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

Big Sister is watching you

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 2:07 pm Fri 4th September 2009

Inland Revenue has retrieved $20.1 million in child support, since it launched a joint operation with the Customs Service last year.

Under a data matching arrangement which began last September, Customs checks names provided by the IRD against its arrival and departure information.

In the nine months to the end of March, IRD was informed of 4608 border crossings by people with a child support debt.

Of that figure, 1208 people have entered into repayment arrangements with the IRD totalling $20.1 million.


  1. 3,400 of them managed to avoid any arrangement with IRD for their tax debt. I wonder if that has influenced the introduction of biometric scanning of trans-Tasman traveler’s retinas? Identifying debtors will be more accurate and much quicker. Cha-ching go the tills – wave goodbye to more of our rights.

    One of my good mates left for Australia almost 20 years ago after being charged child-tax because his ex-gf was on the DPB and shouldn’t have been. She defrauded the taxpayer however it is my mate with the debt. He doesn’t feel able to return home to New Zealand and probably never will. His child grew up and lives with Dad in Oz now too. Great system! (not)

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 4th September 2009 @ 5:25 pm

  2. Question; do ANY women pay child support to kiwi men who have custody of the children?
    Answer; Yeah right not in this gender bias cess pit country of filthy low down liars.

    Comment by dad4justice — Fri 4th September 2009 @ 9:51 pm

  3. can anyone tell me if a protection order is discharged by a ex applying to have it removed and ive been ordered to do a non violence program do i still have to do the program or is it wiped

    Comment by Sams — Sat 5th September 2009 @ 1:58 am

  4. Yes, my ex-wife pays child support to me ($800ish for this financial year). I won custody in 2002.
    I had always been the children’s primary caregiver and the ex is mentally unstable to the point where she’s attempted to kill our children a few times. She’s never been charged or prosecuted for her attempts to kill our children. NZ Police largely ignore maternal abuse, even when that abuse includes attempted murder.
    Apparently I’m one of the lucky fathers.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 5th September 2009 @ 5:09 am

  5. I have custody of my damaged daughter for over two years and not a cent from the lying ex who forced me to prison, etc..etc..with false allegations that resulted in myself enduring protection orders for seven years.
    Oh well lies win the evil Family Court.

    Comment by dad4justice — Sat 5th September 2009 @ 8:25 am

  6. A letter on Glenn Sacks site which i found amusing :-

    To correct past injustices for the best interests of children of tender years, the majority of fathers should be ‘awarded’ sole custody, and the mothers should be ordered to pay child support under the same ‘rules’ and ‘guidelines’. The ex-wife should then be ordered to pay ‘testimony’ (alimony) for the rest of the husbands life while his girlfriend moves in to correct the injustice of ‘vagimony'(alimony). If the wife/mother loses her job it will be extremely difficult to have these payments reduced, and she will spend a lot of time in jail (debtors prison) for contempt of court.

    An automatic restraining order should be served on the woman, just on his say so that she yelled at him, and she must move out with the close on her back. The combination of child support and alimony should be maintained so high that she’s one step away from living on the street, and if she wants to start a second family her new husband will become part of the equation (though in all fairness, he should get a ‘dick pass’.

    If a man murders his wife/ex-wife/children or molests students in school while he’s pretending to be ‘teacher’, he must receive a vastly reduced and non-gender reciprocal sentence making good use of ‘time-served’ and probation. In many cases all that will happen is that he receives therapy. When a man strikes a woman, she will automatically be taken to jail because because (and this is true) women initiate violence more often and cause more serious injury by the use of weapons then men do.

    The father will rarely/never allow the mother visitation and when she complains nothing will change (da judge may tell the father “don’t do that”, ok?. She will repeatedly be arrested for violating the restraining order even though he follows her around with a cell phone even at her job and calls the police to arrest the woman for violating a protection order.

    She will be ordered to pay for counseling to control her anger because the husband and or someone at the men’s shelter said that she was being mean and he fears for the children so she will only have ‘supervised’ visitation.

    The women who supervise are female meninists and threaten her to stand behind the line and watch what she says. The NOM organization is against shared parenting. Tom Leykis will have a ‘book of the month club’ with nearly every one describing violent and sexually abusive women.

    Comment by martin swash — Sat 5th September 2009 @ 10:25 pm

  7. can anyone tell me if a protection order is discharged by a ex applying to have it removed and ive been ordered to do a non violence program do i still have to do the program or is it wiped

    Comment by SAm — Sat 5th September 2009 @ 10:51 pm

  8. no protection order no course.
    But make sure it has been discharged.
    Very hard to do, usaly you hav to at least appear (in the family court infront of a judge) to “opose it”.And yes in the interim you do have to attend a course.
    Unless a judge has sppicificaly.. said otherwise.

    Comment by paul — Sun 6th September 2009 @ 4:51 pm

  9. Im not applying to have it removed I asked my exe to ask for it to be discharged and she agreed so i shouldnt have to do the program once shes had it removed aye is that right

    Comment by Sam — Tue 8th September 2009 @ 10:21 pm

  10. This headline implies that those people had an average “debt” of $16,639. I think this is another indicator that the liability placed on non-custodial parents is unrealistic. It certainly don’t have anything to do with the cost of caring for a child.

    Comment by Dave — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 5:00 pm

  11. That’s false, Dave. The mean that you drew from the $20.1million figure is meaningless if you think about what the data is. There are liable parents who have not paid vast sums of money over almost the entire duration of liability (19 years), and it’s these people that really make the sum so high. Also, it doesn’t take into account how many children the liable parent has to contribute to, either.

    Although, even if it was $16,639 per person, for an average of two children, across one year, that is still a modest contribution to a working mother who may be likely to earn $35,000 gross. So I don’t really understand your comment there Dave.

    Feel free to elaborate though.

    Comment by rad_dad — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 5:34 pm

  12. “That’s false, Dave. The mean that you drew from the $20.1million figure is meaningless if you think about what the data is. ”
    Yes what you say here is quite true. It is only a mean and in this context really far too hypothetical. However note what has happened to child support over the last 5 years. It is likely these amount have been charged within the last 5 years.

    Also note that in the vast majority of cases the paying parent is making some payment just not at the ridiculously high rates claimed by the system. Hence this is only the money charged as “debt”. What they are paying is much more.

    Your 2nd point makes little sense to me.
    “A working mother who may be likely to earn $35,000 gross”. Please show me all those families that earn $35,000 yet they spend $16,639 on 2 children?

    This mother make a life style choice to leave her husband (true in 75% of cases). She takes the kids and excludes the father from the children’s lives (true in 80% of cases). That is her life style choice.

    There is no evidence that the father was unwilling to fully support his children. He did it when they are married. He didn’t choose to end the marriage. She did. He didn’t choose to be excluded from the children she did.
    Please show me the evidence that says he would not support the children while they are in his care?
    You can’t because the evidence shows fathers pay more, the more they are involved in the children’s lives. This undermines your whole rationale for child support at all. Let alone our example figure of $16,639.

    As it happens this example figure is remarkably close to the norm.

    Let me break it down as if it was $16,639 for the year. The penalties part of this is more than twice the actual liability. Hence for our hypothetical example. The father is paying 5,546. This is 24% of his gross income of $23,110. In fact the first $10,000 or so of income only attracts child taxes of about $700 so his income is actually about $30,000 before tax. So he earns $30,000 has to pay $5,546 plus tax of about $8,000+ so he has less than $16,400 to live on. That is $316 per week. He can’t possibly afford a place suitable for his 2 children to stay over night with him. He has massive debts as a result of the divorce and if he earns more he will be taxed more. He can’t possibly keep up with the child tax. He can’t afford to fight his wife in court which would be pointless anyway. He has little option but to give up and leave the country. He is stopped at the boarder and told he has to make some kind of arrangement or he will be put into debtors prison.

    Yet from your logic the mother earning $35,000 should expect nothing less than $16,639 plus all the government grants, benefits, support and subsidies she will get. Although you don’t provide any rationale for your opinion.

    In none of all this is anything close to resembling what is best for those 2 kids.

    Comment by Dave — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 6:40 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