You can leave your contact detaiuls for me to get back to you on 0508CallDad (0508 2255 323) or write to me at [email protected].
Comment by allan Harvey — Wed 30th July 2008 @ 5:56 pm
The government knows that child poverty exists in NZ so they try to fool the world in our statistics.
When families receive benefits,for whatever reason,the amount they receive is so low that it is impossible to survive.The government throws in $70 a week per child knowing that it is still impossible for those families to survive.
They know that’s not looking good in the eyes of the world.
So what they then do is make men who are high income earners pay up to $400 a week in child support so as to make it appear that on average,every child in NZ is being financially well looked after.
It doesn’t matter to this government that some children are worth $400 a week and others are only worth a few dollars a week after they’ve helped pay for the family rent out of their share of the benefit.
Comment by rosie — Wed 30th July 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Good point Rosie.
Also, interesting to point out for those who read the report, most of the Fathers who were happy with their payments were paying virtually nothing each week.
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 30th July 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Did anyone see on the news the other night Peter Dunne and his current concern. Its not about these dads being crippled by child support his concern was how ugly the new microphones in parliament look!! How do we ever think we’ll get anywhere with a dickhead like that looking after such an important portfolio and playing with people’s lives!!
Comment by Karen — Thu 31st July 2008 @ 3:44 pm
That dickhead won’t be around for much longer Karen.
There was a cartoon in our local paper not long ago where he was in bed with John Key and he was asking him what his policies were.
He’d jump into bed with any party.But I think his days in politics are nearing an end.
Comment by rosie — Thu 31st July 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Peter Dunne is the ultimate political survivor. Ohariu-Belmont is hugely loyal to him, he will be back and he wants his same job whatever the rest of the administration. Maybe he even has ambitions of being upgraded to cabinet status. Remember this was the guy who got the worm to turn for him about came in with seven MP’s time before last.
Allan
Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 1st August 2008 @ 9:29 am
This phrase is perhaps the most telling.
Researchers have noted that often the little we know about fathers experiences of child support come from mothers reports (Seltzer and Brandreth 1994; Smyth 2004).
Eva Sodhi on her website had an article titled Manufacturing Research.(now archived).
Basically the upshot is that research about men is conducted by asking women. The case in point she uses is research made into fathers and contact. The research was conducted by surveying mothers and asking mothers about how fathers felt about the level of contact that the had. The authors concluded by asking mothers that fathers were happy about the level of contact that they had.
In “Perceptions are not Facts” Eva points out that researchers uses a combination of language and research methodology to hide or distort their research findings.
The authors of this paper use the term “Many” fathers fail to meet their obligations.
By introducing this emotive language in the introduction is a trick used to trick the brain by appealing to the emotions, once emotions are engaged rational, logical thought is more difficult.
Basically the authors made their judgement by page three.
Comment by phillip — Fri 1st August 2008 @ 11:41 am