Not the Dad, But Still Paying
Interesting figures from the USA
DNA test doesn’t stop Oklahoma man’s child support liability
Nearly 25 percent of about 3,000 paternity tests conducted by the state Department of Human Services from July 2007 through June ruled out the supposed father as the biological parent. Nationally, that number reaches nearly 30 percent, according to the American Association of Blood Banks.
Another example of one of the numerous flaws in the Child Tax Law, the same symptomatic themes keep emerging worldwide in Child Tax Collection.
Why? Because the underlying methodology of current child tax law is based on a flawed set of assumptions.
Such as: Fatherhood is seen in Child Tax Law as a purely economic equation, revenue collection. The Father is seen as liable even when proven innocent by a DNA test. In New Zealand a Father has no legal right to obtain a Paternity Test.
Child Tax is all about revenue collection for benefit recovery and spousal maintenance – its nothing to do with what’s best for kids.
Regards
Scrap
Judy Turners Paternity Bill seems to be dropped from the first full Parliamentary Order Paper dated 16 Dec 08. This despite assurances from MP’s. Will make further enquiries.
Bruce Tichbon
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Tue 30th December 2008 @ 12:10 pm
ALL the persecution and trauma that Dads are receiving from the state is simply due to economics. The state does not want both parents to claim Social security and it wants Dads to pay taxes and Child Support to recouperate the DPB paid to single mothers.
These measures were all initiated in USA after the government realised that their social security bill was rocketing after feminist legislation allowed unilateral divorces in the 70s. Despite the great traumas for Dads and Kids, they are introducing ever more draconian laws to recoup the DPB from Dads.
The massive fatherlessness has resulted in quite severe social damage
Comment by Perseus — Wed 31st December 2008 @ 2:29 am
Does anyone reading here know – has the blatant sexual discrimination of not allowing under NZ law for men to obtain paternity tests to see if they really are fathers or not ever been commented upon by the Human Rights Commission, Families Commission or Ministry for Social Development?
If so, I’m sure I wouldn’t be alone in being interested in their response to the issue.
If not, that would be hugely telling.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 31st December 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Hi Skeptic,
IRD, Families Commission, Family Section of Law Society and HRC are all aware of this situation and agree with us this is unfair. The parlimentary select committee did not make an amendment to the Family Court matters bill, prefering to await passage of the private members bill which now lapses awaiting being poicked up by someone else or lapsing completely.
I am unaware if MSD have a position on the matter.
Don’t expect Peter Dunn to pick it up even though it was his parties bill.
Allan
Comment by allan Harvey — Sat 3rd January 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Allan, Thanks.
Do you mean that the IRD, Families Commission, Family Section of the law Society and Human Rights Commission all agree that there is discrimination blatantly taking place against men in NZ yet none will push to overcome that.
If that’s what you’re saying then that’s an outrageous thing!
Imagine if the discrimination was against women, Maori or Pacifica people. They’d be clamouring to rectify it quick sharp.
I’d be interested to know if I’m missing something because it seems to me that because it’s men then these people don’t give a shit.
They’ll just let things roll along regardless.
But it’s not just men who suffer………it’s the kids too.
How callous!
Why aren’t they up in arms, on the telly, on the radio, on street corners speaking out about this.
How can they justify their fat taxpayer funded salaries and be so apathetic,
so pathetic and unprincipled indeed unprofessional and unethical
as they are suppose to by duty of their codes of conduct work to overcome discrimination, not simply mutter in polite circles whilst it ravages on.
All this at a time when NZ politicians are also pushing for on the spot protection orders which I fear will mean even more NZ men get unfairly demonized and terribly damaged by the divorce and abuse industries.
Another nail in the coffin of harmony in NZ.
It really does seem like a very bad place for men to be.
The kids of NZ are the ones I worry about most though.
They’re the ones having to bear the fullest brunt of fatherlessness.
A shame really as it looks picturesque from afar but up close it’s clearly a social mess engulfed in misandry and culture war.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 3rd January 2009 @ 2:55 pm
The law society would not make serious moves to change any contentious legislation unless the issue became one that they could no longer ignore because of public pressure. All unclear rules/laws (which is all of them) and unfair laws such as when a person who is not the father is made to pay child support, or issuance of on the spot domestic protection orders, are all part of the lawyer’s and judges money-making business.
Comment by Samual — Sun 4th January 2009 @ 5:40 pm
The law society has been quoted in the herald that they are really supportive of men’s rights regarding DNA. In fact, the law society wanted to meet with the fathers who protested but Judge Boshier stepped in and said, “No!” because he and other men in power have issues with the protesters for their way of doing things and the protesters have issues with them for not doing things the way they want.
The HRC is 100% behind men’s rights. They want to help men but they are helpers not actual doers. 14 complaints in 4 years by men. From the head of HRC herself, “We can’t work with that. We work on a database and what goes on our database goes to Parliament. We can’t make or change laws with 14 complaints in 4 years”.
The Herald is very supportive of running stories for men but once again men need to ask. No-one has the time to run after men.
Women did the work themselves. Maori were treated unfairly for decades too. They were rubbished in the media, they were over ridden by Government. So they got out there and DID something.
Writing on a site and collecting as many males as possible to hate feminists is not going to solve anything. It will only show the MRM as a hate movement. Until it gets organised nothing will change. And everyone will continue to stand back and wait. But once things get organised, this will go like a speeding train.
Comment by julie — Sun 4th January 2009 @ 8:02 pm
Julie,
The Law Society CANNOT be stopped by Boshier from meeting with Men’s groups.
To assert otherwise is silly and disingenious.
Also the NZ Human Rights Commission’s has no excuses for inaction on behalf of HALF OF NZs ADULT POPULATION.
This has been lifted straight from their website –
“The Human Rights Commission has a STATUTORY RESPONSIBILTY to develop a national action plan for the better protection and promotion of human rights in New Zealand. In meeting that responsibility, we have worked in partnership with the Children’s Commissioner.
Mana ki te Tangata / The New Zealand Action Plan for Human Rights (the Action Plan) is the first such plan to be drawn up for this country. It identifies what must be done over the next five years so that the human rights of everyone who lives in New Zealand are better recognised, protected and respected.
“The Action Plan builds on the achievements of successive generations of New Zealanders committed to ensuring that everyone gets a fair go. It builds on the legislation, policies and programmes of successive governments, whose largely pragmatic and practical approach has delivered much.
New Zealand meets international human rights standards in many respects, and often surpasses them. We have most of the elements necessary for the effective promotion, protection and fulfilment of human rights. As adults we are generally free to say what we think, read and view what we like, worship where and how we choose, move freely around the country, and feel confident in the laws that protect us from discrimination and the arbitrary abuse of power”.
” The Action Plan identifies key human rights outcomes and the actions needed to achieve them. Implementation programmes with specific timelines will be developed with the relevant agencies and organisations. Just half the proposed actions fall within the sphere of government.
The Action Plan recognises that while government has specific responsibilities for the promotion and protection of human rights, responsibilities extend beyond the State to regional and local government, to the business and community sectors, to voluntary groups and organisations. Indeed, each of us has a responsibility to respect and protect the rights of others. This is crucial in the case of children”
So there it is.
They have an ACTION plan for making sure everyone in NZ gets human rights…..
They went to the Childrens commission for input.
No doubt they went to the Dept of Women’s Affairs, Maori Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs……
Did they approach one single men’s group for input….?
Yeah right……..
So they only got 14 complaints in 4 years eh?
If they got only one complaint THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH!!!
Men have to crawl to them en masse then eh Julie?
Besides which despite the fact that THEY KNOW about it their action plan
SAYS NOTHING ABOUT MEN HAVING THE RIGHT TO PATERNITY TESTS.
So they are failing in their STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY to highlight the human rights injustices of it being ILLEGAL for men in NZ to get a paternity test.
As for the NZ Herald being supportive of running stories for men I’m sure many of us would be pleased to hear you back up that claim with examples.
Besides which it’s their job to chase stories….to dig…..to sniff aound… yet you make it sound like it’s always up to men.
Then again you may have a point there in the face of a print news media indifferent to men’s collective pain and anguish.
I believe it’s incumbent upon you to also offer examples from this site of any inciting hatred against feminists, yourself included.
All I’ve seen here apart from the extremely rare exception are many folks hating the philosophy and behavior of feminists not the feminists themselves.
Indeed I believe the MRM should be commended for respectful conduct in the face of considerable hatred over many years –
“All men are rapists” – Robin Morgan, bestselling author
“Men are morally and spiritually inferior” Germaine Grere – Leading feminist
“All men are bastards” – book title from Whitcoulls CBD Auckland
etc….
So to summarize
1. The NZ Law Society can meet with anyone for the purpose of lawful discussion.
2. NZ Human Rights Commission is failing in it’s duty to include men’s voices in it’s action plan.
3. The NZ Herald appears indifferent to men’s issues
4. There are only extremely rare examples of hatefulness towards feminists ever posted at MENZ despite men writing there experiencing years, even decades of misandry at the hands of militant feminists and their sympathisers.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 4th January 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Ok, I didn’t want to have the bit about anti feminists in my comment. I did write it but didn’t notice it when checking my comment prior to submit. I know the NZ MRM is not anti feminist but rather anti feminism governance.
Anyhow, I just put the rest out there and I hear what you are saying. It is going to take me some time to collect information to respond.
Comment by julie — Sun 4th January 2009 @ 10:31 pm
I can’t find the article written on what happened. But Judge Boshier DID stop the meeting.
The HRC is building on left wing laws, policies and programmes for men. This IS their plan for men.
http://menz.org.nz/2008/human-rights-issues-for-men-and-boys/
The HRC commissioners are chosen by the Governor General. Who do you think the last Governor General chose? The new male one knows a little of men’s issues only. He is a good man. And the fathers coalition protests outside his door.
But the commissioners are pro feminism governance regarding issues for men.
These groups are represented by commissioners themselves.
http://www.hrc.co.nz/index.php?p=23967&format=text
I think they did. They work from the socialist view.
One complaint isn’t enough. 14 hasn’t made a difference either but then I think they may have been complaints about lone children not being able to sit next to men on the plane. Oops. I am sure there were more complaints over 4 years than 14. Anyhow, even UF said menz needs to get to the public to get the outcry.
I have heard feminists themselves collected this data.
Anyone can ask for stories or ask for docos or even provide stories. The media has websites to contact them. You know, I am told the media appreciates support instead of always being put down from every single group and most people. People only seem to contact them to complain. Simon from NZ Herald did a lot of good stuff for menz last year.
Comment by julie — Sun 4th January 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Julie,
Thanks for the posting.
Interesting to see Hillary Lapsley chosen as one of the three special advisers to the Human Rights Commission.
She was the the trouser and check shirt wearing short back and sides lesbian feminist women’s studies lecturer at Waikato uni.
She played a large part in the putting together of the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Program based on the now well discredited Duluth Model of abuse with it’s ‘power and control’ wheel.
She fits hand in glove with the likes of Neville Robertson the psych lecturer from Waikato uni who’s been telling full lecture theaters there that ALL men benefit from some men’s raping women by keeping women in thrall.
Loopy leftie stuff indeed.
The same Uni has Margaret Wilson heading it’s law dept.
All very ideologically correct and cosy.
I have more terms for their like but will let you draw your own conclusions.
You say the HRC work from a feminist governance stance and are socialist.
Oh wow, I suppose that means their socialist feminists who want to create equality for the sexes then eh?
So women can know that they’re the mother of a child but men can’t.
No sexual equality there.
Julie please spot the contradiction in terms too.
Socialists want equality (as they perceive it) FOR ALL PEOPLE.
Feminists want things ONLY FOR WOMEN.
See the difference.
One cannot be a true socialist and a feminist at the same time.
In fact I’d go so far as to say that it’s been a nice little bit of Orwellian style doublespeak used to pull the wool over people’s eyes to speak of socialist feminism. All nice, warm and fluffy sounding until it’s unpacked and the realisation sets in that it’s all about getting stuff for WOMEN ONLY.
We can argue all day about how many complaints from men it will take for the Human Rights Commission to get off their well feathered arses and advocate for NZ men to be given their right to know through paternity testing if they are actually fathers or cuckolded victims.
The fact of the matter is THEY DO KNOW the issue, don’t have it in their blessed ‘Action’ plan and are apparently doing diddly squat to push the issue politically.
Does the phrase strategic apathy seem apt?
But you say you think the HRC did approach men’s groups – who? only the pro-feminist ones eh?
I can’t for the life of me imagine Hillary Lapsley et al reaching for the phone and calling men’s groups who aren’t pro-feminist. Can you?
All those nice retainers for a ‘reports’ to keep the girls club going…..
It’s all going round in circles, circles……circles……
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 1:03 am
Very interesting comment Skeptic.
Chris, the CEO of Man Alive told me that men can’t be feminists. They can only be socialists.
His words mixed with your words now makes perfect sense to me. A feminist is a female working towards feminism dominance. She wants women to rule only and is not at all interested in equality.
A socialist is someone for (their perception) equality.
Sadly, in Chris’ opinion we should be putting women’s needs and rights first and then start caring for men’s needs. Or should I say, women and children first.
So in a strange way, men that promote feminism are actually working against their own ideology.
OK, I should have already understood this. A long time ago.
BTW, Chris will come around with knowledge to help men out. Maybe the paternity testing can be a start????
Comment by julie — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 4:16 am
Julie,
Do you think Chris has any vested interest in taking on feminists over getting men their due rights to paternity testing?
Or do you think he’s sold himself and his organization out to feminists and lacks the balls to argue against them on this one?
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 9:09 am
Skeptik, we are way off topic. I don’t want to discuss Chris online. I have too much respect for him but I will tell you that he made a career change from accounting to helping others. There are many people in the community sector that come from the world of competition to the world of community work.
Poor man. I don’t think anyone can prepare you for this.
Comment by julie — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Julie,
Oh so you start discussing Chris online and then when it no longer suits you to do so you say you’ve got too much respect for him.
Yeah right! There’s consistency for you eh?
Come to think of it YOU introduced him into the thread! What a joke!
Also – Look again.
Nothing written about in the thread is off topic at all.
It’s all pertaining to paternity and child support.
Anyone know how many men in NZ are paying child support and they aren’t even the fathers.
No.
Why?
perhaps because the man hating feminists and government scrooges don’t want –
a. Women to be shown up.
b. To see a load of men freed from paying child support.
Don’t think for a moment that submitting something to social development people will make any difference. Their track record on giving men the rights they’re due speaks for itself. If they’d wanted to do something to aleviate men’s (and children’s) suffering they would have done it years ago. Instead they chose to shaft men, ride on their financial and emotional backs and share the spoils.
Don’t you get it Julie?
It’s a club Julie. Or perhaps a cult is a better word. Whatever Jim, Yourself, Barbara and others have been making very sensible and fair submissions to these sorts of people for years and THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT MEN.
The results speak for themselves.
Wake up!
By contrast men in NZ face –
Criminalization without open trial (Domestic violence Act)
Child tax without representation.
Divorce without their consent (No fault divorce laws)
Parental alienation (secretive Family courts, false accusations made with impunity)
Paternity scamming (Paternity testing outlawed under NZ law)
and the next doozie to hit the proverbial fan….
Arrest and incarceration without trial followed by criminalization and periodic detention (Upcoming Domestic Violence Law amendment)
Still if you want to go ahead and waste time and paper be my guest.
I’m merely pointing out the grim reality of entrenched NZ politics.
“What ya gonna do when you ain’t got nuthin’ to loose…..?”
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 2:09 pm
One line in a Bob Dylan song (I don’t remember which one) went “When you’ve lost everything you realise you can still lose a little more”.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 2:27 pm
I am going to get you back for this one day. (just mucking around) But how can I be constant when you throw so many things at me? Just to start communicating with the outside world brings back real lives with real opinions. Communicating isn’t just telling someone something. You need to listen also.
Fair enough. I brought real people into this. I shouldn’t have done that. It is discussion of an issue.
Don’t you get it?
Yes it is a club. So is everything in NZ. It is small and clicky. You just have to break into the click groups and challenge them.
Too much! When you throw too much at people nothing gets solved. No, Jim and Barbara have done no changes. They are different kinds of activists. Nothing is followed through. Everything is superficial. But they are great at what they do. Tomorrow another topic comes up. Theirs is just yesterday’s topic.
Everyone leaves here. One by one they just move on to make a difference or feel it all too much. You can name feminists. I can name the men out there. But I won’t because they slowly and quietly work within a system that at least gives them something in return.
Or when you ain’t got nothing to gain. Go and live!!!!
Comment by julie — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 3:13 pm
So anyhoo. Thank-you for this. I am being a bitch, I know. But you don’t understand how everyone is hard on me. I must have this aura of, “You can do it”.
Man, I could say things about people and really show you how it is in NZ. But I can’t do that for it is wrong.
Comment by julie — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Julie,
blah blah, people making quietly working within a system, blah blah New Zealand is a clique, bla blah…….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….
Feel free to name names.
It would be a breath of fresh air.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Skeptic, don’t think for one second I can be wound up to lose loyalty. Don’t even bother.
Find some other woman to dig at for a spell.
Comment by julie — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 4:52 pm
Julie,
you go get ’em girl!
I wouldn’t want to put you off for a moment.
The might even listen to a womyn.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Skeptic, you are so likable. It is hard to hold a grudge with you.
Here is something that might interest you.
http://www.neon.org.nz/documents/HR%20Women_screen.pdf
Judy McQuire (last name a bit fuzzy) is the head of this project around the wage gap. I interviewed her but did not tape her. I wish I had of. She admitted very openly that she wants more than 50% of women in all important jobs because apparently only YOUR sex is destructive and YOUR sex apparently ran the world for thousands of years and it is OUR turn. But you can’t be the hand that rocks the cradle either. YOUR sex isn’t even allowed near the cradles.
Anyhow, it might interest you.
Comment by julie — Mon 5th January 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Julie,
I read much of the attached document. Admittedly not all of it as it would only open up about 2 thirds.
Even that is enough to convince me of something related to this thread about men in NZ facing several instances of outright discrimination under current NZ law and specifically their right to certainty about paternity.
It is this – whilst human rights commission in conjunction with the dept of women’s affairs has obviously thrown a massive amount of time and effort in putting together the report you attach they DON’T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN enough to advocate as strongly for certainty of paternity.
NOWHERE in their report(as much as I was able to see) do they even mention children.
The whole report is rank with a sense of entitlement.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO RECOGNITION of the extenuating circumstances that many women face and the individual choices that women make to NOT TAKE high stress – high power job positions.
The whole thing therefore looks like the academic moping of a bunch of wimmin with an axe to grind.
One statement really epitomized it all to me.
It was from a Maori woman, already in a well feathered high ranking position bemoaning that there weren’t more of her kind in leadership positions.
OK so she’s lonely I get that.
But the bit that really alarms me is that she wants greater Maori autonomy and expects the Crown (that means all taxpayers) to fund such self determination.
Again do you you spot the loopy lefty thinking which says we want self reliance by getting others to fund us. IT’S A STUPID SELFISH TOTAL CONTRADICTION.
To summarize I’m alarmed at the extent of a sense of blind entitlement without regard for others that there seems to be amongst NZ’s women.
I’m sure this has a great deal to do with the widespread callous indifference towards men and their issue of paternity testing and paternity fraud.
What’s even more diconcerting is it bespeaks of a callous indifference towards children as if to say –
We don’t care that you don’t get to know who your real father is just as long as we get what we want.
thinking about this somemore I’m inclined to let the women of NZ do just that.
That might seem like an odd U – turn.
But think of it this way Julie …………
unless paternity testing is allowed by law a generation from now many folks currently responsible for the current discrimination and many Moms will be hoist in their own petards as there will be legions of young adults furious when they find out they were duped about who fathered them and/or saw their father’s denied the right to paternity certainty and rightful family involvement.
Also think of this Julie ………
the male birth control pill will soon be a reality as it’s on test in several countries. It’s therefore only a matter of time until the reproductive scales will tip in men’s favor.
Men will individually and collectively be able to say “I’ll impregnate you only if I by law I/We can be allowed DNA certainty of fatherhood” and who in their right minds would argue against that?.
Indeed to take this a step further it’s easy to imagine that with so many ghastly forms of discrimination against men in the whole area of family law that a mass of men use the male pill to in effect create a paternity strike rather than see themselves shafted like recent generations of good fathers……….
and that in my humble opinion is why feminists are apparently not openly discussing the male pill.
Come to think of it perhaps that’s why they’re so desperate (and unethically biased and one eyed) in their drive for women in paid work and leadership positions. Perhaps they see a future where women’s current terrible dominance in reproductive issues is coming to a close and having children will with the male pill be much more on men’s terms.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 6th January 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Julie,
to underscore what I’m saying about NZ men’s lack of rights enshrined in current family and relationship law just check out this article –
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-01-019-f
See how much of it applies to the NZ context.
It’s a powerful piece of polemic.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 6th January 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Thanx Sceptic. Very good information. I want to prove some more about women taking over each area they focus on. It is not just the education department. I will keep looking for the site again.
Comment by julie — Wed 7th January 2009 @ 9:24 pm