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

Child Support – Families Commission poll

Filed under: Child Support,General — Julie @ 6:31 pm Tue 14th July 2009

The Families Commission wants to have a better understanding of what separated parents need to help them make care, contact and financial arrangements for their children.

We would like to hear from you about your experiences with, and knowledge of, separated parenting. We are interested in hearing from all Couch members on this issue, regardless of whether you’re a separated parent or not.

Your feedback will help us contribute to the IRD’s upcoming review of the Child Support system, and will complement our existing and ongoing research on these issues.

Please take the time to share some of your wisdom. The more we have dialogue the greater chance we have of finding good solutions for all involved.


  1. Maybe our collective wisdom could be put forward? Is “Single parents” making a submission Julie?

    Comment by Alastair — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 6:42 pm

  2. what would be a good idea is if the custodial parent agreed to the x partner looking after the kids when he/she is readily available and willing instead of playing all the dramatic manipulating headgames and using barnadoes…unecessarily wasting resources…using all whats available instead of the other parent

    Comment by ford — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 8:30 pm

  3. The “Families” Commission is interested in our experiences and views of child tax. Yeah Right

    The questionnaire has very little to do with child tax and seems designed to ensure that it will not contribute to any useful input into any IRD review.

    The Families Commission had made a commitment to meet next week with a small group of fathers who have been active in the men’s movement, mainly professional people myself included. A main theme for discussion was to be the high male suicide rate and its relationship to social policy and family law. However, following Jim Bagnall’s campaign in an Auckland school that was publicized in last weekend’s Sunday News, the Families Commission decided to back out of the meeting. I have already incurred non-refundable air fares and other costs, and arranged time off work. And the fathers group going to Wellington had nothing to do with Jim Bagnall or his activities. The Commission apparently doesn’t care a damn about children losing their fathers to suicide. Their behaviour is like the government refusing to meet with iwi leaders as punishment for some antics by Tama Iti. So much for the so-called Families Commission. They seem to be little more than a branch, one of many, of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. And remember, there is no government body whatsoever to represent men’s affairs. Our taxes are being sunk into departments that only cater to the interests of the female half of the population.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 9:25 pm

  4. I wonder how many suicides will occur due to the Pro-XX-Family Commission deciding to punish MEN further with their childish delays? Of course they can’t have been serious.

    Some humans are discriminated against because they don’t have two X chromosomes. How wicked is that?

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 10:01 pm

  5. Who stopped the meeting Hans? Will you give the details?

    This is why, IMO, we need groups to lobby against this type of behaviour.

    I am thinking, “They are just bullying you.” They are saying, “Ditch Jim Bagnall and we will talk”. There is nothing wrong with Jim Bagnall except that he has ruffled a few egos. lol

    I bet they said the same thing about Winston Peters for ever but in reality he has been a fantastic asset to politics.

    Y’know …Women and every other minority group would not take this and there is no reason why you should. As an advocate for men, (IMHO) you should have the right to say what is best for them. Not be told by others with their own agenda what YOU should think and do.

    Edit for overseas readers: Read here to see what Jim Bagnall did.

    Comment by julie — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 10:27 pm

  6. no offense julie but it seems to me that when women jump up and down and scream abuse and carry on…every1 is expected to listen and treat it as the truth…if as men we dont do that its deemed as abusive by disbelieving her and/or not listening…not allowing others to tell us what to think and say is manipulated as abuse…not agreeing is deemed as ‘in denial’

    Comment by ford — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 10:49 pm

  7. No offence taken ford. (nice to meet you BTW) And I hear what you are saying.

    It is terrible that men are disadvantaged the way you have described. I would be very frustrated if I was a man.

    Comment by julie — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 11:10 pm

  8. Thanks for asking this. I think it is important that we do.

    Comment by julie — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 11:12 pm

  9. I’m in support. Any help that I can be.

    Comment by Alastair — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 11:15 pm

  10. Presumably there is a group of you Hans. You already have set up your transport (And Presumably Accomodation) why don’t you all go, and present a protest note to the commission, at the same time call on the Dom.

    Personally I applaud Jim Bagnal. He certainly stirred the pot!

    It’s unfortunate we can’t get at least a summary of male suicides.

    Comment by Alastair — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 11:19 pm

  11. Suicide rates for NZ can be found in the following list.
    Suicide rate > Males 20.5 per 100,000 people [28th of 80]
    That is a lot of death for the Femily Commission to ignore while it punishes ALL FATHERS for having the same Y chromosome as Jim B.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 7:27 am

  12. Alistair, can you please share a link to what Jim Bagnall did at the Auckland school.

    Comment by julie — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 8:59 am

  13. There are two links Julie, They are both from last Sunday’s (12 July) Sunday News.

    I’m off to a 10am meeting, I’ll dig them out when I get home.

    They are also in Pauls-news archives. One my post, the other Noelle’s.

    Comment by Alastair — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 9:32 am

  14. Julie,
    In Reply. Both pieces published in the Sunday News 12 July:-

    Despairing dad’s suicide vote
    By FINBARR BUNTING – Sunday News
    Last updated 05:00 12/07/2009
    A FATHER locked in a bitter custody battle says he will have his case published in a publicly distributed pamphlet, inviting readers to vote on whether he should commit suicide.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLBOYS WILL BE HANDED LEAFLETS leaflets warning them they’ll be prejudiced against in any fight for the children they haven’t yet fathered.

    The pamphlet will be distributed outside high schools by men’s groups Coalition of Fathers and Project Reunion.

    An early-stage copy of the leaflet, released exclusively to Sunday News, claims the Family Court is ruled by a feminist ideology that believes “mothers should have primary care of the children and fathers should have contact with their children and pay child support”.

    It also makes such bold statements as there are now more than 400,000 children separated from their fathers, and that in the Family Court system a woman needs only to make allegations against a man for him to have a protection order taken out against him. Coalition of Fathers spokesman Jim Bagnall said his group approached high schools for permission to formally address male pupils but were denied access.

    Families Commissioner Jan Pryor said the leaflets could poison the minds of teen boys. “If they do (distribute the leaflets), we see it as very unhelpful for families, potentially destructive and undermines boys,” Pryor said.

    “It is going to promote suspicion about relationships — that doesn’t help when they are trying to form constructive relationships and build families”.

    I felt the comments by mensline etc were little short of patronising!
    Men’s rights campaigner Jim Bagnall says his group, Coalition of Fathers, supports the dad and the pamphlet-drop will help raise awareness of their cause.

    “I will be distributing pamphlets with a summary of his story and his phone number, and then he can evaluate how many messages he gets either yes or no whether he should commit suicide or not,” Bagnall told Sunday News.

    But the move has been slammed by Mensline and Suicide Prevention New Zealand, and is potentially a breach of the Crimes Act.

    The man, in his 40s, said he had been driven to despair through his unsuccessful attempts in the Family Court to gain access to his daughters.

    “I’ve been to court 12 times. There’s no hope for people like me, I don’t fit in any more,” said the man, who cannot legally be named. “You take someone’s children away and you take away their hopes for living.”

    The man, an immigrant, said he moved to New Zealand with his then-partner to start a new, safe life.

    But the relationship dissolved and his ex got custody of the girls. He said his access had been further limited because of allegations his former partner made against him.

    “I’ve told my family back home that I’ve had enough,” he told Sunday News. “I’ve had two breakdowns and I am at the point now where I don’t care, because they’ll either kill me or I’ll do something.”

    Bagnall claims the man’s case isn’t unique. He says separated fathers routinely have access limited to children the moment their ex makes an allegation against them.

    “(The man) can only see his children under supervised access,” Bagnall said. “(His suicide vote) is drastic but what other options has he now got left?”

    But Mensline’s Denis Bunbury says the planned move is dangerous. “I think he may feel his circumstances are very extreme, and one can understand why he feels that way,” Bunbury said. “But it is not constructive.”

    Suicide Prevention New Zealand director Merryn Statham said: “To use somebody taking their life as an opportunity to draw attention to your cause in this country is unethical. If that man loses his life, his children are the ones that suffer the most. He’s experiencing extreme distress. The group (Coalition of Fathers) should recognise the extreme risk the member is experiencing at the moment. There is help available.”

    Under the Crimes Act it is a crime to “incite, counsel, or procure any person to commit suicide. But Bagnall says: “I wouldn’t call it promoting suicide, I would call it advising what is going on in the courts.

    He says his group predicts people will vote “No” and advise the man to keep fighting to get back his children.


    Comment by Alastair — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 12:45 pm

  15. Forgot to paste the second bit!

    SECONDARY SCHOOLBOYS WILL BE HANDED LEAFLETS leaflets warning them they’ll be prejudiced against in any fight for the children they haven’t yet fathered.

    The pamphlet will be distributed outside high schools by men’s groups Coalition of Fathers and Project Reunion.

    An early-stage copy of the leaflet, released exclusively to Sunday News, claims the Family Court is ruled by a feminist ideology that believes “mothers should have primary care of the children and fathers should have contact with their children and pay child support”.

    It also makes such bold statements as there are now more than 400,000 children separated from their fathers, and that in the Family Court system a woman needs only to make allegations against a man for him to have a protection order taken out against him. Coalition of Fathers spokesman Jim Bagnall said his group approached high schools for permission to formally address male pupils but were denied access.

    Families Commissioner Jan Pryor said the leaflets could poison the minds of teen boys. “If they do (distribute the leaflets), we see it as very unhelpful for families, potentially destructive and undermines boys,” Pryor said.

    “It is going to promote suspicion about relationships — that doesn’t help when they are trying to form constructive relationships and build families”.

    Comment by Alastair — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 12:49 pm

  16. The Fam Com survey seems to be to contribute to Peter D’s review of the Child Support scheme. We need contribute to the scope of this. My understanding is the first point of the draft scope may state “anomalies” of shared care needs be considered, yet is it going to just be a review to pursue how access a new spouse income?

    A true review of the CS scheme needs include wider legislation such as Social Security Act 1964 (70b which blocks shared care), Human Rights Act & Working For Families.

    Otherwise it is just an ammendment to procure more revenue for the tax department.

    Has anyone got a copy of the scope of the review yet?

    Comment by Nik — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 1:06 pm

  17. The “Families” Commission is interested in our experiences and views of child tax. Yeah Right

    What else needs to be said.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 1:15 pm

  18. jhaving custodial parents given all the power to make that decision is not a good way.

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 1:32 pm

  19. That’s how it is anyway! Non custodial parents have less rights than family friends or strangers!

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 2:29 pm

  20. The problem is that the so called Fathers coalition has meet three times with Families Commission and then they go an shoot themselves in the foot.
    Have you spoken to Pryor or another commissioner, I suspect you will be able to get your meeting back in place Hans if you use a diplomatic approach.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 5:05 pm

  21. i was present at both births of my children…which according to my then lawyer(ill add was female)gave me natural guardianship which is suppose to give me more rights than just having access…didnt seem to work to well as i still didnt and dont to this day get any say in decisions involving my kids…when i have tried i got accused of being controlling and live under the threat of more legal shit so now i dont bother…i really dont know why i didnt pack up and leave the country

    Comment by ford — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 7:14 pm

  22. You got to laugh at the wording of the questions… example:

    Jack and Jill have decided that after their separation Jack will continue to work, while Jill will go on the Domestic Purposes Benefit and care for the children full time. They agree that because Jack will still be working, he will take over all of the family’s debt.

    What they mean is…

    Jill has decided to take out a protection order on Jack thus ensuring she can control Jack. Jack has no choice but to work as hard as he can to pay the child support, lawyers, psychologists, his doctor, & pharmacist (for the anti-depression medication). Jill will then find some millionaire who she’ll move in with and Jack will continue to pay huge sums of money to finance the nanny who looks after the kids while she and her boyfriend are on holiday…. And if you think I’m joking… think again…

    Comment by John (Doe ;) — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 7:44 pm

  23. That and all other places where they used “Jack” and “Jill” I replaced with “The Custodial Parent” and “The Liable Parent”

    What a beaut bit of manipulation.

    Comment by Alastair — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 8:24 pm

  24. so true…take out a protect order claiming jack cant leave her alone when in actually reality jill cant leave jack alone…totally agree with that

    Comment by ford — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 9:57 pm

  25. i was present at both births of my children…which according to my then lawyer(ill add was female)gave me natural guardianship which is suppose to give me more rights than just having access…didnt seem to work to well as i still didnt and dont to this day get any say in decisions involving my kids…when i have tried i got accused of being controlling and live under the threat of more legal shit so now i dont bother…i really dont know why i didnt pack up and leave the country

    I have guardianship too and have never had a say in one single thing either. It is a useless title to have. I had to apply and fight to get guardianship too… of my own child! Custody is the only title that matters. But of course there is no bias in the family court is there? (The last sentence is sarcastic for those who might miss it!)

    You can try, at your own expense to fight for things in the family court that guardianship supposedly gives you, but seeing as it takes a year to get to a hearing, the issue will be outdated and the judge will be reluctant to change anything. Plus of course you’re already on the backfoot cause you aren’t the custodial parent or a woman!

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 15th July 2009 @ 11:33 pm

  26. if i had an issue i wanted to take to court i was always told it would b 6 mths or even longer to get to court…fucken amazing how my x on a few occasions gets her issues heard withing 2-3 weeks…being a woman and scream abuse works a treat huh

    Comment by ford — Thu 16th July 2009 @ 12:07 am

  27. Please drop the conspiracy theories. Whatever you think of the commission, it is trying to ascertain peoples’ perceptions.

    Organisations don’t go to this sort of trouble for nothing.

    I urge everybody that has a view on child support issues to contribute.

    Otherwise, you have nobody but yourselves to blame if the commission remains unaware of your views.

    Comment by Darryl Ward — Thu 16th July 2009 @ 8:21 am

  28. I’m sure we can contribute our views while also having a cynical view of a Government Department that has promoted feminist ideology while ignoring their contribution towards male death, misery, poverty and failure.
    Has the Femilies Commission never conspired against MEN?
    Since when has the Femilies Commission held any genuine concern for MEN? Neither MEN nor conspiracy theorists are responsible for the Femilies Commissions tarnished reputation. You can’t blame MEN for having no faith nor trust in the Femily Commission. They’ve spelled family incorrectly for far too long already.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Thu 16th July 2009 @ 9:45 am

  29. Darryl is correct. If we do nothing, we achieve nothing. Pity patches can be lonely places.

    It took me about 15 minutes to fill mine out. Time that I could ill afford. Don’t whinge here. Go do something, filling this out is a good place to start.

    Remember Christine Rankin is there now, and who knows what that will mean.

    I believe this and the stupudity of the “Vote Yes” campaign is the death throes of the woofter brigade. Let’s make it so!

    Comment by Alastair — Thu 16th July 2009 @ 4:12 pm

  30. I did complete the survey and that led me to the conclusions I described here. A conspiracy theory is quite different from a realistic appraisal of the evidence.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 16th July 2009 @ 5:28 pm

  31. You can’t draw conclusions before the survey is over and teh results are out!!!! 🙂

    Comment by Darryl Ward — Fri 17th July 2009 @ 6:44 am

  32. I’m delighted and thankful to hear that Jim Bagnall has set up a scheme for enlightening schoolboys as to what is in store for them under our existing feminist system.
    Jim you are doing fantastic work to break the intergenerational cycle of feminist abuse.
    Well done!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Skeptik — Fri 17th July 2009 @ 10:42 pm

  33. The JimB’s will be flying the FLAG for the **Whole Natural Biological FAMILY** in support of the FATHERS Attending and Protesting the cancelled meeting with the so called FAMILIES Commission HQ in WELLINGTON 1300-/-1pm Wednesday 22nd

    Join us @ the Auckland FAMILIES Commission – 63 Albert Street from 1300-/-1pm

    Bring your FATHER Gard, Signs, Megafones.

    Supporting Mums and Grand parents WELCOME.

    Jim Bagnall – 021-170-7375
    Jim Bailey – 027-429-0055


    Join Ben Easton and Craig Jackson @ the Wellington FAMILIES Commission – 117-125 Lambton Quay from 1300 -/-1pm

    Ben Easton 027-390-2169
    Craig Jackson – 04-389-2291

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 20th July 2009 @ 11:00 am

  34. Here’s a true story, we have just been informed by my husband’s ex that she is taking their 3 children to Australia in the next school holidays. This will her 3rd overseas trip in 2 years. We have had week about shared care of the children for just over a year prior to that we had them 40% of the time. She works part-time and in fact has just quit one job. She received a very generous settlement at separation and built a new home. She was on the DBP but has not been for the last 3 years. We have always paid child support through the IRD and continue to do so (2 reviews over the last 2 years) however we have always paid the majority of expenses and for the last 18 months pay for ALL expenses right down to haircuts. I would add that so far dental cost alone have added up to over $10,000.00 We have not applied for child support from her. what are our chances of being awarded “primary caregiver” status so we don’t have to pay child support? We are happy to continue to support the children but what we are paying is alimony as she really dosen’t have any costs for the children

    Comment by Grace — Mon 20th July 2009 @ 6:37 pm

  35. Hi Grace;

    There are ppl on here that probably know more than I do with regard to this but here’s my opinion…

    1. Good to hear that you have shared care. Pat yourselves on the back as those children need you all.

    2. I believe that you are entitled to claim child support from your husband’s ex, and if you are not doing that, it may offset it a little; especially if she is on DPB.

    3. Your husband’s ex is going on holiday. She’s actually going on holiday with the children. Look, I know it feels unfair, but she has her settlement money and if she is spending it like that then that is her concern. I am actually pleased to hear that she takes the children on holiday as it shows that she wants to spend her money and her time with them. Personally; I just get asked to have mine when my ex wants to swan off with her partner. So, think of the children on that one.

    4. Costs for children. Yes; the childcare system doesn’t work in New Zealand and to be frank, I don’t believe it will get sorted in time for us (you or me and everyone else who have experienced this) to benefit. But hopefully by ‘us’ focussing, organizing, and lobbying, we can make a difference to future NZ.

    5. With regard to expenses, if you guys actually get along then it might be possible to discuss whether she is able to claim for some expenses as she is on DPB. I don’t know if there are any available but worth finding out.

    6. You’re welcome to chat offline of this forum. My email address is [email protected]

    Comment by John (Doe ;) — Mon 20th July 2009 @ 9:17 pm

  36. She is not on the DBP and hasn’t been for about 3 years. The settlement I mentioned was 11 years ago and no we don’t get on . Yes its great that she is taking the children on an overseas holiday but this is the same person who put in an affidavit last year that she was struggling to provide nessities (like food) and we provided a “Disneyland” lifestyle. The point is that it really isn’t her money as she provides nothing for the children and receives child support

    Comment by Grace — Tue 21st July 2009 @ 12:34 pm

  37. I hear you. I understand the unfairness of the system. Unfortunately, unless someone with balls actually gets into parliament and is able to change things we (you, me, and a lot of other people) are resigned to paying for our ex’s lifestyle. I have an ex who is upset with me because i said no to her constant demands of looking after our children for yet another holiday abroad. It’s kind of weird that she actually gets so much money from me that I can’t afford a holiday. I wonder if I should ask for an IRD assessment but then again, they may just make it worse for me.

    Comment by John (Doe ;) — Tue 21st July 2009 @ 9:06 pm

  38. I’d be happy to pay double the amount assessed if we could stop paying when our exes weren’t allowing us to see our kids! But as we know, the government only consider child support to be $$$$$$$$$! None of this love and care etc crap!

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 21st July 2009 @ 9:19 pm

  39. FYI, my letter to the Families Commission. And did you know that the Families Commission actually employs someone as a “White Ribbon Day Project Coordinator”? The White Ribbon day through an error of omission spreads a message that violence against men is not of concern. Even though men are most frequently the victims of violence in our society as in most others.

    The Commissioners
    Families Commission
    Sent By Facsimile to (04)9177059

    21 July 2009

    Dear Commissioners

    RE: Meeting with fathers scheduled for 22.07.09 concerning father suicide

    I understand that the Families Commission backed out of this meeting in response to Jim Bagnall’s campaign in Auckland warning male college students about the exploitative and emotionally abusive treatment they can expect should they become fathers in NZ.

    If this is true, I denounce the Commission’s decision. I purchased non-refundable plane tickets to Wellington some weeks ago on the basis of the commitment I understand the Commission made to this meeting, and I am now out of pocket. Those due to attend do not represent whatever body Jim Bagnall is involved in and as far as I know were not involved in Jim Bagnall’s campaign at all. The group expecting to meet with the Commission mainly consisted of professionals including psychologists working with men.

    Would you cancel a meeting with iwi leaders because of some antics by Tama Iti? That would be unjust, patronizing and offensive, as the Commission’s decision is to us. In this bad-faith action the Commission has shown contempt for fathers and apathy towards the high suicide rates of men and fathers.

    We believe fathers are a crucial a part of families but it would seem the Commission has a different view.

    Yours faithfully

    Hans Laven

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 21st July 2009 @ 11:08 pm

  40. Must be being run by my ex… you can come… oh no wait… you can’t… oh you’ve paid all that money? Too bad, not my problem!

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 21st July 2009 @ 11:32 pm

  41. Probably shutting the stable door Hans, I suggest an addition to the phrase “We believe fathers are a crucial a part of families …..” the addition of, “Not only a crucial part of, but an essential component of the solution.”

    Comment by Alastair — Wed 22nd July 2009 @ 8:16 am

  42. Good suggestion Alastair. Shame it’s too late because the letter was already sent. I believe we are getting close to accountability time, judgement day when those who have treated the male gender poorly will be made to answer for their misbehaviour.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 22nd July 2009 @ 9:27 am

  43. Hi Grace…

    You have shared care so I think ‘Primary Caregiver’ would be a costly venture for you and your husband. The fact that she received a generous settlement isn’t your concern. Did you apply for the two Reviews over the last two years? Has your husband tried talking to the ex and organizing a mutual private agreement? Why haven’t you applied for Child Support from her? If she has the children fifty percent of the time why doesn’t she have any costs for them? Do they not eat or use power or the phone while they are staying with her? Your husband would have paid for the teeth anyway had they still been together. Get your husband to talk to his ex first and then talk to IRD, if they don’t get on tell him to grin and bear it for the sake of the children. How do you know she hasn’t been shouted a trip overseas? Good luck whatever happens.

    Comment by Dawn — Sat 25th July 2009 @ 1:38 am

  44. I have just discovered this blog after a search on child support – when men don’t pay. I am in the midst of a long long now litigious debate with my ex. I only wish that he had the same views of supporting his child as most of the men on here do.

    I am now 4 years down the track after separating and no sign of a financial commitment in sight, he suffers from the fair weather dad syndrome, more deadly than man flu. While I understand there are many women out there who fleece men and sign on the DPB I do not put myself in this category. What I can say from the other side is its a very long road with the IRD from the mum side when there is no commitment from the dad side, not only financially but also with being involved in the childs life, which I happen to believe is just as, if not more, important. To this day not a single parent teacher evening, school event or sports day has he attended

    While I fully appreciate being on the receiving end is very harsh for men who truly do care, I can honestly say that from the mother end it is equally tough dealing with IRD and working through a very broken process. I wish and pray that all the IRD child support call centre staff would at least go on the same training course and learn to give the same answers and my twice weekly calls result in me being more confused at the end of the week….where oh where are DDI’s and supervisors?

    I do believe that there is a very clear definition between dads that do and dads that dont! Unfortunately we are relying on a bunch of untrained call centre reps to work through the paperwork.

    I get the frustrations, given I was awarded $64 per month by the IRD due to my ex’s statement of earnings and when we went through admin review I was awarded 10x more than that, I still have not received a penny even from “the winning female side” forgive me for sounding off… but he is a [identifying details removed by moderator]…and therein starts the problem!

    Comment by Sarah — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 1:08 am

  45. 1 My sympathy Sarah- you are discovering that Government departments are NOT YOUR FRIENDS
    We are all raised to think that the Police, the Social Services, the Income Support people, the Courts, are there to help us- in truth they are there to help themselves.
    This is why we are seeing increased civil disobedience, especially from men who once might have been model law abiding citizens.
    2 I trust that you are allowing the children to have unlimited access to their father- that is where much of the acrimony stems from.
    3 I recommend that you forget about expecting help from the Government, and re-establish some sort of relationship of trust with your ex, including private arrangements for child support.
    If he is not amenable to that, don’t withhold his children, but tell everyone that he does not support his children. Put a sign outside his practice if need be.


    Comment by John Brett — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 8:35 am

  46. but tell everyone that he does not support his children. Put a sign outside his practice if need be.

    I cannot believe you would suggest this, Sarah do not do that or anything like it. I do agree with the rest of what John says though.

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 10:39 am

  47. Thanks John, I have never blocked access, in fact requested he spend more time with our daughter, other than the token once a fortnight. I have suggested that he see her every other Wed as well to take her out for tea.

    The trouble with him being involved more is this means it stops him from working, to sustain his fabulous beach front lifestyle…I just wish he would take his daughter seriously and not as some token trinket. Seems there are decent dads around I just picked the wrong one!

    Love the idea about the sign and as far a model law abiding citizens go [name and identifying details removed by moderator], is a shocking example of civil disobedience. The sign starts here…good luck to all the great dads out there.

    Comment by Sarah — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 11:01 am

  48. Sarah – Talk to the FATHER before shaming him – You may well need a trained FAMILY Orientated professional to do that – There will be another side to the story – Confronting these issues publically is the last resort but AOK with ALL facts cosidered – With luck the councel you choose will be able to clear the crap between you.

    I most certainly do not recomend taking committee councelling seriously

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 11:57 am

  49. Sarah although u say u do not”block” access to the kid..

    i bet for him to walk away.. women make it difficult in the beginning when he was willing for access or contact with the kid… and him having gone thru the hoops knows there is no hope… thats what fathers require.. not woman asking him for money every week and witholding access to their terms and whims…and i believe this is what was denied him hence you find yourself in the situation u r in.

    hence his stand offishness. now he suspects there is an agenda and is unwilling to have his kid used to meet that agenda.

    woiuld have paid to be fair and honest in the beginning. Men appreciate honesty and fair play.

    Comment by karanjiharr — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 3:55 pm

  50. men jump to a damsel yelling distress often to their own undoing..
    is this what is happening here??… wolf in sheeps clothing?..

    Comment by karanjiharr — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 3:58 pm

  51. Nice synopsis but way off track… if only all blokes were that decent and it was all down to the female manipulative ways!

    My ex suffered a mid life crisis and entered politics, abandoning his family for and ego and electorate. I have never stopped access but wanting to spend time with his kids has not been forthcoming or convinient. I am the 2nd ex wife ( I know I know should have seen the signs) his eldest is 14 and he has never attended a parents evening at school in 14 years. If I was the only woman involved your theories may stick …..but 2 of of us and 3 kids involved and no money forth coming there appears to be 1 common denominator….and its not the ex wives love for each other, only the children and their welfare.

    I wish your theory was that simple…. but it’s not so maybe you should accept there are good mums and good dads, as I have….and maybe the system is broken, before you say accuse me of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing….maybe thats your cross to bear!

    Comment by Sarah — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 12:51 am

  52. his eldest is 14 and he has never attended a parents evening at school in 14 years.

    So his son has been at school since birth and has never attended a parents evening? Is he a parent too?

    lol sorry but that’s how it reads!

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 1:21 am

  53. not sure how it quoted what I said instead! Oh well…

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 1:21 am

  54. ok.. will you be okay with someone here talking to him and getting his side oif the story??

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 7:05 pm

  55. “Nice synopsis but way off track… if only all blokes were that decent and it was all down to the female manipulative ways”.. hey isn’t that how the females play the dating game and carry it into their relationships… afterall they like emotion and drama…

    as for blokes.. well majority are if not all decent i mean.. nd manipulative… we have come across majority females being thatfor their own gain ….. deep inside you cannot deny it

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 7:11 pm

  56. have you been married before.. i.e before him??..

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 7:12 pm

  57. No I have not been married before, once is now enough for me 🙂 You appear to be trying to instigate some sort of fight from me with your comments. eg “deep inside you cannot deny it”

    I married him for all the right reasons, madly in love, good future ahead, great daughter and life. It wasn’t me that had the mid life crisis…

    As I have said on numerous occasions now on this blog I get that there are some decent men out there, I however also recognise the fact that I drew the short straw.

    On the flip side too with the IRD I have been informed today that 20k in non payment is not a big enough debt for them to take to court. We have to wait til it’s 32k+. Given that I feed, clothe, look after our daughter + do all the running around, school fees, events etc etc etc, do you think this is fair. More to the point do you believe I should promote his behaviour and tell his daughter what a fab dad she has?

    Comment by Sarah — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 8:07 pm

  58. 🙂 OK so take off the first 5 years….he was never there for that either…!

    Comment by Sarah — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 8:09 pm

  59. Hi Jim

    Been trying to talk for 4 years 🙂 It was only last year that I finally had had enough of the bullshit and “i’m too poor stories”, maybe it was the $3,000 taps for the toilet, [identifying details removed by moderator] and still no sign of clothing for our daughter that made me apply to the IRD.

    Once I applied, thats when he got really nasty and thats when he also refused to talk to me on the phone…I have been instructed to put it all in writing to his lawyer! So I get what you say but 4 years is a long time in trying, I think I was quite patient….

    Thanks though will heed your advice.

    Comment by Sarah — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 8:17 pm

  60. Hi Sarah
    I have also had issues with my ex husband both financial and lack of input with our two daughters. See my earlier blogs dated June 09. Sometimes as the mother you have to put all the pent up financial emotions to one side and just think of your gorgeous girl and let her have some time with her Dad (keep all the correspondence and show her the file oneday if you still think it beneficial that she knows her Dad is irresponsible and self-indulgant)but she will probably figure this out oneday for herself. In the meanwhile just remember she has his gene pool and she may actually need some contact with him if even if you think he is an ass. I assume he doesn’t instigate much contact with her? Is it possible for you to bite your tongue (hard as it is) and suggest some visit time between them, even encourage it? Who knows it might generate some financial guilt from him, but even if it doesn’t, nuture the fragile relationship he has with her because you never really know how much she might need him oneday. I am speaking from some experience, as my mother (soley because of a complete lack of financial input) didn’t allow my father access to me at all, that was nearly 40 years ago and I am still yet to meet him. All my life I have heard what an irresponsible shirker he was, but hey maybe I would have liked him anyway, and I do feel I have missed something integeral in my life. If I had a choice as a child (with the benefit of hindsight) I would have chosen to have a relationship with him and no financial help as opposed to the choice I didn’t have which was no relationship and no money) And I know through others that he had the money (he went on to re-marry and have 2 more children and lives a comfortable life…) Just another angle to think about. Keep up the good work, and remember to enjoy being a mum (she only has one, and it is much better for her to be positive and not bitter – trust me!) Good luck

    Comment by Deborah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 11:15 am

  61. Hi again Sarah,

    Sorry just re-read your notes and it looks like to do promote visits him your ex and your daughter. Well done for keeping up these visits – it is really important for her. If he is seeing her every 2nd weekend then that is a lot more than some fathers. Once again, I can only remind you that she will see right through him as she gets older if he really is that bad…little comfort now though.

    Comment by Deborah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 11:24 am

  62. Young people aren’t silly. At the time it’s hardtrying to compete with a cash rich parent. Stephen Tindal is dead right though, “The best thing you can spend on your kids is time”

    From experience though it always amazed me how a circle of friends developed around me, always there, and how they all became pseudo aunts and uncles for my children.

    Looking after my kids was the best decision I ever made. Fair put a damper on my social life though.

    Comment by alastair — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 11:40 am

  63. Hey Alistair…what social life? 🙂

    My life is now immersed in kids animals, and horses…its fab and wouldn’t swap it.

    So in general apart for court orders etc etc life is pretty sweet..

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 2:05 pm

  64. Hi Deborah, I couldn’t agree more, she will find out. I also had a similar upbringing where my dad was not interested, didn’t contribute financially or with his time, so get the importance of her making up her own mind.

    I am also aware that its been my choice not to see my dad for 26 years and it was my step dad that I asked to give me away at my wedding (maybe didn’t give the wedding part enough thought but hey I was young and foolish!) However if my biggest sin is forcing him to spend more time with her then that’s my cross to bear. He can only continue to say always find out and I am not the one going to have to explain why to her 🙂

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 2:53 pm

  65. Hey Sarah.. “You appear to be trying to instigate some sort of fight from me with your comments”.. Am i really?.. what made you think that? has the words triggered something in you??.. i see you coming into this forum dissing your ex.. so far you haven’t agreed tpo anyone talking to him to get his side.. how about shutting me up once and for all.. you have affidavits etc for your child custody case.. why don’t we have a read and decide for ourselves what you are really about??.

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 4:41 pm

  66. Oh we were a social lot – All singles!

    Comment by alastair — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 4:44 pm

  67. if money wasn’t involved would u still be running after court orders??

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 4:44 pm

  68. Karran,
    Who is running after court orders? It is sensless trying to “Talk” to someone who doesn’t want to hear. Equally mediation is impractical when one party will not discuss or negotiate. Unfortunately men, by our natures, tend to be like this. Yes I acknowledge me to. Equally, some women talk “at” their partners and wonder why the partner turns off. Remember we have two ears, but only one mouth. We should listen, slow to speak, and much slower to anger.

    Sorry Karran, reading your posts I gain the feeling, you may not be listening.

    Comment by alastair — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 4:53 pm

  69. ” my choice not to see my dad for 26 years and it was my step dad that I asked to give me away at my wedding “..

    AAHH classic case of own projection of issues hence the separation … seems u haven’t resolved your dad issues and it is highly likely that this has led to your separation .. something you are trivialising to others but is quite relevant internally.

    right now you seem to lash out at the injustice.. but whose is it really??

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 4:55 pm

  70. as you said Alistair.. not listening.. refer to Sarah’s last comments to you and i quote” So in general apart for court orders “

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 4:59 pm

  71. Hi Karan, no disrespect but you do come across as quite aggressive. Given that you are the ONLY one who wants to ring him, I will kindly decline your offer.

    As for my affidavits, last time I checked they are protected from both sides under the privacy act as are many documents in the child support system.

    I am more than happy to put a bullet point list up to show what I would like to work towards in a parenting agreement and let this site voice their opinion on “what I am really about”. The general consensus, outside of this forum has been I am being extremely fair, and that I am certainly looking out for our daughter and what’s best for her.

    So all the readers out there if you would like to dissect my requests and tell me if you think I am being unreasonable please shout up and I will post the list. Maybe a good forum topic.

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 4:59 pm

  72. I have to agree with Sarah and Deborah, I believe they are handling seperation and its consequences well.

    Comment by alastair — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 4:59 pm

  73. Hear Hear…I have 2 ears 🙂

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 5:11 pm

  74. I fully support Sarah. Court orders can be a way to make the other party listen. One order that is available it to require the other party attend mediations. I agree with the other ladies, you are coming accross as a bit agressive.

    Comment by alastair — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 5:15 pm

  75. Thanks Sarah, I was quoting, James. Written almost 2000 years ago! Did you recognise it?

    Comment by alastair — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 5:17 pm

  76. Recognised the quote, but not who it was from! I collect quotes…

    Interestingly enough, I didn’t instigate the court proceedings, my ex did, after I applied for child support. However I see this as a great move as I can request more involvement from him for our daughter through mediation.

    I do recognise, its not about me, its about a win win for our daughter and I have to swallow my views. I do however still think he is tight with financial support, given there is none! Best I go and make my fortune..!

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 5:42 pm

  77. directness is often labelled aggressiveness by ones that cannot handle it and are too touchy feely about things instead of being practical and accepting it as it is.
    ” am more than happy to put a bullet point list up to show what I would like to work ” .. i would be inetersted in where you came from first for a perspective.. hiding are we??

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 5:45 pm

  78. but how good or real is it in NZ?? and how fair or practical… Alistair.. any thoughts on these?

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 5:47 pm

  79. And directness is often the term aggressive folk use for “it’s an all about me attitude”

    Consider me a dumb female, . “i would be inetersted in where you came from first for a perspective.. hiding are we??” can you please elaborate on what it is you are after and suggesting!

    Given this forum was set up provisionally to assist men with regards to child support issues, I am hardly likely to throw myself on to it if I was in hiding!

    I am guessing you are a single, bitter dad who has had no joy in convincing others you are just being direct!

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 5:55 pm

  80. Sarah, and Deborah may I invite you to visit It is a similar group to this but moderated i.e. insult and abuse is forbidden. There are experts there also. Many of these will not come here because the openness.

    In saying that MENZ has a very real place with it’s openness. Unfortunately openness = anonimity.

    You have to join this group, The moderators will recognise your names!

    Comment by alastair — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 6:37 pm

  81. “And directness is often the term aggressive folk use for “it’s an all about me attitude”

    .. feminists say this… common tactic employed by the womens refuge industry as well cos they cannot handle directness.. perfectly done Sarah.. we are peeling away certain layers from you… getting some insights here

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 6:53 pm

  82. Sarah I think if I were in your situation I would concentrate on being the best Mum to your child that you can be and take your mind off the ex partner. You’ve done all that you can to collect his share of child care costs by placing that in the hands of I.R.D. I think having a situation where the ex is expected to pay $600+ per month for his share of raising his child each month is over the top regardless of his income. I also think $64 per month is just as ridiculous.

    I get the frustrations, given I was awarded $64 per month by the IRD due to my ex’s statement of earnings and when we went through admin review I was awarded 10x more than that

    I remember the I.R.D. taking 100% of my wages on Christmas week one year because I owed approximately $3k in arrears. It left me somewhat destitute. Maybe they do things differently now or do they treat self employed people differently? (I’m assuming your ex is self-employed) Either way you’ve placed it in their hands and so a process has been set in motion there.

    I think your childs best chance of having a relationship with Dad is if Dad has absolute control over that. You can’t make him do anything and it is probably counterproductive of you to try. All you can do is remain open to any change in Dad’s stance, for your child’s sake. I absolutely hated my ex-wife making suggestions about my life. It came across to me as demanding and controlling. I think it’s crucial to consider his perception of your attempts to make him in to a better father.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 7:42 pm

  83. Sarah,
    you’re obviously wealthy enough to be using a computer and have plenty enough spare time as to be regularly writing on this thread.
    You want your ex husband who YOU DUMPED to be child care for your kid/s AND more ‘child support’ money from him too.
    And your clogging up a thread on a website which is as it’s banner title says supposed to promote a clearer understanding of men’s experience.

    Somehow I think this is all about you.

    Comment by Skeptik — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 8:30 pm

  84. Hey Sickofnz

    Thank you, that along with Alistair, Deborahs, John, Jim and Scot B’s thoughts is great advice and good positive food for thought. If we are going to move on to resolve things in the best way for our children it’s good to hear constructive feedback, after all its whats best for the children it’s why we are all here.

    You are correct re the self employed and the rest is all hidden with trusts. So I have accepted there is no hope of any financial support, only time and morals.

    Cheers Sarah

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 8:57 pm

  85. Cheers Alistair


    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 9:00 pm

  86. Hi Skeptik

    I apologise profusely for trying to work out what men think and ask for their advice, so I can get a better perspective and using this open forum to try and work out why a man would not think he had to support his children?

    You are correct I am on a computer, I have had a day at my mums and use my flat mates at night in search answers.

    I would love to know why you think its me that dumped in. But appreciate I am taking up space on this forum. If you are working towards resolution and lobbying government for fathers rights its a shame that you treat potential allies this way. However shall leave you to it…best of luck with your approach to change.

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 9:25 pm

  87. Sarah,
    Your entitlement attitude comes through loud and clear.
    You seem to expect that the man who amongst all other men YOU CHOSE – who you unflatteringly paint as some kind of highly successful materialistic workaholic who went through a mid-life crisis and is now an egotistical right wing politician would somehow be willing and able to morph into a father involved in hands on parenting.
    Reading through your posts I haven’t come across a single positive thing you’ve had to say about the man.
    That’s enough for me to reason that you dumped him, maybe not technically in being the one who filed for divorce admittedly, but emotionally for sure apparently.
    I do get involved in lobbying for father’s rights AND believe fathers as do mothers have the right to negotiate with their partners for whatever level of involvement they want in their offsprings lives.
    At one end of the spectrum that could mean being a full-time stay at home Dad caring for kids, at the other end of the spectrum it could mean being uninvolved with the children and simply paying bills.
    Good luck with continuing to rebuild your life post seperation.

    Comment by Skeptik — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 10:29 pm

  88. I am not here for MY entitlement, I thought it was all about the children. And forgive me for not sending our 7 year old daughter to the shops to do her own shopping, get herself to school and cook all her dinners….I actually think thats what parents should do.

    I will ask 2 question of you before I leave you all to lobby and it would be nice if you answered me honestly and without any assumptions.

    1) Do you believe that fathers should contribute financially to their children’s welfare?
    2) If a father cannot afford to pay maintenance, what is it that makes them think the mums can afford to and where are the mums to get money to put towards shoes on the children’s feet and food in their stomachs?

    Thats all I ask….

    Comment by Sarah — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 11:03 pm

  89. Hi Skeptik…

    Are you saying that fathers/mothers have the right to be uninvolved with their children? Do you think that fathers/mothers should pay child support regardless of the amount of time they actually spend with them? How do you think child support should be assessed?


    Comment by Dawn — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 11:07 pm

  90. Sarah and Dawn,

    Have a look at Jayden’s Law and the Donkin Method. It provides a framework to adress the questions you raise



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 30th July 2009 @ 11:43 pm

  91. Sarah and Dawn,
    I’ll try to answer your questions….in no particular order.

    First off a man and woman should be able to negotiate between themselves for whatever split in child care duties they decide is best for their kids 100%-0%, 50%-50%, or whatever.
    The fact is certain NZ women already exercise this to the fullest extent possible under the law by getting pregnant through sperm donors who thereafter have absolutely no parental involvement.

    Next – enshrined in NZ law women have UNILATERAL options to either –
    1. bring a pregnancy full term and give birth to a child, then dump the father and force him to pay ‘child support’ (tax) for 19 years whilst they know NO-ONE WILL MONITOR how that money is spent.
    2. bring a pregnancy full term, then put the child up for adoption.
    3. kill the child in-utero through abortion.


    Given that’s the situation it’s unreasonable and unethical to expect men to assume whatever role women deem is in the best interests of the child including being nothing more than a walking ATM.

    Comment by Skeptik — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 1:01 am

  92. 1) Do you believe that fathers should contribute financially to their children’s welfare?

    yes I do. my problem is in having to pay the mother and having no input to where my finance is used when she squanders it on anything other than the childrens welfare.

    2) If a father cannot afford to pay maintenance, what is it that makes them think the mums can afford to and where are the mums to get money to put towards shoes on the children’s feet and food in their stomachs?

    If the father cant afford to pay maintenance and the mum cant afford to feed or clothe these children then I dont think either of them are fit to be parents,

    Comment by mits — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 4:51 pm

  93. Cheers Mits

    So are you saying then (as in my case) the father is not fit to be a parent, given that I provide all the financial support?



    Comment by Sarah — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 5:05 pm

  94. No Im not saying the father in this case is unfit. I was answering the questions you posed. Please do not make assumptions on my behalf

    Comment by mits — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 5:45 pm

  95. Sorry Mits you didnt really answer the following:

    “if a father cannot afford to pay maintenance, what is it that makes them think the mums can afford to and where are the mums to get money to put towards shoes on the children’s feet and food in their stomachs?”

    Saying “If the father cant afford to pay maintenance and the mum cant afford to feed or clothe these children then I dont think either of them are fit to be parents” does not answer the question”…..where do dads think the mums should get the money from if they are unable to help?



    Comment by Sarah — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 6:05 pm

  96. I cant answer for all dads Sarah only for myself

    where are the mums to get money to put towards……….
    Well, there is WINZ, for starters they have a myriad of benefits and supplements and top ups available.
    Although its a long shot, employment, self or otherwise, Full time or part time has been known on occassion to bring in a few dollars

    You asked the question “if a father cannot afford to pay……and the mum cant afford to feed or clothe where do dads think mums should get the money from”,
    I think my answer is the only obvious conclusion neither of them are fit to be parents.

    Comment by mits — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 6:46 pm

  97. I’m new to this site, and let me be clear … i’m NOT a parent. I do, however, have a nephew whose father is very well off, yet he refuses to pay child support, saying he can’t “afford” it. Maybe I’m just not getting it, not being a parent myself, but providing for a child is not a matter of being able to “afford” it. I’m one of several children, and my father probably couldn’t “afford” to have his family but he damn well FOUND whatever money was required to put shoes on our feet, clothes on our backs and food in our bellies. If he found himself short of money he just worked harder – he did whatever it took. My nephews father has an extremely good income but still says he can’t “afford” to pay. What he’s really saying is he can’t “spare” the money required to financially support his child because he’s too busy spending it on an exclusive lifestyle, and by this I mean expensive food, a wardrobe full of expensive clothes and a wine cellar to die for.

    Mits, why would you have a problem providing child support to the mother? surely children are not in a position to provide for themselves so there really is no option and you’ll just have to get over it.

    Re your second point, if the father can’t “afford” to pay maintenance then he should go and get a second job. It’s as simple as that. Father’s MUST pay for their children – child support assumes that both mother and father will contribute equally to the financial requirements of their children.

    Fathers who don’t pay for their children are quite simply deadbeats … whatever their personal reasons for abusing their children in this way. It’s people like this who put an unfair burden on the tax payers of this country.

    Comment by Kahu — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 7:21 pm

  98. “So are you saying then (as in my case) the father is not fit to be a parent, given that I provide all the financial support?”

    in this thread, you are the one crying after money .. does that mean you cannot afford the kid and you are not a fit parent??

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 8:20 pm

  99. can you afford to support your kids financially?.. if not does that make you an unfit parent?.. if you are able to support them financially.. why are you running after his money … can’t you go your own way like he has… u claim you do to block access but there are ways to pretend u do not block access but still do it.. like delaying tactics (gleaned from this forum).. is it possible he gave up on access because of this..

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 8:25 pm

  100. Kahu
    the old smoke and mirrors trick huh?
    Why would I have a problem providing child support to the mother, because it doesnt get spent on my childs welfare. Is that to difficult to grasp?
    And as to the child supporting themselves do you really think that was an intelligent option or were you just trying to deflect attention from the issue

    And as to my second point,
    I was answering Sarahs question, If you dont like the answer then so be it but if the father and mother are both claiming that they cant afford to raise the child I still re iterate that both of them are unfit. Methinks you shouldnt ask the question if your not prepared to hear the answer.

    On another point you raise, I hope that you find it in your heart to slip a few dollars to your nephews custodial parent to help support the nephew. I mean families family Or are you a deadbeat as well leaving it to others?

    Comment by mits — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 9:09 pm

  101. Hello again,

    I just want people here to know that I am genuinely interested in this subject. I am not here to judge anyone for their opinions, and I hope no-one judges me for mine.

    I have looked at the website, scrap, thank you very much for that. The model would be extremely helpful to parents who live in an ideal world where their parenting styles are much the same and who have a similar moral foundation, who are communicative and reasonable with each other and have partners totally and uncompromisingly supportive of the shared care arrangement. I don’t believe there is any such straight forward model that will suit all broken families 100% and care arrangements should be taken on a case by case basis, but it is a well thought out model just the same and should be considered.

    I believe that men and women are two very different creatures and they approach parenting in a varied way and styles are often very different to each other. My observation in a typical family arrangement is when a child is born he has his needs met primarily by his mother. According to the experts (Bowlby/Ainsworth) this first relationship determines much of the childs future well-being. Without this foundation there is risk to his future happiness and health. This thread is interesting as it excludes the emotional well-being of the child altogether and focuses solely on the financial ramifications of having and bringing up children, even though the underlying justification for most of the opinions here are “it’s for the good of the child”.

    It costs money to raise children…and I don’t mean to just provide a roof over their heads, feed them and make sure they are warm and clothed adequately. Parents like to give their children all the opportunities available to them. Off the top of my head I can think of…swimming lessons…swimming for fun…gymbaroo…music lessons…sports…birthdays…christmas…daycare…
    school activities…family activities…going out for dinner…going out with friends…being involved in the community…religious activites, most of the time these things will come with a financial cost, all of which are mostly taken for granted and aren’t necessary things to live.

    I have some more questions!

    Why should a non-custodial parent have a say about what the child support money is spent on? The reason why I ask that question is because most support appears to be around 100 – 200 dollars per week and anyone could work out very quickly what the money would be spent on. A custodial parent provides a roof at on average if they aren’t in a Housing NZ house 250 – 300 per week so lets put 20 per week of CS money towards that for the custodial. Power on average is 20 – 30 per week so lets put 10 per week of CS money towards that. Phone hardly a necessity but if the child needs an ambulance or a chat with the non custodial parent lets put 5 per week towards that. Food for the week to feed one child…lets say 50.00… that should include breakfasts, lunches and dinner. Snacks, one treat at Macdonalds in the weekend too, split that and lets put 25 dollars from CS money towards that. Clothes…? How often would someone shop for clothes for growing children lets put 20 per week towards the farmers card from CS money for that and that will cover shoes and other essential clothing items they might need for preschool and then school and good clothes for church and going out to dinner with family and friends. Alternative heating for some families means buying in wood over and above the electricity bill, probably works out to be 400 per year so lets put 5.00 per week for that from CS money. Would that be fair if somewhat rudimentary. Thats 85 per week so far and that is only necessities of life and doesn’t include other fun activities enjoyed by families today. It costs money to have pets that the kids learn to look after and love and nuture. It’s easy to figure out where the money goes.

    Why do non-custodial parents feel so hard-done by when they have to pay child support?

    For those that do not have a 50 50 arrangement why do they think the amount of child support should be adjusted according to the amount of contact they have?

    Why do non-custodial parents more often than not use the revenue statutes to hide and artificially reduce their income tax so they do not have to pay child support?

    Why does it appear that rights are more important than the well-being of the children? Sometimes it just isn’t in the interests of the child to have 50 percent shared care. Shouldn’t the personality of the child be considered when such decisions are being made?

    Do non-custodials think about the financial contributions made by grand parents?

    Does it occur to non-custodials that it is often easier to have a family member look after the children because when they get home they know the kids will be fed bathed and in bed on time the house work is done and there is tea in the microwave?

    I am very much in favour of what is Fair and Reasonable for the children.

    Comment by Dawn — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 9:58 pm

  102. I was forced from my home and children by a psychotic druggie who had previously attempted to take my children’s lives. I was expected to pay $400 per month in child tax on top of finding a new home for myself and my children (when the bitch allowed visits), pay $125 per hour to my solicitor to save my children from having their lives threatened any further by their abusive monster-of-a-mother, invest in recording equipment to record her foul, abusive phone calls early hours of the morning to protect myself from her manipulations of her Protection Order. Any money she received from me went to the local tinnie house.
    I lost my home and every piece of furniture, photograph, tool etc that I had collected over my lifetime. My two older children were alienated from me. She refused to allow Family Court ordered access. I applied and was granted an Order to Enforce access but she still refused. She refused to pay the mortgage on our home and also refused permission to list it for sale. It cost me dearly in legal fees to have a relationship with my children and only because of a state-funded legal aid receiving wicked psycho bitch.
    There are many reasons why a father should be excused from funding the drug habit of some bitch, just because she bore his children.
    BTW… I won custody of my children in the Femily Court…eventually.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 10:35 pm

  103. Why should a non-custodial parent have a say about what the child support money is spent on?
    Because it is money that is supposed to be for the child not the custodial parent.
    Providing a roof isnt child support unless the custodial parent is living in a tent. Surely as a adult entrusted with the upbringing of a child a roof should be a prerequsite

    Power on average is 20 — 30 per week so lets put 10 per week of CS money towards that.
    Debateable point but I accept that the child uses power so looking at both Parents contributing then the CS amount should be shared equally

    Phone hardly a necessity but if the child needs an ambulance or a chat with the non custodial parent lets put 5 per week towards that.
    Fair enough
    Food for the week to feed one child…lets say 50.00… that should include breakfasts, lunches and dinner. Snacks, one treat at Macdonalds in the weekend too, split that and lets put 25 dollars from CS money towards that.

    Clothes…? How often would someone shop for clothes for growing children lets put 20 per week towards the farmers card from CS money for that and that will cover shoes and other essential clothing items they might need for preschool and then school and good clothes for church and going out to dinner with family and friends.
    Yes it will be since the custodial parent should be matching these costs so $40 a week on the farmers card accessed only for childs clothes will see one well dressed child

    Alternative heating for some families means buying in wood over and above the electricity bill, probably works out to be 400 per year so lets put 5.00 per week for that from CS money. Would that be fair if somewhat rudimentary.
    Why should CS support over half the heating bill?

    It costs money to have pets that the kids learn to look after and love and nuture. It’s easy to figure out where the money goes.
    It is in this model and if I might quote you
    The model would be extremely helpful to parents who live in an ideal world where their parenting styles are much the same and who have a similar moral foundation
    What if the custodial parent is not spending the CS in the manner you have described.

    Why do non-custodial parents feel so hard-done by when they have to pay child support?
    I pay child support. and it has always aggreived me that money I pay for my child is not always spent on the child

    For those that do not have a 50 50 arrangement why do they think the amount of child support should be adjusted according to the amount of contact they have?
    The model you described doesnt have any allowance for time spent with the non custodial parent. All the figures you mentioned still apply when the child is with the non custodial parent. Should CS be reciprocal on a weekly basis when visiting is occurring?

    Why do non-custodial parents more often than not use the revenue statutes to hide and artificially reduce their income tax so they do not have to pay child support?
    Dont know, I pay what Im told to pay.

    Why does it appear that rights are more important than the well-being of the children? Sometimes it just isn’t in the interests of the child to have 50 percent shared care. Shouldn’t the personality of the child be considered when such decisions are being made?
    And other times 50% share would be in the best interests of the child that is a debate for another thread I think

    Do non-custodials think about the financial contributions made by grand parents?
    Are you including both sets of grandparents and others in the extended family?

    Does it occur to non-custodials that it is often easier to have a family member look after the children because when they get home they know the kids will be fed bathed and in bed on time the house work is done and there is tea in the microwave?
    Who By? From the sounds of this you have strayed a little from the CS topic

    I am very much in favour of what is Fair and Reasonable for the children.
    Here we are agreed CS should be for the children not the parents.

    The figure bandied about all the time of CS does not show the true amount as it doesnt take into account any monies spent by the non custodial parent on supporting the child outside of the govt enforced costs.
    Its not CS I rail against but having to pay ex spousal support in the guise of CS

    Comment by mits — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 11:22 pm

  104. A well thought out and logical answer Dawn.

    Let us deal with it item by item,

    1) In most cases the Government takes the CS payment direct into the consolidated fund. That is neither the custodial parent or the child see it.

    2) There is the resentment at being told what to do and knowing that the consolidated fund is the destination. At the same time being harrased by the custodial parent becaune the child wants to (Say) go to camp and more money is needed. Lay that against a background of a new partner or broken visitation agreements and the basis for resentment becomes apparent.

    3) Any astute business person conducts their affairs in such a way as to minimise tax liability. The same can be said of Child support.

    4) Where the custodial parent has a relationship with a new partner, there is a perceived and reasonable assumption that the new partner should accept some liability for an existing family. After all in subsequent relationships, people don’t come as single items but packages.

    Comment by alastair — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 11:36 pm

  105. Hi Mit…

    Nice reply…thanks for that. I just wanted to let you know the model I was referring too is found at I just threw a few thoughts together after reading the posts on this thread. I really should mind my own business. I guess my feelings on the CS debate is that the children deserve the very very best parents and money that parents contribute have to offer. I also think that a lot of non custodials could save themselves a lot of heartache if they detached themselves from the whole business and minded their own business ESPECIALLY if they are unable to control the situation themselves, as appears to be the case 99 percent of the time. I would love to hear from women who are non custodial and who pay child support.

    Another question has just popped into my head?

    The CS system is obviously regulated by statutes so why do non custodials react so emotionally to the CS debate rather than logically?

    I would like to debate the 50/50 sometime actually that would be interesting.

    To help clarify what I mean by:

    ‘Are you including both sets of grandparents and others in the extended family?’

    No…only the custodial parents for this particular arguement. The non custodials are not the only ones who contribute financially.

    ‘Who By? From the sounds of this you have strayed a little from the CS topic’

    Yes I see what you mean however earlier in this post someone commented on not being able to ‘babysit’ their child due to manipulative behaviour of the custodial parent but still had to pay child support while not having any ‘rights’ etc etc. I would assume that non custodials have a problem with grand parents looking after the children when they feel it is their ‘right’ to do so. Hence my comment…”Does it occur to non-custodials that it is often easier to have a family member look after the children because when they get home they know the kids will be fed bathed and in bed on time the house work is done and there is tea in the microwave”?

    ‘Should CS be reciprocal on a weekly basis when visiting is occurring’?

    Good question…I guess two answers could be considered.

    Yes…If you wanted to be completely fair regarding financial support. If
    you wanted to potentially increase the conflict between parents.
    No… If you only cared about the well-being of the child and used the
    the visit to build the relationship. Why would any parent begrudge
    the extra money.

    I hear you on the ex spousal support in the guise of CS…I have to think about that one a little bit more.

    Your great.

    Comment by Dawn — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 12:03 am

  106. Hi Alistair

    I am not familiar with the ‘ consolidated fund ‘, but I guess non custodials are annoyed more of their hard earned money is payed to the Government.

    Resentment is a feeling best left out of anything to do with the children and that should include any financial arrangements including CS. If the kid needs money for camp and you can afford it give him some money for camp. I would hate to think a child missed out on something special due to resentment of the other parent.

    An astute business man knows you cannot cheat the Tax Man. Even if income is tied up in a trust you have to pay tax on the profit no matter where it ends up. BUT if your profit is tied up in a trust your CS liability can be artificially reduced by only paying a trustee the barest minimum while still having all the benefits of a successful business. Especially if a partner is involved.

    You are right on point four. I have read stories here that show a custodial living with an extremely wealthy partner only to still receive CS. Any custodial in that position has, I feel, an obligation to make arrangements with the non custodial to reduce CS considerably.

    Comment by Dawn — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 12:29 am

  107. You are correct Dawn. The consolidated fund is basically the government trading account. Most revenue (Including Taxation) is paid into it.

    Child support’s problems are systemic. it can be based on income details 2 years old, or the IRD assessment. IRD assessments are normally based on their (IRD) whims. they are always high. The methodology appears to be to force you to dislose all your income. The formula takes no account of personal circumstance. The worst case scenario is when the paying parent enters a new relationship, is attempting to consolidate this relationship along with children while being forced to pay CS. The formula can – and does frequently force major imbalances in this circumstance.

    If you are brave visit and search Child support.

    Another problem is when a person goes off DPB i.e. becomes elligible to receive CS. they don’t get paid until all arrears and penalties are up to date.

    At this time of the morning I don’t make sense!

    Tomorrow! – Sorry later today!

    Comment by alastair — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 12:54 am

  108. May I just thank the person from this forum that rang my ex. I can gather who. For the first time in 4 years I have had the speediest response to my child support issues, one that exceeds the IRD even and that takes some beating!

    This “direct” approach really does work. So thanks once again I feel that a resolution is well on its way and this forum has truly accelerated any delays from the other side with regards to paying CS.



    Comment by Sarah — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 12:55 am

  109. Dawn you have me shaking my head in wonder.
    How can you say “I guess my feelings on the CS debate is that the children deserve the very very best parents and money that parents contribute have to offer”
    And then follow it up with “I also think that a lot of non custodials could save themselves a lot of heartache if they detached themselves from the whole business and minded their own business ESPECIALLY if they are unable to control the situation”

    If you dont think that CS for my child is my business then who’s business is it?
    You cant take an emotive subject and expect logical dialogue when most of the subject matter is stereotypes and generalisations and people skirt round the often unpleasant truth that being a custodial parent is not always goodness and light and a automatic path to sainthood whilst non custodials are drawn to the dark side bitter and twisted. Sometimes the opposite can be the case

    Comment by mits — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 12:57 am

  110. Hi Mit,

    It is your business to pay CS. It is the custodials business to spend it. The money you pay is helping to look after your child. You are not taking on the full financial responsibility. Let me ask you…

    Do you get to tell the custodial parent how they are to spend the money?

    I doubt it…what you need to do is forget about it. A non custodial is not in a position to dictate how that money is to be spent…yet. You are not in control.

    You are not in control……..That’s the problem isn’t it? The non custodial is not in control! They are not in control of their relationship, not in control of their money, not in control of contact with the children, not in control of how the money is spent. The non custodial parent is not given an opportunity to step up and be great. The legislation does not allow parents the dignity of trying to get it right for themselves and their families first.

    Here’s some more questions!

    Left to their own devices, do you think the majority of non custodial parents who are unable to have 50/50 would be willing to contribute a fair and reasonable amount to help support the children financially?

    Let me make it more personal to you Mit.

    Would you be willing to contribute financially if the government left you to do so? and if you were willing…

    How much would you pay and would you set aside a percentage of your wages?

    How would you facilitate payment?

    Would you pay into the custodials bank account?

    Would it be a set amount that could change depending on your circumstances?

    Would you insist on paying service providers, landlords and schools directly?

    Would the type of relationship you have with the custodial have a bearing on the amount you pay and how you pay it?


    What I find difficult to understand is how IRD can get it so wrong when making assessments based on mathematical formulas and information provided to them by the non custodial parent themselves.

    Can anyone tell me how IRD came about making up the formulas to assess CS?


    Why do you think IRD have legislated CS so rigidly?

    Thanks Mit and pardon my naivety.

    Comment by Dawn — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 1:55 am

  111. Dawn, Sarah et al,
    I’ve watched this thread with interest whilst noting it’s inevitable and entirely predictable direction.
    There’s one thing glaringly obviously missing from this whole discussion.
    It’s the well researched fact that it’s mothers who unilaterally initiate divorce proceedings. Some recent research sites this as approximately 70% of the time.
    In addition they have the feminist behemoth the misandric ‘family’ ‘court’ and divorce industry behind them.
    A cursory glance through threads on this website will show how hugely damaging to father-child relationships the whole setup is.
    Everywhere I travel throughout the anglosphere I see legions of solo Moms. They appear relaxed and secure, well dressed, well nourished, supported by taxpayers. They apparently have plenty of money for fashion clothing, make-up, fast food, many of them smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol regularly, are buying all manner of appliances, have sporting hobbies, buy cars and houses, are going on vacations, being taxpayer supported to study, get subsidized accommodation, health-care and plenty of commodities deemed ‘needed’.
    I’m sure this list of what many solo Moms seem to feel entitled to is by no means exhaustive!
    A recent example of this phenomenon would be the two women that Paulla Bennett thankfully took to task.

    Now we come to the nub of the situation.
    Which sex works longer hours in more stressful jobs and thereby pays by far the most in taxes? It’s a no brainer right? – MEN!
    Which Anglosphere sex used to die a couple of years earlier than the other at the beginning of the 20th century, but now dies about 7 years earlier – MEN!
    Which Anglosphere sex by dent of such a disparity in longevity demographically outnumbers the other by somewhere between 5 – 10% thereby ensuring it gets the social policy dominance in ‘democracies’? – WOMEN.
    As a group your numbers are significantly greater than men’s and therefore your voice louder but I think you shouldn’t be so selfish and strident.
    Before throwing a wobbly and claiming or inferring that your ex is a ‘deadbeat’ and irresponsibly not paying enough child tax you should remember something.
    For every father partially or totally alienated from his ex and his kids who doesn’t supply you with the standard of living you’d like through paying more child tax, there are literally legions of men sacrificing their health and longevity in jobs which get taxed, which then goes into the consolidated fund – and then gets doled out to women in the form of DPB, study grants, small business grants etc, etc, etc…fill in your own blanks here folks.
    It’s just another twist on the tired old situation of men being objectified as security objects rather than seen as human beings – just another Titanic like situation where men are expected to be the ones who go down into the icy waters it seems.
    Here’s one man at least with a wide enough view to refuse to play security blanket.
    Take care our numbers are growing every day.
    I’ve been at this Men’s Rights Activism a long time. Therefore I’m aware I’ve used terms here that may be unfamiliar to some of you yet are common parlance amongst those who been on board for a while. If so I invite you to google them.
    You may find the men’s spaces you arrive at on the internet doing so even more enlightening.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 4:28 am

  112. Your welcome Dawn

    answers to your questions
    1 yes I have always contributed to my childrens welfare
    2 how much I pay is no ones business but mine the mothers and the childrens
    but your naievety shows if you think the only concept to income is a percentage of wages,
    3 the same way that I pay for my financial commitments now could be cash, cheque, money order, direct debit, installments deposits into bank acc. payment on invoice most likely a combination of them all
    4 As with the above answer I have no problem with the method of payment or where monies are held or deposited
    5 CS has never been a set amount I have a portion that is set by IRD which I am legislated to pay. Then I have everything else that I spend on supporting my children so the amount varies depending on circumstances already.
    Might i add there that the variations are sometimes due to a change in the custodials circumstances not mine or the childs.
    6 In line with the answers I have already given, I wouldnt insist on anything but yes I could foresee where some bills would be paid directly and others not.
    7 I pay CS Dawn my relationship with the custodial parent is irrelevant. I pay the legislated amount set by IRD I also pay outside of IRD for the welfare of my child.

    Why have IRD legislated so rigidly?
    In my opinion its because CS is another revenue stream. Not all the money raised by CS is paid to look after children.

    Comment by mits — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 8:15 am

  113. Hi Mit..

    I see you have missed my point entirely.

    I do however expect that to be the case when non custodials (not just you) are so immersed in their martyrdom about paying child support. They no longer have the capacity to think clearly anymore due to their rage and anxiety about the break up, loss of the children, and inevitable CS they have to pay. It’s a shame and does nothing to help the serious reformers wanting a better outcome for children and for non custodials.

    In fact I can see that IRD have brainwashed non custodials to the extent that they are now unable to think without them. That’s a shame too.

    Mit read my post again and think about my questions after you get rid of the huge chip you have on your shoulder.

    I’ll be interested in seeing your new answers.

    Comment by Dawn — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 9:38 am

  114. Dawn,
    re #46 – Wow! What a lot of slash and burn!
    In your eyes Mit soon went from ‘your great’ to what appears like ‘your shite’.
    Something triggered you and you’re clearly one pissed off woman.
    Your last posting contains highly inflammatory insults directed Mit’s way and in my opinion shows you’re not really engaging with him in a respectful discussion.
    In the process you denigrate many men who’re already deeply wounded after having been put through the divorce industry then the CS mincer.
    I agree that non-custodial (now there’s a derogatory euphemistic double-speak term!) parent under our current regime have to pay CS then have no control over how it’s spent by the Custodial parent.
    I’ve seen with my own eyes countless solo Moms in NZ can and do spend the CS money on whatever they want with absolute impunity – make-up, clothes for themselves, alcohol, ciggies, drugs, gambling, gifts for friends and family etc etc….insted of on the kids the money’s supposed to be spent on……..again fill in your own blanks here folks…….and to add insult to injury they bleat about how hard done by they are…..
    and it’s immoral……simply wrong period.
    Call me all the names under the sun, it won’t alter my opinion on that.
    As far as I can see you’ve asked Mit some questions, he’s tried respectfully to answer them, and then you’ve slipped into derogatory invective.
    That’s no substitute for reasoned debate, wins you neither respect nor friends, and gives me clear reason to suspect that kind of behavior is what your ex had to put up with.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 11:15 am

  115. I never missed your point Dawn, as you never made one.

    I dont know where all this talk of control, martydom, rage, anxiety and brainwashing comes from, maybe you could enlighten me as from my perspective it seems as though you are talking of something personal to yourself whilst couching it in generalities regarding CS
    We both agree that CS should be in the best interests of the child.
    My answers are CS should be focussed entirely on the childs welfare and that paying CS to the custodial parent is not always going to be in the childs best interest.
    Not all custodial parent are the paragons of virtue that they should be. Surely you can understand that?

    Maybe if you answered the questions asked in#44 how you think they should be answered and then we can have a look at both sides of the spectrum and see if there is middle ground that we can both agree on.

    Comment by mits — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 12:07 pm

  116. You should take your attack against MEN to a feminist site. How rude of you!

    I’ve been on both sides of the fence. I am currently the custodial parent and receive NOTHING from the ex-bitch and I couldn’t care less if I never receive anything from her. I stopped needing anything from her the moment I left her sorry arse. Mothers should try playing the confident role-model position rather than playing the victim. It teaches the children a better lesson. Put your energy in to generating your own money and leave the other EQUAL PARENT alone to decide their commitment towards his/her children.
    Why do so many women NEED to organise/control/manage MEN’s stuff? Bugger off and do something constructive.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 12:13 pm

  117. “It’s just another twist on the tired old situation of men being objectified as security objects rather than seen as human beings — just another Titanic like situation where men are expected to be the ones who go down into the icy waters it seems.
    Here’s one man at least with a wide enough view to refuse to play security blanket.
    Take care our numbers are growing every day.

    And I’m another man forming that wider view – fortunately before being conned into some ‘family’ fairy-tale that will degenerate into my being nothing more than someone who funds someone else’s lifestyle and kids.

    We’ve heard all this stridency before and the Dickensque allusions to ‘shoeless children with nothing in their bellies’, and it always follows the same script: lazy, irresponsible man versus faultless, emminently fair woman. It’s lousy fiction ladies – the first rule is to always make it believeable.

    Something else that is arising in the ever-growing community of men awakening to the biggest double-standard since slavery in the land of the free, is the notion that every good deed soon becomes an expectation. What was once done out of kindness is soon coerced as a ‘duty’. It is the very ugly side of human nature. No doubt what is meant by ‘no good deed goes unpunished’. If our kindness is rewarded in the way that it is, don’t be surprised that we may learn to withhold it.

    As for we men complaining because we are not in control, that is only partly true. We are objecting because we have no control at all – women have it all now. It is clear how much to the fore ‘control’ is in their consciousness by how often they use the word. It is always a man who is labelled as a ‘controlling personality’, usually by a woman. It is men who are characterised as being driven by a desire for control, again usually by women. But strangely enough, I don’t hear men use the word very often, nor are they quick to pick it out as a flaw in someone else. The only thing I would say men crave control over is their own lives – and I’m sure that is a very disagreeable thing to you strident ladies.

    I’m sure you’ve heard the story of the sun and the wind making a wager as to which of them could get the man’s raincoat off soonest. With all the blowing you are doing now, we are only holding onto our coats even harder.

    Comment by rc — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 12:13 pm

  118. Hi Skeptik,

    Mit is great and so are all the other parents who don’t have 50/50 care and pay child support.

    My observation with working with so many parents in this situation is that they surround themselves with people who do not tell them the truth. This includes both custodial and non custodial.

    Underneath all the animosity and hurt and anger is a parent who just wants to spend time with and build a relationship with their children but are so overwhelmed by the injustices done to them by exes and government they lose sight of what is important.

    It’s true most non custodial parents do have a big chip on their shoulder only no one wants to tell them about it for fear of being verbally attacked and having to listen to a tirade of unimportant facts about exes, IRD and CS.

    Anyone who does not think they are responsible for some of what is happening to them does not want to be honest and so won’t be able to get a positive outcome.

    I have to agree that some custodials are totally unreasonable and are subjecting their exes to unusual amounts of harm at the expense of the children and this is unforgiveable. But what can you do about that? Court? Admin Reviews?

    Things are not as black and white as people try to make them out to be.

    It is good to think about how our own actions are contributing to some of the heartache we find ourselves in.

    I guess you are right when you say I am pissed off. I do get annoyed at people who blame everybody else for their misfortunes.

    What kind of a system would be preferable to the current CS scheme?

    Anybody focused on a good relationship with the kids are great and that would have to be everyone here today.

    Comment by Dawn — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 1:11 pm

  119. Dawn,
    I’m glad to hear you admit your pissed off.
    I don’t see any retraction of the insults you’ve been tossing Mit’s way, just further invective and demeaning of many terribly wounded dads who have and continue to be systemically alienated from their children.

    You say –
    “It’s true most non custodial parents do have a big chip on their shoulder only no one wants to tell them about it for fear of being verbally attacked and having to listen to a tirade of unimportant facts about exes, IRD and CS.

    Anyone who does not think they are responsible for some of what is happening to them does not want to be honest and so won’t be able to get a positive outcome.”

    Those comments strike me as incredibly insensitive after what I and other men have described is happening to NZ men in postings earlier on in this thread.

    Mit – Goodonya for keeping your cool and not responding to Dawn’s insults with similar.

    SickofNZ – great last post. My sentiments exactly.

    rc – I’m totally with you mate. I just left another woman that I was growing to like because these days at the mearest hint of her going into victim mode whilst apparently priveliged to the hilt I’m out the door!

    Comment by Skeptik — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 2:30 pm

  120. Thanks, she’s an amateur compared to my ex-psycho. I can see right through her despite that posterior partially blocking the view. She’s ignorantly challenging our separate real experiences as insignificant and unrelated to our lack of excitement for the ex to unilaterally decide what expenses are appropriate for OUR children and sending us the bill.
    If MEN had true family equality I expect that most separated couples would have 50/50 shared care with no money transferring either way.
    My ex drugged me for three days before I realised, tried to kill my children, lied to the Cops when I tried to get help, got a Protection Order to get Power & Control, threatened me that she would kill my kids if I left her EVERY FARKEN WEEK for YEARS and I believed her. She convinced me of that. I was stuck under the control of a mad bitch. That’s what MEN do for their children. Why the fark should I have had to pay that sick bitch anything while I fought in the Femily Court to save my kids lives from her? …while she ran a campaign of maligning me to my employer, family, friends, neighbours? …while she rang me relentlessly, screaming abusive threats, in the early hours of the mornings? …while she ignored the Femily Court and refused my children access to their father? …while she alienated my children from me? …while she supplied marijuana and alcohol to my 14yr old daughter? …while she allowed my 14yr old daughter’s boyfriend to ‘sleep over’ because he had a good income? …while she refused to pay the mortgage ($130 per/week)? …while she refused to allow me to list our property for sale to avert a mortgagee sale? …While I was paying for the two-week-old $2,000 bed that she converted to her new work-bench? …While she allowed my 14yr old daughter to drop out of school?…While she regularly assaulted my 8yr old son?…
    ….I could go on and farking on Dawn. You clearly have had very limited experience in life or you’re just ignorant. I don’t know which it is but I do know that your rude stereotyping of MEN here pisses me off.

    My ex has two young children that are unrelated to me. I give her food sometimes because she really does need it. That is what happens voluntarily even after everything that she has done to my children and me.

    The problem isn’t money. The problem is selfish parents not sharing the children. If you can’t afford to raise your children ladies, ask the father if he would like a turn.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 1st August 2009 @ 3:28 pm

  121. Dawn,
    At the risk of drawing this thread out even further. Which I am loathe to do as in times like this I always remember the old adage,

    Its like banging your head on a brick wall, it feels better when you stop.

    “I just want people here to know that I am genuinely interested in this subject.”
    and now I notice that you are actually involved in this feild
    “My observation with working with so many parents in this situation is……”
    Can you enlighten me in what capacity you work with all these parents?

    Comment by mits — Sun 2nd August 2009 @ 9:59 am

  122. There are two general types of comment encouraged for this thread. The first is practical and the second general, based for experience and opinion.

    The difficult part for the Commission’s survey or otherwise the notion that they in fact are our best organisation to investigate the controversy of child support is that they are in fact under reasonable public criticism for not connecting with the issues relative to fatherhood. This makes the idea that they are best suited to run the survey insulting to those individuals who claim they are neglected by society. Not only are we told that men have the primary problem with child support, and organisation that openly refuses to deal with the controversy of that problem is given the task to remedy from its cause.

    To cover the first type of encouraged comments the answers are fairly obvious. I qualify this is from the occasion that Dr Rajen Prasad, now a Labour MP and then the Chief Commissioner of the Families Commission openly declared to me in our conversation that the term “fatherhood” was parked. I took it then to mean that the modern families are diverse in their constitution and this left no room for the traditional construct of mum dad and the kids. That the present Families Commission under the leadership of Professor Jan Pryor rejects arguments presented to them in Wellington because Sir Jim Bagnall distributes leaflets to young men advising them that they are in for a rough ride if they separate is surely and certainly empirical evidence enough to suggest that the consultation on Child Support is nothing more than an activity of endorsement of the Commission’s preset view.

    To cover the second type of encouraged comment, my own empirical experience and protestation is that if you steal my children I have no reason to pay child support. If I am not protected to my natural relationship with my son and daughter and my son and daughter are not protected to their natural inheritance of a relationship with me, why would I pay for that criminal and unlawful removal of such a God given right? It makes no cents.

    Unfortunately where the Commission was crafted, then, by the now Minister of Revenue, there is little chance under his watch that any significant change will occur. That is unless there is some kind of political revolution. That is unlikely where the groups of individuals who make up the body of the men’s movement (that I would call a coalition of fathers) prepare themselves to stand together. There is an accessible plan for both or either to occur, but players need to be a part of it. By example, while it is that Sir Jim Bagnall, Psychologist Craig Jackson and active teacher Allan Harvey cannot communicate and report over an approached media, the future of reasonable and broad moderate change appears unlikely.

    Probably; and consistent with the history of the Families Commission and the reluctance of it to accommodate radical views the Sunday Radio New Zealand National Radio show hosted by ex All Black, Chris Laidlaw will continue to treat Craig Jackson’s approach to it for air time with its outright contempt. Thereafter the revolution more obviously takes its stance: And as I said to the Diplomatic Protection Squad in Wellington Police Station when they requested and where given an interview with me on “what does the revolution look like”, it is simply natural. After a while of kicking blokes when they are down, the bloke, or others around him stand.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 2nd August 2009 @ 11:12 am

  123. How many fathers would say YES PLEASE if they were offered day-to-day care of their children WITHOUT claiming any financial assistance from the mother?

    Problem solved….NEXT?

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 2nd August 2009 @ 2:31 pm

  124. Let me place a major problem with the present pig headed IRD administration.

    We have a perfect arrangement. The parent with Day to day care is on DPB. Over time as new lives have developed for both they have relocated and now are physically seperated by several hundred KM.

    The child wants to see the paying parent, the other parent is co-operative.

    First, the paying parent is faced with the childs costs for the visit. (Food, visits, maintaining a room during absences) plus who carries the costs of transport between the two parents. Sorry the Paying parent carries on paying, the government collects the money, It doesn’t care! The alternative, the child misses out, either way the government doesn’t care! And the interests of the child are paramount – Yeah right!

    Comment by alastair — Sun 2nd August 2009 @ 2:49 pm

  125. I would certainly say YES PLEASE, to that. As someone who has been both the custodial and non custodial parent I can say without fear of contradiction that it would cost me approximately 50% of what I am paying in Child Support now if my children returned to my household and I raised them myself. Currently I pay $1600 per month in child support for 3 children! Does it really cost her that much to raise them?? I think not!!!

    Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 2nd August 2009 @ 4:40 pm

  126. I understand this is quite a long forum now, and adding to it might be annoying to people. However I would like to actually provide our experience of the child support law for the people offering these experiences to the Families Commission.
    My husband has never met the biological child he apparently is a “father” to. He currently pays $1271 per month to contribute towards raising a child he has never met, and has never had an opportunity to meet, and never will meet unless the child finds us (women can get full custody without the man knowing).
    On average it costs $10,000 – $15,000 to raise a child in New Zealand, we’ll work on the $15,000 amount as we’re in the more expensive city of NZ. My husband is currently paying 101.68% of the amount it costs to raise a child. And I assume the mother is working, so she must have money to contribute as well? Gosh it seems like that child is getting more money per year than I am and I work a full time job!
    My husband and I are looking to have our own children one day, but because we have to pay $15,252 per year in child support we would not be able to afford to have a child. Unless of course I always work, which seems fair on us. And yes I understand child support payments are reduced when you have another dependant to support, but I think it will go down around $100 per month. Maybe $120. Which is nice. $1440 a year to raise a child compared to $13812. That seems fair.
    Of course me going back to work would make it easier. Apart from child care, which I guess our $120 a week probably wouldn’t cover?
    Really this system needs to be looked at. We pay so much that we can’t live a normal life. My right to have a child has been diminshed because of the amount we pay each month. Why should my rights be less important than those of a person who chose to have a child without consulting the “father”, and who chooses to have full custody and raise the child without input from the “father”. Do sperm donors have to pay child support? Why then should my husband pay when he is theoretically just a sperm donor.
    And yes condoms are great at stopping this from happening, so is the pill. And we obviously know this as we can’t afford to have our own child so do everything possible from stopping this from happening. Sad isn’t it?
    Oh and that “maximum limit” they have on child support income levels? That has gone up (again). When my husband just today (3rd August 2009) rang IRD to ask about this they mentioned that it has been increased because of the rise in living costs. My husband asked whether our living cost increase could be taken into consideration, and was basically told that was too bad.
    None of this really seems fair does it?

    Comment by K — Mon 3rd August 2009 @ 11:32 am

  127. I could write a book on this but the worst case of IRD fascism I have experienced in recent times happened to me about 2 years ago. I had 2 children in my custody and she had one. I was so broke that I had to borrow money off my mother to buy groceries yet IRD still forced me to give her $680 per month for the one child she had in her care. Yes, that’s after offsetting. I received the generous amount of $90 per month, from her for the 2 children I had in my care. It seems to me that IRD reward bludgers and people who deliberately work part time to avoid child support. My spouse and I are currently at a point where she can’t even afford to buy a pair of glasses because we have no spare cash at all by the time 1/3 of my pay goes in Child Support and another 1/3rd goes in PAYE tax. Most of my spouses income goes on her share of the rent and other domestic expenses. It never ceases to amaze me how IRD have got away with this for so long. Is it because most of the victims are men (and of course their new spouses and families) and we are too busy working for a living and paying for everything to find the time to force change? Currently I am forced to pay the ex $1600 per month even though one of my children is 18 and a half and working under the table. I state quite freely on here that I am going to give up PAYE job and start my own business and do cash jobs. I know IRD officials read posts on this site but I also know how stupid and lazy they are and that they only crucify PAYE earners because it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 3rd August 2009 @ 12:01 pm

  128. K,

    You have grounds for a judicial review. What is presently certain is that there is no dignitary brave enough to open up this flood gate. You are one of many, many appalling cases that Peter Dunne as Minister of Revenue has allowed to continue, and additionally permitted to be protected by the current (and previous) IRD administrations.

    Your access to justice is simply declined because of the fiscal system and its overall and perpetuated sense of balance. I’m booked up in the cases that I progress. I have an IRD case in Australia for pities sake, where once I go through the files it appears likely that the administrative wheels in this case will almost spontaneously glide away from the tax machine. Your case is in this category. If you want assistance I can approach this in two ways.

    My email is [email protected] . Firstly, I try and balance the media releases I put out now between the issues of local government and the father’s coalition material. If you are interested in me pursuing your case into the public, contact me by email and I will write to the Minister. Secondly, if the details of what you say are supported by fact I can look to develop the review — helping you to a position where you would approach filing against the Crown.

    Kind regards,

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 3rd August 2009 @ 2:56 pm

  129. the non custodial parent is not in control bcos the laws and the custodial parent manipulate to take away control.. something he is not responsible for.. so question becomes why should he be forced to pay for something he did not agree to in the first place??..

    Comment by karanjiharr — Mon 3rd August 2009 @ 6:12 pm

  130. Hi K

    As I understand it, from my hands on personal experience, if you have children then the amount is equally distributed between all the children when it comes to child support. I applied for an admin review on my child with the father and was awarded $1300 per month later going to $1900 based on his earnings. I then recieved a letter reducing it to $644 per month. When I enquired as to the change in amounts they were not obliged to tell me but gave me an idication as to why, without committing any info. Putting 2 & 2 Together I figured that his children from his first marriage had been added. So I rang their mum who has also had issues with support and private arrangements being broken. Unbeknownst to me she had also applied for child support….Fair do’s to the children I have no issues with this as they all deserve looking after and they are all brothers and sisters.

    However don’t assume that payments to the women with the child will be maintained at the same level as they won’t based on my first hand experience. I am truly mortified that your partner is not allowed access to his child. I do believe this is most unfair as I do belive that children do need to know their dad.

    Comment by Sarah — Mon 3rd August 2009 @ 6:46 pm

  131. Hi Sarah,

    I think that would work if we weren’t married and wanting a child. Actually being with the father of you child changes things a bit! It has happened to a friend of mine as well. If your husband has a child he pays child support for, and you have a child while married, that child support really doesn’t decrease.
    And yes it’s not good he’s never seen the child. Actually we don’t even know how old he is or his birthday or anything! But we still pay over $15000 a year……. Ah well! One day we’ll suddenly get a HUGE amount of money in husband’s pay packet and wonder what’s happened, and we’ll realise the child must be 19!

    Comment by K — Tue 4th August 2009 @ 9:25 am

  132. Q: Is there anything you can do to help me Benjamin. Thank you.

    Hi Tony,

    the answer is probably yes.

    I’ve CC’d the primary functionality of my political progress.

    Judicial review is about process not content, so very little of what you have described provides grounds for review. It does, however, form a substantive part of the evidence relevant to a decision.

    The decision that you would bring to a review on the information you have provided in my early and still inexperienced view would fail. The decision on child support or non child support would generally have to qualify on grounds of being UNLAWFUL or UNFAIR or UNREASONABLE or ULTRA VIRES (out of jurisdiction). Each of these have thresholds that are described in precedent or case law (otherwise called authorities). I have a bit of knowledge now on some of the relevant cases but it is still to be refined.

    What I have said above may appear discouraging, but I do not believe this is so. It more simply means there is no immediate “hook” on which to hang the case.

    Why I am positive and encouraging to K, is that I believe there is an argument to be applied. Firstly, however, I should say that in my view, there is little to compare between your cases. K’s husband has not seen his child. That situation is simply preposterous and far more amenable to review. I would prepare that case without using the provision I would apply to yours and the many other thousands with similar circumstances to you.

    Principally, I consider that Child Support is a contract and therefore privy to another part of law. I have challenged this with the IRD and had them test it using their own advisors. They dismissed the idea stating that it is statutory obligation. That means to me that no test was done and certainly I have not been provided with a definition against the suggestion.

    The reason it is a contract is because as a natural parent, you are entitled to home school your child.

    What I want to look at is someone/many applying under your circumstances to home school your child/ren, receive a negative reply and then test your rights as a natural parent and guardian against that decision.

    Give it some thought.


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 4th August 2009 @ 11:18 am

  133. K: I wish Benjamin all the best in his various endeavours but I feel I must speak up to state that, as a regular contributor here I cannot recommend inviting him to become involved in your case or personal affairs.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 4th August 2009 @ 6:27 pm

  134. Hi K

    Yep you are right, I was thinking from the second ex wife perspective! When I was first married we did pay to support the children to the first wife. While it wasn’t an arrangement via the IRD it was a private arrangement. Having my daughter did not impact that agreement.

    I really didn’t know that a woman could get total custody without the father having any input. That really sucks especially if he does want to be involved and is doing the decent thing.

    Wish you all the best


    Comment by Sarah — Tue 4th August 2009 @ 7:11 pm

  135. Thanks Hans, I’m pretty sure we won’t be going down that avenue. Much as it’s tempting! We have some plans, not sure if anything will pan out but we’ll see!

    Comment by k — Tue 4th August 2009 @ 8:21 pm

  136. To all of you with genuine complaints I am truly sorry for your situation but there is one amongst you that is a fraud… Sarah. Only people with ACTUAL child support issues should be on this site. Believe me people she has conveniently omitted quite a few details that would give you a different perspective of this situation.

    If her ex was guilty of anything it was believing that utter tripe that fell and continues to fall oh so easily from her mouth. Yes she was the one to leave and perhaps she should elaborate on the details of this seeing as she is so keen to air all of her ex’s so called dirty laundry. Please do not continue to be suckered into her ridiculous attention seeking particularly as her complaints are NOT valid!!!

    I myself left my husband and raised two boys without any financial or physical assistance from him… his choice and it pisses me off to no end when there is a father that cares and does help but is maligned in this way. All she wants… people… is MORE and she gets plenty! What a loser!

    Comment by Yvonne — Tue 4th August 2009 @ 8:32 pm

  137. Given this forum topic is still going I reckon there is real food for thought here.

    Bottomline is both sides of parenting obvisouly have serious issues that are not being addressed and need to be looked at. The IRD process that adresses the masses does not take in to account individaul circumstance, Given they have so many split marriages and children to look out for, what is the ideal solution?….there must be a way, there always is….any thoughts?

    Comment by Sarah — Tue 4th August 2009 @ 10:23 pm

  138. Yvonne

    Last time I checked zero child support did not qualify as plenty, bank statements never lie. Bottomline is I am not the loser here the child is. I would say this qualifies as a “child support issue”.


    Comment by Sarah — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 10:52 am

  139. Hi Ladies.

    Would you care to venture into some other issues like this.

    I know child support is an important issue but I could sure do with some women’s voices on the above subject.

    Also thanks so much for speaking up on this post. I better send the link to the Families Commission so they get to hear from parents.

    Comment by julie — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 11:55 am

  140. i identified this a few responses ago when she refused to open up about herself and give us both sides of the story.. she is only about $$$$ disguising it as concern for child.. Alistair got suckered in … prolly doomed the husband in the process..

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 5:11 pm

  141. its about the money isn’t it??

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 5:12 pm

  142. On average it costs $10,000 — $15,000 to raise a child in New Zealand, we’ll work on the $15,000 amount as we’re in the more expensive city of NZ. My husband is currently paying 101.68% of the amount it costs to raise a child.

    Have to disput these figures-the methodology used dictates the result.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 6:26 pm

  143. Its a tax, it will never be fair.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 6:26 pm

  144. I agree with Hans.

    I wish Benjamin all the best in his various endeavours but I feel I must speak up to state that, as a regular contributor here I cannot recommend inviting him to become involved in your case or personal affairs



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 6:28 pm

  145. For blended Families Child Support is grossly unfair.

    The whole system is fundementally flawed.

    My thoughts on the ideal solution



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 6:33 pm

  146. Julie,

    Isnt this thread about CS not DV.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 6:34 pm

  147. Hans and James,

    The proceedings I engage are about challenging issues that are allowed to fester in society. If those issues are not engaged then they will fester. That is a very simple principle by which to prosecute a purpose.

    As do you, state publicly for no given reason not to recommend, I state in reply your consideration would be ill considered. If you consider (thoroughly) what i have stated relative to home schooling, and back that consideration with empirical evidence, you would find there is a case to submit. Yet to discourage the event of that case because of some undisclosed reason, would hardly merit as meritorious in court.


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 8:57 pm

  148. Thanks Scrap for speaking out. I hope I haven’t discouraged communication by my comment.

    Comment by julie — Wed 5th August 2009 @ 9:52 pm

  149. Benjamin: You point out that I did not give the reasons for my non-recommendation, so allow me to correct that situation:
    1. You have placed your own view of political priorities above respect for others’ privacy, above others’ rights to control the release of their statements as intellectual property, above any need for you to maintain accuracy and integrity in representing others, and above clear rules of groups that you have been involved in. When challenged you have been unable or unwilling to recognize your own wrongdoing, to apologize or to make any commitment to adhere to group rules or interpersonal decency. You appear to believe you are entitled to trample all over others’ processes and campaigns with whatever mission you decide is more important than theirs.
    2. While the issues you pursue may well be deserving of challenge, from what I have seen you have achieved very little success in any of them. Your strategies seem half-cocked and lacking in teamwork. Your accounts of them express self-importance and pretence at significance more than accurate assessment.
    3. Notwithstanding that your pensmanship has shown indubitable amelioration with reference to its previously exiguous differentia, it still tends to be verbose, convoluted and often grammatically incorrect.
    4. All the problems above will be bringing about a reputation that is not helpful to the men’s and fathers’ movement, and nor will they be helpful to any individual cases that you become involved in.

    I acknowledge that my views are based on limited experience of your activities. As previously stated, I wish you all the best in your personal campaigns and I genuinely look forward to being surprised one day by an outcome achieving real gains for the men’s movement. Your Manners Mall campaign seems to be gaining some publicity and I congratulate you on that, though the outcome has yet to be seen.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 12:08 am

  150. Yep I think you have it there, “its all about the money”
    show me the money, SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

    sad really

    Comment by mits — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 7:42 am

  151. Hans,
    A perfect reply, so eloquent! And point 3. so perfectly stated.

    Personally I treat those comments with the regard they deserve, I ignore them!

    Finally, Can a partnership of 2 be a coalition

    Comment by alastair — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 8:02 am

  152. Ben,

    I have already staed my reasons previously on MENZ.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 12:22 pm

  153. Too late Sarah people have seen through you. Why don’t you do what the rest of us do and GET A JOB!!! The ex isn’t responsible for EVERYTHING!!! I managed to get a degree and followed that up with a very well paid job. Enough to raise my two children in relative comfort without any assistance. You should try it instead of trying to milk all you can out of a good person especially when he was already giving you so much. If your child is missing out and I doubt that she is.. it is because of YOU and not your ex… bottom line Sarah we are all responsible for our own…NO ONE ELSE. Take some responsibility and GET ON WITH IT!!!

    Comment by Yvonne — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 5:20 pm

  154. Well done Yvonne, you have a degree. A degree of insanity perhaps. At this point after LISTENING to Sarah, I find her more credible. The points she makes exposes the intrinsic fallicy of the present Child support Laws.

    Comment by alastair — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 5:32 pm

  155. Hans, thank you for replying. Before answering, as I believe is reasonable, I would like to answer Alistair. I take you for your word James, as long as your comments can be referenced and are fair.

    In all of my mail Alistair, I try not to be rude. If I am, when sometimes I become frustrated, I believe I apologise. Rudeness is always unnecessary and forms the substance of the body of men’s complaint. It contains covert poison that invariably wounds but does not legitimately entitle the victim to a right of reply. Your reply to my writing is generally fairly unpleasant.

    My first day of kindergarten, Alistair, was my last of school.

    For those who have complained in the same vein as you Hans, you of all are the individual who has been directly targeted by the adverse activity you claim I commit. I do not compare Darryl Ward’s complaint that in some correspondence I included the Diplomatic Protection Squad or my first alleged breach of accepted protocols when I drafted Merepeka Ruakawa-Tait the then head of Women’s Refuge into a group discussion.

    It will upset you that I haven’t directly apologised to you for drafting comments you made relative to homosexuality into a deeply political and profiled audience when you were/are standing as a Republic Party of New Zealand candidate of Tauranga in the last elections. You believe you made your comments before a secure audience and did not expect that that information could be leaked out especially as it is controversial information and you are a registered and respected psychologist.

    In my defense, I claim that if you are in politics you are a politician more than you are a professional in your chosen employment or vocation. My action was consistent with the election; testing your party principles and pitting you directly against those you were preparing to stand against. I would maintain, if you had taken the challenge rather than taking offence it would have put the elections of Tauranga in a completely different light; protests of significant controversy would have been run and established and matters still not exposed would have been exposed.

    The controversy which still exists not prosecuted in relation to fatherhood other than by me as far as I am aware is homosexuality.

    I reject all of your claims with the exception that I am not able to write. I reject that it is verbose and believe yours in this matter is an opinion relative to your own experience and in my view pays more attention to your view than it does to what I am writing. I have read through a lot of my mail and still see it full of material that those who criticize me refuse to register as important. I presume therefore reasonably that that material because it goes without responsible reply or conclusion of that reply is considered verbose. I will use the last sentence as a primary example.

    I had a long series in discussion with Julie in my last period of writing and was banned. The reasons given that I violated is that I would post consecutive mail, in that matter about complaints wit the Human Rights Commission. I also wrote letters over 200 words long. And I was instructed to write to people as if they were 8 years old. I couldn’t comply with those conditions. They were obviously discriminatory. However, after the length of debate with Julie I was kicked off just prior as I remember to being to answer her statement that she did in fact know what I was writing about and that was relative to two women or a single woman purposefully raising a child without access to the child’s natural father. Julie claimed that she couldn’t support what I was doing and writing because it was political suicide. She added that she would consider supporting this if Bob Mc Coskrie was to take it on board.

    For me prior to answering this letter I felt relieved that for all of my verbosity and difficulty to understand, I had got past the active rejection of listening to what it is that I was telling this audience, who for their involvement in these matters as much as any group, I felt/feel had a moral responsibility to regard it as relevant.

    In my replies to you I have identified a breach of law that is extraordinary — unprecedented and proved by admission of the then Attorney General the Right Honorable Margaret Wilson, resident of Tauranga and I believe now in a civil union lesbian. The protests were to be outside her door. The information I have legislatively now proved, on a breach of the constitution, covered over by the direct lie by Justice O’Regan of the Court of Appeal and then again by another panel of Court of Appeal judges in another hearing is only rivaled in what was called the Glorious Revolution of 1689. The information relative to this as in now finding another huge cover over in my application for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy declined by Her Majesty, the then Minister of Justice Phil Goff continues, but I will not bore this audience with facts and evidence that should see some serious questions asked of the administrations operating, how they are operating and what it is in fact they are protecting. I have a meeting penciled in with my local MP in 3 weeks where I have advised him I will expose this information.

    Yet this information in no way identifies by any margin what I am doing, have done and my relevant successes. Prior to giving you my reply to what you have written and again without boring you with facts, instead of what it is you suggest you presume to be fact, relative to these extensive proceedings, is something as close to concrete as you will find if you are in any way conciliatory against your claims.

    You will be aware that I took the BNZ into Court and they filed against me. You will also be aware that I claim I have won rather than how it reads that I have lost and costs awarded against me, probably around the value of $1,600. This under the ruling is simply for having the cheek to take a Bank into a judicial review about their social responsibility. I say I won because the judge said was I had no standing to bring the review but didn’t disengage my winning argument, highlighting instead and emphasizing its relativity to the bank, as he should have done. He should have done this if he was consistent to the remainder of his judgment where focused on the banks capacity to win a part of the argument. I am more fortunate because I only had to win in part. This is presently with the Human Rights Commission and they are bound in an interesting silence and responding to an additional complaint in reply…

    Well, thank you for recognising the media interest on the Manners Mall issue. This latest piece is about a month old but was as I am so used to having done suppressed from the public. I threatened the Post with court action for failing to release this matter of considerable public interest given the substantive material that was being suppressed and the likely consequences of such action against the Council. In the allegations against the Post I was incredibly angry that they had not reported the matter about the Bank. They had suppressed an incredible result. They have missed a footstool into the next action where the HRC will engage the Bank on what happened. Unfortunately you do not have and I cannot give you the hard copy of the article. But I am well pleased that the Post ran a quarter page advertisement for the Bank directly under my article. That ad was announcing the removal of Bank fees. Unprecedented: This move as they acknowledge will knock considerable revenue off the Bank’s take. I’ve been going on about these matters for years so even if you make no connection between my case and what I have won and the move, you could appreciate for me at least that I see this as more than I could have ever asked for.

    However, while you ponder this I would like you to consider something else, just for a minute. What do you think those who are absolutely familiar with my writing (and there many) thought, when they opened up the page, knowing my win and seeing the Bank and a once suppressed news item by the Post. I hope they will agree with me.

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 6:55 pm

  156. I have been watching this thread with great interest. I totally agree we are responsible for our own, that’s what families are all about. In this dysfunctional society, we all seem to be heading towards, at great speed ,the family unit does need to be upheld, in the least our children must know that both parents care for them, support them and are there to provide for them, even if the parents are separated.

    Continuity and support from both sides is of paramount importance if there is to be some form of balance. I glean from your venom that you are involved in some way shape or form with Sarahs life or her ex…That much is apparent….no woman comes out “stating her tough luck story like yours” unless otherwise fighting for her man.

    What I don’t understand though is your statement of “you are responsible for your own” that does come across as a control issue on your side, I take it you weren’t artificially inseminated? The men on this site are here because they do believe they are responsible, so your “flighty female spat” is not going to change any of their beliefs in women folk. You are coming across as an angry female, not what they are turned on, to listening to and not what changes child support issues and are why they have bothered to sign up to this forum.

    Comment by Kahu — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 10:00 pm

  157. Hi Kahu, you have totally lost me.

    Can you explain again (for simple folk like me) what you mean in less words.

    Comment by julie — Thu 6th August 2009 @ 11:36 pm

  158. We try to teach our children about life and our children teach us what life if all about.
    A wise man can learn from a fool, but a fool cannot learn from a wise man!
    There are none so blind, as will not see.
    We are often our own worst enemy.
    Its only by taking responsibility for our own actions, that we can learn to be successfully responsible.

    In quoting old sayings, I am not meaning to point them in only one direction, or at Hans or Benjamin, but at all of us.

    If the cap fits, wear it. Try it, in each direction and see if anything can be learned?

    Hans points out that the actions of each of us impact onto what all of us are trying to achieve. If we understand this and take responsibility for our impact onto the public appreciation of parenting issues, then by working constructively together and doing less damage to each other in the public eye – much more would be achieved.
    The traumas that we have been through, sometimes leads to insufficient listening and to hasty ill-considered actions.
    It is only through listening, that we can see where we all are.
    Are we going anywhere at all?
    What most of us are aiming at, can only be achieved by coherent groups of people, with far far far far far more than 500 members working in unison.
    I cannot see groups of more than 20 (and even then without well practiced unison)?

    For most of life, outcomes are not pure winning / losing.
    If they are, there is something extremely wrong. (fc is a case in point!)

    Whilst I applaud trying and I can appreciate a wide sense of “success”, in the end winning is quite different to losing. We can each set our own standards.

    However, the concepts of winning and losing shouldn’t be lost. It is only through honestly evaluating, that we can improve our efforts. If we cannot or will not meaningfully measure the degree of our success, then we have little chance of lifting our act.
    Teamwork does take time and effort.
    Listening is a good place to start.
    It is easy to cut down and harder to build.
    Cheers, MurrayBacon multiple axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 8:58 am

  159. Your last post has me wondering Kahu,
    For while you start with
    “I totally agree we are responsible for our own, that’s what families are all about.”
    Then you go on to say “What I don’t understand though is your statement of “you are responsible for your own”
    Which is it? or is it more smoke and mirrors?

    For me, Im responsible for mine, its what I do. I try to avoid all the outfits trying to usurp my responsibilities
    I have noticed that once I posed the question to Dawn of her “working with so many parents”, whilst seeming to convey such a naievety, what capacity she did this work in, the silence was deafening

    Comment by mits — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 10:24 am

  160. Julie

    It appears from the venon in Yvonnes posts that she is very anti Sarah and standing up for her man. No woman would come out defending his corner and throwing out accusations unless something was going on.

    What I also read in to it is that she raised her kids on “hew own” without any support from the ex and is saying Sarah should do the same.

    The way I see it, 2 parents and 1 child = both parents support the child in every way possible.

    Just saying how I see it..


    Comment by Kahu — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 10:35 am

  161. Hi Mits

    Get your point…I do believe you are responsible for your own, just Yvonne is keen to point out how she did it all on her own. I wonder where the dad was in all this and if he had any say. She does seem a bit angry, maybe some background issues going on!


    Comment by Kahu — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 11:01 am

  162. True Kahu, both parents should contribute equally. The problem with the existing CS Act as I see it is that it encourages liable parents to earn less than they could potentially earn or even quit the workforce altogether or go on a benefit and do cash jobs. This is because the more you earn the higher % of your pay you will have to pay in child support. In my case I am expected to pay the mother of my children $1600 per month for 3 children. This pisses me off for many reasons not the least of which is the fact that my 18 and a half year old son, who recently left my household choosing to live with her, is working under the table and paying her food and board while at the same time she gets an extra $400 per month in Child Support from me now that he’s moved into her household. Geez that was a long sentence, sorry. Anyway in situations like mine both parents aren’t paying for the children. I am paying for all their expenses myself as well as helping pay her mortgage etc with this excessive amount of child support IRD force me to pay each month. In the meantime my new wife and I are wondering how we can afford to pay the rent at the end of the month.. The CS act never takes into account individual circumstances and is based on an immensely one dimensional and simplistic formula whose inequities are blatantly obvious,, yet there appears to be no will or intention of our legislators to change the Act. It Sucks!!

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 12:55 pm

  163. Hi Kahu
    in your perspective what is”support the child in every way possible”.

    is it being met everytime? if not why not??
    and “would come out defending his corner and throwing out accusations unless something was going on”.. what is going on in your corner???

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 1:14 pm

  164. PS.. one other thing.. in this thread alot has been said about one parent being thrown/forced into the role of being a wallet even when he/she wants equal shared care… what are your views on this?

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 1:18 pm

  165. I e-mailed and phoned the families commission offering them the chance to listen to the ground on child support. They were grateful.

    Please all, if there is something you want to say, please make a comment.

    Many thanks for your message. I am the team manager who is leading our work on the support needs of separating parents when making care, contact and financial arrangements. I’d appreciate it if you could provide me with more information on the comments on child support that you refer to in your message.

    Comment by julie — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 3:27 pm

  166. Hi Karan

    As i said earlier in this blog I don’t have children and am an uncle…(never been lucky enough to meet the right lady!) I love all my nieces and nephews and look out for them. I am from a large extended family and one of them is going through strife with child support, I am the person they turn to to chat. Like all close family I care about their welfare and that which impacts my nieces and nephews…

    My views on shared care are ok if it works for the children. I did read that the best case scenario for children was that they stayed in the same house and the parents did week about. Fine if the parents can afford it! I do have a mate that has this arrangement and it works pretty well, (in a 5km radius) I cant comment if there is more travel time involved. As a doting Uncle I am fully aware that the children forget things and leave them at my pad. If I was a parent doing shared care I can see how the parents are in touch every day doing drop off of forgotton items and from what I see this can be a strain on the new partners….who are trying to form a relationship and create their own space and rules for living. But if everyone is happy, the kids feel secure then that’s a great outcome…..but life does move on and you do have to think about the adults too…..if they are happy the kids are happy…thats pretty much the rule from what I have seen.

    When I talk about “every way possible” I mean if the children need shoes then they are bought for the children, no tally but at the same time its tit for tat….we all know how many shoes children can burn through, food is essential, we all know that so if it costs say $80 per week to feed a child then thats $40 per parent. If it’s 50/50 shared care then it equal conrtibution finacially, which is the way it should be.

    I do get that this is not the common case and that kids get to stay with their mum…do I think this is fair? I actually cant comment as I dont have kids of my own but I do think in my humble opinion that the primary care giver should be given consideration finacially. Children are not cheap! This does not mean that I think the cuurent CS rules take in to account indidual circumstances, I reckon they apply a blanket ruling and I don’t always agree with what my sisters are up to….but I do love the kids.

    I get that men are overworked and are trying to meet their commitments. I also get that women are in a tough postion of trying to work between school hours. All I can say is shared care would be the ideal outcome but at the same time if men have the ability to earn more than mums (due to restricted hours) there is a pay off and if it means the bloke pays a bit more but gets unrestricted access then the children benefit….no different to if they were married…in my opinion.

    Bottomline is it’s all about the kids? the parents all seem to have issues.

    What’s your story Karan? I’ve given you mine



    Comment by Kahu — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 9:43 pm

  167. I think the whole system sucks, we pay for two kids, one of which we’ve never seen and the other at the age of 7 keeps flitting around the world, off to Ireland in a couple of weeks for 5 weeks! We are on the bones of our a@#s and can’t afford to go anywhere! My child’s father can’t even be found and owes IRD $20000 bearing in mind he’s an alcoholic and an avid gambler. Its a nightmare in our house! I am right behind whatever needs to be done to change this criminal system! I hear you K cause I can’t have kids to my husband either because of the current child support system and what he has to pay. Its criminal! What do we have to do. He’s so depressed, frustrated and angry about the whole thing! Deb

    Comment by Debbie — Fri 7th August 2009 @ 11:00 pm

  168. The only way to change the system is to change the Law.

    To change the law, requires cabinet ministers to want it changed.

    Regards Scrap

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 8th August 2009 @ 7:54 pm

  169. All I can say is shared care would be the ideal outcome but at the same time if men have the ability to earn more than mums (due to restricted hours) there is a pay off and if it means the bloke pays a bit more but gets unrestricted access then the children benefit….no different to if they were married…in my opinion.

    So its all about the money and dad buying access to his child/ren.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 8th August 2009 @ 8:07 pm

  170. No thats not what I said in that statement. It is a well known fact that men command and get paid higher salaries and usually are available to work the 9-5 jobs. Women do often sacrifice their careers to adapt to childrens hours which does impact their earning potential, so why should the children suffer when parents split up and they are based a majority of their time with the mum. Swimming lessons still cost the same after a split, so do clothes, so does food. Why wouldn’t a dad feel he should contribute if he has always provided for the family? even if you take the ex wife out of the equation they are still his children, why take it out on them?

    I would say there must be a sense of pride providing for your children. I also said if there is unrestricted access then the children would benefit.

    Which is what its all about at the end of they day….happy, secure kids.

    Comment by Kahu — Sat 8th August 2009 @ 8:50 pm

  171. James,

    Obviously the child tax law is complex. For (at present) discussion’s sake: if we go past a presumption of shared care, presuming the legislation equates time with the child, against relevant payments for the care and welfare of the child, what else in your opinion should be factored into the legislation?

    In, and for my opinion, as the Political Busker, and on the surface of that opinion; given that the above two conditions are considered in the relevant tax law, then it seems sensible that the living circumstances of the payer should be reasonably assessed to establish a scale of minimums and maximums; given variations of those circumstances within the earning capacity of the individual (whether or not in a domestic financial relationship with another).

    This theory at its base principle, less any maximum, is the default factor behind the $10 minimum for the dole + the $10 pay back for any debts.

    However, your title of Scrap_the_CSA implies another option relative to dismissing any complex system and I admit long time intrigue on how you view the CSA could be scrapped. This then under the surface of my opinion attracts a consideration that there should be no child tax. How, then, if there is no child tax, could a child and for whatever reason left to provide for the child born of a relationship remaining parent be protected to raise that child/ren? And who would police this answer whatever form it took?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 9th August 2009 @ 11:51 am

  172. Kahu, your views on Child Support sound very good in theory and would be very valid if everyone involved was fair and reasonable. Unfortunately though you are very naieve in your assumption that women are always sacrificing careers and their time and should be compensated for this by the childs father. It sounds like you have just digested a book on 1960’s feminism and have bought into the woman as victim ethos. Has it ever occurred to you that these so called sacrifices the mother is making are more than compensated for by the fact that she gets to spend time with her children and watch them grow up. I would love to spend time with my children and watch them grow up but the Family Court is so utterly biased towards the wishes of the mother that they do nothing to stop her from breaching the parenting order and stopping me seeing them for months at a time. This is purely out of spite by the way and has nothing to do with the welfare of the children who are used as pawns. It’s not just about money. It’s about two state institutions (The Family Court and the IRD) completely disempowering and disadvantaging one parent, usually the father. As far as financing children is concerned, I firmly believe that both parents should make an equal contribution. In many cases however the contribution is not equal. I don’t agree with fathers or mothers who neglect to help provide for their non custodial children any more than I agree with the IRD being allowed to drive responsible caring fathers (and their new spouses) into financial ruin due to a Child Support assessment formula that treats liable parents as cash cows. How would you feel Kahu, speaking hypothetically here, if IRD was taking one third of your net income and giving it to the mother of your children who was earning much more than you and spending your money on alcohol and expensive overseas holidays. Would you still feel so generous if you were unable to save for a house, pay the rent, or even be able to afford to buy food, while the mother of your children was living it up while at the same time dressing your kids in rags, treating them like sh*t and stopping you seeing them. It should be about the children, not the custodial parent. I would like to see a system where all child support money spent is audited so that the custodial parent at least has the satisfaction of knowing its being spent on the kids, not a lavish lifestyle for the other parent. I would also like to see a situation where CS payments could be withheld if a custodial parent refuses access to the kids for no good reason. Neither of these situations will ever become a reality unfortunately which is why liable parents will continue leaving the country and/or quitting the workforce and operating in the black economy. This does F**k all good for the children or the country’s economy but it’s what we have unfortunately.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 9th August 2009 @ 4:17 pm

  173. Hi Had_Enough

    Yep the system is not fair and I do have great ideas in theory. I did use the case of men being the earners vs women giving up their careers and men being the higher paid earners. I do think this should work the other way too.

    The CS system does operate a blanket approach and the philosophy is each parent should contribute an equal amount financially. I have seen both sides of this, coming from a large family. I have sisters that work hard and those that don’t! I have had ear bending on “it’s all his fault and he owes me” to “I am happy to work I’d just love him to contribute so the kids can continue what they are used to”.

    Problem is from what I see on this site there are also the same differing opinions from men. Those who hate the ex and dont want to pay but have unlimited access and those that provide everything and get no say.

    So the system does need to be reviewed and maybe take in to account a few more equations when calculating CS. I can say that one of my sisters was married to a fairly well off bloke and he has his own business, when they split all out warfare broke out and he does not pay any money to his kids…but when the were married they had a very “large lifestyle” now her youngest is due to start school she has spent a long time out of the workforce and is struggling to compete with the youngsters with more skills. That was their choice at the time they were married and he should contribute money, while she is happy to forgo the flash stuff she was used to, when his wife, she does struggle to keep up with the payments for all the clubs and lifestyle the kids were privilege too when they were married. Bottom-line is he is still very rich and managed to sustain his lifestyle and the kids love going to dads as he spoils them…more than mum can afford to.

    On the flip side I have another sister who is allergic to work and uses the system to get money out of the dads involved. Bottom-line there is she gets more money that the other sister as a) she knows the system and b) why would she want to work when she is on such a good earner from targeting working class and middle class men who get wages and the IRD can get the money from at source?

    Until its all calculated on a case by case basis and evidence in presented by a qualified judge and not a review person from IRD I guess the system will never change.


    Comment by kahu — Sun 9th August 2009 @ 9:55 pm

  174. No argument from me there Kahu. The Review Officers I’ve encountered may as well have been council for the mother because they were completely biased in her favour even when this meant disadvantaging the children who were in my custody at the time. I agree with Scrap in that shared custody should be the ideal outcome. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be a view shared by The Family Court or the legislators. In my case the mother was allowed to move the children out of Auckland (140 Km away) completely against my wishes and the childrens wishes. We need politicians with balls as opposed to the pussy whipped shemales and hairy feminazi’s we currently have on both sides of the house 🙁

    Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 9:28 am

  175. Alastair… you’re funny. Perhaps while she is exposing the intrinsic fallicies blah blah blah perhaps she could help her own situation too… do you think? You do not know either of these people or their backgrounds. Good luck tho sounds like you’ll need it if you believe what she tells you.

    Comment by Yvonne — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 10:28 am

  176. First of all her ex is not my man but my friend and second of all… my ex made the choice not to contribute. Instead of bitching about it… I did something about and made my own life. And you are right I can’t stand injustice especially when he is making a contribution and she only wants more.

    Comment by Yvonne — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 10:32 am

  177. #24 Benjamin,
    you suggest that [Spousal and] Child Support is complex.
    The essence is just feeding and sheltering the young.
    Monkeys do it well, so is it really that complex?
    Legal workers suggest it is complex and that you might need their [expensive!!!] help. When you think about it, after paying for their help, you will be less capable to feed and shelter your children – so it is important that you think it through for yourself.
    Scrap has long ago contributed a clear and practical and sensible workable solution: and there is a link to it above.
    I repesat the link so it is easy to find:
    Donkin Method

    Complex – the NZ Child Support formula is too simple, for the range of real world family situations.
    Just plain dull in fact.
    When the {Spousal and] Child Support Act was passed by Parliament, it was acknowledged that the NZ Formula only did the job, for about 50% of separated families, probably less than 50% nowadays. The method by which the remaining more than 50% could obtain a just and equitable arrangement, would be through IRD Review and appeal to the fAMILYcAUGHT.
    IRD have followed a vexatious and litigous approach.
    They are loose and careless about evidence and often make situations worse, rather than better.
    Incidentally, it would seem that this increases staff bonusses, so it certainly looks like a dirty little conflict of interest.
    If you pay a legal worker, to put your case to fAMILYcAUGHT, then your children would need to live a thousand years – while still under 16 years of age – for you to ever be better off financially!!!!
    So – work it out for yourself!
    So far, monkeys do it** better than people in NZ.
    The solution will involve Scrapping the present IRD-CS, but also the replacement of the present lazy greedy defective “judges” in the fAMILYcAUGHT.
    Our superior Australian cousins have made significant progress, which we could follow simply by downloading it from the internet and aping it!
    More fool us, for not even being able to do this!
    This can only be driven through, by getting the honest MPs to demand that the legal-worker MPs in Parliament stand out from votes, where they have a pecuniary interest.
    So if the IRD-CS and legal workers damage and hinder parents resources to care for their children, what are the children getting as an obvious consequence?
    Although this Act is now 18 years old, it’s performance has never been competently measured.
    The principles of legislation quality require that legislation be evaluated for expected performance before being passed and regularly measured for desirable and also for unexpected outcomes after being passed.
    Competent and sufficient evaluations have never once been performed in NZ and as a result, our children are suffering needlessly.
    ** could be ambiguous, if you have a revolting dirty mind. I recommend this, you only live once.
    Eeeeh, eeeh, eeeeh, MurrayBacon closet monkey (or am I just kidding myself?)

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 10:45 am

  178. Hi Yvonne you are so right,Alistair doesn’t know either of us. However why don’t you tell everyone who you really are instead of hiding behind a fake name and also tell everyone who your very well paid job is with?

    I understand your unflagging loyalty after all of these years and also that my ex has turned to you between both his marriage breakdowns.

    Depsite what you think or have been told. Our daughter is not getting any child support. Like I said zero is not plenty maybe you are viewing this through rose tinted glasses.


    Comment by Sarah — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 11:32 am

  179. Yvonne, I will always answer reasoned and logical argument. I will NEVER, especially on an “Open Forum” respond to mere insult. I will say though, I fine Sarah an intellegent person to talk to off this list!

    Comment by alastair — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 11:53 am

  180. Sorry Kahu
    “All I can say is shared care would be the ideal outcome but at the same time if men have the ability to earn more than mums (due to restricted hours) there is a pay off and if it means the bloke pays a bit more but gets unrestricted access then the children benefit….no different to if they were married…in my opinion.”

    So its all about the money and dad buying access to his child/ren.
    but that’s exactly what you said,

    I dont believe that access should be in anyway related to dollar amount spent.
    That idea is abhorrent

    And why should the children suffer? Cant agree with you more.
    They shouldnt!

    Comment by mits — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 12:47 pm

  181. I can go through this with some detail if you like Murray, but suffice to say a message is consistent throughout. It is frustrating as well and your missive in many ways relaxes me to view that for your experience your frustration is considerable and apparent.

    Before I am engage the banana of going off thread, a date on the Donkin would be good, just for future reference and if I should need to study it.

    Going off thread but consistent with what I am about, your frustration is exemplary, yet probably confined by the cupboard door. My frustration is that I see no reason for the doors and my actions speak directly to this point. The example I give is that this information about the child tax as you say is composed by Scrap is probably not used. I will then assume for the sake of argument and without studying the information that it is not modeled in the present application of the child tax. Instead we have families suffering. If this is the case in anyone’s opinion then the next paragraph is worth studying and optimally internalizing.

    If you have something which is external and it is hurting your child/ren and you are a father, are you not morally bound to this natural status to interfere with that external damage/r?

    For my part my frustration is demonstrable. It is so demonstrable that I actively engage the oppressive condition or the oppressor and state in the forum’s associated with their cure that those negative conditions are nurtured and protected by their regulatory authorities: Otherwise known as the market. I cannot spend an age arguing the why’s and wherefores to convince others that the commercial infrastructure in which they exist is corrosive and will only be disengaged by challenges like mine, but encourage those sympathetic to my views to subscribe either on [email protected] or [email protected]

    Further I would like to advise that there is a long hikoi ahead for those walkers prepared to stand above the trenches to view the terrain.

    But back to the thread having followed you along that path, if Scrap has a system that is alternative and appears sound but neglected then I would back him.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 1:25 pm

  182. Hi Mits,, re your comment “I dont believe that access should be in anyway related to dollar amount spent.
    That idea is abhorrent”

    I agree with that in principal, except in situations where an uncooperative custodial parent bars access visits just to spite the custodial parent (as happens in my case). Unfortunately some custodial parents care a lot more about money than the welfare of their children and hitting them in the pocket may encourage them to abide by agreed on Parenting Orders. Mind you, a Family Court that actually provides a proper service to separated families and helps children have equal access to both parents would be helpful also 🙁 Not that this is a likely scenario any time soon 🙁

    Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 1:25 pm

  183. Benjamin Easton representing people in caught.

    I was sitting at the back of a caughtroom a few days back and was presently surprised, astonished in fact, by the judge taking a case quite noticeably forwards, after serious illegal delays by the legal workers.
    In the large gaps of time between Evgeny Orloff making points, my mind drifted through the views out the caughtroom window, birds flying past and recent sunsets and sunrises. Then it drifted to recent criticism of Benjamin Easton. I realised that although some people had criticised Benjamin, his language was of a similar or better quality of construction and linking of concepts to drivel, to most of what the legal-workers were saying. No work was happening while Orloff spoke.
    The judge commented critically on the linking of concepts to reality of Evgeny Orloff. Even so, Orloff repeated himself, repetitively.
    The judge also commented critically on failures to make declarations required by the Legal Services Act and explained the sections to Evgeny Orloff. He gave his staff’s apology for their poor performance. He employs them for this.
    In terms of legal strategy, Benjamin’s achievements appear to my very limited caught experience, to be of a similar order to most of the legal-workers. Some can perform competently, in a legal technical sense, if not in the sense of protecting children or family’s lives. Even so, their ability shines only sometimes. On the remaining occasions, they do major family damage. Financial damage, relationship vandalism and damage to the parent’s parenting skills.
    So if others have warned about Benjamin’s legal ability, I can only qualify it by saying before using Benjamin’s services, check his record in the same way that you would check a legal worker, before exposing yourself to the risks of employing them.

    For family issues, your representative should have a good understanding of people and families. Thus, a representative should be able to link family facts, to the concepts of child development and family dynamics. Most legal-workers are quite disadvantaged by their lack of family development knowledge, so maybe Benjamin has an advantage here?
    Cheers, Murray zzz-zzzz-zzzz Bacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 1:26 pm

  184. i have seen cousins and brothers forced into situations they did not create. And when they offered to have equal share of the kids with the condition.. “you pay when the kids with you, i take care of the kid when its with me” they were forced into being liable parent with limited or no access…

    way i see it youe scenarios always showing the “poor mum” .. bad dad ” when reality is different.

    when your sisters play games do you stand up and say “no” or say “its not my problem?”… thats my story nd like u not married bcos of whats happening out there… wouldn’t want to bcos of it.

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 5:05 pm

  185. sarah.. be real.. go get a job..

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  186. Take it your teeth are looking good..:-)

    Comment by Sarah — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 8:05 pm

  187. Hey Yvonne

    WOW! So he is your friend? Unusual for someone to be so angry with the ex and defend their own situation so vigorously, when only a friend! I think that maybe Sarah knows more that you are telling.

    Are you sure you are getting the full story? All I can say from my experience with my sisters is that they are often blinded by what they want to see and when things turn bad they all end up on my couch upset when they find out the truth….so tell what do you do for work and who do your work for?

    I agree with Alistair, Sarah does seem far more intellilgent.


    Comment by kahu — Mon 10th August 2009 @ 9:59 pm

  188. Sarah…. you are the one that made it personal when you named your ex and his practice which is how this came to my attention. My name is YVONNE, I am an Occupational therapist and I live in Takapuna. I have seen your ex with all his children enough times to know that your accusations are not true. I did go off track and get personal myself due to these accusations and certainly did not mean to offend those with genuine child support issues or belittle their situations.

    If your purpose here is to truly get advice regarding child support and only that… was there really a need to name him, his practice or question his parenting skills especially of his other children here online? It would seem to me that no one else has done that on this site. I stand by my original statement… you only want more.

    Comment by Yvonne — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 1:57 pm

  189. Good on ya Yvonne! MEN need more women like you who will correct the manipulations of child abusers. Too many controlling women find it difficult to desist from their abusive behaviour toward their partner post separation. Telling lies about Dad or Mum is child-abuse. A healthy relationship between child and Dad/Mum can not be encouraged by a parent who is dishonest about the child’s other parent.
    Sarah lost my support after viewing her sickening attempt at anti-male humour in post#22. Concern should be held for the impressions that she teaches her child rather than her Ex’s supposed financial position.
    PS: I hope you DO get free dental from your dentist friend. I fail to understand why Sarah even mentioned that you might except to display at act of jealous bitchiness.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 3:18 pm

  190. Help !!!!! Today I finally had to let go of our lawyer, the bills over the last 14 months amounted to $25,000 and if any thing we have gone back wards we at least started with a shared agreement, with us working to a 50/50 but alas it seems all a woman has to do is scream and maintain “high conflict” and the courts just buckle…
    The only satisfying thing for us is that we feel that we have learnt enough in the last 5.5 years of been in the system that to know that things just take time.
    We have if anything growen more deterrmied that we will go it alone…This where you can all help 🙂

    Please if anyone can refer me to a group in Akl or reommend some web sites to learn more about family law then please reply….
    I think I should write a book…. 101 to keep your ex in the system …and ensure no one moves forward

    Comment by James C — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 5:07 pm

  191. Yes James C. Now that you have seel the light and realise Lawyers exist only to part you from your hard earned cash, House Care, and what ever they can get their grubby little mits on to.

    I am not certain of the Auckland scene, since I live in New Zealand. James Nicolle, Jim Bagnall are good starting points. Paul Catton (East Auckland mens refuge) may be of some assistance. Visit This is a “Hidden” group and you have to join. They do accept members from north of the Bombays 🙂 There is also, though I don’t believe that they are in Auckland. Hope this helps. You have just made the best step to sort out your problems!

    Comment by alastair — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  192. Well Yvonne I stand corrected, I do not know, nor have I ever met an occupational therapist called Yvonne from Takapuna, who has raised 2 boys on her own. Therefore you cannot possibly know me. Given you seem to have contact with my daughter, as you also state, I find it very strange she has never mentioned you either. How bizzare, kids are usually pretty forthcoming about who they hang out with!

    Taking all this in to account it appears that the only side you have to go off is that of my ex, so your personal mud flinging really has no weight against the actual truth on my side. Zero child support still equals zero child support according to the IRD and any accountant.


    Comment by sarah — Tue 11th August 2009 @ 5:57 pm

  193. Hi James, how old are your children? In my experience of Family Court judges they will go with whatever parenting option the child wants if the child is 10 years old or older. However if the child is very young judges seem to cling to the tired old cliche that the childs primary bond is with the mother and will assign custody accordingly. If child counsel has been appointed I would read the child counsel report very carefully. I’ve been battling the Family Court system for 7 years now and have found that FC judges rarely look at the whole picture and will base their ruling on the child counsels report and on the age of the children. Of course it is only fair that the childs wishes are taken into account but often there is a lot more to it than a few words on paper. For example I know of cases where the child wants to live with the non custodial parent but he/she knows that the custodial parent will read the report and fears retribution from the custodial parent if he/she tells the truth about the situation. I had to get rid of my lawyer after spending almost as much as you did. Trust me, you’re no worse off without a lawyer. Family Court judges rulings are usually very simplistic and lazy in my view and a lawyer can’t really do anything more than a reasonably intelligent person can do representing themselves. All my lawyer taught me was how to write an affidavit properly. This helps a lot because most Family Court Registrars are very lazy and won’t give you any advice re preparing legal documents at all, and seem to delight in rejecting affidavits and other documents because an ‘i’ wasn’t dotted or a t’ not crossed. In most cases it should cost you nothing to represent yourself. JP’s and Court Registrars will have affidavits sworn for free and as long as you’re good at putting pen to paper and are confident about fronting up in court you’ll be fine. Good luck James. I have a case pending and I know how you feel.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Wed 12th August 2009 @ 8:37 am

  194. sarah..intelligent.. yeah.. all i can hear from her is gimme the money.. so yeah she is intelligent :)..

    my teeth is fine Sarah..hows your money hunger??

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 12th August 2009 @ 2:30 pm

  195. money… money …money…give methe money..

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 12th August 2009 @ 2:32 pm

  196. Hi James

    I’d agree with Had_enough you really can do it all on your own and would save yourself lots of money.Writing affidavits is the most time consuming and complex. But I am sure that you will get some great advice from the people on this site if you are stuck.

    I have also heard that due to the current economy that judges are being more compassionate with people representing themselves and allowing a lot more for non-lawyer prepared documents, they are recognising they have to cut people some slack and also it’s your right as an NZ citizen to represent yourself. I’d even go as far as to say they look more kindly on people in this situation as opposed to people who can afford the high paid lawyers.

    Not much in the way of advice but just trying to let you know its not all doom and gloom.


    Comment by sarah — Wed 12th August 2009 @ 4:35 pm

  197. I believe lawyers have ceased charging in Dollars. The Unit is much to small. They now charge in a new unit of currency – The BMW!

    Comment by alastair — Wed 12th August 2009 @ 4:41 pm

  198. Dear James,

    25K spent to date, now the coffers are burnt and you have had to get rid of your expert legal representation.
    The old adage comes to play “A fool and his money are easily parted”.
    You would certainly seem to have been played the fool.
    I believe over the last 5.5 years you have learnt nothing, as you have only now, through inaffordability, shelved perhaps the primary millstone around your neck.

    The Auckland network is still live and active, however, our activism is sometimes frowned upon, and possibly the most preferred viable option for you, with a multitude of resources available, should you wish to proceed.

    I welcome your contact.

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

    Comment by Paul Catton — Wed 12th August 2009 @ 7:08 pm

  199. James,
    Follow Paul’s advice. I would commend him to you!

    Comment by alastair — Wed 12th August 2009 @ 8:39 pm

  200. Hello Paul Sarah Alistair
    I also should add (the fool that I am) that we have spent $25,000 in the last 14 months, in total its more like $55-60,000 in the last 5.5 years..
    The writing should have been on the wall when within the first six months of separation. On the one day I recieved an email from my ex which was very amicable and ended with Love xxx, to only recieve a letter written on the same day by her lawyer claiming that my behaviour constituted the need for a restraining order.
    As I am meeting with my sons lawyer today, the question I wish for her to answer is although we can legally define the statement “High Conflict” which is a very subversive statement in itself, how do we legally define when it does not become “High Conflict” as unless we can find resolution here the courts will not allow a 50/50 agreement let alone entertain the childs wishes to spend more time with us or god forbid allow the child to move to a school where his mother is not a teacher 3 doors down from his classroom…They do not live in this school area, and I am now informed by his mother that she wishes to keep him there for the next 2 years under her watchful eye, then move house to a completely different suburb put him in an intermidate school with a bunch of kids he does not know.

    Comment by James C — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 11:42 am

  201. The worst part about representing ones self is the sense of feeling outnumbered. The judge up in front, the other parent, her lawyer(s) and the child counsel. I’ve been told by the registrar that my wife isn’t allowed to sit next to me in court which hardly seems fair. I F##ked up last time because I was bailed up in a meeting room with her 2 legal aid funded lawyers (yes 2!!!) and was hassled into signing something that I hadn’t had a chance to read properly. It turned out that there was a clause that was completely detrimental to my interests and the interests of the children. Next time (which will be next week) I will have all my demands neatly written out and will stick to my guns. That way, the onus is on her counsel to try and get me to amend my version of the parenting order rather than vice verca. Wish me luck 🙂

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 2:54 pm

  202. Remember ALL lawyers in this instance are your enemy. they will lie and cheat to gain the upper hand. The ABSOLUTE is sign NOTHING until you have digested it, especially in the circumstances you describe. This is so close to coercion or duress it may not stand up in court. It should be reported to the Judge ASAP. (But remember he also is a lawyer and drinks at the same trough) This is also where your McKenzie friend is useful. Let him read it! Paul Catton is an excellent support as is Jim Bagnal. (I think you said you were in Auckland) NEVER I repeat NEVER go to court alone to self represent. In addition to your McKenzie friend, one or two extra’s outside are invaluable also.

    Finally BE READY. Lawyers love bits of paper. (I think they have shares in a paper company) Prepare, and prepare well. Self representing really works inspite of what the law society will tell you!

    Comment by alastair — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 4:32 pm

  203. G’Day Alastair. Thanks for the advice re self representation. I know what you mean but unfortunately I don’t have anyone who can come with me. I’ve decided to take things really slowly though and won’t sign anything I don’t agree with. The sticking point with this particular case is the mothers insistance that my 14 year old boy should be allowed to decide whether he wants access visits or not rather than this being a hard and fast rule the parents agree on and enforce. Unfortunately if he decides not to go on an any particular access visit his sister won’t go either because she’s heavily influenced by him. The funny thing is that they always enjoy their access visits but I think the mother tells the kids that the visits are optional when in fact they are a part of a signed court order. I’m sure she does this for her own convenience. I really wonder about the family court. I tried to get a warrant to enforce the order but the judge declined it. Apparently denying access visits for 4 months in a row wasn’t a good enough reason to issue a warrant. Family Court Pussies!! 🙁

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 5:02 pm

  204. What area are you in Had Enough? There ARE people who can help.

    Comment by alastair — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 5:30 pm

  205. Hi Alastair, I’m in the Birkenhead area on the Shore. The part that pisses me off mostly about her free legal representation is that my disposable income is, in real terms, much lower than hers. Unfortunately though I can’t hide my PAYE income under the table the way she hides her dodgy cash income under the table. Yet the good ol tax payer gets to fund her man hating lawyer to ensure that 2 more children are deprived of a father!!! 🙁

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 7:25 pm

  206. Ah-ha Women have a source of cash income! Is she “Working” 🙂

    In that area you are right in the middle of good support. Visit That is a good starting point. They are on this group and may see my post.

    Comment by alastair — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 7:38 pm

  207. Sorry that URL should read

    Comment by alastair — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 7:40 pm

  208. Thanks for the URL Alastair, I’ll have a good read of it later.I gotta say that the IRD Child Tax system has put me right off working, in the PAYE sense anyway. She gets away with wroughting IRD by deliberately keeping her PAYE hours down to part time in order to avoid paying CS when I had the kids in my custody. On top of that she was/is getting a tax credit of $190 per week + CS $ from me + her money from her dodgy under the counter vitamin supplement business + a free legal aid lawyer 🙂 :). IRD’s philosophy and policy seems to be to reward the cheats and punish poor buggers like me who are putting in 50 hours PAYE per week. Well you IRD motherF###ers, if you are reading this site, this goose ain’t shittin golden eggs for much longer 🙂 🙂

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 8:03 pm

  209. hey there have been women on this site who have revealed the spouses name for not paying CS. take a leaf from their book.. if IRD are really monitoring this site then she will get whats coming..

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 8:29 pm

  210. Hi Had_Enough

    From what I can see of your situation there are 2 extremes and a middle of the road when it comes to child support.

    There you are with the ex working the system from the lower end and I am of the other extreme where the ex is using “self employed” stance to get away with not paying. Both are far flung from middle of the road.

    What I dont understand from some people on this website, but you have highlighted as well, is many of the PAYE earners are in fact supporting the non financial contributors for child support, they get away with either a) not working or b) having enough money to get the right accountant to avoid paying. This to me does not make econimic sense but I can see fully how its the easiest way to fund the system, get the money direct from wages, blanket approach that does at least get the working and middle class paying.

    Any person on this site that applauds someone not paying child support is an idiot. Especially if they haven’t had sense to work out that they end up paying for the ones that dont through tax….daft in my opinion!

    What should be part of the child support system is taking in to account the extremes…parents using the system from both ends. Unfortnuately while we are all working in a process orientated environment which uses tick boxes to work out the lowest common denominator things will not change.

    I have to say that some of these guys (not all ) on this site seem very rational, you will know who they are and they really do give great advice and recommend the best people for the job.

    Good luck and hope it all works out next week…

    Stay strong and all I can say from the female side is trust that your kids have minds of their own and that they will work it out when they are old enough….Kids are not stupid…

    Comment by sarah — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 8:36 pm

  211. Dear Had_Enough,

    I’ve been told by the registrar that my wife isn’t allowed to sit next to me in court which hardly seems fair.

    Not quite true, you could have had the Court recognise her as a “McKenzie Friend”.

    How many McKenzie friends would you thus be allowed?
    How many legal practitioners for any party are allowed?
    You have to test these boundaries against perceived biased judiciary.
    I will volunteer my service to be an associate McKenzie Friend for your case file.
    Test the legal system.

    Incidentally, I wil be testing the Judicial System, Legislation and Court Rules for my being appointed as a “Lay Advocate” next Friday 21/08/2009 at the Auckland District Court.
    (Anyone with nothing else better to do are most welcome to attend – morning tea will be supplied, beats going to the library?)
    This action will give the System a complete shake up, and if I am successful provides benefit to the populace in general.

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

    Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 9:20 pm

  212. Great to see you there Paul, I was hoping you would pick it up. Had_Enough, Paul is an Excellent Ally. You can trust him.

    Comment by alastair — Thu 13th August 2009 @ 9:36 pm

  213. Hi Sarah,

    Thanks for those words of support. One of the main problem with the CS system, as I see it, is that it considers a child of a NCP on a high income to be worth more than the child of a NCP on a low income. Also it doesn’t take into account the financial circumstances of BOTH parents in shared care arrangements or scenarios where each parent is both a NCP and CP. The CS act needs to be abolished. As a replacement I would a suggest a system where Nanny State stays the F##k out of it unless the parents can’t agree on a private arrangement. There needs to be something in place to protect children and their custodial parents from some of the tightarse non custodial parents out there but state intervention should be the exception not the norm. For example; lets say we use $100 per child per week as a guideline and the state would only intervene and arbitrate in cases where NCP’s were offering less than that amount in a private agreement. Just a thought.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 10:39 am

  214. Thanks very much Paul. I will be in touch 🙂

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 10:41 am

  215. The answer is one McKenzie Friend. It is a singular role. However in DV matters you are also allowed a “support person” under the legislation. Some will say this only applies to the victim but the legislation does not say that.
    Often other sit at the back of the court room as extra’s. Audience is always a judical matter and they can entertain a couplke of football teams if they so wish.
    I have once seen a three member legal team for one party. There is of course the videotaping of s29A’s case where there were six counsel and two UoF members.
    WE all look forward to shake-ups heaven help us we need a significant earthquake in Family Law.

    Comment by Allan — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 11:49 am

  216. During my Femily Court case my ex wanted a support person with her. I was asked by the Judge if I objected which I did not. The support person wasn’t allowed to speak although she did try twice and was shut down by the Judge after I prompted my Lawyer to object to her anti-male bs. She finally shut up after a warning from the Judge. That was around 2002ish and so I don’t know what might’ve changed since then.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 12:03 pm

  217. Hi K. My god, my heart goes out to you. It’s completley unfair and the govt. are there to make money from us and not what’s best for the child. Why don’t they calculate child support on each case. Each case is so unique and yet the govt. throws a blanket of legislation and thinks ‘that’ll do’.
    I have a child to a woman who didn’t want me to leave NZ (which I was before she got pregnant. I think it would be a good idea if he (upon his 18th birthday) to deposit some sperm into a sperm bank for when he chooses to have a child. Then gets a vascetomy. It’s just so messy. Anyway, I hope you have some good times ahead.

    Comment by Greg — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 12:14 pm

  218. I think with perhaps some thoughtful intervention from the government (yeah right) would be to introduce a licence to have children.
    I need a licence to drive a car because the govt. tries to prevent people who have no idea about vehicles and the laws surrounding them to drive. Why can we not have a licence to have kids?
    Sure I get that every child is different and needs to be raised slightly differently but there are certain skills/morals, etc that need to be apparent that encompass all child rearing. Like having a financial plan (sorry to bring up the $ sign but it seems everyone else is). I don’t drive a brand new bmw or own a house in Remuera because I cannot afford it and if for some reason these things were bestowed on me I would go belly up in a bad way as I wouldn’t be able to afford the repayments, maintenance, etc. In the child contract a contingency plan is made incase of future separation, death, (of parent), etc.
    Will this mean smooth sailing if there’s a divorce in the future? Perhaps a little smoother but what I’m saying is that at the time the couple is making a decision to have a child they both need to be made aware of implications like emotion/time/finances/living arrangements, etc implications and should agree upon this in a contract.
    That way you go in with your eyes open. You know if say ‘this’ happens then the consequence is ‘that’ and you know it before the child is even a glint in the milkman’s eye.
    You know how much child support you will pay if you split up. You know how often you will see your child…
    When you enter into this you take it ‘warts and all’.
    I myself am a sperm donor but I am lucky and get to see my dear little boy once a week if the mother is in a good mood.
    I love him although I never wanted kids. And I came back from overseas to be a father to him.
    I have a right to see him and I help out by buying things for him (beds, clothes, vitamins, schooling, and many other things).
    This makes me feel good that I am not justing giving $ but I am providing useful necessities for his existence aswell as spending time with him and teaching him.
    As I am on a limited budget I would be gutted to have to pay child support to the IRD. How the heck do I know where that $ goes? If I did then I would need to stop buying him jersey’s, batman shirts, spiderman shoes.
    Child support in my case is a destructive thing for a guy who is only making ends meet. The mother earns more than me and has financial assistance from the govt (cheaper rent, etc) and has a family that looks after our boy like their own too.
    I’d never see him starve but to deduct a third or a quarter of what I earn in the hand to a child I never asked for or had any say over whom I would have it to and with and whom I only see for a few hours a week seems like an 18 year prison sentence for ‘jaywalking’.
    And before the high and mighty start saying ‘well you shouldn’t have sex then’
    That’s like saying to someone who is overweight- ‘well, just stop eating’.
    Unfortunately men need sex, we do. It’s inbred in us (to spead yr seed so to speak?.
    Protection doesn’t always work and abstemamce is really for unicks and monks.
    Shouldn’t the father have any say over who bears his children and when?
    I think I’ve harped on enough for one day. I’ve enjoyed reading everyone elses blogs.

    Comment by Greg — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 12:50 pm

  219. I don’t like your suggestion of another bureaucracy to license potential parents. In NZ that process would be extremely feminized. Although … it might be very helpful if potential fathers were tested with a butch chick screaming in their faces “YOU’RE NEVER GONNA SEE YOUR FARKEN KIDS AGAIN IF YOU DON’T …!” and have objects thrown at them to make sure they’ll have what it takes to stick by their children. Men could be tested on their ability to calm down a psychotic woman. Instead he might consider sending his sperm to India and collecting his new baby nine months later. There are advantages of having no biological mother in NZ. Statistics suggest his future outlook would be greatly improved. At least HE could make an informed decision BUT that’s a parents responsibility, not the States. Potential mothers won’t need any testing. I imagine most of them already believe that God was created in their image.
    Seriously, the breakdown in societies is directly linked to Government intrusion in Families. Our children need less of the State in their lives, not more.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 3:05 pm

  220. One of the main problem with the CS system, as I see it, is that it considers a child of a NCP on a high income to be worth more than the child of a NCP on a low income.

    Its called income equalisation :

    While the costs of children are an important factor in determining support, they are justone factor, since the goal of these guidelines is not to provide the non-custodial parent’s share of the costs of raising children, as commonly thought. Rather, the guidelines aim to equalize the living standard of the households of the custodial and non-custodial parents after divorce, providing both spousal and child support, under the auspices of child support

    Note – Canadian Child Tax is modelled on our Child Tax Act.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 3:08 pm

  221. Hmmm, interesting.. A form of Socialism in other words. Lets make damn sure that incomes are distributed from high income earners to low income earners. Where’s the incentive to work hard and better ones self in that?

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 4:34 pm

  222. This here is a email I have sent off myself to the families commision.
    We just don’t know what to do anymore>>>

    Alan has told me that you are looking into the polices and I would like to know where this is heading as my husband and I have a major issue with the child support legislation.

    We have now been through two reviews with IRD, proving to them that we financially can’t afford to pay the amount of child support that has been calculated. But due to the extremely black and white legislation there is absolutely nothing we can do.

    We pay $144 a week to the mother of a child my husband had 13 years ago, which she never allowed him any contact with since the day she was born. Whilst my husband is trying to support myself and our three young children. After paying our mortgage and our fixed weekly expenses, we are left with under $150 to pay for food, petrol, doctors, dentists, school fees,anything misc.. the list goes on.
    The mother of the childs income with her partner is the same as ours before she even receives the child support. The mother has even written in a email that part of the money we give goes towards the up keep of a horse.
    Now this is absolutely morally wrong. He we are struggling to make ends meet, and there is no control on how this money is spent.
    They are obviously in a better position than we are, we tried to ask her to come to some sort of arrangement, as she admitted herself that what the child support had increased to this year was a lot, but then she turned and she said no, she is entitled to it.

    Other aspects that need to be taken in the calculation of child support is the fact that my husband has to commute 2 hrs a day to get to his work, which pays him the higher income. This cost is nearly $300 a month. If he were to work in the area we live there is no way he would find that sort of income here. As the child support is calculated on his gross income it makes it very unfair as he needs to pay his travel expenses out of his net income. Can you see where I am coming from? She gets the benefit of the child support calculated from the gross income , yet after tax and child support is taken away we still need to pay for the travel expenses to enable him to earn that higher income.

    That brings me to my major concern with the way Child support is calculated. Tax is not brought into consideration, and it should be.
    To put this simply, we get less in the hand after paying child support and tax than what we were at the end off the 2008 tax year even though he has had nearly a $5000 pay increase since that time. I have also worked out the child support and the tax that we will have to start paying next year which will include another $5000 pay increase as my husband has been working so head to get ahead to make things easier for us. But low and behold we will once again be receiving less in the had than we were in the 2007-2008 financial tax year. That is nearly a $9,000 increase in earnings and we receive less. Now how is that fair? You a probably thinking well that’s not right , but yes once you start earning in the 39% tax bracket and child support is taken of the gross amount, then you pay your tax, that is what happens. It is a bloody disgrace.Below is a table to show you what we are up against. Child support should be calculated on the net amount of income not gross as basically the living allowance that is included in the calculation takes care of the tax, so really it is not a living allowance at all. Then we have to pay 18% on that income to the mother which she receives tax free. There is five in our family and we only get 16.4% towards each of us. Two of us being adults. It is so wrong.

    We have been receiving working for families which is keeping us fed basically but now since the increase in my husbands salary it will be re estimated very soon and we will have it taken away from us. Which would leave us with nothing, not to mention we would probably have to pay what we have received so far this year back. We are already paying back our working for families for the year end 2008 with interest due to the unexpected redundancy pay out I received in 2007.
    I am now desperately looking for a stable income to make up for the shortfall for when we lose the working for families payment.
    So I basically need to find an income to cover the amount of child support we pay and to cover child care for my youngest just to be able to end up where we are sitting right now. Due to the lack of employment opportunities out where we have moved, to buy our first house I am very concerned to what may happen to us. Due to the fact my husbands “Gross income ” is too high we are not entitled to anything else. We probably be better off trying to get a major pay reduction for him, but where would that leave your self esteem???

    So all in all what I see that needs to be taken into consideration and changes to be made with the existing child support legislation is 1. Look at the mothers combined income with her partner
    2. The method of calculation needs to be changed taking into consideration, tax (People earning in the higher tax bracket, child support needs to be calculated on the net income ,living allowance ( needs to be more realistic due to the increased costs in living), and the proportion of income allocated to the child needs to be fairer, taking the amount of people in the fathers existing family into consideration.
    3. Control over how the money is spent.
    4.IRD reviews should allow discretion in having payments reduced due to existing debt and outgoings which puts pressure on the fathers immediate family. It should not be so black and white like it currently is. Everybody’s case is different.
    5. Expenses to be able to earn such an income should be taken into consideration, as there would not be such an income if those expenses were not taken.
    6. Taking into consideration that the father has been allowed no contact with the child since it was born, and was known to be named “The Donor”, yet still has to pay outrageous amounts of child support, which into puts stress on the fathers immediate family and is just trying to live a normal life and get ahead. Due to New Zealand’s current legislation on child support it is impossible.

    Could you please give me a heads up on what is currently happening with this, as Peter Dunne told me it would be out to public consultation in August, which should be now., and changes in the new legislation should take into effect next year.

    Comment by rach — Wed 19th August 2009 @ 5:33 pm

  223. Hi Rach,, I feel your pain. I am in a similar situation and am expected to cough up with $1500 per month for 2 children who she rarely allows me to see. I have found that IRD Admin reviews are a complete waste of time. I don’t know how those IRD Review Officers justify their salaries when the result is a foregone conclusion; i.e. “There will be no departure from the formula”. What really bites, in my case, is that I gave the mother of my children my share of the house, all the household contents and even took out a bank loan to pay off some joint debt. I did this when I left because I wanted to make things easier for her. What a mug I was!! Ever since we separated her and IRD have made me pay and pay and pay and pay and pay. It’s got to the point where my wife and I can’t afford to pay the rent and had to do the grocery shopping with my credit card this week. If you hear back from the Families Commission please report back here because I’d love to hear what they have to say. For me, I have two choices 1) move to another country (other than Australia) permanently. 2) Throw in my PAYE job and operate in the black economy. I would love to know how much the brain dead IRD loses in potential taxation due to liable fathers being forced abroad or forced out of the workforce due to their stupid assessment formula.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 20th August 2009 @ 7:44 am

  224. I also emailed regarding the review of the child support scheme, and I received a standard reply in response, a response which doesn’t really say anything different to what we all hear anyway, but at least it was a response! Apparently they’re going to be presenting a range of proposals for public consideration, but I just don’t think it’s going to make any difference. By the time they change the scheme I’ll be too old to have our own children. Sad.
    There’s so many of us in the same boat Rach, and I don’t understand why the government doesn’t look at this more seriously. To make people pay so much in child support that their own life suffers seems so cruel!

    Comment by K — Thu 20th August 2009 @ 9:27 am

  225. rach:
    There must be something wrong with your calculation.
    Assuming you are paying standard child support for one child, for 2008-9 year,
    At say $59999 income, Child Support with partner and three children, will be $5082.00 per annum, or 423.50 per month.
    Assuming a $5000 increase in salary (to $64999), child support will rise to $5982 per annum, or 498.50 per month.

    Any extra $$$ your partner earns will, at most, only be taxed at 38c (rate for 2010 tax year), plus ACC levy (say 17c per hundred) plus 18% child support = 57.7%. For every extra dollar your partner earns, he will have 42.3c in his pocket.
    The 39% (now 38%) tax rate is only on those $$$ you earn above $60000 (now $70000) ; not on your entire income.
    In plain english, earn an extra $5,000, pay $1950 extra in tax; $85 in ACC Levy, $900 in Child Support, meaning there is still $2,065 in the pocket to spend.

    However, that notwithstanding, I agree with the general idea that the custodial parent’s income should be taken into account. There are gross injustices.

    Imagine if you have a Student Loan; a further 10% of your income gone in repayments, leaving maybe 32.3c out of your earned $1.
    If you have KiwiSaver at just 4% contributions; Leaves 28.3c
    If you are a tithing Christian; Leaves just 18.3c out of your earned $.

    I suppose on that basis, be glad that if you spend it all on food, at least they only take a further 2.25c in GST!

    OR; if you had no partner, no new children, and paid child suport for 4 or more children, your $64,000 income would result in $9,970 child support (830.85 / mth);
    then at least the extra dollar, less tax, less ACC Level, less child support, you’d still have 30.3c.
    If you don’t have a Studen Loan, kiwisaver, or make any form of charitable contribution, the Govt will only take a further 3.75c in GST, leaving you about 26.5c to spend on yourself!

    Comment by Fearless Frank — Thu 20th August 2009 @ 9:52 pm

  226. shit thats depressing

    Comment by mits — Thu 20th August 2009 @ 10:02 pm

  227. Hi Had Enough. I met a truck driver in Australia. He started his own business and pays himself the minimum wage. This is the PAYE part so this small weekly sum is the amount the tax office based his child payments on. He said (with a cheeky glint in his eyes) that he’s very poor but his company isn’t so poor. His company owns his house, car, etc. He’s just a poor employee (or however the lawyer/accountant worked it out). I’m not sure if this is the case in NZ but I’m sure the IRD cannot take child support out of a company’s earnings – only personal income tax. The things he told me about his ex wife and her new wealthy partner made me think he wasn’t trying to shirk any reasonable responsibility. I’m not say go out and buy Telecom but perhaps a small business like a lawn mowing franchise. But of course due yr due diligence and get proper advice.

    Comment by Greg — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 6:42 pm

  228. Can anyone tell me roughly how long it will take to get to court for a parenting order after counselling sessions have ended?

    Comment by sarah — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 9:40 pm

  229. PS and when it gets to court is it decided on the day or do we have to wait for the ruling/decision?



    Comment by sarah — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 9:41 pm

  230. My experience, two rounds, Family Court Counselling is quick – maybe over within a couople of months. Is the other BS that takes time – so far looking at over 1 1/2 years each round, to get to a full hearing. It really depends how many additional rtequirements -= processes, reports, counselling, and other hurdles either party – usually the custodial parent’s lawyer, can come up with.

    Comment by Fearless Frank — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 3:48 pm

  231. I have lost an admin review. I earn the max amount for the child support formula.I support 2 other non biolgoical children in my new relationship. My new partner can afford to pay her part of the mortgage and so can I…but we have little or no equity. My ex has my child 800km away and I have high contact costs to see her. around 7% of my salary. But because we as a couple earn more than the ex, the admin review was turned down. I wished to only recoup a few hundred dollars a month to assist with travel. Support for 1 child and contact costs averages over $2000 per month. My child is a toddler. I would understand if she was a teenager with more needs. My ex is working and has an income over $75,000 with child support. Why was my review officer a Lawyer when I am not allowed to present one to argue my case? Why does my ex not use the child support for my child and freely admits it pays her debts? I am happy to pay half the cost for rasing my child, but cannot see that it costs Joe Blogs on low income only $400 a month and me $1300. If that is the shared cost of raising a child, does it really cost $2600 per month for 1 child..?
    I see the setup of the Child support system flawed. I would love to have my child everyday or every second day. But distance and the ex only allow me once a month

    Comment by Thomas — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 5:14 pm

  232. No, Frank I’m afraid calculations are right, based on what we have earned and paid. It is all in paper work.I also have taken those different tax rates into consideration , I had already worked it all out of the IRD website. Not that my husband would like me to advertise his pay online, but there is only one way I can explain.
    2007-08 tax yr-$71,724(gross)$18,023(paye)$2939(cs)$50,762(net)
    2008-09 tax yr-$74,264(gross)$19,031(paye)$4348(cs)$50,885(net)
    2009-10 Tax yr-$76,500(gross)$19,919(paye)$7182(cs)$49,399(net)
    2010-11 tax yr-$80,000(gross)$21,309(paye)$8681(cs)$50,009(net)

    2010-2011 c/s is calculated on the 80k , not the previous year earnings as by the end of this financial year it is likely to have reached that. So that would be right is guessing that is what it would be calculated from.
    Did not realise the new tax rate so that I guess would give an extra couple of hundred a year.

    So can you see where am coming from?

    Comment by rach — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 9:03 am

  233. Then you were lucky! In the 2008 year, child support liability for living with partner & 3 kids, paying for 1, with 71724 gross income, is per IRD website 7350.00

    Comment by Fearless Frank — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 9:12 am

  234. I have not heard anything back yet, but I agree the government needs to change it, it does feel like it is never going to happen. When I had been interviewed on live radio a few months ago with Peter Dunne, he seemed to understand where the problems lay but after then advised me on air not to air my personal situation on live radio and invited me to call his office. He made himself look good to the public as if there was some way he could help our situation, but he passed it on to one of his help and they could not do a thing . They just got some one high up in IRD to ring me and we went over the same old thing. So I have sort of lost faith in old Peter Dunne. I am now starting to think I really want to get this on air (T.V) there are so many people in our situation. It makes me feel suffocated because there is no where to turn.

    Comment by rach — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 9:19 am

  235. Been there with the credit card thing. Thats what we had tried to explain to the IRD in those two reviews, that we were topping up on our credit cards just to live. We got more and more into debt. They could see it as we had all the proof they needed. Their commments were, we can see you can’t afford it but thats what you need to pay.
    Unbelievable! Knowing all this money is going to some one who could manage fine without it, and your own children are suffering. We earn a good income on paper but still have nothing at the end of it. It has been really hard to explain to our three kids, whom are growing rapidly and don’t seem to stop eating, that no you can’t have an extra piece of fruit because there won’t be enough till the end of the week. One of them is constantly upset because they don’t get the special packaged lunch box bars/treats like her friends do.
    I just can’t understand why this system is so unfair and it has been this way for so long and nothing has been about it.

    Comment by rach — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 9:29 am

  236. Really…that long eh?!! I was thinking we could have it all done and dusted in about 6 weeks!

    What sort of reports and processes are we talking about? I am the custodial parent and see no point in dragging it out, that can’t be good for the child. So if we can get straight to the point and get on with our lives it’s probably worth avoiding those areas.



    Comment by sarah — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 2:04 pm

  237. Good luck Sarah. I have been waiting over a year for a hearing for a parenting order. It has taken me 12 months to get a hearing just to decide interim parenting arrangements. Six weeks is impossible I am afraid unless you and your ex partner can reach an agreement.

    Has Lawyer for Child be appointed or requested? This is usually the first step. Lawyer for Child can broker an agreement if both parties are willing. If not, prepare for the long haul.

    The Family Caught (not Court because the place is a trap for parents who end up there I am afraid) will first off arrange a judicial conference of 30 minutes where the three sides front up for the first time. Lawyer for Child just represents your children’s views, not you. She/he will want to meet with them alone a couple of times. The Lawyer for Child will put their views to the Caught and the Caught has to consider their views too in any decision.

    A Judicial Conference will be held every 6 – 8 weeks until the case is decided.

    The Caught may also appoint a Lawyer to Assist if the children/child are saying they don’t want to see one parent (it happens a lot). This lawyer will then represent the child’s welfare and best interests while Lawyer for Child just presents their view because there is a conflict between what the children are saying they want and what actually might be in their best interests. You can ask for a Lawyer to Assist if you don’t like the Lawyer for Child’s approach.

    The Caught may order a pyschological report and you, the children and your ex partner will be interviewed and the shrink will prepare a report for the Caught commenting on the parents and what he/she thinks the Caught should do. The judge places a lot of importance on this report (don’t believe any one who tells you otherwise). Be nice to the shrink, be honest and co-operate. Show how reasonable you are. This report will take 8 weeks (sorry bang goes your 6 weeks already).

    Once the report is ready, a hearing date will be set, earlier if there is no report. Sometimes if there are care and protection issues, CYFS will also be asked to make a report. Again co-operate with these people, otherwise you risk making them an enemy and the judge does give weight to these reports. This is because the judge is looking for “neutral” third party evidence because your and your ex are at loggerheads. This is not to say I agree with all this BS, it is just the way it is in the Family Caught. You either play the game or you don’t and suffer the consequences.

    The length of the hearing will depend on how complicated the case is. The simpler the case the shorter the hearing time and the date it will be held. The shortest of hearings for the most easy of cases is two hours. The more complex can take 5 days and these take months to set down. Do you have many witnesses? This will be a factor on length. The Caught loves easy cases where it is just you and your ex partner.

    For a complicated case, the judge will always reserve his or her decision. For an easy one that has few issues and both parents are still talking to one another, the judge may give a decision on the spot.

    Comment by Gerry — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 10:19 pm

  238. Hi Gerry

    OMG, that is truly shocking! Shame the ex didn’t investigate what was involved for our daughter before embarking on this route, how to mess with your children and cause issues for the rest of their life!!

    First off no lawyer has been appointed..yet! though a request has gone through. I have just explained to her that she will be meeting someone new who will come and talk to her about mum and dad…thats an interesting adult conversation thats not really fair to put on her shoulders but guess it’s part of life with an angry ex.

    As for the psych reports I can only guess its when one parent accuses the other of being a nutter and in need of drugs and therapy. I have had an inkling that this is the case building in the background through counselling, Our daughter is with me full time and always has been but I have heard signs of him being “concerned for her welfare etc”. Upsetting to think that one would drop to these types of methods, does that mean you were not of sane mind when you married and have never bothered until the child was nealy 8 to raise it? Bodes the question eh?

    As for things like witnesses etc, I was really “naievely” hoping that it would never get to that level as I truly believed after being served with the parenting order that it would just be good to get this all nutted out and a plan in place so we all knew where we stood. However I have learnt there is no predicting the other party and what their logic is.

    The concept of having a parenting plan all in writing is a great idea….but then it seems like this is me living in a dream world, other than the theoretical legal world….!!! Unfortunatley we are not in the position of talking as my ex will not talk to me unless via his lawyer, hard to believe that at 2 adults who married and had a beautiful daughter we are now lowered to years in the caught system, all because I asked for child support.

    All I can say is I will do my utmost to shield my daughter from the nasty side as it looks like with this on the horizon things are not looking rosey and pleasant. Jeez this looks like years in the legal system! No wonder I am hearing figures of 55k in legal bills etc etc on this forum, is it any wonder?! By the time most of these things are sorted I am guessing most children will have left home!!!!!

    Thank you so much for your help,

    Much appreciated at least I know what we are looking at..


    Comment by sarah — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 11:17 pm

  239. Dear Sarah

    Another thing I forgot is that in your situation you have a good chance of a lawyer on legal aid. If mental health issues are going to be thrown around and you have a supportive doctor, consider asking them for either a letter of support or an affidavit in support.

    Check out You can get a lot of good legal advice for a three month subscription of $45 (I have no connection with this web site but use it a lot for my case).

    Women can be as much victims of the Family Caught system as men. Check out what support you can get from women’s groups in your area as well. I wish you the best of luck.


    Comment by Gerry — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 11:42 pm

  240. In seperation issues (All of them) The only winners are Lawyers, and the worst loosers are children. If the parties can sit down with a trusted friend, a first aid kit, and a padded cell there is a good chance they will emerge with a workable agreement. Then the Judge grants orders by consent.

    Relationship services has lost its original focus, help couples over rough spots, and or seperate with dignity.

    Comment by alastair — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 9:46 am

  241. Sorry Sarah, but what I dont understand is why you are prepared to go to all this trouble and aggravation to get child support. As everyone, male or female seems to agree on this site that the only winners of Family Court are the lawyers (a sentiment which I wholeheartedly agree from my own experience) I cant understand why you would want to subject your child, yourself and even your Ex to such a process.
    How can you and your Ex’s child in anyway win from such a legal battle? As with all due respect it would seem that the only outcome here can be different degrees of losing for all involved except for the lawyers, who have had a rather uneventful but not unprofitable day at the office

    Comment by mits — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 5:53 pm

  242. Hey Mits

    Don’t worry I have given up on ever seeing any contribution in the way of child support, moved on. It’s all with the IRD now, time to get on with life and I am not the one they are hunting. Funny though the machine behind the scenes is monstrous and once you are in thats it. I feel they should maybe just have a newsletter they send out with updates 😉

    The actual parenting order process (court order) was put in place by my ex not me. I am not the one subjecting our daughter to all this, I hadn’t even gone down that path but like I said I think its good to have a plan. I actually agreed with everything he wanted time wise and even offered more. It’s here that we have hit a stumbling block and what has got it kicked to court.

    It’s just that since I put in a request for child support this is when the court order from him came through and it all got nasty. Like you say though the lawyers get rich and I imagine his lawyer is rubbing their hands and kissing their bank statement.

    On another subject admin review contacted me again today, saying he has put in for another admin review, last one was in May. Out of interest when there are 2 ex’s that have put in for CS are they then both involved in the review going forward?

    Last time only I was and I later found out she had applied after me. I just wondered if its now all just one case for all children involved or is it all still seperate?

    Can I just reiterate I am in full favour of all the children getting child support (I am however realitsic in the fact we probably wont see any money)

    Comment by sarah — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 6:18 pm

  243. now thats funny Sarah
    thankyou for giving me a laugh and I beg you pardon for saying so.
    Youve given up on ever seeing child support and moved on. And its all in the hands of IRD. Sort of like a bob each way dont you think?

    Comment by mits — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 8:42 pm

  244. From what I can see and even from some of the advice on this site self- employment is the way to go for dads that don’t wish to contribute and it’s much harder to retrive the money, so good luck to the IRD better their lawyers than mine.

    Shame for the ones that do appear to cough up a hell of a lot to their children. They are not only get hammered in CS they are propping up the dads who can afford to pay but use the system the other end of the scale to get out of it, in tax in other areas as well.

    But you are right it is like a bob either way, glad I can make you laugh 🙂 Made me laugh when I read your comment…too true !



    Comment by sarah — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 8:54 pm

  245. Hi

    Now i’m here new to the site and as confused as hell on what is the rights and wrongs of working with an un cooperative ex wife in dealing with the childrens lives. I’m lucky in the fact that we have a court mediation agreement, which i fought tooth and nail to get, giving me 50/50 custody but is it right that my CS paymemts have only dropped by less than a 1/4? I cannot get a straight answer anywhere as to what my CS payments are actually for as the ex demands i pay for all her so called extras. She wishes the kids to go into extra curricullum classes at school for example which i believe are not worthy of the coost yet she expects me to pay as “schooling is not covered by the CS payments” is the right? I mean i happily pay the standard fees and uniforms etc but where do i draw the line?

    I am a firm believer that i am responsible for my children but with 50/50 custody i pay as though they were not with me atall. Basically my question is what is CS generally for?

    Comment by Gravesie — Wed 9th September 2009 @ 3:31 pm

  246. These are all good questions, to calculate payments any rumours that IRD have a piece of wet seaweed they consult have yet to be substantiated 🙂 Under law your payments are leagally limited to your payment to IRD! However further assistance is permitted and could be good PR. If the X is on DPB she sees none of your payment. IRD snaffles it on the` way past! The formula for shared care is complex and is based on the length of time you have the children. If there is no history, It’s that piece of seaweed again!

    CS is a dogs breakfast. There are those much more euridite than me around!

    Comment by alastair — Wed 9th September 2009 @ 3:40 pm

  247. Hi Gravesie. I know very little about shared care agreements but I do know how unfair the CS assessment formula is. Some time ago I had 2 of my 3 children in my custody and their mother had one child. Yet I was still expected to give her about $600 per month, after offsetting. In my experience the Admin Review morons will NEVER deviate from their stupid assessment formula when the applicant is a father. Seems to work fine for mothers though which tells you something. Basically if your on PAYE you are screwed. Looks to me like you earn a lot more than her and are being punished for this by the IRD CS Nazi’s. And, you really have to be hard arsed about this and stop paying for the extra’s. Sounds like you are already paying enough towards this in CS. Don’t let her guilt you into spending more than you need to on questionable services for the kids. Good luck, you’ll need it!!

    Comment by Had_Enough — Wed 9th September 2009 @ 5:23 pm

  248. Yep I agree with Had_enough and Alastair here.
    Hi Gravsie, the biggest mistake your making here is in assuming that CS has anything to do with children. Its a common mistake which I myself fell into when I started paying it. I think this misconception is created by the name Child Support. But if you look at it from IRD’s point of view then
    A penalty tax that we will gouge from parents, predominantly fathers but we dont want to say that as its so un PC and not gender Neutral.”
    wouldnt look as user friendly at the top of the forms and correspondance would it?

    To answer your question what your CS payments are actually for? Well the simple answer is, “anything your uncooperative ex wife wants to spend them on.”
    If you, or more importantly, the children are really lucky she may choose to spend all or some of the $$$s on the childrens welfare. If she chooses not to spend the $$$s on the children then there isnt much you can do about it. Just be prepared to hear a lot of emotional twaddle about how its for the children and if you would love them you would give more…………….

    Comment by mits — Wed 9th September 2009 @ 8:02 pm

  249. It all goes back to the 70s when governments enacted unilateral divorce laws under pressure from feminist bodies in order to “free unhappy women”. This caused a massive increase in divorces, and this resulted in single mother families who were now dependent on the state, i.e DPB.

    Social security Costs for the state, spiralled massively in the 80s, and the government in America decided that they will recoup this money by making fathers pay “Child Support”, double speak for taxing fathers for the filching of their own kids based on their income. This and the continuing influence of femimism, brought in draconian anti-male “Domestic Violence” laws during this time. These laws soon spread throughout the industrial world and to NZ. From the 80s there were more and more middle class divorces, and governments realised that the CS could be a major tax resource. From the 80s, the MPs and senior state workers’ salaries began to increase and so did their pensions and expense demands.

    The state passes on part of the CS to the single mothers, but makes a tidy profit out of it all too. That is what CS is

    Comment by martin swash — Wed 9th September 2009 @ 10:22 pm

  250. Well put

    Have to say, in my uncle status and getting the grief from the sister with the self employed ex, that the seaweed calculation also works in the reverse as well! If the IRD cant lay their hands on the money then the kids dont benefit on the other end of the scale.

    Seems that CS only ever work on PAYE.

    Given there are over 250,000 small businesses alone in NZ ( I have no self employed stats) seems it means the paye blokes are landing all the dues….dpb backlog and all!

    Comment by kahu — Thu 10th September 2009 @ 11:08 pm

  251. Spot on Kahu. CS is calculated on net income. When you operate a business it is surprising what becomes a “Business Expense” Most businessmen can trim their CS liability down to the minimum, while maintaining a plush lifestyle. – I have been in business, I saw how easy it is to do. Even your daily newspaper becomes a business expense.

    Comment by alastair — Fri 11th September 2009 @ 12:49 am

  252. Just to correct the information – CS is calculated on gross income.

    Contary to popular opinion being self employed is not a magic bullet for reducing Child Tax.This is a common misconception that fails to understand that General Accounting Principles do not apply to child tax as a child tax income in self employed situations can be found to be completely different from income declared for tax purposes.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 11th September 2009 @ 10:35 pm

  253. Scrap is right I am afraid. CS is applied to gross income, less the pathetic amount you get as a “living” allowance which is based on the social welfare benefit for a single person on an invalid’s benefit (forget the fact you are a tax paying working man, for the purposes of CS the government accords you no more value than someone who can’t work – rollover Stalinism and make way for Child Supportism).

    If you are in a new relationship and your partner has kids and she works, forget about getting a bigger allowance to account for that. CS case case law says she can look after her own kids thank you, and you will be denied any allowance for this.

    I raged against the unfairness of this for years until I realised it is not about being fair. It is about collecting tax. IRD do not give a flying fundamental about fairness. The majority of liable parents are on a benefit and pay minimum CS under the law (about $15 per week). Therefore the shortfall has to be made up from somewhere else and the working parent on PAYE is an easy target. So are the self-employed. The IRD is expert at screwing the self-employed too.

    So consider a family trust if you are self-employed. Have the shares in the business held by a trust and dividends and profits from your business paid to the trust. Have the business pay you a modest salary which will be subject to Child Support. Have the trust disperse the profits and dividends from the business as per the deed of trust to the beneficiaries in a way it can not be seen as income to your personally – for example on the costs of a home owned by the trust and which it grants you free tenancy for life and a vehicle which it grants you the use of

    Comment by Gerry — Sat 12th September 2009 @ 2:23 pm

  254. Ok so agree with what Scrap & Gerry say here…so to put the question out there, are all men who are on PAYE happy to be picking up the losses of child tax with self emp people that have trusts?

    Seems to me “in my experience” to avoid picking up a tab its easier to be self employed and just avoid supporting their own. From my knowledge if the ex runs their bank account in OD the the IRD will not touch it. Easy to arrange these days…easy to pick on the PAYE payers.

    So many of the hard done by blokes on here would be better off being self employed with a trust in the background to stop paying the “ex” child support. Sorry if I offend decent blokes out there but surely if they are your kids it will always work out in your favour if you support them finacially as well as fight for your rights to access, male pride is still out there and in force. Since when has providing for your loved ones stopped that pride?

    Saying you love them and want access rights and will be there for them etc etc, “showing the love” with any child still involves paying for shoes and contributing to school trips etc”.. Kids are a package and its an all rounded contribution. Neither parent should be saddled with the standard line between cash and commitment. It works both ways….full stop.

    In the meantime the CS system does suck, equal opportunities, equal access, eaqual rights, equal fincancial commitment, equal responsibility! Thats my view…it seems to me much of what goes on is a power play. Yes women may go on the DBP and that in my opinion is sad. HOWEVER if the self emp dads with trusts coughed up. I know from experience that would not be an issue.

    So when when some blokes state that the DPB is there to aid the women and children, are they not in fact fueling the system?!! A thought and the truth as a childs witness…


    Comment by kahu — Sat 12th September 2009 @ 9:04 pm

  255. Kahu…all I ca say is Yup!

    Thats the way the wind blows…too true!

    Comment by sarah — Sat 12th September 2009 @ 11:55 pm

  256. Would it not be fairer to enforce chared care on all parents – so those who ‘hide’ on a benefit actually have to pay money to raise a child?
    Gosh – wouldn’t that bne a new concept – two parents decide to have a child; they separate; they both still have to raise the child(ren)?
    OMG! Both parents can then both work as well, to raise the money to raise the children whilst in their care!
    OH NO! I can hear the hairy legged feminists complaining ‘how dare I suggest those poor defenceless DPB’ers work part time! ‘
    No; rather we should simply limit dad’s Contact; send him to the coalmines in order that he can fund her whilst she embed’s herself in the care of the state.

    Comment by Fearless Frank — Sun 13th September 2009 @ 7:53 pm

  257. Kahu, not all custodial parents are on the DPB. In my case every cent goes to the mother, who works part time. BUT therein lies the problem. I am forced by IRD to give her money. What’s wrong with this picture? I will tell you what’s wrong with it.

    1) The F’n state is forcing me to pay a woman who openly hates me and means me harm large sums of money.
    2) She is under no obligation to use a single cent of the money I give HER to buy clothes, education, food etc for my children,, and she doesn’t..
    3) The more I earn the greater % of my money gets vacuumed out of my pay and given to her by IRD. Why??? Why do I pay a greater % than someone on half my income. Why is it assumed that it costs more to raise my children just because I earn more than other NCP’s?? The main problem with this F’n Marxist extreme left socialist money gathering strategy is that it sucks the whole point out of working hard for a living and trying to better oneself. It is a hard left strategy that was applied in the Soviet Union and brought about the demise of Eastern Communism. It takes from the workers and gives to the bludgers. It invariably ends in the geese who lay the golden eggs getting so pissed off with having most of their income fleeced off them by the State that they leave the country, deliberately work for less than they are capable of earning to reduce the Child tax, or work under the table.
    What the F are the National Party doing claiming to be a centrist and/or a right wing party. They are as far to the left as Labour ever was or they would do something about this Socialist bullshit. Buy NO the pussy whipped pasty faced National Govt geeks just sit there like Labour did and smugly administer the same femo socialist policies as Labour. They are a disgrace!!
    Kahu it’s not all about sweet innocent virtuous mothers and tight fisted nasty fathers who don’t want to take responsibility for their children. There are many mothers milking the many benefits IRD and WINZ provide them with and living fabulous lifestyles while their ex spouses (or sperm donors) are living in poverty despite working 50 or 60 hours per week. I agree that all parents (NCP or otherwise) should pay for the costly business of child rearing. BUT, there needs to be a fair CS amount set as a minimum and if NCP’s wish to pay more than that then that’s their business. It shouldn’t be up to our Socialist Govts to impose harsh child tax penalties on hard working Kiwi’s who are trying to get ahead in life. AND BOTH parents should pay for the upkeep of their children NOT just the NCP. I currently pay about $800 per child per month. If that was a fair figure, and she was paying half, it implies that the cost of raising children in this country is $1600 per month. LIKE HELL IT IS!! You could raise 4 children on that, let alone one.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 13th September 2009 @ 10:44 pm

  258. Meaning???

    Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 14th September 2009 @ 8:16 am

  259. I don’t think the State makes any profit from the DPB and child tax systems. Most separated fathers don’t earn enough to reimburse the govt fully for the DPB, and there is a policy that if a father pays more child tax than the DPB, the extra amount goes straight to the the mother.

    That is not to say there is anything just or much good for children in this system.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 14th September 2009 @ 9:03 am

  260. Yes. One of the most exploitative and child-unfriendly aspects to our child tax system is that it funnels the father’s financial contribution through the mother. That way, the children do not get to see the father’s role. In a sensible system fathers would be able to provide directly for their children’s needs, buying them clothes, education, computers, vehicles etc. This would contribute to father-child bonding that will benefit the child throughout life, and to important modelling about being a father, provider and protector. The long-term social effects of the child tax system in marginalizing and stifling fathers’ roles and modelling will be seriously bad.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 14th September 2009 @ 9:14 am

  261. You are right on the mark there Hans. My children have been told by their mother that I contribute only $60 per month per child. That really pisses me off because my kids are being brought up to believe that their father couldn’t give a rats arse about them and this is reflected in his pathetic financial contribution to their upkeep. The reality is that nearly one third of my net income gets given to their mother (allegedly for their benefit). This is a figure about 15 times more than the mother tells the kids I contribute. No wonder the kids think I should buy them lots of stuff on the few occasions when their mother allows me to see them. The current child tax system destroys families!!

    Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 14th September 2009 @ 9:26 am

  262. Not quite correct Hans, If the paying parent pays more than their obligation IRD take it to cover any arrears or penalties and interest.

    A further fallacy, Mum goes on DPB. Dad is not aware. Child tax is back dated to the date of application. Additional payments are ignored, but he starts behind the 8 ball with arrears hence penalties and interest.

    Comment by alastair — Mon 14th September 2009 @ 9:57 am

  263. I so agree with you, the mother of my husbands child gets the whole lot, and she does not give a rats arse that our three girls and us are suffering because of it. She is just bitter and twisted because she got pregnant and my husband did not want to be in a relationship with her.(I met him around the time the child was being born 13 years ago, which she was most unimpressed about) She took off had the child and likes the fact that she has all the control. There is not way it costs that much for one child to be supported our three girls combined would only cost a fraction of what we pay.
    Its like hitting your head against a bloody brick wall wondering if we will ever get ahead. By the time the CS ceases our girls would of missed out on the opportunity to have money spent on them for fun child like things as there is none of that happening for them right now.

    Comment by rach — Mon 14th September 2009 @ 3:13 pm

  264. Always about the dollars Kahu.
    What amazes me is how often someone paying child support can put into writing that they are against supporting the ex’s life style choices and paying monies that are not being spent for the welfare and good of their children. Only to continuously come up against this tired old chestnut “but its all for the Children”
    I think the old saying “there is none so blind as them who will just not see”, comes into play here.
    If child support was actually child support then it’s my opinion that you would hear a lot less from the people who are forced to pay it.
    This argument that some are letting the side down by not paying or hiding income is an excellent example of why this isnt child support.
    I pay CS for my child, what others pay or dont pay shouldnt be a factor in what I pay.
    If everybody paid up are the IRD going to say “thanks for the one and a half billion $$$, oh and by the way we are going to reduce everybodies CS by a third”,
    How would that be in the childrens best interest?
    Money spent on my children is money well spent
    Its the money I give to the ex that goes to anything but my children or their welfare (as she so gleefully informs me) that I rail against.

    Comment by mits — Tue 15th September 2009 @ 8:30 am

  265. It is a tax aimed at the small percentage of irresponsible fathers who do a moonlight flit, but the vast majority affected by it, good fathers, are completely marginalised and great social damage is done, but the state wants to get cash from the small number of real deadbeat fathers.

    They must know what damage they are doing , they just don’t care , more expenses for MPs is number 1 priority for them,

    Comment by martin swash — Tue 15th September 2009 @ 9:12 am

  266. Hi All,
    I got bludgoned into the CS IRD system earlier this year.
    Ex demanded an amount or she was going to put the paperwork into the system. Up till then we had a mutual arrangement.
    The guy she chucked me out for she ditched got a quickie divorce and then married another guy who she’d only known for 9 months this all happened from August 08 to March 09.
    I couldnt afford the ammount she demanded and stupidly thought the System was reasonable as i had remarried and now look after a 13 year old step son and 21month old new daughter. We have just had another baby Boy and what do they allow me a lousy $600 bucks a year reduction in the CS payments. $951 reduced to $901. I have 2 daughters to the ex.
    Oh and by the way i don’t see them anylonger due to the lies and deciet that their mother has indoctrinated into them.
    This is DISCRIMINATION and i reckon if any of us had the money and the mind set we could take it to the international courts and we would win.
    But would it make any difference? not one bit. too many fat cats living off the system and too many PC brown noses scared of upsetting the “mother” oriented CS system they have set up.
    I don’t mind paying for my two girls but fair is fair. There is no way they use up $1800 a month – if you factor in that she is supposed to pay half as well.
    We have joint custody i.e. if i wanted to i could go to their school and pick them up and the mother could not do anything about it.
    But i don’t and instead i hand over my hard earned cash which can go up if i get a bonus and then hey thats a whole different story cause then i’m under paying and i then have to pay arrears and penalties and then they increase my payments for the coming year….even though my base salry stays the same and my bouns doesn’t get paid out until November and even then its at the descretion of the global management.

    All in all the draconian CS system is a one way system and it will never be removed or changed while it is in vogue.
    I had to borrow $15k to pay the arreas and the child support until next May in the hope that our house repaymnets will decrease as we then come offour fixed interest. But if they go up or stay yhe same then stuff them i’m selling the house leaving my job and screw the b**** she can sing for the money. She and her new husband are both working.
    My wife is not working as i think it’s important for the good development of our kids.

    Comment by Kevin — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 11:11 am

  267. Wonderful work! This is the type of info that should be shared across
    the web. Disgrace on the seek engines for not positioning this submit upper!

    Come on over and talk over with my web site . Thanks =)

    Comment by click here — Tue 21st August 2012 @ 9:52 am

  268. my partner has been paying child support for 18 years and his younger two children to a diffrent mum they are 15 and 9.older ones 23 and 20 so we dont have to pay anymore thank god,the mother of youinger two dosnt like them to have much contact with the kids so he barely knows them she is now a qualified midwife earning good money plus she has had a new partner for last 5 years hes in it making decent money as well.enough they go off on trips to bali,we on the other hand struggle every week to pay rent and make ends meet. My partner supports me and my 3 children that are not his and i just found out im pregnant,should be happy moment but overshadowed buy thoughts we cant afford it.the ird is taking 300 dollars a week out of his wages and there nothing we can do about it but continue to struggle for another ten yerars till his youngest ios 19.crazy.i think the system should be changed and not onnly take into consideration the money the paying father makes but her income and her new spouses income.they dont even need our money,theyre holidaying with it while my 3 kids struggle to have enough food and can barely afford school uniforms,this system is so wrong,so wrong,any thoughts???????

    Comment by mel jay edgar — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 2:45 pm

  269. You’re looking at it the wrong way. If they wanted to go to Bali they would have anyway. They have good incomes why shouldn’t they. When it comes to retirement savings why should you not be able to save for your retirement because you are funding theirs?

    In the same way why should a father have a retirement on a reduced benefit because he is funding the DPB?

    Women just have to wake up to what is going on.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 4:07 pm

  270. Mel,
    Joint the club. I pay $500 per week plus have been assessed (via administrative review) for a further $14k for a period 3 years ago.
    I too struggle to make ends meet. meantime i witness overseas holidays and excessive spending i can only dream about. No prospect of saving for retirement, replacing cars etc.
    Sick system

    Comment by shafted — Tue 23rd October 2012 @ 7:13 am

  271. @ shafted – Look at it from an economic point of view and it doesn’t stack up.

    First the child support system is taking from future savings and future economic transactions. When will you do those transactions (like you say replace the car) which form part of the economic mix? The money that is being taken is given to other people to spend now. So the current economic situation for us is a mix of real transactions and falsely created transactions (not generated by an increase in created wealth) and this makes the economy appear relatively normal.

    This is about to be made substantially worse by the new Child Support Bill before parliament. More people will be brought into the captive net who will increase the ratio of the false economy against the real economy.

    By allowing ourselves to be subjected to a Child Tax structure we are allowing the economic future of our country to be gradually eaten away by a decreasing number of spenders and driving ourselves into inevitable poverty.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 23rd October 2012 @ 8:56 am

  272. Yep,
    I will no doubt become a burden on the state unless i find a wealthy and unknown distant relative who i impressed suffucuently in my youth to be the beneficiary of their estate. Driven to one’s knees is an expression that comes to mind

    Comment by shafted — Tue 23rd October 2012 @ 12:55 pm

  273. Good to see the system is still hard out destroying good parents and kids – look this is all by DELIBERATE design. It is deliberately difficult and deliberately discriminatory – because it can not be investigated by the human Rights commission.

    1. Justice system – is designed to ensure that CONFLICT RESOLUTION stays out of the Family court system as long as possible – they DO NOT WANT to see you resolve any CONFLICT……in fact they enflame conflict once you enter the system – .once you understand that you will see the Family court court is a complete sham. designed by lawyers for lawyers to make a lot of money from parents.

    2. Family Court = Parental Alienation Syndrome ( PAS ) – and narcissistic personality syndrome – do your research – these two known concerns define the concerns most of us address here – and to which the system REFUSES to do anything about – see point 1. If they helped you as parents with these KNOWN concerns, and put in place Accountability and consequence for those who do this to kids and parents alike – we would see a DECLINE in parental Conflict – Domestic violence and child abuse – a fact which the system does not want to acknowledge or address in anyway at all.

    3. I have complained about point 2 – bad behavior ( PAS ) for ten years -and if you look at the 25 or so key points which DEFINE Parental Alienation Syndrome, my wife and I have been through it all – and there has never been any consequence to the parent who has done this. And to add insult to injury – I have also had to watch my child be harmed while the system did NOTHING – the system is a party to this child abuse. Lawyers for child who have done NOTHING to intervene – not my problem one said, im only here to watch over process – wanker.

    4. Child Support – Governments need to control DEBT – if you understand how governments receive income – it is by creating DEBT, which they control FOREVER, and against which they then BORROW excessively to carry on their irresponsible and inefficient business.

    That is why we are seeing huge demands made of parents for BACK payments, and or unrealistic or excessive demands for child Support – over and above what you actually earn in some cases…..or in some cases demands which are completely disparate when you compare the income of BOTH parents ….

    Again this is BY DESIGN good parents – and this is what you MUST unite against – by INCREASING DEBT and BORROWING more against it – that is their BUSINESS PLAN – so you will not see this stop, until parents UNITE against it. $1.5 BILLION in PENALTIES is a direct example of this business of managing and CONTROLLING DEBT. The INCENTIVE is to keep growing the DEBT – understand?

    5. I have a comprehensive complaint with the OMBUDSMAN – it will be interesting to see how this goes – I am guessing they will react as most of the system is designed to react – and that will be to look at ways to DESTROY my reputation, Credibility and integrity, so as to remove me from the complaint process – ensuring NO ONE will believe my story – this is typical of a bullying out of control regime, or they could dump on me with more $$$ demands and force me back into the court system – ensuring I spend more money for no result and waste more of my life trying to get a fair and just result – from a system which is by design – impossible for any parent to challenge – OR if they were honest and truthful and were genuinely there to help PARENTS and kids – they could actually help me with a fair and impartial assessment on my contributions which I would have no problem paying, they could help us see a child who has been alienated and harmed, and they could agree to never break into our home or any other parents home in the future – to steal family property to pay for excessive unrealistic demands. ( Lets see what they do……..)

    Comment by hornet — Wed 11th September 2013 @ 6:41 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