MENZ ISSUES

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

Child Support Review

Filed under: Child Support — Alastair @ 5:03 pm Fri 16th October 2009

Extract from a speech by Peter Dunne. The full speech can be read at:

www.taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/index.php?view=706

This is our opportunity gentlemen. Tell them what we think. He expects a “Great many” submissions. Lets not dissappoint him.

Child support

Within a few weeks I hope to be able to release a discussion document setting out proposed changes to aspects of the government’s child support scheme.

About one in five of the letters I receive as Minister of Revenue are from people who are unhappy about some aspect of the scheme.

The question of when the discussion document is coming out is frequently asked by correspondents, many of whom seem eager to have their say on what they see as the shortcomings of the present scheme.

It should be pointed out, however, that by its very nature, an externally imposed child support scheme will be less flexible than good private arrangements between parents.

Fortunately for them and their children, many separated parents are able to make private, relatively amicable child support arrangements.

The state scheme is there as a back-up for those parents who are on a benefit or who are unable to make satisfactory private arrangements.

Although there is always room for improvement, a state-provided child support scheme cannot satisfy all participants all the time.

A lot has changed – in patterns of raising children, in workforce participation, and in family law – since the scheme was introduced, in 1992.

It is now timely, therefore, to look at updating it in some key areas.

The discussion document will seek people’s view on proposals to update the child support formula that determines how much child support a parent must pay.

The proposed changes will take into consideration levels of shared care, the costs of raising children today, and the income of both parents, leading to a revised formula that takes better account of modern parenting arrangements.

I expect to receive a great many submissions on the matters under discussion, and the Government will have to weigh up the pros and cons of any changes of this nature before deciding on the next steps.

People who do not wish to write a formal submission on the proposals set out in the discussion document will be able take part in an online consultation if they wish to do so.

If all goes well, it may be possible to legislate for resulting changes to the scheme sometime next year.

Income splitting

Income splitting, or allowing families with children to split their incomes for tax purposes, thereby reducing their overall tax liability, also remains an area of great interest to me.

Indeed, the post-election Confidence and Supply Agreement between my party, United Future, and National includes support to the first reading in Parliament for a bill giving effect to our income splitting policy.

The idea was first floated in a discussion document published in April last year, to which there was a good response.

That initial consultation is to be followed up by an officials’ issues paper, planned for release by the end of this year, seeking submissions on the detailed design of the proposal.

265 Responses to “Child Support Review”

  1. Peter says:

    The social terrorists of the Women’s Republic of New Zealand deliberately fail to abide by the present child support legislation, even in the most inequitable (read oppressive) of circumstances and when provided with indisputable evidence.

    This is a mere facade to mask what is a small part of a barbaric and evil regime. They should dispense with the PC spin and be straight up about the reality of how they operate.

  2. Fearless Frank says:

    As shown with now
    four
    referenda, I have no faith whatsoever that Government is remotely interested in the views of the people.

  3. karanjiharr says:

    although Dunne professes that private arrangements are better
    and “The state scheme is there as
    a back-up

    for those parents who are on a benefit or who are unable to make satisfactory private arrangements” and “Fortunately for them and their children, many separated parents are able to make private, relatively amicable child support arrangements”
    how come chiuld support tax is always imposed on the liable parent first and foremost and any attempts made by the parent to discuss and make a private arrangement is thwarted?
    In fact why is the tax imposed first rather and the liable parent given no chance/ opportunity to make a private arrangement but instead be hit with this and then be made to jump thru hoops to get a private arrangement at own cost and be brickwalled every step of the way? why is it used first and foremost when Dunnes own words profess otherwise??

  4. Peter says:

    So, does this mean that, after many years of deliberate mis-information, we will see a return to IRD child support ‘statements’ that actually show real transaction amounts and dates?

    Then when one is over-assessed and over-billed thousands of dollars, while also being the primary caregiver for the children (their mother was an IRD manager), there will be a slim possibility of being redressed for the theft and oppression by the government of ‘The Women’s Republic of New Zealand’.

  5. Helena says:

    Hi can anybody tell me If a child is in the day to day care of CYFS/MSD and they alo have leagal custody of said child longterm are both parent reqired to pay Child Support by IRD and are there any “special rules that apply when children are in care ?

  6. Andy says:

    As if anything will come out of that. My Ex is ultra wealthy. Is the daughter of a millionaire. She has trust funds. I settled with her keeping 90% of our assets. The IRD does not care and even though I look after the kids on most weekends and extended holidays most of my meager salary goes to the millionaire heiress. The child support law in New Zealand is unfair and forces men into a life style in which they will never be able to have a normal life again.

    I have lost 2 houses. My dignity. My hope. And I still pay most of my salary.

    Rubbish!

  7. Disappointed NCP says:

    I sometimes wonder…..does Minister Peter Dunne reads all these…our problems…how unfair child support system is.
    I have been directed by the family court to call my son at 4 pm every friday one a week on my ex cellphone to talk to my son.

    I am unable to call at 4pm sharp, as sometimes I am driving and cannot use my cell {cannot afford blue tooth as I pay child support) and if I call at 4:05pm , my ex would answer the cell and say” u have past your allowed time and hungs up).

    I boil and feel so hurt that I am the one paying the child support, only my income is taken into consideration when calculating child support and yet this is what I deserve.

    It is impossibe to call at 4 pm sharp and not a minute past 4pm. in this case i am unable to talk to my son, it has been over 4 months….tried many times to cahnge this time, but very dificult to fight in a womens court.

    I only wish if CS was paid on good gesture. thatis we pay the minium to support the child NEEDS and anything extra can be paid to the mother if she encourges good relationship.

    I am so humilated by this whole system, I hold my tears and it really hurts.

    I think we all should come togther and change the “unfair child support system”

    Child Support in its real term should be about child, encourge 50/50 care and also 50/50 cost

    This will encourge Custodial Parents to lift their bumps who are on DPB and find work after child turns 5 or 6

    Also i feel the years the govt provides free child care, the child suppoer payments should be decreased, as the cost to the custodial parent does not really occur, but the Non custodial parent pays tax and this is accounted in that.

  8. Scott B says:

    I’d love to support my children, but I am not allowed to see them or talk to them! Yet I still pay money to their mother. How is this child support helping to support children again?

  9. Hans Laven says:

    It has little to do with children’s needs, and everything to do with women’s wish to be “independent” from men and the state’s wish to extract as much money from men as it can to reimburse its family-wrecking DPB system. The DPB costs much more than any other benefit. We pay about as much tax as we used to when most government services were free, but now we pay separately for most of those services too. Where is the money going now? To pay for the DPB.

  10. Scott B says:

    It has NOTHING to do with the childrens needs!

  11. Ms IRD Officer says:

    Mr Dunne has had policy papers from my colleagues and I for years now. He is a master at delaying any proposals we make because it does not suit his own political aspirations. Last election cycle we were ready but he wanted his pet project the Families commission to spend some of our IRD money and delay implementation. There report is now ready but again Dunne delays re;ease so he can have some policies to trumpet but not implement before the new election.
    A MASTER OF DELAY AND POLITICAL SURVIVAL.

  12. Disappointed NCP says:

    I have read inthe news paper that IRD will be closing one of their operation either in Te Rapa, Christchurch or Upper Hutt. This is ontop of the 250 staff members made dedundant.More IRD staff will loose their job soon.

    Then they will realise how every cent counts. Good on them. When ever I tell them I will be paying less due to difficulties or other un forseen circumstances, they bluntyly tell me to sell my house, find another job or feed on baked beans and bresd, but pay child support, because its the law. When I teel them “it just does not cost $1300 per month to raise a chils, they tell me NOT TO TELL THEM TO CHANGE THE LAW

    Now they will know how hard life is………….

  13. Disappointed NCP says:

    Reward for being a working citizen

    Fair is Fair.

    Cs is calculated on the non custodial “CAPACITY TO PAY” then why does the Living Allowance (pathetic amount) 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..

    Child’s Responsibility should mean equal opportunities, equal access, equal rights, equal financial commitment, equal responsibility even after separation, because there’s always a reason for separation.

    I do not see a reason why Custodial parent cannot go to work after the child attends school, at least part time and have some financial responsibility. This will make them get off the benefit and work.

    1. The formula components for the 2010/2011 child support year:
    Minimum formula assessment annual rate: $815
    Maximum assessable income: $120,463
    Living allowances:
    – Single person with no dependents $14,158
    – Partnered with no dependents $19,379
    – Single/ Partnered with one dependent $27,417
    – Single/ Partnered with two dependents $30,234
    – Single/ Partnered with three dependents $33,051
    – Single/ Partnered with four dependents $35,868
    2.
    Now lets compare
    Living allowances
    – Single person with no dependents
    31/03/09–$13,964.00 31/03/10– $14,158
    – Partnered with no dependents
    31/03/09–$18,858.00 31/03/10–$19,379
    – Single/ Partnered with one dependent
    31/03/09–$26,425.00 31/03/10–$27,417
    – Single/ Partnered with two dependents
    31/03/09–$29,096.00 31/03/10 –$30,234
    – Single/ Partnered with three dependents
    31/03/09–$31,767.00 31/03/10–$33,051
    – Single/ Partnered with four dependents
    31/03/09–$34,438.00 31/03/10–$35,868

    Child support can be calculated using the same data used to calculate the so called “LIVING ALLOWANCE” From the invalid’s benefit………..FAIR

    e.g
    – Single/ Partnered with one dependent $27,417- Partnered with no dependents $19,379 = $8039.00 per annum
    or 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.

    The cost to raise a child can never be accurate to calculate on the “capacity to pay” for one child in question and for the other child living with the NCP be calculated on the invalid’s benefit.

    Children are just the same and should be treated no different.

    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.

    My child has been told by their mother that I do not contribute to his bringing up he is made to believe that I couldn’t give a rats arise about them and this is reflected the pathetic CSE system where IRD takes all my money “infact more than it cost to raise a child and this leave me with no money to buy anything extra for my child and for me to hand it over, my ex is in a very good picture that she is the only one buys thing for our child”. I am happy to provide the NEEDS for my child but not happy to keep up with my ex life style.

    The current child tax system destroys families!!

    CS system cannot possible work on an Income Based System. It leaves kids in poverty, and on the other hand leaves a single parent with more money than they need top raise a child.
    The cost of raising a child between the age of 0-13 is no more than $100 a week. I say this from pure experience. Nothing more.
    People disagree. Mainly woman. Govt disagree. Ird subsequently disagree.

  14. Dee says:

    I fully agree! my now fiance has 2 children that he/we pay child support for, 1 of the 2 we dont see but the other we have most weekends and extra when he has time off work, but because we dont have her more than 140 nights a week we cant pay less child support! despite the fact that my fiance didnt want the other woman to have the child but now cant get enough of his daughter! and wants to spend ever free minute he has with his daughter and travels over half an hour 1 way to pick her up on a friday after work, and then have to go out and buy clothes as she comes to our house with nothing other than the clothes on her back! where is the insentive for guys to go out and get a good job to lets say save to buy a house? of invest for his children when they are older? he would be better off sitting at home on the doll!! and then when you find out that because the mother is on the DPB and that the money isnt going to the daughter and were paying for other mugs kids!!! now that just really is icing on the cake!!!!

  15. Dee says:

    I am a woman and im here to bitch about child support in favour of NCP’s my fiance has 2 children whom we pay child support for, and man have i got alot to bitch about!
    firstly my fiance was forced to be a father he didnt choose it! he was in what he thought was 2 differnt trusting relationships (just to clarfiy these were over 6 years apart) and thought these women were taking the pill but when they decided they wanted kids they just went ahead and done it!!!
    his older daughter his mother just decided to up and leave him one bubs was a year old and not let him have any contact what so ever! he tired to fight it but got no where! yet we are now still paying child support! if your not aloud to have contact with your child when you have done nothing wrong then why should we have to pay for them? if the mother fucks off and decideds they can do it on their own they why dont they????

    and then it happened to him again! where do these woman get off???? do they not get it!
    with his second daughter hes decided that even though he didnt choose to have another child he wasnt going to let this little girl get away from him! I met him before she was born and we started dating and then eventully after a year moved in together.
    Since we have been together we have spent close to $10k on lawyers!!! just to have contact! mum of course doesnt care because she gets legal aid!
    we have to travel nearly 1 hour one way to go and pick her up and then again to drop her off!!!!
    mum wont pack a bag for her when she comes to stay so we have to go out and buy clothes for her! mum then complains that we arnt sending the clothes we bought home with little girl and that we dont contribute!!!
    we want to save money and buy a house so we can one day plan and have our own kids now how the f is a father ment to do this when he works his ass off 5 days a week to get a good pay check only to have it all taken away from him!!??
    where is the encintive for fathers? my partner is honestly thinking about going on the doll just so he doesnt have to pay so much child support and to be honest i dont think we would be any worse off!! and at least this way the mum wont have any think to arguee about when he says he wants his daughter more and she wont be able to say that he cant coz he works! then maybe we might be able to aply for shared care through child support!

    and whats with this 3 nights a week bull shit! my partner works mon to fri! he picks his daughter up as soon as he is done work on friday and she goes home sunday afternoon, and this is almost every weekend? we tried to fight for 3 nights a week through the courts but didnt get it because he works full time!!!

    how can then NCP win? they cant! I have alot to say about child support and I can see it from my NCP angle and im a woman! if anyone would like to talk about it then please let me know, i really do hope they change child support and change it for the better for NCPs!
    mothers get free meds for the children, free child care, money from the dpb, accommodation supliments, clothing allowances and thats just to name a few, and what do the fathers get???? a fucken little pay check for working their asses off!!!
    we like doing bonding things with my step daughter and like to buy her nice things as we only get to see her on the weekends but how can we do that when we have no money left????

    i really could go on and on about it as i feel very strongly about this subject!

    lets hope for a change for the better!!

  16. ford says:

    welcome to a mans world

  17. julie says:

    Yep. Welcome Dee.

    Nice vent, sorry it’s necessary.

  18. gwallan says:

    Thankyou Dee, for helping others understand how harm spreads beyond the targeted man.

  19. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford…

    ….Beg to differ Ford….No, try this one instead ‘Welcome to Feminazi New Zealand’……

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  20. Mary Poppins says:

    Men that don’t want to pay for the children they make, have a very simple easy solution: Vasectomy. The problem is most men are fickle, and don’t know how to be monogymous, and to that woman complaining about being with that man who has 2 children to 2 different women, and believes him when he says, they got pregnant on their own…. dump him, or get him to have a vasectomy. If you are struggling to make ends meet with just the two kids he already has, dump him and start fresh with someone without the baggage, or for goodness sake, just focus on the existing kids, and make him get a vasectomy, but don’t bitch about choosing a man who couldn’t be responsible for his own choices.

  21. Scott B says:

    Go play on a feminists board.

  22. Mary Poppins says:

    In fact many woman who even thinks of dating a man who complains about his responsibilities to his children, or who would even think of going on the dole to avoid his responsibilities, is as big a loser as the man she has decided to date.
    Stop bitching and find a man of integrity. Leave these pathetic men alone to focus on doing the right thing for their children. Society should really stone men like this, to decrease the number of them, and then we wouldn’t have solo women in the first place. That is, it would send a clear message to all men to either keep it in their pants, or be good moral responsible men. Women don’t try to get pregnant to idiots. And women who hook up with these idiots, are idiots themselves.

  23. In fact, ANY woman who even thinks of dating a man who complains about his responsibilities to his children, or dates a man, who would even think of going on the dole to avoid his responsibilities to his children, is as big a loser as the man she has decided to date.
    To that woman complaining, Stop bitching and find a man of integrity. Leave these pathetic men alone to focus on doing the right thing for their children. Society should really stone men like this, to decrease the number of them, and then we wouldn’t have solo mothers in the first place. That is, it would send a clear message to all men to either keep it in their pants, or be good moral responsible men. Women don’t try to get pregnant to idiots. And women who hook up with these idiots, are idiots themselves.

    To men: If you don’t want to pay child support, don’t plan to have a child. Have a vasectomy before you leave the house, or go on the male-pill, or keep it in your pants. And to those men who say they have simply been dumped, be a better man, and maybe you won’t get dumped, because if you are one of those that complain, but have failed to get custody or joint custody, then work on being a better man, or just act like men of integrity and be good to your children that you CHOSE to have.

  24. I am not a feminist. I am a traditionalist. If you choose to play, or make a child, this is a lifestyle and life choice, and you MUST take full responsibility for bringing a life into the world. You must nurture that life/person to become outstanding.

    If you speed, you know there is a good chance that you will have to pay a fine, and some despite having to pay a fine, will speed again and again, because they simply like to speed. Men, don’t grumble about your choices.

    Be real men. Or stay boys, and take up another hobby like motorbikes and stick to just that, and stick to just that,

    or embrace the consequences like real men…. and never give up. If family court gives you a raw deal, work harder, and re-present yourself back as a better man, and the courts will reward hard-work. They won’t reward those that grumble and evade their responsibilities.

  25. rc says:

    “Society should really stone men like this, to decrease the number of them, and then we wouldn’t have solo women in the first place. That is, it would send a clear message to all men to either keep it in their pants, or be good moral responsible men.”

    I see. Someone hunting for a rise. The whole playbook of shaming language, but at least introducing Sharia-like punishments is original – a refreshing change from castrating us all or cutting off our dicks and laughing about it.

    Funny how men have a problem keeping things in their pants, but women dropping their knickers all over the country gets glossed over. If you’d been paying attention, you would have noticed recently that women are sexing it up worse than men, and that this country’s women lead the world in reckless carnal abandon. Try and read a little more.

    As for the solo women epidemic, Nature has a way of solving all problems. The sooner they all go lesbo and leave us men in peace the better. If we judge continuance of the race a desirable thing, I’m sure we’ll invent something that will replace women (and probably do a better job).

  26. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Marry ‘in Fairyland’ Poppins

    ‘The problem is most men are fickle, and don’t know how to be monogymous’….Really .!!!…So Lady, you don’t really want to tell me that ‘Kiwi’ Woman don’t cheat.!!!.Please spare me that one…….That Lady if you truly believe that one, is the biggest ‘porkie’ of this Century

    Lady its a good job that Kiwi Men are becoming more fickle,about time, might I add…!!!Oh,just the same as Kiwi Woman are becoming extremely Fickle ..But that it is just find and dandy for ‘Kiwi’ Woman to be Fickle….Correct…??????

    But ‘holy [email protected]#t’ if a Kiwi Man is so called fickle as in his choice and type of a Woman partner he likes to have ..Watch you as a ‘Kiwi’ woman do the ‘bitch and Whine’ session of your ‘How dare he as list’ …Yes Lady, as far as I concerned… ‘Kiwi’ Woman are the true masters of the ‘Double standards’ manipulation technique !!!!

    Kind regards to you John Dutchie

  27. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary in ‘fairy land’ Poppins

    ‘Be real men. Or stay boys, and take up another hobby like motorbikes and stick to just that, and stick to just that,’

    Yes, there use to be real Men in this Country…And there are still are real Kiwi ‘men’ left too…But Lady your fifthly evil Kiwi social engineering Feminism is very successfully destroying the real Kiwi Men here in N.Z…Not us Kiwi Men…So get your facts right before you start mouthing off with your Kiwi Feminist crap….!!!

    Kind regards to you Miss Kiwi social engineering Butch Feminist…John Dutchie

  28. John Dutchie says:

    Another reply to Miss Mary ‘Fairy land’ Poppins

    ‘children that you CHOSE to have.’….

    Pardon…!!!…What…!!!…..Excuse me,Miss Kiwi Feminist….As in your idiot,stupid and Dumb Ass statement …. ‘You chose to have’….!!!…Takes two to ‘Tango’ Miss Kiwi Butch Feminist….Not one…!!!!…And just to set the record straight,who on the whole as in a ‘Gender’ decides to have Children …..Woman…!!!!!

    Being it on….!!!! Miss social engineering Butch Kiwi Feminist….!!!!!!!!

    John Dutchie

  29. Look, men and women BOTH can be as fickle as they want. They can likewise both go over the speed limit as much as they want too… They can BOTH do what ever they choose, but if those choices happen to involve bringing a child into the world, accidentally, or on purpose, then they must put the child first. Now, if one or both decide to opt out of raising the child, on purpose, or otherwise, or they are told by the courts or IRD, they still have to be financially responsible, then they should be greatful that they get to leave something on the earth when they are dead.

    The point is, that IRD do and should make the consequences very very clear, just like speeding tickets, so that people can PLAN their choices accordingly. You don’t go taking a car for drive if you think the wheel is about to fall off, and you don’t go to bed with someone if there is a remote risk that you could be linked to them for life, when all you wanted was a quick spin.

    And if you did have poor Judgement, then you just make the best of the situation and direct your focus on the fact that your DNA has been duplicated, and what a miraculous thing, or you could just vent.

    And if you do everything you can for your child and get no thanks, or no contact, you just work harder, read self-improvement books, and you just keep going back to Family Court.

    And, nobody should have to be forced to stay in a marriage where someone cheats, and if the loyal one ends up being the one that has to pay child support, well they could have presented this in Family Court. …If your positive focus stays on the child…. everything works out for the better in the end.

  30. Sex and fickleness has nothing to do with this debate.

    You assess the risks, and you make your choices accordingly. And you know from the onset what the risks are and you plan your life accordingly.

  31. I am not a feminist. I am a traditionalist. Read above.

  32. When you choose to play, you know you could be choosing to pay.

    If you don’t want to ever pay, you keep riding your motor-bike, as many well bought-up sons will do. If you absolutely have to play, then you decide you are a man now, and will take on whatever comes your way.

    I am a traditionalist.

  33. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    What is the justification for paying child tax when we have income taxes that are applied for the purpose of paying for our health, education and social welfare.

    We already pay for our children! Why are we taxed again? We have already paid via income tax, gst, etc to fund the state and its systems such as the DPB.

    Regards

    SCrap

  34. mits says:

    If family court gives you a raw deal, work harder, and re-present yourself back as a better man, and the courts will reward hard-work.

    waaaaa haaaa haaaaa good joke

    Mary you obviously have not had much to do with the family caught

  35. Yes, I do know all about Family Court. Judge Boshier, Principal Family Court Judge reported that 18-22 people have died in the last 18 months, before Family Court could be concluded: Mostly suicides and a few murders.
    Lawyers and Children Court Lawyers, enabled by the Judges, milk the parents for everything they can, with the result being, the children are the biggest losers of them all. The best way is to try and somehow get dialogue with the custodial parent. Do your sums and strike a deal.

    You have heard the story of Wise King Solomon who raises the sword to cut the baby in half, and the real mother says, “no, let her have the baby, then”. It is then that King Solomon knows who the real mother of the two squabbling women are…. Unfortunately, Family Court, and lawyers try to be like King Solomon, forcing every single cent out of the parents, and the remaining good parent is left with little resources at the end, or has realised that being on the DPB and getting legal aid is the smartest thing they can do…. and yes there is something very very wrong with this logic, and this is the Government’s fault.
    If they address Family Court problems,and IRD child support priorities for working and non-working custodial parents, in the first instance, DPB figures will go down.

    So only ever go to bed with someone good and smart, because smart good parents will get together regardless of the originating circumstances, and will say, no we are not going to give any money whatsover to the lawyers or the courts. We might hate each other, but there is a life here now, and since we have done our sums, then this is how we are going to provide for this child.

    But more often is the case, that one of the parents is bad or dumb, and hence you just have to be smarter and gooder and win/never give up. Focus on the child, and don’t make the same choices.

    And lobby the government for changes, and address the Family Court System, and high-light the Family Court death statistics to the government… and never give up.

    And lobby the government for changes, and address the Family Court System, and high-light the Family Court death statistics to the government… and never give up.

  36. mits says:

    I agree with rc, hunting for a rise! and not doing to bad at it to.

    What a twat to say that have a vasectomy and you wont have to pay child tax. Either Mary is deliberatly stirring the pot or “I am a traditionalist ” mean extremely naieve and narrow minded on her planet.

    I pay child tax to my Ex wife, not some bint that took advantage of the date rape drug, beer, and shagged me when I was pissed. Or some poor damsel who accidently slipped and fell over unfortunatly landing on my erect penis right at the moment of ejaculation ( how it came to be that way is an entirely different thread altogether) and impaled herself therefore becoming “accidentally” pregnant.
    You know the conversation for vasectomy never came up in our premarried life. I cant imagine where it would
    Me
    “honey are we going to have kids straight away, you know wedding night conquest an all”

    Her

    “No sugar, I thought we might wait awhile spend some time together just us first”

    Me
    “right you are then doll, so I’ll pop along to the clinic for a vasectomy first thing tomorrow have the snip then so to take all that contraception malarkey off your pretty shoulders.
    I mean if a we ever do decide to have kids there are good odds they can reverse it”
    Her
    Um no honey do you think thats a good idea? I mean eventually I do want kids and what if they cant reverse it…..

    Me
    No Darling some complete twat called Mary Poppins reckons its the best thing and who can argue with that.

    I reckon Mary Poppin’s man (or men, who am I to judge) might have played an away match and scored thus making her a tad tempramental on the whole cheating aspect

    Haaaaa haaaaa funny Haaaaaaa
    Mits

  37. SicKofNZ says:

    Mary Poppins: says: If family court gives you a raw deal, work harder, and re-present yourself back as a better man, and the courts will reward hard-work.

    Ms Poppins you’re out of touch with reality. The Femily Caught practises misandry as every father who has ever been forced there to maintain a relationship with his children is well aware.

    You can take that from a father who was forced to battle State sanctioned discrimination and who WON custody of my children. To suggest that complaining fathers should be considered negatively is out-right ignorant.

  38. Iintially I told my husband that he was a big kid, and it would be better that we didn’t, as he had no idea of the self-sacrifices, and I practically gave him a seminar on everything from teething to measles to everything.

    My husband wanted to have 5 children, but as his actions did not match his words, as far as him CHOOSING to pursue various other expensive passions, yes, I told him after the second child to get a vasectomy. He did not want to get a vasectomy, and his actions still did not match his words…. despite him saying otherwise. Finally he got a vasectomy after the third child…. And I think he actually wishes he had got a vasectomy from the start. And yes, after he had his three children, he decided he would get another child, a starving 21 year old Fiji Indian woman…. … and yes he has played every trick in the book to avoid his financial responsibilities, and never ever tried to get custody….

    He is very happy with his vasectomy NOW, and his children and I don’t discuss their father’s choices. But when my sons come of age, I will give them the “traditionalist” talk. Either keep playing with your toys, if you are not ready, or be ready for whatever may come your way, when you start making Man-choices.

    My estranged husband has had a string of girl-friends, and bad-mouths me to everyone he has a chance to …Even went on a dating web-site, and used me as his fish-hook-topic to play the poor husband, and in the end found that by finding one that was starving, and whose English was poor, he wouldn’t have to listen to any more seminars. If he had just listened to those seminars, instead of only having 8 girlfriends by now, he could have had 50, and had alot more “boy-fun.”

    So yes, take Mary Poppins advice, and really figure out what it is that you want or don’t want, and plan accordingly. My estranged husband has thanked me for pushing him to have his vasectomy, because with the dodgy women he dated off the internet, he would probably have quadruple the kids by now, and IRD will make him pay, as they should.

  39. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary ‘In Fairy land’ Poppins

    ‘And lobby the government for changes, and address the Family Court System, and high-light the Family Court death statistics to the government… and never give up.’

    ….Lady I will never ever give up on my Daughter and Son…Don’t you dare mention that Vile and Evil ‘Feminist’ Family court to me…

    I known to many decent,caring and loving Fathers who have been destroyed in mind,body and spirit by that Evil Kiwi Feminist institution…!!!!!

    The only thing I have truly given up,and I am dearly serious on my statement….. is ‘Kiwi Woman’…I won’t have a bar of them…..!!!!!!!

    Kind regards to you…John Dutchie

  40. My kids don’t see their father for 3 years, and then when IRD finally catch up with him (unknown to us), then he shows up, and makes out that he wants to start doing the “right thing”. Tries to strike a private deal to pay half of what IRD has assessed him for, when in the past, with these “private deals” he just cuts payments, if I looked at him wrong during a visit…. No, this time I’ll keep it simple, and leave it to IRD…. Ah, but then there is the “bad-mouth her to everyone tactic”, and attempt to sabotage her reputation, report her to CYFs, get the whole King Solomon raising his sword thing going… tie up all her resources.

    If you are not happy with the status quo, and the family courts, lobby the government. They all have emails. Email them every single day. Don’t give your money to the lawyers. Just email, fax and email the Government and IRD every single day. Cut and paste duplicates, and send to National, the Greens, Labour, until you know your kids are going to get the best deal. Delegate out your venting to the Politicians. Write to the media, and make your problems the politicians daily work-load.

    If you never wanted your kids, you just should have got a vasectomy. Vasectomies are reversable, and I know someone that had 2 kids after a reversal.

  41. Scott B says:

    Go get your thrills elsewhere!

  42. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Scott B

    Hmmmmmmmmm…..Like ‘the Ministry of Woman’s affairs’ or as I would term them…. ‘The Ministry of ‘Feminazi’ affairs’….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  43. SicKofNZ says:

    She appears to be angry at her ex-husband for escaping from the clutches of her apparent need to be controlling. Much of her advice is about herself or directed at her ex and has no value for the rest of us. Her poor boys will be raised with her options of being stoned to death or surgically sterilized rather than becoming like their Dad. She seems to be bitter and that is reflected in much of her advice. Tis a shame she has no mirror.

  44. Dave says:

    Mary Poppins. The men on this site all wanted to have their children. They were heavily involved in every aspect of their children’s lives. In more than 70% of cases the wife terminates the marriage. For folk on this site, the mother used the courts to prevent the children having a meaningful relationship with their father. Often eventually no relationship at all.

    In spite of all this the fathers on this site are more than willing to pay a share towards the true costs of raising their children. The NZ scheme has nothing to do with this. It is simply a tax on income that has no relation to the cost of raising a child.

    You talk about responsibility yet you never once suggest that mothers, the courts, the IRD or the law makers should address their own responsibility in all this.

    None the less I will address the points you do make in a rational and logical way in my next post.

  45. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary ‘In Fairy land Poppins’

    This one ,I truly have to laugh at the below statement….’Traditionalist’…..Yeah ,I see a hundred Pigs flying across the room…..Get real Lady…’Traditionally’ as in a ‘Real Man’ acting and behaving like a real ‘Gentleman’ as been successfully destroyed by Kiwi Feminism…

    ‘I will give them the “traditionalist” talk. Either keep playing with your toys, if you are not ready, or be ready for whatever may come your way, when you start making Man-choices.’

    I afraid Lady that won’t happen here in New Zealand …And the reason why…????…your Son/s will have been truly ‘Feminized’ by the ‘Feminized’ educational system…

    In fact they will only know how and act like a ‘Feminized’ Man…But don’t worry about it Lady….The Kiwi social engineering Feminists will adore that situation to happen to your Son/s…..

    Oh,don’t be surprised in near distant future if ‘Man choices’ will made ‘illegal’ here in New Zealand by your lovely Kiwi social engineering ‘Butch’ Feminist cohorts….!!!

    Kind regards to you John Dutchie

  46. rc says:

    I wonder what the obsession with vasectomies is all about, considering the easy availability of other forms of contraception and legal abandonment of responsibility for unplanned children – mainly to women I might add. We men have only the snip, condoms and distance (I’m a great proponent of the last).

    While your husband was ‘acting like a big kid’ and not being a ‘real man’, what’s your excuse for getting pregnant with 3 kids by him? You’ve already assumed the role of smarter and more responsible half of the couple – wouldn’t that make you more answerable for any mistakes you BOTH made?

    As for vasectomies, they’re a good idea for determined skirt-chasers, but for married men in their late 30s and older who have sex about twice a year with their wives, there’s not a lot of logic to it, especially if it’s the wife doing the pushing. The chances of the wife getting pregnant are rapidly declining, reaching zero in only a few short years. Maybe 20 shags at the most. But if the missus has already planned out her divorce, the last thing she wants is competition to her soon-to-be ex-husband’s future income and property (the Roman emperors had to have their children guarded from the knives and poison of competing wives).

  47. paul says:

    i was told at anger management to ignore things like this.why was I sent to anger management you ask,a women had the power to do it.

  48. paul says:

    I have never lifted a hand against a women in my life,I have always respected them,but I have a restraining order against me,would you like to know why?.A women had the power to do it.

  49. paul says:

    I was married for 5 years (first wife)she sleeped around on me and then left the marraige and took my two beautiful boys 200km from me,why did she do that?Because she was a typical nz women slapper who knew she could get away with it.

  50. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Paul

    …I will go ever further on this particular subject Paul…A Kiwi Woman/Mother as the ‘power’ of her ‘Here say’ to put a innocent Man/Father into Prison on either a false rape charge,or a false sexual allegation on a Child charge….Because it is ‘Her’ so called ‘right’ to do so….Enough said….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  51. paul says:

    5 years of marraige and she walked away with over $100000 of my !!! money, why did she do it?because she was allowed it.what did she have before we got married? Nothing!!!!Not a bad haul for a slapper.

  52. paul says:

    where are you mary poppins

  53. paul says:

    Ive seen that one before,what a mess

  54. Dave says:

    As I understand it the fundamental point you are making was in your original post:

    I am not a feminist. I am a traditionalist. If you choose to play, or make a child, this is a lifestyle and life choice, and you MUST take full responsibility for bringing a life into the world. You must nurture that life/person to become outstanding.

    If you speed, you know there is a good chance that you will have to pay a fine, and some despite having to pay a fine, will speed again and again, because they simply like to speed. Men, don’t grumble about your choices.

    OK so your theory is that I made a seriously bad choice in the selection of woman that I had children with. And boy oh boy have I paid the price and continue to pay the price for that choice. So no real argument from me. Of course I lived with her for many years before I had children and the fact she changed so much only after separation is according to you still my bad choice. Even so, I’ll let that go and follow through with your reasoning.

    Since I am an outstanding father and loving person and still want to have children let’s consider your advice for the future.

    Before I have children I must take full responsibilities for my choices according to you. So let’s consider the choices.

    If I get married and have a kid again there is at least a 50% chance it will end in divorce, I will be preventing raising the child and live about the next 19 years in poverty. Again. Statistically, three out of 4 times this decision will be made by my future wife regardless of what I do, say or think.

    In reality it will be 100% guaranteed that the wife would make this decision in my case because anything my future wife did (short of attempting to kill our child) would not be bad enough for me to go through the hell of loosing another child through divorce.

    So there is 50% chance I would loose the child through no choice of mine. Of the remaining 50% there is a certain risk that I may be trapped in a loveless, abusive marriage with the consequences of leaving the marriage too horrendous to contemplate. Pretty much the same situation I was in with my first wife and the same non-choice as many fathers face.

    Now I am sure (given your logic of responsibility) that you would agree that getting married would be a completely foolish and irresponsible choice.

    Now that marriage is going to cost an average of $40,000 just for the part of actually getting hitched. Your advice is that I should buy a motorcycle or some such instead. However you don’t explain how this addresses my basic human instinct to create and raise a child. Perhaps you think men are sub-human or perhaps you think motorcycles turn into children through clever engineering. I don’t know because you didn’t explain this point.

    In my next post I will explore another choice which you failed to mention but I am absolutely certain you will embrace – given your philosophy.

  55. John Dutchie says:

    Again, my reply to Paul

    I truly know that feeling of been ripped off Paul,been there,done that!!! …

    And you know what my Ex Kiwi Woman partner said to me…Because she knew the Law was on her side ,and she is very correct, the Law is on the Kiwi Woman side…She considered it was her given ‘right’ to do so……

    Again I have to Laugh out loud, when Kiwi Woman bitch, bleep,moan and whine when they see good Kiwi Men,shunning them and marrying foreign woman…Hello..smell the Roses Kiwi Woman…..

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  56. Dave says:

    Now for $40,000 I can get a surrogate egg donor, a different surrogate womb and all the medical costs etc to have a baby in another country. Bring baby home and love and care for him/her. Neither mother will ever have any claim on the child. I will be a solo father by choice. The outcome is totally within my control. (Well as far as raising a child can be within anyone’s control.)

    If I want sex I can buy it or have a vasectomy and find a lover. I just have to be careful not to keep the same lover around for more than 2 years to avoid her claiming defacto marriage status or bonding with the child.

    So I can see that what you are really promoting us men to do is to be solo fathers by choice and leave women on the shelf.

    I can completely see the logic of what you are promoting us men to do.

    The only thing I am a little confused about is that you call yourself a traditionalist. However I think you may be on to something there as well. When you think about all the other PC double speak, perhaps this new option could be called the traditionalist approach.

  57. Scott B says:

    only 200kms? You got off lightly! (I know you didn’t really.)

  58. Scott B says:

    Probably having trouble with her umbrella!

  59. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Scot B and Paul

    …Yes like Katy and Karen, when I issue a friendly challenge for both of them to carry on debating with me….One thing I have notice with Kiwi Feminists when you really stand your ground,and won’t submit,or be submissive to there beliefs of there Social engineering Feminism agenda …. They soon ‘tail it’….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  60. Too many posts to answer, and as I can’t stand people that just preach, I had told my wandering husband from day 1 that I had no interest in either of our money going to the lawyers, especially when I would ask “how much is this going to cost?” I would hear how long is a piece of string?and so I would walk out of office after office… and I would attempt to direct-deal with my husband despite him trashing me to anyone that would listen. Finally, I said ok I am over being under a magnifying glass, and answering to CYFs and to all your false allegations, which I would clear again and again. So finally, I made a peaceful protest, got arrested, and got my husband’s
    Police-Harley-bike-riding mates to deliver his children straight to his door, because I was no longer available, locked up in the Police Cells for painting my message on the Police windows, which only took one minute to clean off. Well my husband had to save face with his buddies, and I was now “unfit” as he had always been saying anyway.
    So he began to walk in my shoes, hired a Nanny, a friend of the family, who gave him his list of what she didn’t do: No toilets/bathrooms, stoves, windows, no housework. She was paid a full-time salary, and this friend of his Judgemental family, would take our kids to her house and she would do her own housework. I would come in the weekends and clean his house, and then take the kids out, and I paid him child support. I did everything that I wished he had done for me…….. and guess what?

  61. Scott B says:

    Yup I have noticed that too John Dutchie. Problem is that the family courts etc allow them to act this way and they aren’t used to having to give evidence or continue an argument.

  62. Scott B says:

    ah… all you’ve done is preach your feminist propoganda!

  63. Phoenix says:

    Mary, Mary quite contray.

    By your own admission you think that men who CHOOSE to have children should pay for them. I hate to point out the obvious, but men have absolutely no choice when it comes to having children in New Zealand whatsoever.

    You ordered your x to get a vasectomy by your own admission (thereby making the choice for him). When he CHOSE not to go along with your decision, you made the decision to continue to have sex with him without using contraception yourself and by default, you CHOSE to get pregnant. You then CHOSE to carry the child to term. By your own admission he didn’t make any of these choices….so why should he pay anything?

    As to him leaving to be with a 21 year old Fiji Indian woman, I’m not surprised. Your attitude is clearly so venomous towards men of course he left.

    As for saying that women don’t try to get pregnant….I hate to point out the obvious, but in most cases a woman has to try NOT to get pregnant. If she doesn’t put any effort into the use of contraception, is a healthy fertile woman, and continues to have sex with a fertile man, then pregnancy is virtually guaranteed, it’s simply a mater of when.

    As for saying that men are fickle and don’t know how to be monogamous, get your facts straight. New Zealand is rated as having the most promiscuous women in the world! This is a nation of sluts. The only country in the world where women have more sexual partners in their lifetime than men! These are established facts, from surveys done in both 2007 by Durex and further study by Massey University in 2010. Seems that the facts indicate very clearly that men in New Zealand know FAR more about monogamy than the women here do.

    As for your continual comments about vasectomies. Quite frankly, that’s a man’s choice and is none of your business. Granted female partners can contribute to the decision, but in the end it’s not your body and not your decision to make. What is your decision to make is what kind of contraception YOU will use. Why have you not taken some responsibility for your own actions in not using any?

    As for the family court. Have a quick look at their website and you will see very clearly how biased they are and how little they care about fathers. After all, there is only a passing mention of DNA testing as a way to prove paternity, when in reality a DNA test is the ONLY conclusive proof of it. Everything else is just circumstantial evidence based on the woman not sleeping around. But since it is an established fact that Kiwi women DO sleep around (and are actually MORE likely to do so when fertile) a DNA test becomes the only way a man can ever be sure the children he is paying for are actually his. How can men in New Zealand place any faith in a system that is supposed to protect the family, and yet won’t even acknowledge a fathers right to proof of paternity in an environment such as this? In case you are not aware it’s not even a legal requirement to put the father on the birth certificate at all.

    It’s been established from studies done worldwide that around 10% (and some studies indicate the figure may be as high as 30%) of children have the father identified incorrectly on their birth certificate. With New Zealand’s promiscuity in women it seems likely that the figure could easily be above 10%. Time to wake up Mary.

    http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/whosdad.htm

    As for New Zealand lacking real men you also need to get your facts straight. In reality the opposite is actually the situation. Men of integrity in New Zealand are learning that Kiwi women are not worth the trouble, and a large number of us are looking overseas to non-feminist countries for real women to date and marry. This isn’t just the case in NZ, but is happening in every western country around the world.

    As for your lie about being a traditionalist, get real. You’re just another female chauvinist, who is happy lying to herself and others about what her opinions about men really are. Some call women like you feminists, but I guess that label is too heavily charged for you as well. Traditionalist probably seems a better word to use, but your language and description of how you treated your x when you were together gives you away. I know a number of women with traditional values, and they would NEVER consider behaving the way you have toward your now x husband; they would consider such behaviour as disrespectful, insolent, insulting and immature. And degrading themselves with such behaviour is not the sort of thing they would ever do.

    On the positive I do agree with one point in all your comments. It should be made VERY clear to men what we are entering into when we have any sexual contact with a New Zealand woman, and the true costs involved. The fact that we have no rights whatsoever should be made very clear, that we will likely have our children taken from us by a biased family court, that we will pay child support that will push us toward bankruptcy, that the stress of financial problems combined with separation from out own offspring will likely cause depression, and the ongoing bombardment of hate talk such as your own on top of it could drive us to suicide. All this with the added insult that we will probably never know for certain that the kids we go through all this for are actually ours.

    If all this was made clear from the very beginning, then I wonder how many REAL Kiwi men would even bother with a woman such as yourself.

    I wish you the best of luck in your future relationships, because in all honesty, you are going to need it.

  64. My husband after attempting to juggle his career, look after his children, and date all his women off his dating web-site, which I was quite happy for him to keep doing, decides he would like to re-unite.

    I don’t believe a word, and give him a list. Then he has a secondary mid-life crisis about his career choice, so I support him for 4 months, while he figures it all out, and then I design/fund a lifestyle change, such that we can afford a Nanny, and both be able to have time to pursue our passions, but he does it to me all over again and happens upon the 21 year old starving Indian woman, but this times decides it will be better to just drown me on New Year’s day when the neighbours are all out….

    …. and so I grab up the children and flee…. and don’t see him for 3 years until now. Some men have become very skilled at playing the system. To those men, just get a vasectomy, and then you can date lots and lots of women…..

    My boys unfortunately experienced what their father attempted to do, and luckily because of their smarts we are all still alive. My boys are already more men than their father will ever be, and they are happy to be alive and safe, and being raised by someone that doesn’t put them through daily baggage. Another man raised by his mother only, is the Prime Minister of this country.

  65. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary Poppins

    …Firstly,no partner,either as in Man or Woman as the right to degrade there ex spouse in front there so called Friends or the Children….But I am sorry if I sound super blunt and very forthright here,but you put the cost of ‘Money’ before your Children’s well being…… ….

    Sorry Mary, but my gut feeling is telling something is not quite adding up here…One thing I do know, The so called ‘Law’ is on your side concerning the beginnings of an separation procedures …….

    Usually the Mother gets legal aid straight away,and the ‘state’ swings into action straight away and supports the Mothers case against the Father…If the Father is working and as a regular income …On the whole, he gets decline for Legal Aid,I could stand to be corrected on this one.

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  66. paul says:

    You might be (shock) the last good kiwi women in the world.

  67. paul says:

    a survey done in Japan in feb this year stated that kiwi males are the best husbands in the world.suck it up kiwi slappers

  68. Love the wit, and hearing all the baggage being aired in a healthy healthy way. So much baggage, but at least witty baggage. Thanks for the laughs, and I am so relieved that there is a website like this. Keep letting it all out. And if you decide to kill the ex, just don’t involve the children. In fact, forensics is too smart in NZ, so perhaps try Fiji, but they have tightened up there too, so perhaps just keep getting it all out on this site.

  69. Scott B says:

    As Keith Richards says… shut up and shave!

  70. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary
    Reply to Marry Poppins

    ……Baggage Mary….????….Try seeing a Family been destroyed completely by a false sexual allegation charge brought on by a bitter and twisted Kiwi Woman on a decent caring loving Father…my ex brother Law….That is a experience I wouldn’t wish upon on any decent Human being,as in Mother or Father to go thought that sheer Hell ….!!!!
    Well for once, I do agree with you Mary…Every one needs vent, and have a g9ood old fashion rant and rave session…And I will defend your right to do so..

    Kind regards to you Mary…John Dutchie

  71. To Phoenix, you have quoted me as
    “You ordered your x to get a vasectomy by your own admission (thereby making the choice for him). When he CHOSE not to go along with your decision, you made the decision to continue to have sex with him without using contraception yourself and by default, you CHOSE to get pregnant. You then CHOSE to carry the child to term. By your own admission he didn’t make any of these choices….so why should he pay anything?”

    Yep, you got me, I chose to keep having sex with my husband, because I was truly an abnormal wife. But it was my husbands decision to keep the child, but then while I was 7 months pregnant, he went roaming again, and his new girlfriend who had lost custody of her own 3 children, wanted to adopt the child, but it was my husband that said no.

    It was always my husband’s choice to get the vasectomy or not, and it was my stupidy to believe him again and again. And as I am a WOMAN, I take on board the consequences of all my choices.

    My children are awesome, so I have no regrets, except what they have had to live through, and time does heal everything, so no, they will never need a website like this. This is a very good web-site.

    Use it as much as you have to and swear at women like me as much as you have to, but just keep it all on-line….for your children. The one good choice my husband did ever make was to keep the third pregancy, and for that I am happy, hence why I decided to make the last final stupid choice to re-unite with him… but it was just a set-up, but we got away, and IRD are going to make him pay now, so all is good…

    I just want people to take their venting really to the Politicians. Email the Politicians who change the Acts, and pass the bills. Email them everyday, and email the media everyday to put the pressure on… because quite frankly, I have been doing this myself, but it is a number’s game. The Family courts are not doing a good job at all, so email the Politicians every day.

  72. And one more thing guys, Thank-you so much for your time today. You have given me more time than my husband ever could have managed in a day. You really are all so sweet, especially that gentleman John Dutchie who always sends me his kind regards, and thank-you to those who wish me good luck for the future, even if they don’t fancy my chances. Well my boys say I can’t date anyone anyway, plus I am too busy, so I guess I’ll just get my men-needs met on this site now,… being criticized daily etc just like in a regular marriage. But I’ll have to restrict myself to just 3 posts a day, so if you send me a post, I will get back to you, but it may be the next day, but I will definitely answer your post, because I like to argue. I am over my limit today, so good-bye for now and sleep well.

  73. paul says:

    and again we ask,why does he have to pay?

  74. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    ‘The Family courts are not doing a good job at all’…That statement will not get one argument out of me…
    I will go further, The so called Family Court as been a complete and utter Disaster for New Zealand Society…Both as in for Decent Mothers who have been brainwashed by the Feminists employed by the Family courts as in that all Men/Fathers are evil Abusers and Monsters ….Decent,caring,honorable and loving Fathers who have been ‘Demonized to hell and back’ and have been completely broken by the Family Courts system…and most importantly… the Children …They are the true innocent ones, who suffer the most of this Evil social engineering Feminist agenda…and we,in the long term, as a society will pay dearly for this massive ‘F#@k up’…

    Kind regards J

  75. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    Have give you ‘Kudos’ here Mary….But I would rather say instead of using the word ‘Argue’….I would rather say ‘Debate’…Sure the debate sessions, can get some what ‘heated’ …Yes, I do plead guilty…I can spark up and speak rather bluntly and very forthrightly
    But one thing I can tell you Mary ….The guys on here..are good bunch of decent and honorable Men, and more important …They are awesome Fathers ,who love and cherish there Children and that’s what truly counts in my books…..

    Kind regards to you,Mary……. John Dutchie

  76. SicKofNZ says:

    The one good choice my husband did ever make was to keep the third pregnancy

    Fathers get zero choice whether to keep a pregnancy to full term or not. The mother can only agree with his opinion if that suits her.

  77. You/He has to pay because of the “Sustainability of the Planet” argument. He made his early choices to add to the population, and hence there must be a form of tax to address this choice. I need to give some quality time to my boys, to teach them about quality choices, instead of working 24/7, take them to their rugby games etc…. and imagine if he had not had that vasectomy and now being onto his 8th girlfriend with perhaps 2 children a piece, and the polulation is growing and growing, while he spends all his disposable income on nightclubbing and impregating more women, and growing and growing the population…

    and in the end, because of the energy-crisis, like in China, and then with all the world having to rip up their conservation lands to supply China with Uranium and other raw materials… then eventually we will end up with China’s one-child policy, …… and then we will have to go from democracy to a dictatorship…. And that’s why you have to pay, as a disincentive to keep the population down, so that we can keep enjoying Democracy, and free-will, or as close to free-will as we can get.

    I really am signing out now, and won’t sign in again until lunchtime tomorrow. I will answer any new posts then.

  78. Dave says:

    Notice how Mary hijacks a thread about child tax. Makes outrageous statements. Then when questioned about what she has written, avoids addressing those issues.
    She preaches responsibility but when the consequences of what she claims are spelt out for her she runs for the hills. While at the same time being condescending.

    Anyone else find this pattern of behaviour familiar?

  79. Child Tax:
    You/He has to pay because of the “Sustainability of the Planet” argument. He made his early choices to add to the population, and hence there must be a form of tax to address this choice. I need to give some quality time to my boys, to teach them about quality choices, instead of working 24/7, take them to their rugby games etc…. and imagine if he had not had that vasectomy and now being onto his 8th girlfriend with perhaps 2 children a piece, and the polulation is growing and growing, while he spends all his disposable income on nightclubbing and impregating more women, and growing and growing the population…

    and in the end, because of the energy-crisis, like in China, and then with all the world having to rip up their conservation lands to supply China with Uranium and other raw materials… then eventually we will end up with China’s one-child policy, …… and then we will have to go from democracy to a diectatorship…. And that’s why you have to pay, as a disincentive to keep the population down, so that we can keep enjoying Democracy, and free-will, or as close to free-will as we can get.

    Child tax is just like tax on alcohol/cigarettes. It is there as a disincentive to have more… to keep people to limits that they as individuals can handle, but more importantly what the planet can handle. You feel punished by it, and that’s why the government did it, to make you feel punished, to keep you indoors and on this website to keep the planet sustainable. … and the government are happy that you are unhappy about it.

    But they would be more happy if people made life-long committments, had their 2.4 children or is it 1.7 now, and just kept everything sustainable and ticking along.

  80. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Dave

    Dave, lets see if Mary returns on Friday shall we, and see if Mary will addresses those issues that as been asked by various members on here …
    I understand which angle you are coming from…But remember I did challenge both Katy and Karen to continue to debate with me…No reply from either of them….
    And I know for a fact,there are heaps other Kiwi Woman/Mothers…even Kiwi Feminists reading on Menz on what I have saying on here at Menz…and frothing at the mouth,as in wanting to ‘Burn me at the stake for Heresy’….Well Ladies come on then….say your piece….But be warned,I will not ever submit or be submissive to this Evil social engineering Kiwi Feminism that has been occurring in N.Z for the last 25 years….
    I will always respect ‘Equality’ as in for both ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ in all aspects of Life…But I will damn that I have to be treated as an second class citizen,or have to apologize because I was born as a ‘Man’ and I am a ‘Father’ here in New Zealand…Over my dead body will I ever succumb to that…!!!

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  81. And yes, you can understand why my husband decided to drown me, because I am just so reasonable, logical, and unflappable, and I genuinely believe in the ‘Sustainability of the Planet’ argument. I probably would have even turned the blind-eye to all my husband’s wanderings just to keep my children living the “dream”, BECAUSE I am a traditionalist, but sooner or later my boys would have cottoned on and woken up… and John Key was raised ONLY by his mother, so I am not worried at all now.

    I am not running for the hills. Have to make dinner etc, and I will sign in at lunchtime tomorrow.

  82. Dave says:

    You/He has to pay because of the “Sustainability of the Planet” argument. He made his early choices to add to the population, and hence there must be a form of tax to address this choice.

    But Mary men do not make this choice. Only women make the choice to add to the population.

    You claim there must be a form of tax for those that add to the population. You don’t explain why that must be since western countries have a negative population growth without immigration.

    If as you claim, there must be such a tax then clearly that tax must be paid by women only.

    The real flaw in your position is that you advocate removing fathers from being involved in children’s lives and taxing them for this travesty.

    In your very own case you admit that:

    My husband after attempting to juggle his career, look after his children, and date all his women off his dating web-site, which I was quite happy for him to keep doing, decides he would like to re-unite.

    So he was great, successful involved dad until you prevented him seeing the children.

    …. and so I grab up the children and flee…. and don’t see him for 3 years until now. Some men have become very skilled at playing the system. To those men, just get a vasectomy, and then you can date lots and lots of women…..

    You then argue he should be taxed for adding to the population. Yet he has been prevented from raising his own children.

    You are then most scathing that having been denied these children, he wants to have more children to love, hold and raise into useful members of society.

    You suggest that such men should be given no choice but to date lots of women.

    You make all these statements on a web site where loving fathers have experienced some of the most compassion-less women in society supported by a manifestly unjust system.

    What weight can we place on what you say?

  83. Phoenix says:

    Mary

    Your posts have told us a good deal of your story, and you have voiced many highly emotive opinions and very few confirmable facts. So who is airing baggage here and venting Mary? Seems like it’s been mainly you.

    The tone of your text has changed, softening somewhat and you have moved away from the hate speech of your earlier posts so I truly hope you have vented whatever you needed too and learned something along the way.

    I’m sure if you check out other topics that are up for discussion you will gain a new appreciation for the Kiwi male, who is not the monster that you may have been led to believe, or have perhaps experienced from you past relationships. Hopefully you will gain enough of an appreciation to realise that the concerns on this site are legitimate.

    I do completely agree with you on one point. The Family Courts are NOT doing a good job. They are destroying lives, separating families and leaving a massive damage path in their wake. They are causing tremendous amounts of emotional pain, poverty, and ultimately driving men to killing themselves, and whether we like it or not, it is mainly men that are being affected in this way. This is largely being done by the feminist agenda and ideals that are so strongly a part of the system.

    Like yourself, my concern is not just for my fellow men, but also for the children of this country. How many fatherless children is it going to take to get the message accross, how many men who kill themselves because they can’t see a better life. The simple reality is that men and women are linked, what happens to one affects the other. Feminists seem to have forgotten this, that life is truly interdependent. I truely hope Mary that you never have to loose a son or daughter to suicide due to issues related to family or be separated from your children or grandchildren while someone else gets to raise them. Quite frankly, being forcefully removed from your children’s lives is heartbreaking. Like a number of men on this site, I have had to experience that personally.

    My perspective on these problems is somewhat unique Mary; watching my son come into the world was one of the happiest experiences I ever had, but 6 months later I lost my son due to an uncooperative x, it turned out she wanted a child but not a relationship. Truth is she wouldn’t have got pregnant in the first place if she had been honest with me about her use of contraception. She told me she was on the pill, when in truth she wasn’t. After being assaulted by her cousin and making numerous attempts at contact and heartbroken I moved on, but the price I had to pay was my own son. I have seen him once in 11 years. Most of the time I haven’t even had an address for my son and when I tried to get contact I was accused of violence, and her whole family started to gang up on me dictating to me how things would be. On top of that my own feminist affected mother was instrumental in keeping me away as well, imagine that, a mother keeping her own son away from his children! Nowadays my son’s head is so full of poison he doesn’t even want to know me.

    When later on my daughter was born and my marriage collapsed I negotiated with my x (different woman) and got full custody purely because I am the better parent. My daughter is a very happy and well adjusted child, and is thriving under my care.

    So that’s a quick version of my own story. Now I’m sure that if you listen to others on here you will find similar stories repeated over and over. Some will involve the family courts, restraining orders, false accusations etc. But the underlying story will always be the same. A father separated from his kids, falsely accused, and psychologically and financially abused by his x partner and the system.

    As I said before, I really do wish you all the best in your future relationships. Kiwi men are not the monsters we are made out to be by the feminists, and as long as you avoid the entrenched feminist mindset you shouldn’t have a problem finding a good guy.

  84. mits says:

    Waaaaa Haaaaa
    I knew it,
    I told ya so, I said Mary Poppin’s Man (or men who am I to judge) has played away and now she,s got the hump.
    Reading between the lines the starving indian jibe means Mary might have a few issues with her weight too.
    And all the control and power issues are there.

    I am so getting to see through all the BS these “traditionalists” put up to try and hide their own short comings.

    The only part I didnt see coming was how the hubby decided to keep the baby as I would of thought that would have made the news. Its not often that a midwife delivers a baby to a man.
    Hey Mary did ya insist he have a home birth to keep this medical marvel quiet.

    sorry for being rediculous but in the words of a child I know

    “she started it”

    Hahahahahahahahahaha

    Mits

  85. Dave says:

    OK Mary, sorry to accuse you of running away. Of course time is limited.

    Mary, given all the outrageous and patently false claims you have already made, I simply don’t believe your husband tried to drown you.
    The fathers on this site know exactly how the courts in NZ work and we are well aware that if that had been the case, your husband would be almost guaranteed to have done serious time. Clearly he has not or you would have mentioned it.

    Even if he had got angry with you (which I am thinking is quite plausible) you have given me the distinct impression that he was not any threat to the children. Yet you clearly shut him out of the children’s lives and suggest that the children have been turned against him.

    Any way that is your personal business. I only go there because you are making it a rationale to tax fathers income because they are populating the planet.

  86. Scott B says:

    Drown you? You’re dead? Spooky!

  87. SicKofNZ says:

    Mary Poppins : says: And yes, you can understand why my husband decided to drown me ……… and John Key was raised ONLY by his mother, so I am not worried at all now.

    Yes, I can understand why your husband decided to drown you. Were you submerged for longer than three minutes? It could explain a few things.
    John Key was raised by ONLY his mother AND without his father contributing one cent in child support tax. His father passed away when he was young. A child’s success is clearly not determined by the amount his father is taxed.

  88. At the time when my husband tried to drown me there had been a woman’s body parts found in the mangroves, along with a woman’s whole body found in the bush in Fiji. Fiji Police were not performing normal forensics in either case, and the husband of the whole body found was simply sent back home because of connections, that I was to lobby against, and 2 years later he did end up getting sentenced for 18 years.

    I came home, and went to NZ Police who told me it was out of their jurisdiction. I continued on and on at Police and wrote to Parliament, and to the IPCA, and then in order to get a Protection Order at the least, asked for previous assaults/wilful damage to be re-visited. Now my husband had already previously been very smart, and spread the rumour that the local Policeman was having an affair with me. Now this is the Police-man that has sent him packing when he has been kicking in my car door, or kicking down my house doors, smashing up all my phones with a hammer and holding the hammer to my head, but he has never formally arrested him. Why, because this local cop is following informal orders from a Senior Sergeant, his superior. My husband is a “road king” with another “road king” in the Harley Owner’s Group, who has done just one too many cover-ups for my husband, and it now becomes a case of covering up the cover-ups. Meanwhile I am also having to jump through hoops and disprove allegations from my husband to CYFs, who are going only on the unsubstantiated word of both CYFs and Police. There is never anything to clear in the first place, but my resources are consumed nonetheless….

    Now you would have just seen the case of a Judge who “keyed” a car, where there is clear motive, and clear evidence, being the fresh paint dust, the witness, and the Police testimony, but the Judge gets away with it, because of “string-pulling.” It is interesting that the Police this time are the ones to experience the “string pulling.” No doubt they were just naive Constables, as opposed to the more Senior seasoned officers… but I guess what with the media attention they just had to go though the motions. Smart people get away with wilful damage and unfortunately murder.

    But smarter people realise what’s going on, and despite the flawed family court system where 18-22 people have been enabled to die by the Family court lawyers and the Judges, in the last 18 months, I have kept my family alive.

    And my family will continue to flourish and maybe when that poor Indian woman gets past her used-by-date she might not be so lucky… which is probably why her “traditional Indian parents” are trying to get her to move away from him and marry her arranged-fiancé’ in the States… Well it wasn’t like I didn’t do due diligence….

    IRD have on their own, initiated an assessment, or perhaps it was Police themselves trying to dig for dirt, any dirt on me… I really have no idea except that I never asked for anything from IRD… and the only reason he showed up at all after 3 years was to negotiate half the rate that IRD was stinging him for. So there you have it.

    If you still don’t believe me (which doesn‘t really matter to me, anymore), then at least ask yourself why 18-22 people died during Family Court Proceedings in the last 18 months, and why the lawyers and the Judges enabled these suicides and murders? For money, and that is all. They figure 18-22 deaths compared to all the money made from all the cases in total is what it is really about, and too bad about the kids cut in half by King Solomon’s sword.

  89. And no, I have no weight issue what with riding my bike daily, and doing at least one 40 kilometer ride a week, which is more for my mental health than my body, plus I have to keep fit for possible attacks, since I don’t bother with the Police anymore – waste of my time.

    I have bars on all the windows at the front of the house, double core doors, and my children know to lock and unlock two sets of doors when they go to bed and then rise in the morning. They also know how to take the bars out quickly in the event of a fire. We have fire and burglar alarms installed, and weapons but of course, and we sleep very well now.

    Life is about planning, and accepting what is done and re-planning.

  90. Phoenix says:

    Mary Mary, back to being contrary

    I’m sad to say that I actually thought you had genuinely learned something here, and had vented out your nonsense, but this doesn’t appear to be the case.

    Your posts have gone back to the control freak feminist values that you showed earlier. Spouting how men should pay some kind of tax on having children. All because men choose to have kids. I would have thought by now you would have realised that in reality us men have no choice in reproduction, none at all. We aren’t even acknowledged as our DNA being of value in the children we father. No DNA test allowed, and women have no legal requirement to acknowledge us on a birth certificate.

    You are still making out that you are a traditionalist. Mary we KNOW what traditional values are, you don’t have them. That’s very clear through your writing.

    A traditional woman would NEVER insult men like you have through your postings here. You must think we are stupid to spout your BS and think we will actually listen to you. Trying to say you x tied to drown you? Come on Mary, we know it’s an outright lie. He would be in prison for attempted murder if he had tried to do this.

    Your sustainability argument is worded to sound good but it’s also complete crap. Just a nicely worded way of saying you don’t give a toss about men being fleeced of their financial ability.

    As for you being “so reasonable, logical, and unflappable” a lot of what you are saying doesn’t even make sense.

    I made a mistake in giving you a fair go and thinking you had learned something, it seems you are only here to divert attention away from more important issues.

    We have had people like you here before, they consume peoples time and spout nonsense so they can get attention, but ultimately they get nowhere because they are always full of crap.

    Good luck with your future relationships. As I said before, you are going to need it.

  91. SicKofNZ says:

    Mary, please excuse my ignorance but what is a road king? I’m wondering if that is some kind of gang but don’t want to jump to conclusions.

  92. There is an International organisation made up of groups called “Harley Owners Group” associated with motorcycle retail shops/dealers. In these Groups you can be nominated for positions like Treasurer, President, Secretary, and “Road Kings”, which is a ponsy name for those designated to ride at the front/lead the organised Harley Bike Rides. A lot of Police in my area are into their motorcycle sports, and it is an elite prestige status thing to own the most expensive bike you can.. I was invited by the President to come along on one of these trips, but my husband said no, because I believe that was the start of when he started his “bagging-me propaganda campaign”. Half of his friends and family are tied up to the Police. And the Police and the courts do their deals and thats the way it is.

    But unlike the 18-22 dead, we are alive, and hence doing very well considering the above.

  93. To Phoenix,
    You wrote:
    The simple reality is that men and women are linked, what happens to one affects the other. Feminists seem to have forgotten this, that life is truly interdependent.”

    Your story is very sad, and thank-you for sharing. I am happy that you are finally getting a sense of validation, with your daughter being your best testimonial now. Yes, it is destroying to be accused. It is also very hard to live with “doubt”, but your daughter and who she is now, and who she becomes, should restore your life, completely in time. Even when you have created a new happy bubble such that you have with your daughter, life can still be very lonely, especially if your mother was one of the ones that doubted you, instead of supporting you. Just build around this bubble with sport’s clubs, and her hobbies/interests as I am sure you already are.

    People do alot of generalising on this site, as a way of insulating themselves from more hurt to come. More hurt will come perhaps again and again, but that is what is great about kids/family, is that you just keep on building that safe place to fall for your kids and yourself. My kids spontaneously cuddle me all the time, which is a great pick-me-up.

    You do need to make sure the walls around that safe place are inpenetrable, and unacusable. Take movies of all your great times, and all your daughter’s acheivements, and encourage as much independence and autonomy in her. Encourage creative outlets, and teach her to be a strong woman, with good judgement skills. Maybe even buy her a book on feminism…. It will be your best protection against teenage boys.

  94. SicKofNZ says:

    Mary, I think your advice is reasonably good up until you advise a manual on man hatred. Regardless of anyone’s definition of feminism it has always been synonymous with misandry. Feminists have never tried to stand on their own merits but have instead always tried to stand on the shoulders of men.

    Maybe even buy her a book on feminism…. It will be your best protection against teenage boys.

    There are teenage girls around who scheme to harvest sperm to provide them with financial security. A teenage boys best protection against being used as a walking ATM machine while becoming forcibly removed from his own flesh & blood isn’t for his loving parent to purchase a manual on woman hatred.

    I have two adult daughters who would spit on feminism because of the grief that it has caused in their own lives.

  95. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    Yes,with your statement below…After re reading your posts…I truly believe you, as in your ‘Mental Health issues’ …Enough said…Hope you get better ….

    which is more for my… .’mental health’….. than my body,

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  96. Some people have to insulate themselves from the truth.

    I suppose you also beleive that that Judge who was charged with wilful damage for inflicting $4000 worth of damage by “keying” a car was not guilty either.

    2 witnesses, including an impartial diner who says he saw him actually doing the nasty deed, and the tow-truck driver who reported the fresh paint dust around the fresh scratches, and the other witness who saw him also passing his hand over the car, with something clenched between his fingers (like a key), and his derogatory comment to the Police officer about who had most likely blocked his driveway, and the Police officer believing the testimonies of all the present and impartail witnesses at the time…

    The evidence was overwhelming, but the Judge got off for one reason and one reason only:
    “string pulling” or code of honor: No Judge will find another Judge guilty, and yet, if it had been anyone else, the verdict would have been “guilty”.
    Its the same deal with Police officers, and Police-friendly associations.

    So the claimant is stuck with their $4000 of damage, or the insurance company is, and the Judge is going to claim big hefty costs off Police, basically for NOT ignoring 4 witness testimonies, and he will get a big hefty pay-out for his 1 year of “grief” waiting to go to court…. and he will drive away again with the same big smirk, as when his colleague delivered the NOT-guilty verdict.

    Inflict $4000 worth of damage in broad day-light, in front of diners, and then get paid by the Police for your grief…. that you got away with it…..

    Well he didn’t kill the 18-22 people in the Family Court System in the last 18 months all in the name of money, and in the name of the status quo corrupt legal system, or did he? What sort of “Psyches” are sitting on the bench day in and day out in the Family Court systems? Do they lunch with the lawyers or do they lunch with you and you and you?

    I think it is really quite amusing that the corrupt string pulling in the courts that normally work in favour of Police has been turned back upon them by those 2 Judges, and I am amused that the Police Officer in Charge is going to spew when he hears of court costs being awarded to this Judge that he knows was 100% guilty….

    and his career will be blackened by this, and that Judge will never forget that officer, and one day, that Police officer is going to get kicked in the butt by that Judge again…. because everyone knows that if you “dis” a Judge even if he is guilty, they group together and they take you down.

    And unfortunately for that young Police officer, his superiors will be just like you: they will insulate themselves for pure survival reasons, and bat with the winning team, immoral as that stance is. They will ignore the truth, and give him a black mark on his next appraisal… He didn’t play the game, He believed the citizens and the evidence OVER a Judge… and thats the way it is.

    That Police officer will stick to his values, or he will “learn” from this, and
    when one of his superiors asks for a “turn the blind-eye” favour, if he wants a promotion in ranks, and to keep favour with the courts, he will turn the blind-eye for the bigger game plan: Protect the Institution at all costs….

    18-22 people dead during Family Court Proceedings in the last 18 months, is just a drop in the bucket, and the appalling statistics as far as tangible results for children have nothing to do with the lawyers and Judge’s full pockets.

    Write to the Politicians EVERYDAY.

  97. And yes, mostly the Politicians only do political grandstanding, but they are compelled to listen to the masses, because it is the masses that vote for them, and there just aren’t enough Judges and Lawyers in the voting pool….

    Write to the Politicians EVERYDAY.

  98. In that Judge’s own mind, he probably believes that if someone parks over your driveway, you do deserve to get your car “keyed” with $4000 worth of damage, especially if it was a “woman Asian” driver… was part of the comment he said to the Woman Police Officer…

    …. and hence why he smirked as he drove away with the “not guilty” verdict…

    …thought bubble: “He he, no-one will park across my drive-way again…. I am the man, a great man, a Judge!
    And who are you plebs to complain of the increased rate of suicides happening during Family Court Proceedings….
    Money makes the world go round and pays for my convenient $1 million dollar apartment, and don’t dare block my driveway ever again either…. and how dare you, you, you Police officer take me to court…. ” Compensaton to the maximum!, and your career is OVER!”

    Write to the Politicians EVERYDAY.

  99. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    …Mary, have you taken your mediation this morning for your mental illness .???.I suspect your mental illness is ‘Bi polar’ dis order…Am I correct…???
    If you haven’t taken your meditation t,might I suggest you do so…..Thank you

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  100. SicKofNZ says:

    G’morning Ms Poppins. I think your understanding of our system of law is not too far from the ball park.
    I’m a believer in ignoring Politicians rather than spamming them with complaints EVERYDAY. It wasn’t too long ago when Aunty Helen became quite concerned at the disinterest from voters when barely more than 30% of eligible voters bothered to vote. Politicians fear becoming irrelevant and having no mandate to farm the population. That’s what frightens politicians.
    I remember voting when I was 18yrs old. I’m 46yrs old now. I’ve only ever voted once in my life after considering why I should even bother. Having a choice to either vote for my eyeball to be poked with a rusty nail or to have my nuts severed with a rusted can lid was not a game I was interested in playing. And so for the last 28yrs no politician has received a vote from me.
    Ignore them in to irrelevance and give them no mandate to dictate.

  101. I don’t take any drugs, not even paracetamol.

    But I suspect that that Police Officer who really believed his Police Oath when he was taking it, will in a few months be on anti-depressants, or more often the case after a couple of decades of turning the blind eye, many of them “perf-out” of the force with their $200,000 plus blind-eye/stress payment…

    That case where Lesley Martin murdered/suffocated her mother with a pillow, who was right there? A Senior Police Officer, her BROTHER… not many people know about this biggest national historical cover-up of all time. I know, because I knew my husband’s mates: the Police, tongues get loose, when people are drunk at 4am in the morning…… And yes, Lesly Martin’s brother, head Police Sergeant of Waiouru (spelling?), perfed out, spent all $200,000 on a hooker in the States, and then rang up the Police for a ticket back to NZ, became a truck driver, then drove off the road and killed himself… another suicide? or an accident. Of course the Police wrote it up as an accident.

    Wilful damage, murder, etc it happens daily with smart people getting away with it especially if they know Police or a Judge, or are Police, or the Judiciary.

    You winge about the Family Courts, but when someone agrees you, you recoil in fear, and make stupid comments.

    Write to the Politicians EVERYDAY.

  102. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    A very fine good morning to you Mary,and how are you today..???? All good I hope..Wow.!!!..Now that’s a new one.. ‘When some one agrees with you,you recoil in fear’….Thank so you much for enlightening me on that one Mary…Yep,I can see,this is going to be a very ‘interesting’ day on here…take care,be safe…

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  103. Phoenix says:

    I respect you belief SicKofNZ, even though I don’t agree. My own belief is that voting is important to do. However, I believe that neither National of Labour have fulfilled their promises for a long time. Therefore I do not waste my vote on either of these parties.

    Give the small parties a chance, personally I would love to see a coalition of smaller parties come into power in NZ and kick National and Labour out.

  104. Phoenix says:

    This may be a bit off topic but since you claim to be so aware of safety and security I’m assuming you are aware of the risks faced by cyclists.

    Cyclists face the second highest risk of all road users of injury or death on our roads (motorcyclists face the highest risk.)

    http://www.bikenz.org.nz/Article.aspx?Mode=1&ID=4696

    Cyclists had primary responsibility in only 25% of all cyclist-vehicle crashes in which they were injured or killed (2004-2008).

    http://www.aa.co.nz/about/issues/road-safety/Pages/Cyclists-and-motorists.aspx

    I’m sure you are also aware that vehicle related injuries are one of the leading causes of accidental death in New Zealand. If you are genuinely concerned about being attacked, you would be better off joining a martial arts club. This is something your kids would probably enjoy as well.

  105. Phoenix says:

    Yes. In reality Mary’s post should read like this…….

    “SHE has to pay because of the “Sustainability of the Planet” argument. SHE made HER early choices to add to the population, and hence there must be a form of tax to address this choice.”

  106. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    You somewhat miss my pont.

    Liable parents already pay via the taxation system that funds the state.

    If as you argue its a disincentive its a proven failure worldwide.

    Regards

    Scrap

  107. Hans Laven says:

    Mary Poppins:
    Your argument is essentially a victim-blaming one that minimizes and sanitizes the violence against the victims. You may as well tell women “If you don’t want to be raped then don’t go out wearing make-up. You know the consequences of your decision so weigh them up before making your choice.” Women will reply, quite reasonably, with calls for a fairer society and laws that protect them from exploitation. In the case of so-called child support, the victims are mainly fathers and the offender is the state. When men highlight the flaws in the system and call for a fairer society, you ridicule them with patronizing responses.

    Most fathers are proud to take responsibility for their children, but posters here have highlighted the immoral, dishonest, exploitative and child-abusive nature of the way in which the state defines such responsibility and enforces the resulting manufactured liability. This exploitation is not for the benefit of the child but to pay for ex-partners’ upkeep and to reimburse the state for usurping fathers’ role as provider. The state thereby ruins fathers financially and seriously reduces their ability to support and to parent their children directly.

    The current system provides incentives for mothers to shut fathers out of their children’s lives because if children become too close to father of if he is allowed to have anything approaching equal shared-care then the mother’s DPB and/or father payments will be under threat. The current system is based almost entirely on suiting mummy’s needs and largely disregards the needs of fathers, children and the relationship between them. A separated father’s financial contribution is largely hidden from the children because it has been funnelled through the state and then through the mother. So the mother is seen by the children as the one who provides for their needs and this contributes to mother-child bonding whereas the father struggles to have his role recognized unless the mother regularly reminds the children about where the money ultimately came from (fat chance… and even then intellectual knowledge about the father’s contribution would not match bonding experiences such as going out with a parent to buy new clothes, school stationery etc).

    Immoral exploitation of fathers extends right through the state machinery from the legislation to some of the female IRD administrative review officers who only seek to enrich women and who are allowed in their jobs to act out their personal hatred of men. (Mary Poppins, there might be an opening there for you…)

    If the system encouraged rather than demolished fathers’ roles in children’s lives, if child tax were fair and remotely related to a reasonable proportion of what children’s basic needs actually cost (as opposed to mummy’s accommodation and lifestyle costs), if fathers had the option of equal shared care through which they could provide their paternal role in much more valuable ways for children’s development, then there would be little complaint from fathers. The system is neither morally sound nor good for children and that is what the complaining here and lobbying elsewhere is about.

  108. mits says:

    Lets recap so far,
    Mary was married to john key who is the president of a local bikie gang as well as being the police chief in Fiji and he usually goes fishing in the mangroves using womens body parts as bait. John was a child groom and mary raised him. It was a happy marriage until he did a runner after upsetting the chinese by flouting their one child policy. To appease the chinese mary feels all men should have vasectomies.
    There were starving Indians but no sign of John Wayne. IRD have got wind of this and launched a child tax to sustain the planet. Marys tooled up and sitting behind locked doors awaiting armageddon and only ventures out on occassion to heed the words of her mental health worker who said something like “on ya bike”

    johns defied medical science and mary by having a baby but is still to immature for mary so shes planning for him, to have a tubal ligation as the vasectomy was a bust.
    The judiciary have got a whiff of a hand out and barged the local president of the bikie gang who happens to be the police chief in Fiji and father to all of marys kids and one of his own out of the way in their haste to get a snout in the trough and marys car has been scratched in the melee

  109. Hans Laven says:

    Mary Poppins: It appears that you are damaging your children by encouraging paranoid beliefs about society and their safety, and encouraging hatred towards men. A CYFS notification would seem to be in order.

  110. Hans Laven says:

    A very accurate summary mits!

  111. Oh that is so funny and I have been laughing so hard, I have tears… so when I stop laughing I might be able to respond to the other posts. You are too good.

  112. 1.
    I know CYFs very well thank-you, and both Police and CYFs are probably getting close to the point that they will charge certain people with “false complaint,” if they haven’t already. My children have always been reported as happy well-adjusted, with many extra-curricular activities/talents, by people that see them every single day.

    2.
    There is nothing paranoid about locking your doors, and re-inforcing them if they have been kicked down before. I had the local fire brigade put in all my smoke alarms, and check general safety, so thanks for your concern, but we are very safe, and my kids are very smart.

    3.
    As a gender, I like men very much, hence why I am going to have lunch with them every day… I suppose you are one of these people that if you are told, “You’re looking well” you extrapolate and come back, “I am not fat!” What with the CYFs threat and general attitude, I am guessing that you are a woman?

    4.
    I take statistics very seriously, and 18 suicides, and 4 murders during the Family Court Proceedings is a very serious REAL problem.
    If it gives you comfort to bury your head in the sand, then do what you have to.

    Maybe try injecting some wit like the very funny “mits”.

  113. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to mits

    ….L.M.A.O….Brilliant…!!!!

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  114. Thanks for the safety advice. Yes, I know that cycling can be dangerous what with the hit and runs in the media awhile ago, along with a 19 year old cycling-tourist being wiped out by a truck up the road from where I live. But I use to ride 30 km a day when I was a teenager, and learnt to be a defensive cyclist then.

    The kids all have bikes, which is why I ended up getting a bike in the first place to take them out for rides, and I just found it quite relaxing, and so took it up again. Where as when I was a teenager it was more about getting from A to B. I put a strong focus on defensive cycling with the kids.

    Martial Arts is good I’ve heard, and if they ever start something in the area, I will take the kids. Thanks

  115. Scott B says:

    Mits for PM!

  116. I feel really validated and heard in this forum. I am sure my husband never use to listen to me this well. Well he did use to write quite reflective poetry in the early days, but was never quite as creative as mits. Well done again.

  117. Dave says:

    Yes mits that is my understanding as well.

    What any of it has to do with a child tax review is probably beyond anyone’s comprehension. Although to be honest her rationale is no worse that the government’s rationale for the current scheme.

    Clearly Mary is in violation of the rules. Yet being compassionate and tolerant males we let her go for it. I’ll start a new thread for Mary’s ramblings so that she is free to post in there if that is OK with John.

  118. I have given very good arguments for the Child-tax review, especially with the “Sustainability of the Planet” argument, being such a hot-topic, what with the mining debates going on. The fact that I have backed up my arguments with empirical data is so that I don’t appear a preacher, but rather a pragmatist. And it was my husband who chose to have all 3 children, but then just chose the Indian woman over and above them.

    I made sure right from the start that he made fully informed decisions.
    Child-tax and child support is his simple consequence, just as if he had chosen to speed, which he use to do very very frequently too…. and he use to get annoyed about paying those tickets too… and for awhile I had to be the taxi, until his work-licence came through, but then, when we were in Fiji, his boss just use pay off the demerits…

    …. and this is a very dry topic unless you do inject other side bits.

  119. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Dave..

    ‘if that is OK with John.’…Absolutely a must,’humor’ is just what the Doctor ordered for today….L.O.L…

    Hey, nothing wrong with good fashion…Hmmmmmmmm….Lets chose my words a bit more carefully this time ..just this once only, I will more ‘Diplomatic’ and ‘Tactful’…L.O.L .

    How about this one then……’Mary’s rant and rave’ session thread….Suffice for everyone….?????

    Kind regards to all John Dutchie

  120. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    ‘And it was my husband who chose to have all 3 children’,

    Mary,after reading your above statement…I am truly blessed and very humble for you on coming on this Menz forum site you have utterly and truly convince me now…

    To run for my dear Life from Kiwi Woman…Thank you… You have totally restored my faith in Kiwi Woman mentally of there logical thinking….!!!..Again ‘Kudos’ to you..And thank so kindly again…

    Kind regards to you Mary….John Dutchie

  121. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Mary Popins

    You have not provided a reason why liable parents should pay child tax when they already pay the states expenditure by taxation?

    REgards

    Scrap

  122. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Scrap

    …’Tongue in Cheek’…Maybe I can help you here Scrap…This what I ‘think’ Mary is trying say..Who knows…L.O.L

    In Mary opinion… Its always the ‘Guys’ fault, for it ‘His’ fault that ‘He’ only decided to have the Children ,not the Mother…Thus here we go…yet again..
    The Man is always the blame, and poor Kiwi Woman again is the downtrodden victim from us Evil despicable Kiwi Men…Have I summed this one up correctly for you, Mary….???

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  123. paul says:

    is she still going on?

  124. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Paul

    …’Tongue in Cheek’…Come Paul, where have you been living.. Gee…You should know by now… Kiwi Woman….Never give up on ……’You owe me,big time’….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  125. Dave says:

    I have given very good arguments for the Child-tax review, especially with the “Sustainability of the Planet” argument, being such a hot-topic, what with the mining debates going on.

    No you haven’t. I and a number of others have explained why your argument is deeply flawed and no good at all.

    The fact that I have backed up my arguments with empirical data is so that I don’t appear a preacher, but rather a pragmatist.

    No you haven’t. You have simply tried desperately to link totally unrelated issues together. And failed.

    Mary, I don’t believe you have given your own argument even basic rational thought.

    1. New Zealand has a population density of 16.1/km2. This makes it the 201st most densely populated country out of 239. Countries that have lower population densities are Greenland, Mongolia, Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada. I.e. mostly uninhabitable (unlike NZ).
    2. The population in NZ would decrease if we didn’t have immigration.
    3. One third of New Zealand land mass is set aside from productive use. Most of this could be made productive. This is one of the highest ratios in the world.

    In short population growth is simply not an issue for New Zealand.

    In addition the NZ child tax system has no relation to population. No one (apart from you) ever claimed it should.

    Do you understand Mary?

  126. It’s obviously meant as a disincentive/incentive regulating system, or for the costs associated purely for children… schools, etc. The more children you have, the more you pay.

    The extreme disincentive would be the China one-child policy, which apparently isn’t as strict now, but instead the child-tax, is just like the tax on cigarettes or alcohol. The government can raise the tax up or down depending on whether they are wanting people to do less or more. Eg….less cigarettes, or have decided that the associated costs of smoking, such as smoking-related cancers have risen, and therefore the taxes must rise.

    So if they want people to have more children, they decrease it. And vice versa.

    Comes back to sustainability. How else do they regulate number of child births, after looking to their forecasts such as how many needed to look after the old in the year 20XX? Or they might decide too many births last 5 years, so child tax goes up, to discourage….

  127. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    WE already pay for this via taxation who do we have to pay twice?

    FYI Public Schools are already paid for out if the taxation we pay. “Compulsory, Secular and Free”.

    You cant answer the question put to you because you know that this tax on a seperated parent cant be justified.

    REgards

    Scrap

  128. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    …So Mary, the more Children you decided to have,the more tax you have to pay….So who pays the so call child tax Mary.???….The Mother…???….The Father….???….Or both parents….????

    Well Mary, how about this one for ‘Left field’ thinking…Stop the ‘Career’ solo mothers breeding more children for the express purpose for staying on D.P.B…That should slow the population growth quite a bit down…..Yes…???….No….?????

    ‘Tongue in Cheek’…And now I will hear the banshee screams of the Feminists proclaiming… ‘Its our solemn right to do so”…….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  129. paul says:

    hmmmmmm mary,I have 2 sons to my first marraige,I work and pay child support to her,on top of that i inherited two boys in my second marriage,the father of these boys does nothing so we get next to no money from him,plus we have our own son,I have five boys.I get to see my sons from the first marraige 3 out of weekends(great)and 3 quarters of the school holidays (fantastic)Answer this,who pays me when i have my boys?and who do you think is paying for the boys in the from the second marraige?My wife doesnt work because she is busy being a mother and I support her in that decision.The system is flawed in so many respects and believe me no amount of argueing with ird can change my position.my X is remarried,She now has 100000$ of mine plus his house plus they are both working plus she gets my child support and she wants more money from me for dental care and schooling.The only thing that I was guilty of in my first marriage was giving her the freedom to go out and have a good time with her freinds(oh and having sex with them)I am left here trying to give these boys an upbringing with a father,It is in my veiw the single most important thing that children need.Am I getting any help?NO

  130. paul says:

    so what are you bitching about?

  131. Do I understand?

    So the population in NZ would decrease if we didn’t have immigration, and according to my theory, child tax is there as a disincentive, or to make those that choose not having children feel better,

    and the government is poised to allow a Chinese company buy some of our most fertile land ever, with buying up of essential state services, power companies by the Chinese already started in NZ, and going on in the world over….

    …. and Rio Tinto has had to appease/bribe the Chinese courts by allowing a Chinese company complete another buy-up of an Australian mineral or metal company… even though the original charge in court is bribery…

    and John Key, apparently my husband once was part of a major assault on the NZ currency, when the NZ dollar was first floated, and when he was a broker, and working alot with the Asian markets?… And the U.S govt have already been complaining about the Chinese launching a devaluing assault on their dollar….

    ….Oh I might get accused of going off topic again….

    Child tax is a government regulatory measure. The NZ Govt. would never act like a dictatorship, and dictate to people what their limit of children are… but they will increase and decrease taxes.

    Everything comes back to the “sustainability of the planet” argument. And right now there is an Energy/resource grab going on internationally.

    My husband, John Key is very pro-mining right now too.. and lets see if he is going to allow all that fertile land to be bought up by the Chinese, and lets see if Child tax does go up… …. to counter the dwindling supply of fertile land taken by mining and the Chinese….

    ….now look what you have done, you’ve got me thinking my husband is a communist… Is John Key my husband? or was it that other man… See you have me so confused, and I think I may even be on the wrong blog. I think I am supposed to be on the home page.

  132. The Family Courts are not doing a good job, and I want everyone to complain EVERYDAY to the politicians.

  133. Scott B says:

    While you sit at home behind barred windows… or off on your bike?

  134. Scott B says:

    The NZ Govt. would never act like a dictatorship??????? Clearly you don’t nor ever have lived here!

  135. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    And which Country do you think N.Z is borrowing the $240 million dollars each week from,to keep N.Z from going ‘bankrupt’ Mary…China…And of course they are going want some pay back and favorable trading conditions

    Just my humble opinion,You can say what you like about China…Chinese people know how to work hard and the harder they work the better rewards they get….Not like N.Z where you,as an average citizen who work hard…. And results of the harder you so call work and produce …..the more you get ‘Taxed to hell’

    …Hello…Wakey…Wakey….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  136. So if the Family Court system was better stream-lined, and you didn’t need to pay a lawyer everytime you got on the phone, instead of putting your individual case to IRD, who just follow the rules, or you could fill out an application even, to state/re-visit your specific case….

    But everyone finds Family Court such an horrific experience, no-one wants to go near the place, because the lawyers drag out the cases for as long as they can.

    When I first met the kid’s Children’s lawyer, she took down all our financial details, then with a look of glee in her eye, she asked me ‘Will you fight for your children? Will your husband fight for your children?….”Well of course the desired answer she wanted since apparently she was scoring us…. was yes.

    … and then I walked out, and I thought I never wanted to fight period, and now this lawyer wants us to fight till the end…. and then my own lawyer implied when I was complaining about fees, and various other things, made a comment that … well you are going to have to make sacrifices then… maybe buy second hand furniture… and I decided NO. I am not going to fight, or buy second had furniture so the lawyers can have new furniture while we fight and fight and fight…

    Email the politicians every day, about your own situation, and what policy changes you want to see happen.

    And I did complain, but boy if you complain about the courts, well then no you better not go near the courts EVER again.

    Email the politicians everyday.

  137. John Dutchie says:

    reply to Scott B

    ‘Tongue in Cheek’…Tut.!!.Tut.!!!.Scott B…..That’s a bit rough on Mary, Good Sir …No,you are sadly mistaken …Mary is entitled to do the… ‘While you sit at home behind barred windows… or off on your bike?….

    Its the Man’s job to bust our balls at work so she can take it easy…

    Haven’t you notice Scott B with all the ‘Equal rights’ in N.Z now, all the Woman are on the building sites now, slogging there guts out,beside the Men folk……I feel so proud to see that…Yeah Right….!!!!!!!!!

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  138. Despite everything my nutter husband had done, I sought mediation with him. I fired my lawyer, and refused to deal with his lawyer. I allowed my husband to keep everything that we had put in storage in Fiji (about $50,000 of house contents, and tools), and so I paid about $25,000 for the boys…. which is what I figured it would all cost in the end anyway, but no, it would have cost more than that to the kids.

    This was his incentive to stop “bagging” me to CYFs, and Police and move on, and it worked.
    Yes, I could have very successfully played the “bagging” game, and given the courts and the laywers the power. Indeed after I complained, they tried to force a court-appointed lawyer… and with some careful constructed letters in the end, all matters were thrown out. And the lawyers and the courts GOT NOTHING.

    Well my husband didn’t actually give up straight away and tried to renegg abit later on, but then for some reason his own lawyer dumped him because of the earlier deal….

    King/Judge Solomon was going to cut up the babies with the big sword, and so their father stayed away for 3 years by his own choice, until IRD contacted him recently.

    The problem with my husband is he has renegged on every deal we have ever made, except he thinks he was in keeping with the wedding vows… by attempting to invoke the “until death do us part” clause.

  139. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    .’Tongue in cheek’…Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm….I could have swore I read as such ….. “until death I do you in first ” clause….Man, I really do need some new reading glasses….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  140. paul says:

    if we ignore her she should go away

  141. Scott B says:

    Oh yeah, my mistake… it’s always my mistake or problems I have caused because I have a penis!

  142. Scott B says:

    nah, they just get more rabid!

  143. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Scot B

    ‘Oh yeah, my mistake… it’s always my mistake or problems I have caused because I have a penis!’…

    Absolutely Scot B…Even ‘The Ministry of Woman’s Affairs’ will gladly confirm that to you Good Sir..L.O.L

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  144. Scott B says:

    Sounds like you are a racist and a feminist!

  145. … and I even told my husband to just annull the marriage since we had only been physically together for months the second time rounnd, and he had obviously entered the marriage fraudulently – this way he wouldn’t have to wait the two years to marry the Indian woman, but no, he “uses” me as his excuse to delay marriage. Meanwhile her parents are getting stroppy because she has been promised in an arranged marriage to some guy in the U.S where they now live… and hence why she was starving, when he met her.

    Apparently he re-united with me only for the kids, but didn’t tell me that, so that is FRAUD/deception, and then when he met the Indian, decided, “oh my God, now I am stuck with her when I want to be with her, who has no kids, and we can go out all night, ride the Harley whenever….” and so he just seized the moment, but I investigated, and realised the whole thing was pre-meditated, so no I have no moral hang-up about IRD wanting to now collect child-tax, child support, and I wish they would collect all my funding set-up costs as well….

    and hence if Family Court were more user-friendly, and you knew that lawyer’s costs weren’t going to chew everything up such that your husband gets so INCENSED, that you just get added to the 22 dead statistics… well that’s what I want changed.
    I would like to see Family court more as an adminstrative branch of IRD, with nothing paid to lawyers. I would like it built into CHILD-TAX.

    I would like to see Family court more as an adminstrative branch of IRD, with nothing paid to lawyers. I would like it built into CHILD-TAX.

  146. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Mary

    …’nutter husband’…Mary, have you heard of the saying ‘It takes one to know one’….????????…Hmmmmmmmm…..

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  147. Scott B says:

    Stop using racial terms. It matters not what race they are.

  148. Now if we had a system like what I am proposing what effect do you think it would have on decreasing the
    false accusations?

    and the negative effects on children for having to exist during a pro-longed court process, where mummy or daddy finally just takes a bunch of pills, and increasing stats don’t lie,

    or Daddy stops goin on-line on MENZ and says, God dammit another lawyer’s bill, I am going to shoot that woman….

    I think CHILD TAX could be used in a very very good way, as opposed to JUST keeping the planet sustainable.

  149. Scott B says:

    John… now you know very well Mary can’t possibly be a husband! 😛

  150. Scott B says:

    Trying to incite violence now are we?

  151. At the end of the day it has become all about money, and unfortunately, the lawyers and the Judges set up the system, such that parents are INCENTIVISED to say as much bad stuff as they can, to financially survive, to have something left to raise the kids on. If you play the good parent, you don’t survive, and you get a raw deal, and it shouldn’t be set up like that.

    I will never forget the look of glee in the Children’s lawyers eyes, when she was saying, “will you fight for them?” and she didn’t even speak to the children, and she was supposed to be their lawyer.

  152. Scott B says:

    And you straight away dobbed her in for not speaking to the children and taking a clear bias?

  153. In the last 18 months during family court proceedings: 18 suicides and 4 murders… and why aren’t the measures in place to detect the walking time-bombs?… why hasn’t someone sensed how stressed people are coming? how at the end of the tether they are? No, they want people to FIGHT for their children, to PROVE their case.

    Ok, I will say it: my husband is stupid. He’d get annoyed if you told him to stop speeding, then he would get stressed if he got tickets.

    He would prepare mountains of affidavits bagging me to his lawyer, and then get annoyed at his legal bills. He would then get annoyed that I was refusing to have a lawyer, full stop and writing my own affidavits, causing his lawyer to re-write his affidavits… and yes the more he had to pay, because he is stupid/caused himself all these bills, the angrier he got, and the more at risk we were….

    … as soon as I just give him my share of contents, he is gone for 3 years, and NO violence whatsover….

    …. now my husband gets annoyed at his own stupidity and hence if there was just a stream-lined process so that he couldn’t do these stupid choices, then he would get less angry…. But the lawyers encourage stupidity for $$$$, and of course he stupidly chooses a young lawyer with a short skirt from a law-firm with high over-heads….

    So no, on the contrary, Mary contrary is trying to reduce violence: bring down the suicide and the homicide rates, and the generally unnecessary stress rates, because why would anyone want to risk ever getting married again, if the processes are so seriously set up against you, and the children what’s worse…. and this is what I keep hearing on this site.

    So Child TAX could be used in better ways, if everyone would lobby to change/merge Family Court Processes into the tax system.

  154. Scott B says:

    A++ for the effort of trying to make it look like you’re on our side.

    F- for the result

    To me all your posts seem to be feminist, racist, man-hating, self absorbed, lies.

  155. It was very very clear how she was going to run things. It was very clear from my own lawyer that they were in direct communication, which he did not deny, and I didn’t like the body language or the $signs so glaringly obvious in either of them, or that he was telling me I better start gearing up for a long haul….

    So I fired my own lawyer first, and initially just asked for another Children’s lawyer to be appointed, one that didn’t know if we were willing to FIGHT for the children.

    Then I put the deal to my husband, and he said yes, and so there was nothing more to be done.

    He left the country, went back to the young woman and that was that until recently.
    I finished up court matters, and put forth my ideas for a better way of doing things, which they just regarded more, as a complaint….which I spose it was.

  156. Scott B says:

    Right?

  157. SicKofNZ says:

    Mary Poppins says: where mummy or daddy finally just takes a bunch of pills, and increasing stats don’t lie,

    or Daddy stops going on-line on MENZ and says, God dammit another lawyer’s bill, I am going to shoot that woman….

    I’m being helpful by adding something you missed from your list.

    … or Mummy decides to kill the children after realising her psychotic fuckery-of-a-brain has been exposed and her perjuries aren’t taken seriously anymore but instead are providing proof of her being delusional. (I can’t be the only father in NZ who has experienced that!)

  158. To Scott B:

    So if you are so annoyed about things, then what Sir are you doing to make processes better?

    And I am not trying to be on your side. I mainly want men to stop having a reason to be so angry.

    I wish my husband would have never re-united with me just for the children, if that in fact was the truth anyway. I wish he would have just said, “look I hate your guts, and I don’t want to be with you, so lets work this out as best as we can for the kids.” I would have been ok with that. …

    …Or I know that the system is going to screw me over if I ditch you for that young woman, but I feel so completely entitled to this choice despite choosing to have these kids first so can we please just find a way to work this out, without me looking bad…

    Instead of him bagging me to CYFs and Police, what do you think I would have preferred?

    Ok, or if he just said I have changed my mind, and I just don’t want to be with you, but I am scared the system is going to screw me over.

    Now what if the system was just set up better that sometimes adults/parents and even women decide they want to sleep with someone else now, and don’t want to see a sexologist to spice things up, or go to counselling or have just become very bad to each other …and provided WITH an easier exit strategy…

    where at least the lawyers weren’t going to encourage a fight, because the monetary incentives were eradicated for them.

    You can’t deny that the lawyers aren’t out for the money. Where kids are involved this INCENTIVE part of the process NEEDS TO BE ERADICATED. No-one should be making money out of children’s parents fighting it out in court… and this is where CHILD-TAX could fund a more unincentivised process.

  159. Scott B says:

    I don’t believe a word you say. I have stated what I think of you already!

  160. paul says:

    like i said ignore the idiot

  161. Hans Laven says:

    I agree, Dave. I haven’t seen any empirical data or good arguments from Mary Poppins. You on the other hand have provided empirical data. It seems to me that Mary Poppins wants maximum child tax from her ex but found it uncomfortable to read our posts that expose the unfairness of the scheme, so she launched in here with weak justifications for the scheme to help her feel justified in taking advantage of it. I guess many Germans also found ways of rationalizing Hitler’s murder of Jews and the plundering of their property, because those Germans saw themselves as benefitting from that scheme.

  162. Never mind about me.

    What are you Scott B doing, or proposing, to make the system better so that if you do have to go through everything all over again (and you can’t predict the future), that things this time play in your favour, while still catering for the needs of the children?

    Are you going to say again, well I slept with her and she just got pregnant because she deceived me?

    Or I did want the kids but …..

    What are you doing, or proposing to ensure things don’t play out the same way next time?

    At least I can say I did encourage my husband to get a vasectomy, and he has NEVER looked back on that choice. He in fact “uses” me again like not granting me the annullment, … “Oh what a shame my young girlfriend that my ex was such a witch.” ..He could get a reversal of course but would rather just use me as his excuse, and I am ok with that, because I would drag him through the courts, if I thought he was going to drag some new lives through that hell all over again…

    …But he has made good choices this time according to his real wants and needs: Fast bikes, and fast young women, and freedom to walk away whenever… that is, he has set up protective trusts from her…. and at least he won’t try to kill her, instead of just having a pleasant talk next time round.

    So, what are you doing, or proposing to ensure things don’t play out the same way next time?

  163. Ok. I give up. I was trying to delegate out some work load, but I am done now.

  164. Scott B says:

    Why did he have to get a vasectomy? Why didn’t you get your tubes tied?

  165. Scott B says:

    hahaha trying to tell men what to do again huh?

  166. SicKofNZ says:

    Mary Poppins : says: Ok. I give up. I was trying to delegate out some work load, but I am done now.

    Mary, many men have articulated their own remedies to the misandry that is experienced by forum readers here and have been disappointed when support for their idea never eventuated. Men will follow a Leader and that position can’t be a self-appointed one.
    What do you think a random man’s chances would be if he believed he had the solution to the problems experienced by readers of a woman’s support site and made his grand entrance by advising them all to seek surgical sterilization while providing evidence of his ex-wife’s alleged stupidity and evidence of him being allegedly victimised by her?
    A. Excellent B. Very Good C. Fair D. Poor E. Rofl rofl stupid man!

  167. Dave says:

    I think you were right earlier on. We need to notify CYFS about Mary. Those poor kids!

  168. Dave says:

    Ok. I give up.

    Back slapping all round!

  169. In the first instance, I did succeed in getting people to “engage” with me, and if I had spare time, I would hop on here daily and nurture that relationship of engagement.

    It was BECAUSE of my inflammatory/emotive statements that engagement commenced.

    Now if I’d hopped on and said something bland, there would have been less frankness… But very speedily I did achieve what I set out to achieve.

    I wanted some answers and I got them. It didn’t matter whether I agreed with them or not. I just wanted to get as much info/insight as possible.

    I have realised that this is a very very good site, and I am happy this site exists.

    Some people don’t want to explore the solutions because they are not ready for a myriad of reasons:

    – trust issues
    – pain issues
    – putting in a lot of effort AGAIN to get a nil result….

    …and I respect those reasons.

    I respect men, and that this is a man’s website for men. I only ever came as a guest, in hope of finding some lobbyists, and I failed so now I move on.

    Good luck to one and all. You are all good men to support each other.

    I will check the site from time to time, and if I ever read any interest, then I will encourage it, but I think it is appropriate that I basically leave, and do my own thing as before.

    Regards, and I did get answers, so I leave happy.

  170. SicKofNZ says:

    Mary Poppins says:It was BECAUSE of my inflammatory/emotive statements that engagement commenced.

    No, you’re mistaken Mary. I’ve not witnessed any woman posting on this site in a respectful manner and being ignored. One of the most respected contributors to this site is a woman, Julie. People would need to be trusting of you first before you succeeded with the tactics used by you otherwise you’re bound to be misunderstood.
    If you were hoping to find lobbyists then you should have simply asked for that. Men don’t tend to like playing head games but prefer people to be upfront with them from the outset.

  171. Now I know you are only trying to get a rise out of Mary, but veiled threats are never becoming, and the people that see my children everyday, have only ever written glowing reports, and I don’t appreciate these sorts of tactics anymore.

    False complaint is something that anyone can be charged with, and I know how to write up “informations” now very quickly… as this is less time consuming than going through the hoops, so no more messy talk like that. I nip actions like this in the bud very swiftly now.

    Using/threatening if it has anything to do with my children is very very unwise. And CYFs are only too aware of avoiding legal action from me.

  172. Scott B says:

    Fly away under your feminist umbrella!

  173. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to SicKofNZ

    ‘One of the most respected contributors to this site is a woman, Julie.’….Well said SicKofNZ…..Yes,I fully and without any hesitation what so ever concur with you ,and I have the utmost Respect,Admiration and Kudos for this fine Lady….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  174. Scott B says:

    I second that!

  175. Disappointed NCP says:

    My ex partner is on DPB, I spoke to IRD to let them know that why sould i be paying for my ex. and I should only be paying for the child, IRD officers told me that someone should reimburse the Govt for the DPB paymnets. I then checked with WINZ and I was told that DPB is $272 for the adult (mother) and just $86.00 for the child, I then question how did they calculate $86.00, they adv me that they used the benefits data and feel that it does cost no more than $86.00 . I hung up from WINZ and called IRD and i told them that clearly i was paying $360 a week for one child and clearly this was a case where i was financing my ex life style. THE LADY AT IRD WAS SO BLUNT, SHE REFUSED TO LISTEN TO ME AND SAID THAT I NEED TO TALK TO PETER DUNN, i HAVE WRITTEN TO MR DUNN AND AM STILL WAITING FOR THE REPLY………………I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE MINISTER TO DO THE MATHS AND EXPLAIN WHY SHOULD WE PAY FOR THE EX???

  176. Dave says:

    Yes NCP this goes to the very heart of the matter. It is about ideology. If WINZ says it costs $86 a week to raise a child then that is what child support should be about. It is up to the NCP to decide if they will pay more or not. It is not up to the government to decide what makes a good parent. The scheme should only be there to prevent extremes. It is up to individuals to make their own decisions about their own children.

    Let’s say for argument sake that father A doesn’t want to take more responsibility for the child that he is forced to. Well what he should be forced to do is ensure the bare minimum basics are provided for the child. If he can’t or wont prioritise his child higher than that, then that is his parenting decision. It is not for the government to moralise over it.

    Father B may want to provide generously for his child and spoil the little brat rotten. That is his privilege as a parent. It is his parenting decision. It is not for the government to moralise over it.

    Both courses of action may be less than ideal for the child. However that is up to the parent to determine – not the state.

    I think this is one of the fundamental failings of the current system and of the review.

  177. Disappointed NCP says:

    Dave Minister Peter Dunne has replied to my email, I will type word by word—-“Work has been undertaken on aspects of the child support system, including how shared care is defined, a more uniform approach to the living allowance, the costs of raising children in NZ and whether both parents income should be taken into account in calculating child support payments,HOWEVER CABINET FOR THE TIME BEING HAS DECIDED TO EFER FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE. IN LIGHT OF THE CANINET DEFERRAL OF THIS ISSUE,I AM CURRENTLY GIVING IT FURTHER CONSIDERATION, I HOPE TO BE IN A POSITION TO SUBMIT FRESH PROPOSALS TO CABINET IN THE NEXT LITTLE WHILE”

  178. paul says:

    i invite peter dunne to spend 1 hour at my house to talk to me about child support.

  179. Skeptik says:

    In summary Peter Dunne is still sitting on his hands watching the l……..o……..n………g defathering train go by.
    Nice try though Dissapointed NCP. You can add your letter to the pile that’s built up over many years now.

  180. noconfidence says:

    so to translate into plain English;

    I’ve sat around and had a thought about issues that might gain me some votes next term as I always do.

    I’ve been on the gravy train for a wee while so I have to be careful lest I get knocked off it. PLease remember I am the only elected member of my party so have no say whatsoever in government decision making. I just like to play ‘yes prime minister!’.

    By a ‘little time’ I mean I am hoping that I am still in the government in 2040…..

  181. Dave says:

    Frankly I think the current Child Tax scheme is becomming so unworkable the whole thing will eventaully collapse under it’s own weight.
    In the long run the more people get into debt with this scheme the more likely the entire debt will be written off when a new scheme replaces it.

    What is the process to change the scheme? Who have they consulted with?

    Will they allow us to contact all liable parents?

    I’d love to be able to contact all liable parents and ask them what they think about my ideas on this scheme. Do you think they’d let me do that?

  182. Disappointed NCP says:

    Is it fair that for one child, the liviing allowance is calculated using the benefit amounts and for the child in question the child support is calculated using the formula “capacity to pay”. Every year the assessed amount is increased to include 2% inflation, where as the living allowance is not increased by 2%. Every day i feel so frastrated that i feel like giving up my job and going on a benefit and to pay the minimun. This system is JUST NOT FAIR. i would like to encourge all of you to keep writing to Mr Peter Dunne…………together we can make a difference……….or perhaps organise a march to the minister’s office

  183. Dave says:

    Not only is it unfair it is extremely damaging.

  184. Disappointed NCP says:

    Reward for being a working citizen

    Fair is Fair.

    Cs is calculated on the non custodial “CAPACITY TO PAY” then why does the Living Allowance (pathetic amount) 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..

    Child’s Responsibility should mean equal opportunities, equal access, equal rights, equal financial commitment, equal responsibility even after separation, because there’s always a reason for separation.

    I do not see a reason why Custodial parent cannot go to work after the child attends school, at least part time and have some financial responsibility. This will make them get off the benefit and work.

    How can the government decide that child support should be calculated on the “capacity to earn”…..Its the NCP who has to pay tax, mortgage, fuel, rates, car registration.

    I believe that the NCP should only be providing only the basics i.e needs and anything over and above these should be on good gestures. This will enable the custodial and the non custodial to have a good relationship for the child in question and also the NCP will be in the postion to build a good relationship with the child e.g NCP can buy clothes and toys and hand it over to the child and nourish their relationship.

    It hurts me so much when my childs tells me that it is only his mother who buys him things and I (ncp) DO NOT BUY ANYTHING FOR THE CHILD, THIS IS HOW THE MOTHER IS BRINGING HIM UP.

    i am very sad and feel like sharing or talking to other non custodial parents “about how we can change the system to make it fair……..this system really hurts, esp when it is calculated using the gross earning and the living allowance using the invalids benefit amounts

  185. Mel says:

    Hi,
    I am in in relationship with a gentleman who has two children from a previous relationship. I have one child from a previous relationship and we share a child together. I receive no child support from my ex as I believe that as long as he contributes to her emotional well being all of the time and provides for her when she is in his care then we are both meeting our parental obligations. However,this same sentiment is not the same with my partner and his ex. In actual fact they are in a war within the family courts. These poor children are being dragged into the middle of it and quite simply put it is all over money and control. The child support tax is creating unnecessary distress and needs to be addressed. It seems that NO amount of lobbying parliament is working. I believe if we all stood together and said that “Enough is Enough” i.e. A petition with supporting information, Parental Alienation, Hostile Aggressive Parenting and a copy of a more equal parenting regime and made a hell of alot of noise(The squeaky wheel gets the oil), and said NO MORE, until it is fair, Then they are going to have to make changes. These child support laws go against basic human rights.

  186. Dave says:

    Hi Mel,

    Given the scale of the failure of the Child Tax system I’d say a high number have already said NO MORE.

    I can’t think of a non-violent avenue that has not been tried already. As you say “It seems that NO amount of lobbying parliament is working”.

    Perhaps protesting outside the home of Peter Do Nothing would make some kind of impact.

  187. Rach says:

    Ny Dp has exactly the same problem, except he didnt want a child with her, and she took it upon herself to just have one anyway, so we are paying out heaps to her, cant move on and buy a house and our kids cant and dont do any outside school activities IE swimming lessons or the like because we cant afford it yet, she is earning more than DP and rakes in the cash in the form of child support and then gets an IRD payment as well, something just dosnt seem fair there.

  188. jodes says:

    Hi
    I have been interested in reading all of these discussions, but would like to add my bit as a woman, and i hold my breath a bit admitting that. Yes I agree there should be shared parenting and shared costs but sometimes its not as simple as that. I was encouraged (strongly) not to work after having the three children, due to my ex husband having a very high powered career and being overseas all the time. I did all the parenting 100% of the time, in the last year of our marriage he wasnt home for any one full month. Yes I was stupid looking back not insisting on going back to work but he kept telling me that the kids needed me, not blaming him just kicking myself for not being stronger.

    Anyway when i did put my foot down and went back to university he left, and i had to leave my course due to no money coming in for a while, and devastated children. He didnt want to pay a cent more than he had to and we ended up in mediation. Now the difference here was he earns 850,000 a year before bonus, I had no income.

    The upshot was I organised a private deal through mediation that he pay me over and above the child support for three years only, as i went back to university to do my Bachelor of Education as I dont want to be on the benefit or have someone else support me. Once my degree is finished which is very soon then fine we can share costs.

    Although this isnt always fair. he has our children in very expensive schools (none of them of my choosing, as they arnt in my school zones), so should i be expected on my expected income of 40,000 to share costs given the cost per year per child and the fact that he earns close to a million dollors a year. It dosnt ‘hurt’ him financially to pay these costs, but it will cripple me on my income. I am willing to do my share and work full time with three children full time in my home (one with special needs), but sometimes 50/50 cost sharing is unfair when there is gross discrepancy between incomes.

    If we were both on moderate incomes then all this wouldnt be an issue but were not.

    Anyway just wanted to add that not all us woman are out there to be lazy, or not work, some of us are working very hard to be sulf sufficient and not dependent, as i said i chose not to go on the benefit and work my butt off at uni to make a better life. yet my ex is raking in the cash, (His partner earns pretty much the same as him ), he is set for life yet wants me to split costs with him, so Im just putting it out there, is this fair?. Im interested in hearing comments,

  189. Skeptik says:

    Hello Jode,
    You ask for feedback.
    Bear in mind I decided a while back to not give women special treatment but speak to them as I would to men.

    It appears to me your general tone is one of entitlement which is pervasive amongst NZ women today.
    Also that you omit ALLOT of pertinent information (another trait I see in many NZ women with agendas of looking like the morally superior).

    Allow me to fill in some blanks from a male perspective.

    I see you playing the ‘I’m working my butt off’ card whilst my understanding of men who are making a very high income is that they most often do so by working tirelessly night and day, taking high stakes risks, and somehow dealing with the stress of doing so (at least temporarily until a heart attack may kick in years down track).

    You made a private arrangement for the next three years in order to be independent etc etc…..
    Oh yeah? independent huh?
    So you’ll now be able to sail through your degree financially without a whopping great student loan (like many folks have which for them takes years even decades to pay off) after all the stress of parenting 3 children (who are if I understand it full time in private schools!)
    Oh life is so terribly mean to you!
    How my heart bleeds for you, you poor poor thing.

    But, psssssst (hushed tones here, we don’t know who may be listening).
    listen up honey, there’s an even greater deal I have for you!

    As I suspect you’ll be aware, under current child ‘support’ laws
    (many of us call it child tax around here) even though he’s forked out his hard earned money to put you through university you’ll still be able to go after him for child tax!
    Yes! That’s right!
    Isn’t it brilliant!
    Even more dosh to roll around in!

    Let’s see now – 3 kids = 24% of $750,000.
    That’s a truckload of money coming your way.
    Oh, and you get to keep the kids too!

    Oh, one other thing.
    I’ll take a punt that you were the one who initiated the divorce having done the math prior to kicking him out for ‘abandonment’ (his being away on business working his ass off for such long periods of time raking in the dough that set you up in the castle).

    Men in NZ are being screwed left, right and center with unjust taxes and lack of fair representation in many areas (health-care, justice, reproduction, education) and you have the temerity to come here to a site for promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience and bleat on like you some kind of entitled victim.

    Spare me.
    I need that like another hole in the head.

  190. julie says:

    Jodes, I can’t help but wonder why you are asking for men’s approval? And of all places a men’s site?

    It’s time to stand on your own 2 feet and understand that you will never get everyone liking your decisions. But they are yours and you have to live with them and as a mother you have to do what’s best for your children as well as care where you’ll end up once they leave home.

    I think you are doing just fine and I think it’s great you and the father of your children and working things out amicably even though you are using a mediator – much better than slinging mud back and forth in a family court.

  191. julie says:

    I’d be horrified if you talked to men this way.

  192. jodes says:

    No i didnt intiate the divorce

    Ok boy

    No I didnt initiate the divorce, I fought for my marriage, I set up counselling, we were togeather for 20yrs and i tried, he was having an affair with a work collegue so yeah, I could be bitter about that but whats the point, its happened.

    I wanted him to leave his job, as it was causing him so much stress, i wanted to move from auckland back to where we were from, but he loves corporate life and still does, so alot of what you have insinuated here is so wrong, we are not all what you think we are.

    His income will be assessed at 105,000 top limit for child support no nope not a truckload of money at all, and the kids live with me full time, i fought them going to boarding school as they didnt want it.

    he has unconditional access to the kids, I keep it really flexible, i dont stick to routines even tho he changes his all the time due to being on offsites, work do, and away at the bach, so yeah whatever there.

    theres no such thing as sailing thru my degree, i pay for the kids clothes, shoes, drs visits, insurence, house, food, after school activities, same as you i guess but they live with me fulltime, so nope so not rolling in it lol, im robbing peter to pay paul all the time. my income is less than the average wage, i could have gotten more on the dpb so whatever there as well.

    Its sad that im actually in the same boat as alot of you men, yet you are so bitter from the sounds of it, im trying not to be, its not worth it.

  193. julie says:

    Don’t mind me too much at the moment, I think there needs to be more work on helping men and women work out these issues together rather than men versus women and vice versa. I hope someone from here or someone associated with this site can be on Prime TV tonight about the child support reforms. I think this site needs to have a list of email addresses so I can contact someone when journalists come asking for representatives and parents for interviews.

    I’m sure journalists themselves would appreciate a list of who’s who so they can make contact.

  194. jodes says:

    oh and psst just to be clear on this, i have told him i am happy to look at shared care, i dont have an issue with this as i think its best for the kids, but funnily enough hes not keen, because having the kids 50% of the time would screw up his lifestyle , so i only have them fulltime because thats what he wants.

    cheers

  195. julie says:

    Jode, with due respect for your situation – can I ask why you came here? I think it’s good to have men and women discussing topics on this site, but did you give some thought as to what you were hoping to achieve?

  196. jodes says:

    yep sure Julie, I was researching the new child support changes and this came up and there were some relavant and interesting debates on here. I believe in fairness and equity, whether you have a penis or vagina to be blunt.

  197. jodes says:

    Also Julie I am sick of all the men are bastards bashing sites, i thought this might be a bit different , sort of see the other side sort of thing, because feminism leaves me cold but this is sort of the male equivalent in some ways, as i said im not a man hater or bitter, just wanted to hear the other side of the argument, and i have. so good luck to everyone on here. dont think I quite deserved the scathing reply from skeptic, but hes obviously very bitter which im trying hard not to be.

    cheers

  198. julie says:

    Thanks Jode, I agree with fairness also and I beleive you’ll find most here do also.

    I think once you look around you’ll understand men’s defensiveness when they first come across women. Instead of being understanding and fair, many women come on here to attack and when it comes to feminists – well, they train women to hate men and radical ones make a living out of it.

    Welcome BTW.

  199. julie says:

    Gosh Jodes, I was writing my comment when you wrote yours. Well, it’s one tick for you to be aware of what’s going on.
    Yep, Skeptic is a tough one, but that’s what makes him a good advocate for men.

    He’s not so bad. Sooo, stick around, I’m sure you’ll enjoy conversing with the men here and you’ll easily learn a thing or two while you do – it’s much better here than on the other sides websites.

  200. jodes says:

    I have been watching a friends partner go through what obviously alot of men on here are going through. He pays child support (and is on a tiny wage) and has been denied access to his son, they have been fighting for years and still going nowhere, they have already given up once and have just come back to the fight after fighting to get legal aid. I just think its all very sad because at the end of the day these are children and all children have the right to both their parents, as long as their is no violence involved. Basically i believe if your paying child support that should automatically give you equal access rights but dosnt seem to be the case, which i think is crazy…even from my castle skeptic.

  201. jodes says:

    heres one for you skeptic

    I have tried to talk to my ex today re next year , when my huge (ahem) income from his stops. I have once again reiterated that i am happy to look at shared parenting and wait for it I wont be asking for ANY child support from him, despite my take home pay being around $600, and his being around $10.000 per week. Cant get alot fairer than that really. and guess what hes not biting, so its not always woman who are trying to rip men off…i get just as frustrated as everyone else.

  202. mits says:

    I dont get it.
    you say hes paying over the odds in child support so you can go back to University.
    And he also has the kids in expensive schools you couldnt afford.

    are you confusing child support with spousal support

  203. rc says:

    His income will be assessed at 105,000 top limit for child support no nope not a truckload of money at all, and the kids live with me full time, i fought them going to boarding school as they didnt want it.

    Just as a matter of interest, if your kids were boarding would you still be entitled to child support?

  204. jodes says:

    No, we decided we wanted to avoid court and or going through IRD, so we came to a private financial agreement for three years. What was decided was I would walk away from the business we had an investment in and the bach (all signed over to him), i would make no future claim on income , i didnt get any of the shares etc, if he paid me enough to surivive on for the three years it would take to get my degree. So in effect he pays me more than the IRD says he needs to , it was about 400 a week that legally he had to pay so we negotiated a weekly allowence that was more than that. I have also said to him that im happy to have no child support payments once my degree is finished if he wants shared parenting, which he wont come to the party on at the moment. So yeah i get pissed that he complains about how much he pays me when effectively he walked away from the marriage with more than me, and i dont want support next year if hes willing to take on 50/50 parenting. Im trying to be fair because lifes too short really. oh and i still have to pay him out next year for the house, so yay for me trying to do all that on my starting income, as he wont let me move out of the area (need his agreement to move schools), so effectively i have to try and buy a house next year in one of the most expensive suburbs in auckland on a starting teachers salary. so i could be bitter here but arrrgh . What i will say here as a footnote is that he is now a better hands on dad than he was , he loves his kids and i acknowledge that so i cant be bothered engaging in a fight with him.

  205. jodes says:

    in reply to the comment re child support and boarding school. Through the IRD dont know, but suspect not, as they are not living with you, BUT under our private agreement, yep could have shipped them off and still held him to the financial agreement, which i wouldnt have anyway, so stopping them going to boarding school was NOT about money in the slightest if this is what you were implying. I had three very devastated children, who were mourning the loss of their family, the last thing they needed was to be shipped off to school, as it is we are still heavily involved in counselling with all of them due to the breakup,its been very very sad for all of us. Basically our agreement is a financial settlement as oppossed to ‘run of the mill child support’…but as ive said ive already told him i expect nothing next year if he wants to share parenting.

  206. julie says:

    It’s obvious not all situations are women=bad, man=good, just as not all situations are man=bad, woman=good.

    ……

    Money is powerful and the chances of someone giving up 100’s of 1,000’s of dollars a year and the life-style that goes with it to be a hands on parent when they know the other parent can do the job well is a challenge IMO.

    This is one of the areas I have not seen touched on yet. Some are suggesting we have equal parenting by default, which means equal responsibility, equal rights as the starting point. But how is it supposed to work from there?

    If one parent is to have more responsibility that the other, how do you bring it balance it back to equal?

    Does the parent who doesn’t want the responsibility have to pay the other parent to take on their share of the responsibility? How do you work that out?

    What do others think?

  207. rc says:

    I was more interested in the facts relating to IRD and boarding school. Perhaps someone else here knows?

  208. julie says:

    I think if you put the children into the care of someone else – in this situation a boarding school, the parents will get a bill and have to split it 50/50.

    But in saying that, I don’t think all children are able to handle boarding school and some parents will want to be the caregivers of their children, themselves.

  209. julie says:

    RC, I think maybe I’m already off topic so I’ll leave you all to this and visit back later tonight to see where you get. t’s interesting! But I really should be crunching some numbers for something else right now – play doesn’t pay, lol.

  210. Skeptik says:

    Actually I do speak that way to men.
    A quick look through the archives of MENZ will soon show that.

    Jode,

    The ok boy snarkiness was uncalled for and reveals something of your character –

    here’s the jackpot I was referring to earlier.

    Straight from the NZ child tax liability calculator :

    Calculation details
    Annual taxable income $105,000.00

    Minus
    living allowance
    $14158.00

    Multiplied by
    child tax percentage rate 27%

    Equals annual liability
    $24527.00
    Divided by 12, equals monthly liability
    $2043.90
    Your annual liability divided by 52, equals
    Your weekly liability $471.65

    So under NZ’s child tax system you’ll be getting an annual income TAX FREE from him of
    $24,527 BEFORE other benefits are added.

    2. Family Tax Credit:
    Family Tax Credits are payments made for each dependent child aged 18 or under. The amount you receive depends on your income, how many children you have, and their ages.

    Anyone earning less than $36,827 per annum receives the maximum payment. You do not need to be in work to claim family tax credit payments. Payments falls on a sliding scale depending on your income. The maximum fortnightly payments available – for people earning less than $36,827 per annum are:

    * One child $172
    * Two children $292
    * Three children $412

    So add $471 + $206 = weekly income of $677.

    Sorry Jode, calling the poverty card doesn’t wash with me.
    The figures speak for themselves.
    And that’s before any of the perks he decides to throw in benevolently.
    I know lots of folks with kids who’d welcome such an income.

    As for him having an affair.
    That’s hearsay and even if true we don’t know his version of events and what may have driven him into the arms of another.

    Getting defensive by casually bandying the word bitter around is a dead giveaway too.

    And you seriously expect a guy you describe as being basically wedded to the corporate world to be remotely interested in dropping out of that to become a 50/50 hands on parent???
    Yeah right.

    By the way he already IS sharing parenting when you look at all the work he does to provide an income for you and the kids.

  211. mits says:

    Basically our agreement is a financial settlement as oppossed to ‘run of the mill child support’…

    So it was Spousal support or in this case ex spousal support.
    Child support doesnt seem to come into it.
    Basically it seems to me that the guy has supported you very well since your break up and allowed you to get on your feet
    And as thanks for him doing this and carrying you for the last three years as well as providing for the children, I wonder how expensive these expensive schools are? You are offering him ultimatums and couching it as a fair negotiation.
    All that seems to be happening is that you are willing to forgo Child tax as long as he goes for 50/50
    Will you actually be able to afford 50/50 on a starting wage as you put it or do you expect his 50 to be a smidge more than your 50?

  212. jodes says:

    the ok boy, wasnt directed at you, it was me blowing out, saying oh boy, ive unleashed something here.

    He has already checked with IRD and he has to pay 450, because his new girlfriend has two children so thats factored into his living expenses.

    Im not asking him to bow out, if i have the kids 100% I have to pay 100% child care when im working full time, so by going 50/50 means he will have to provide 50% of the childcare. As I said Im more than willing to split the costs down the middle with NO child support as long as im not doing 100% of the parenting – Im not sure where thats unreasonable. I have to work too, so why should i be working and providing the cost of childcare when we can be more equal, which isnt what your saying you want??

    Yes he is working to provide a income and im working towards providing one as well, so not sure about that arguement really.

    and to be perfectly honest im not sure why you think this is a jackpot skeptic. i would have much rather remained married and have my kids have two parents in one home than 677 a week. Thought this was suppossed to be about fairness for the kids not money – thats what im trying to achieve , you all say you want equal access, equal parenting, im handing it to him on a plate, week on, week off, or whatever suits with flexibility to take into account he does travel alot, plus he keeps his entire income without having to pay anything my way why is this bad, i seem to have somehow missed the point here. ??

  213. jodes says:

    Nope, I will always end up doing more because of his travelling, i accept that, its just how it is.

    Im not giving ultimatums at all, but lets be realistic here, i cant have the kids 100% of the time, and pay for childcare (have two under 14), without support, so if he wants to do week on week off im happy with that and should be able to swing things if im careful.

  214. Skeptik says:

    Thanks for clarifying about the OK boy comment.
    I think the point you’re missing is that you chose a man who is basically wedded to corporate life and loving it.
    I know guys like that. The last thing they want is to drop out of that to become hands on parents.
    So your ‘offer’ to him to do so strikes me as either naive or possibly cunning.
    I’m pretty clear that after twenty years with a high earner $677 a week wouldn’t seem like a jackpot. But believe me to many it would, especially when you factor in that you get to keep the kids (can’t even put a price on that!)

    You say at the end of your comment that – (quote) “plus he keeps his entire income without having to pay anything my way”.
    That doesn’t square with what you were saying before.
    You’re obviously changing your story as you go.
    Suspicious.

  215. jodes says:

    Yeah I chose him when i was 15 !!!! dont think you think about corporate life at that age somehow.

    Im not asking him to drop out, he will have to get a nanny or after school care just like i do already due to university then work. im not stupid enough to think that he will be a stay at home dad anymore than ill be a stay at home mum.

  216. Skeptik says:

    he will have to get a nanny or after school care just like i do already due to university then work.

    Wow! the lives some people live.

  217. jodes says:

    and for the record, the money he pays me (to keep me on my feet as you put it) was calculated against assets, so i took weekly payments as oppossed to him selling bach and business and paying me out.

  218. jodes says:

    well skeptic, he has a nanny for his girlfriends kids, i have after school care cause its more affordable, unfort next year it dosnt go long enough for the hours i will be working so who knows what will happen. so i think that comment was off base, HE has the nanny not ME, im not living the high life at all.

  219. Skeptik says:

    Jode,
    I’ve had enough of this.
    As far as I’m concerned you are clearly well off.
    Though apparently like millions of other western women who feel entitled you don’t seem to think so.
    I have much more important business to attend to in mentoring lots of kids and helping men in NZ who regardless of their income are all being shafted in our current feminist zeitgiest.
    Enjoy the kids.
    Millions of Dads would envy you.

  220. jodes says:

    Yep me too skeptic

    I looked at this site because i am sick of feminist bullshit and friends being shafted by woman in the courtsystem. so stupid woman me i thought this forum might provide a balenced arguement about PARENTAL rights, not just one or the other. but this is like feminism in reverse, as im shafting noone.

    I also will look for a more balenced site that is about doing the right thing by your kids, not yey for woman or yey for men.

    I dont buy into the feminist bullshit of all men should pay and are bastards, blah blah blah, but hey youre very quick to lump me in because i am a woman, not balenced at all.

    i wish you luck with your work because at the end of the day its not about dads, or about mums its about trying to make things better for the 50% of nz children who are from split families.

    regards

  221. Dave says:

    To Jodes,

    Your husband has screwed you over.

    Get a lawyer, and get a PROPER matrimonial settlement sorted. You looked after the kids full-time as per his wishes so that he could focus on business interests a corporate career, and having an affair, and now it’s 50/50 time. Had you not been so supportive with letting him be away from home to live the single life, he would still be at home. You and the children have become use to a certain lifestyle now that MUST be maintained for the children’s well-being and your own well-being.

    Yes, you will still teach, but he will continue to top things up via lump sum settlement or ongoing spousal maintenance, if the child-support doesn’t cover things.

    The situation must continue to remain equitable for the children’s well-being especially if you are having them full-time so as not to cramp his lifestyle.

    He screwed you over when he had an affair, and now for the sake of the kids, you need to have your fair share of travel and play money to make up for lost time. You’ll get lots of holidays being a teacher, so make sure your settlement includes overseas holidays for you and the kids.

    You are fully entitled, because of the agreed to division of equally valuable functions.

    Claim child-support, spousal support, and ask for 60/40 (pain, humiliation and suffering from the deceipt) and settle for 50/50.

    Kind regards

    Dave

  222. Dave says:

    To Jodes,

    Because of the agreed to division of functions, you are entitled.

    Get a lawyer and go to Family Court. Your husband is ripping you off. Claim spousal and child maintenance, and a big hefty lump sum, or make sure you end up being able to keep the house to maintain the same lifestyle for the kid’s well being and your well-being.

    You are entitled.

  223. jodes says:

    lol dave hmmmm

    we have a matrimonial property settlement, all done and dusted. I wont be getting heaps of holidays as a teacher, as im going into early childhood, and yes the kids still go overseas with him once a year, sometimes twice, I dont as there isnt enough money for me to do that anymore despite what some might think, and news flash dont care. Im not interested in fighting him anymore as it is detrimental for the kids, so i take the path of least resistance now, living life peacefully is much better for the kids and i and him in the long run, im not interested in screwing him over, or trying to take his money, im not interested in the high life, just want to put food on the table and pay the bills like the rest of us.

  224. Dave says:

    No one is ever going to be interested in listening to you be a martyr. No-one ever said anything about “fighting”.

    Never EVER discuss money with your ex. Its that simple.

    If you simply want him to take on 50/50 shared care of the kids, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

    Go to Family Court BECAUSE he is above the 105,000 range and claim child and spousal maintenance purely for the children’s well being. That is, if you are going to keep the house to maintain the kids in the manner they have become use to, to attend the good schools, and to have the same SES friends over, then you will need spousal maintenance to cover any shortfall with trying to meet the mortgage payments, that your teacher salary doesn’t cover, to be able to keep the house.

    This is for your kids.

    … and if he doesn’t like how much he will have to pay in child and spousal, I bet he ends up doing the one week on and one week off… This is about the children’s well-being, and keeping life exactly as they have always known.

  225. jodes says:

    hi dave

    i cant because when i signed the financial agreement it stated i would make no further claims, so thats the end of that one.

  226. Dave says:

    The PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976 / your financial agreement is separate from
    the Family Proceedings Act 1980:

    Maintenance of children is to be determined in accordance with s 145C of the
    Act. Section 145C(1) establishes the liability of each parent to maintain the children until the age of 16.

    The real issue for determination is the quantum of maintenance. That requires consideration of the provisions of s145C(2) which provide that the Court shall have regard to all relevant circumstances affecting the welfare of the child including their reasonable needs, the manner in which the children are being educated or trained and the expectations of each parent as to the child‘s educational training… etc…

    Go into the Family Court website, and look up the Family Proceedings Act 1980, and also read some Judgement rulings where there has been the property thing done previously, but Judges make rulings at later dates to cover for proper maintenance of the children.

    You are obviously concerned about maintaining the kids in the manner they have been accustomed to, and really you should not have pooled your spousal maintenance needs into the Property split agreement. But it is not too late. The Family Proceedings Act 1980 might still sort out your concerns. If you’re a good swat, self-represent, and the Family Court registrar may arrange mediation in the first instance… and then if that is not successful, then a court hearing, where you can still self-represent. You’ll both provide financial statements, and if the inequity between your lifestyles is huge, there may be some movement to sort under the Family Proceedings Act 1980, where the kids are the focus.

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/family-court/legislation/decisions-1/maintenance-spousal-maintenance

  227. julie says:

    Jodes,

    Can I ask how long you have been aware of feminist and men’s sites?

  228. jodee says:

    Julie

    for a while, I read alot and try to stay informed. I have refused to join the lets bag a man bridgade, so much advice to go for the jugular, and take what i can etc etc, all men are bastards kind of thing, which i def dont buy into. I have a lovely new man whos ex has ripped him off. She moved out into the middle of nowhere with her new partner and didnt check if kids could get to and from school which they couldnt . so she used to drop them off first thing in the am at my partners (he lived next door to the school), and picked them up late at night, she never asked him just did it, so he feed them breakfast, lunch, afternoon tea and often dinner , and the kids had no respect for him due to his ex bagging so they often had parties during the day (they are teenagers) so neighbours were complaining. anyhow he had shared care, week on week off but they were there everyday, she went for child support (even tho she repartnerned and he was struggling alone) because ird only recognises nights instead of days. so yeah get that their are injustices out there, they exist thats for sure. to be honest Julie dont think this site is for me, as apart from you and dave, most people on this site seem to judge you not by your situation but by your gender which im not interested in.

    keep up the good work, i happen to agree with alot of what is said on here

    regards

  229. jodee says:

    thks dave, appreciate the advice

  230. Skeptik says:

    Dave,
    What a disappointment you turned out to be.
    Sending her to the femily caught.
    Good move man. Straight into the sisterhood.
    Chances are high she’ll get’s whatever she wants there.
    She can then go on living in the lavish style to which she’s become accustomed at her ex husbands expense for 20 years.
    He can enjoy being a wallet in a collar who’s only one brief phone call away from being even less than that should disagree with the ‘settlement’.
    Oh, and have you met the guy yet?
    Have you heard his version of events?
    Do you have incontrovertible proof that everything his dear Jode has said is true?

    Jesus, and to think I’m being called the misogynist equivalent of a feminist to boot simply for having the temerity to challenge a woman.

    Right now you are one brother I wouldn’t look to for support should the heel of feminism~chivalry come grinding down on my face again.

  231. Skeptik says:

    Er Jode,
    So most people judge you on this site by your gender rather than your situation eh?
    Well, newsflash! – in the current NZ feminist~chivalrous environment your gender IS very much part of your situation.

    Please invite your ex husband to this thread

    to tell his side of the story.

    I’d love to hear from him, afterall this site is expressly as it’s banner states –
    for promoting a clearer understanding of MEN’S experience.

    Last time I checked that wasn’t a euphemistic expression meaning –
    a place for women to come to in order to get assistance from enablers to plunder the system further.

    Although one could be forgiven for sometimes getting that impression.

  232. jodee says:

    skeptic

    I thanked Dave but i have no intention of going to the family court, the whole thing is done and dusted, no desire to go back there.

    skeptic just as you pointed out dave dosnt know my ex, just as you dont know me, im still laughing at my lavish lifestyle comment

  233. Skeptik says:

    Hi Jodee,

    Cudos for you for saying you’ll avoid going to the femily caught.
    I hope many, many women follow that path.
    If you do indeed avoid going to the femily caught then even more cudos.

    Let’s be perfectly clear here.
    I’m not saying you are living in a lavish lifestyle right now.
    My point is it’s clear that you have had a materially lavish lifestyle thanks to your ex husband’s efforts for 20 years! Hello!!!
    And that you seem to want to extract further goodies from him one way or another.

    The whole process of what’s going on here pisses me off.

    You come here to a site for promoting a clearer experience of MEN’S experience slagging off your ex husband behind his back.
    Imagine if I went to a site specifically for promoting a clearer understanding of women’s experience and started bellyaching claiming my ex-wife’s infedelity and her being a tight wad when it comes to the kids.
    Do you think women would approve of that?
    Or more likely tell me to get the hell out of their space ASAP?

    But nah, it doesn’t happen like that right, because this is a NZ website we’re talking about; a place where women like yourself not only butt in to dump their emotional baggage, but then get naive sympathetic cooing and advice to help save ‘the poor liddle wumun’.

    It’s pathetic and disgusting.

    Now, do you think we can get back to the topic of the thread????? –

    MENZ~Child support review~promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience

  234. Gorsebush says:

    Hi all. I’ve just tuned into this thread, looking for someway to add my voice to the call for equitable change after numerous Administrative Reviews have done nothing more that elicit wildly false accusations of me cheating the system…I don’t think that a blog is the place to force change but but was looking for some contacts. Anyway Skeptic…or should it be Septic? Your comments don’t do you proud which makes me wonder what you are trying to achieve, you couldn’t do better for “the other side” if you tried.

  235. Dave says:

    Mate, I notice it’s the women that seem to ‘engage’ you the most on this site…. You and Julie get into some real banters, and now this Jodie chick where her ex and his new Mrs is suppose to be on a combined 1.6 million or more vs mum/teacher on $40,000 raising 3 kids… Come on mate, this Jodi’s obviously a door-mat, and you give her another boot, and wipe your feet…

    Skeptic mate, you do get a clearer understanding of men’s experiences…You journey with these chicks everytime you come here. Been there too.

  236. rc says:

    I thinks what he’s trying to say is it’s time to take the gloves off when dealing with the sheilas. Forget about trying to look good or behave well – that’s what our mothers taught us to do to be their servants, what our father’s taught us because they were brought up in a different age.

    We live in a new world now.

    Women get paid as much, are more likely to be employed, are better educated and control commerce and politics. They got all this by playing dirty and making you think you owe them something. Make that everything. Some men think they should respect a woman simply because she’s a woman. They think they should never hit a woman, even if she’s stabbing him in the chest with a knife. They probably know that if they do anything to defend themselves they’ll go to jail, and they should know by now that if a woman kills him while he does nothing, she’ll get off with an 8 year sentence reduced to 2 and a half years on good behavior because the judge will think jailing her is “manifestly unjust”. She’ll spend her time in a comfortable little motel unit with TV and a puppy for company, and no-one else to force themselves on her in the night. Other women will sympathize with her and all cry “poor woman – her children need her”, meanwhile saying nothing about the father these children will never see again.

    Women today believe they are free to live how they want to. To marry, have children, divorce, have careers, stay at home, get paid for being a parent. There’s no limit to what they want for themselves.

    Good for them.

    But I’ll be buggered if I’ll sit around letting them be whatever they want to be while I – because I’m a man – have to keep on playing the same role that was dreamed up for men in Queen Victoria’s time. Time we moved on as well.

    That means if women are going to disrespect us, we diss them right back. If they hit us, we hit them back. If they try to kill us, we take them out first. If that horrifies you, think hard why. If you can come up with a decent reason why we should sit back and let women have whatever they want, and come complaining to us whenever they want more – while giving us nothing in return but back-biting, ingratitude and a spit in the face – I’d like to hear it.

  237. julie says:

    Gorsebush,

    I’m also not impressed with the way you’ve come on this site and attacked one of the best men’s rights advocates NZ will probably ever know. There’s a whole lot Skeptic is responsible for and you have no idea how important this website and other men’s site are and have been in the past 5/6 years.

  238. julie says:

    Dave, with due respect that I think there is concern that Jodee may have been taken for a ride, I happen to be grateful to Skeptic for standing up and being counted.

    Y’know, radical feminists especially knew and know there were/are going to be male casualties to get what they want but do you think they care there’s been so many?

    If Jodee is a casualty of the gender war I will be hurt but it she isn’t then I’d like to know.

  239. Hans Laven says:

    At first I thought “Dave” was being sarcastic, but then it seems he was for real. It’s hard to believe that someone on MENZ would encourage anyone else to use NZ’s immoral, exploitative family law to enrich herself.

    I sure would like someone paying me more than $450 per week tax free regardless of anything else I earned. A third to a half of that would be required to pay for my children’s specific expenses, and they would be quite privileged at that.

  240. Hans Laven says:

    Great writing rc. What you say seems fair, but unfortunately our legal system will lock men away for any attempt to protect themselves against women’s violence, be it physical, emotional, economic or against our children. It will take a great deal more abuse and exploitation of men before they realise they need to stand up against this.

  241. julie says:

    I’d like to think Hans that you are a small amount of street smart as well as having a piece of paper to say you’re intelligent. Dave isn’t wrong for thinking the way he does and I’d be lucky to find a man who isn’t thinking the same way.

    Maybe the best way to solve this is ask Jodee what security she had to make her walk away so easily? Is there an inheritance involved? How much was the house she got worth? Furniture, cars?

    Skeptic was fishing, I guess, and working his mind trying to put the pieces together. Sure women walk away when there’s abuse but a story where the guy was having an affair and walks away more than a winner in front of a mediator ….. hmmm, some thing’s missing here.

  242. julie says:

    My apologies to take lowly to you about being intelligent Hans, …for I am more than aware you are in fact intelligent, ….. there’s just something about you and Skeptic as a tagteam beating up on men that bothers me.

  243. julie says:

    Anyways, why am I caring about either Hans or Skeptic? It’s late and TBH, I just want to tell every man who stepped up today on any TV channel, any radio station and protest how awesome you ARE. Every young man and every male child yet to be born has someone to thank IMHO.

  244. Skeptik says:

    rc,
    I couldn’t agree more with you there brother.
    I’m long past talking nicely to feminists and their naive chivalrous enablers.
    I tried that many many times and it got me and other men absolutely nowhere. In fact I’d say it enabled them to continue their dominance.
    These days though thankful for the bold example of others it’s a very different story.
    The gloves are well and truly off.
    If some choose to call me ‘impolite’ or ‘ungentlemanly’ (euphemisms for being a servile man-nigger as far as I’m concerned) then tough shit.
    If I get labeled a ‘radical’, I’ll take it as a compliment.

    I spent years in femiNZt space slowly but surely going out of my mind.
    It was what you could call a kind of cultural schizophrenia I experienced.
    There was the real me with the kind of thoughts I openly express today at MENZ and there was the facade me, careful to not say things that would result in femiNZt wrath crushing my face under it’s jackboot again.

  245. Skeptik says:

    Dave,
    first off don’t call me mate.
    You’re no mate of mine.
    Not on this issue anyway.

    The way I see it is Jodee, if she’s actually a real person, comes to MENZ with her damsel in distress act and triggers your tall poppy syndrome and Sir Galahad buttons.

    Personally I don’t care how much Jodee’s ex EARNS.
    Sounds like he’s doing the decent thing and paying for her to get educated AND keep the kids (and possibly a very smart house, car etc).
    And that’s after blessing her with a rich lifestyle for many years too.

    She on the other hand not only takes the money (and whatever else he’s given her (house, car etc), but has a fall back position of being able to make his life a living hell with a 30 second phone call to the femily caught.
    That’s not my definition of a doormat!
    So, to me it’s not a case of Mr rich guy Vs poor downtrodden doormat.

    I think you missed the point also that all too often women come to MENZ saying they want to get a better understanding of men.
    The reality then turns out to be something entirely different.
    They’re clogging up threads looking for validation of their entitled queen attitudes and/or simply stirring up enmity towards men who are fighting for equal rights.
    Holy shit!
    As if they don’t already have enough avenues to turn to!
    In such case they don’t directly serve to promote a clearer understanding of men’s experience.
    Guys who respond to them and get on their case on the other hand do.

  246. Skeptik says:

    Gorse,
    despite what you say I’m very proud of the principled stand I take.
    Go ahead and take a cheap shot with the ‘septic’ comment.
    Name calling is no substitute for reasoned debate.
    I think folks reading here can see that.

  247. Skeptik says:

    Julie,
    that’s one of the kindest things I’ve ever heard you say about me.
    Thank-you.

  248. jodes says:

    hi

    last post im butting out skeptic. Hans yes most people would love 450 p/w, i agree, i was not debating that, moresore if my ex is willing to take on more childcare then im happy to forego that. The whole point of this excercise was to see if one parent is doing all the care (and thats his decision not mine), then should it be 50/50 cost splitting when its not 50/50 or even 60/40 shared care. I want shared care he dosnt, end of story. Ive never slagged him off, he is a great dad, I would just like him more involved, not through money but through time.

    Julie theres no inheritance or anything..I walked away as you put it because we had been fighting for a year and a half and everyone was suffering. He had the money to continue the fight, i had lawyers bills that were raking up, and also I didnt like how the lawyer was pushing me to hold out to take him for everything. didnt want that and still dont. Im no doormat, or some princess who feels entitled, dont feel the intense hatred for my ex that others seem to hold onto.

    good luck everyone

  249. julie says:

    Jodes, here is my email address…Please contact me.
    julie@singleparents.org.nz

    Today’s a new day and it may be that you do need assistance, annnnd there are groups that assist both fathers AND mothers. I strongly agree with everyone who thinks it’s about the whole family.

  250. rc says:

    Great writing rc. What you say seems fair, but unfortunately our legal system will lock men away for any attempt to protect themselves against women’s violence, be it physical, emotional, economic or against our children. It will take a great deal more abuse and exploitation of men before they realise they need to stand up against this.

    Very true Hans, we will be locked up for defending ourselves. The Hirini case is a watershed moment though in the logic of appeasement. He’s dead because he didn’t defend himself well enough, and she’s the darling of Women’s Refuge.

    This is where fear of jail leads us.

  251. Skeptik says:

    rc,
    True.
    I’d take it a step further as well.
    By that I mean there are many thousands of fathers in femiNZt space who are institutionally alienated from their kids, and due to feminist anti-male propaganda are on watch by untold ‘guards’ every waking moment.
    They effectively inhabit an open plan men’s prison called New Zealand.

  252. Hans Laven says:

    Good point rc, and I agree. We await the matyrs to step forward.

  253. julie says:

    Skeptic, I can send you my paypal details.:)

  254. rc says:

    I suspect plenty of martyrs have already stepped forward, but their back-ground story somehow never gets told. They are dismissed as crazy-men who snap and kill. I wonder if O.J. Simpson was such a case – a man abused, betrayed and pushed beyond human limits of endurance, only to be vilified for doing what ‘battered women’ are lionized for?

    It’s not so much martyrs that we need, but more men surviving. That goes for choosing not to suicide as well.

  255. Hans Laven says:

    Does anyone know who Dave is? Sounds to me like it might be a Davette we are dealing with.

  256. Hans Laven says:

    Decades ago feminist ideology demanded no-fault divorce laws to ensure that women who abandoned their commitments to husbands were not penalized in matrimonial property settlements, out of a belief that women only broke up marriages and families if they were subject to serious violence. The “clean break” was a major principle underlying no-fault divorce. Women continue to demand their right to a clean break is upheld. For example after declaring they have left their partners they now have no further responsibility for the emotional impact on those men who should respect their new independence and stop hassling them about their disloyalty, or indeed about the unfairness of having to pay the disloyal women much of the wealth the men had earned even well before meeting those women. Women’s right to a clean break was backed up by increasingly draconian laws such as protection orders that punish men and their children in the absence of reasonable proof or a fair trial.

    Although women demand that the clean-break principle is enforced when it suits them, on the other hand they continue to deny a clean break to their ex-partners. The women will concern themselves with their ex-partners’ income and progress and will feel aggrieved if those ex-partners don’t continue to look after their needs in various ways. When abandoned partners start new relationships, the s**t often hits the fan. Feminists demanded new laws providing for women to have their lifestyles maintained by men they abandoned, under a strange new priniciple that separated partners should somehow have a right to maintain approximately equal lifestyle standards. Protection orders etc now continue to protect the clean break for women but men are not granted the same privilege.

    In Jodes’ case, according to her side of the story, her partner does not want to look after their children much. I would prefer a policy in which he pays a share of actual, reasonable, average children’s expenses in direct proportion to the relative amount of time he looks after them, plus a childcare wage to Jodes for the time above 50% that she provides childcare duties. But under that policy, the paying parent must have a right to choose 50/50 care with no transfer of money. Some boundaries would be appropriate to prevent a parent from frequently changing his/her mind about existing arrangements. Strictly limited exceptions to this right also would be appropriate, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  257. julie says:

    Hans, do you know of somewhere I can find the connection between ‘no fault’ divorce and feminists? I might have researched wrong but I ended up seeing a whole different picture on
    this link
    which gives the history of divorce in NZ and it seems to me once NZ had the power to make the rules of divorce through laws, we just kept finding reasons until pretty much everything was covered.

    It also says when the FC was brand new, it was given divorce powers and for legal purposes it had to change to ‘no fault’.

    ……….

    Anyways, Jodes case is interesting and thought provoking. I’m not sure if she’ll contact me.

    If I was the mediator in this – God forbid, I would look to what is best for the whole family.

    You have a father who has already sorted out his life and a mother who has yet to sort out hers. Then you have 3 children coming up to teenage years (by the sounds of it) and they are going to need their father.

    It also sounds like the family is working well enough together so the children can come and go at ease between the 2 households.

    In reality this is about everyone coming out a winner and everyone working together to make it so and no-one needs to loose in this.

    An option for the family is to have him take the children full-time and she can pay him CS on her salary. That way, the children can have a nanny, house-cleaner, 2 mothers (sorry Jodes), a father, money spent on them at this expensive stage of their lives AND both parents will have their own careers sorted.

  258. Hans Laven says:

    I don’t see anything in the link you provided to refute my claim that no-fault divorce was demanded by feminists. However, your short “history” of divorce in NZ stated:

    1898 The Divorce Act passed. Favourable conditions for the passing of this act were the suffragette movement and membership of the Legislative Council which condoned changes (the church vehemently opposed these changes).

    From about the 1960’s, changes to divorce appear designed mainly to meet women’s demands.

  259. julie says:

    I don’t see anything in the link you provided to refute my claim that no-fault divorce was demanded by feminists. However, your short “history” of divorce in NZ stated:

    1898 The Divorce Act passed. Favourable conditions for the passing of this act were the suffragette movement and membership of the Legislative Council which condoned changes (the church vehemently opposed these changes).

    From about the 1960?s, changes to divorce appear designed mainly to meet women’s demands.

    Thanks Hans, EXCELLENT. I had asked you for a connection and you provided in the same link I provided. I should have picked that up and thanks again for pointing it out.

  260. Skeptik says:

    Julie,
    for a fine book which details the rise of radical feminism and ‘no fault’ divorce you can go here.
    Then go to search inside th ebook and read the back cover.

    No need to pay into my paypal account.
    I’ll do this as a pro bono #:)

  261. julie says:

    No need to pay into my paypal account.
    I’ll do this as a pro bono #:)

    Lol. Thanks for the link.

  262. julie says:

    I’m thinking that Jodes has been challenged by feminists indoctrination to look at herself as a victim. She mentioned she looked up child support and stumbled onto this site and yet later stated she has been following feminists AND men’s sites for a while.

    I wonder whether if previously she looked at her lifestyle as a positive and enjoyed her 20 years as a stay at home mother and now sees the past 20 years as a negative because feminists view sees her 20 years of life as a sacrifice and her role as being a martyr. How dis-empowering.

    I too was a stay at home mother and my ex wanted very much to do the same – take it in turns, but as a family we decided he was worth more as the provider and I loved going to the gym everyday, I loved the playgroups, I loved the connection with lots of other parents, the shopping and the lunches and I loved being the boss of my own day and organising it how ever I wanted.

    IMO, Jodes is mad if she sees this as feminists portray because that’s 20 years of freedom many other mothers could only dream of.

    If there was no feminism, her husband even as an unfaithful wouldn’t have been able to leave her and yet because he could

  263. julie says:

    Blah, blah, forget the last sentence.

  264. Zara says:

    I would like to add my voice to calling for a FAIR CS overhaul, long overdue! I am a woman with children from my past relationship living with my partner who also has children from his past relationship so I get to live both sides of the equation. My ex doesn’t pay anywhere near what he probably ‘technically’ should as he owns his own business, most of which is undeclared cash jobs. I could fight it but why would I? We have been seperated for 10+ years and good on him for using his skills to build his business.
    I have watched my current partner be royally screwed time and again on child ‘tax’ (I like that term!) which funds his ex’s lifestyle in a manner which has seen his kids grow up to be dregs with her appalling ideas on how to raise kids. He has fought arguments and lost via mediation, one ‘judge’ even blatantly said ‘the mother always knows best’….He has been screwed on payments, access, ‘rights’ to have a say, he didn’t even get told when his kid was in hospital. His child tax payments are outrageous because they are based on ‘potential earnings’ not his actual earnings thanks to admin reviews. Has anyone ever actually won in the ‘potential earnings’ arguement??? The system sucks!

Leave a Reply

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