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

The Silent Killer

Filed under: Child Support — Tigerseye @ 7:28 pm Sat 7th February 2009

This is an article I wrote awaiting news paper publication.


There is a killer moving among us that can strike at anytime. It’s been with us for the better part of thirty years becoming more lethal as time goes by. In 1991 it gained strength and became virtually unstoppable. Although it has been known to kill teenagers it’s main target is men, killing almost one a day.

As seemingly unknown as this killer is to the general populous there are many groups around New Zealand offering help and support as well as lobbying to get something done. Unfortunately all requests, letters and demonstrations have fallen on deaf ears. But this is no joke and the killer is a very real killer taking the lives of over 300 men each year. The name of the killer is The Child Support Act and it’s close cousin The Family Court.

The Government with it’s “no-fault divorce” started the process, which has made it easier and easier morally and financially for a Man and Wife to separate and divorce leaving the kids to wonder what just happened. That’s when the problems start, trying to figure out how to share the children and what’s in the best interest of the children. What is well known about these cases is that almost every time it’s the Mother that has custody of the kids.

Now for the other side of the story. The Mother usually cannot support herself and the children so needs financial help, this is were the government steps in with the DPB at the same time sending a letter to the Father advising him that they will be garnishing his wages until the children are 19. OK, so far there is nothing wrong with the system. Mum and Dad no longer live with each other and Dad has an obligation to meet to financially support his children. But wait, the story continues. An important point to make here is most of the initiators of separation and divorce are the women and a knee jerk explanation to this would be domestic violence and or psychological abuse but published statistics say this is simply not the case. Of course the Mother has to live and has to raise the kids and therefore needs the financial support, but lets not forget about DAD. He has suddenly been ripped away from his family and is no longer able to see his children on a day to day basis. Bare in mind that now Dad has to find a new place to live, he has to feed himself and is also being taxed more by the government. In other words, he is now paying for two households. On an average income this is not easy and just to rub salt in the wound he is likely just joined the weekend Dad club where access to his children is just one weekend each fortnight – if he’s lucky. It’s not surprising that it can be very hard for a man to start a new life and often with this change he has trouble paying the child support during this transition. The Child Support he pays is a percentage of his Gross earnings which, on an average wage, can be more than $100 a week. What does the government do to help him find his feet? Well, the IRD CSA finds it important to impart their dominance on the “Dead-beat Dad” by penalizing him for late payments and then adding interest to this penalty every month it’s not paid. Meanwhile this estranged Father is missing his kids like crazy and tries to get more time with them… enter the Family Court.

If it has come to this point it means communication between the separated couple has not gone well and mediation has not worked, it’s now time for Mum and Dad to get themselves a lawyer to represent them in this Court system. As the Mother has no real income she is entitled to legal aid and pays around $50 for her lawyer, meanwhile the Father is on an average wage and will end up paying between $2-8K in lawyers fees. The sad fact is in most cases he will be no better off when it comes to seeing his kids as the Judge has ruled in favor of the Mother and ostensibly in the best interest of the child/ren. So the burden of not only late payment penalties and interest thereof but the extra rent, power, phone and food are now really taking their toll – and now he has to pay off his lawyer. It’s no wonder some men are a little bitter.

It’s not uncommon that the judge rules one to two hours a fortnight of supervised contact with the children. This is in the situation of alleged domestic violence cases which, by the way, are only proven in around 20% of the rulings. Guess who has to pay for the supervised contact? The Father is now faced with some difficult choices on how to deal with these issues and that’s when he suddenly realizes that there is no money left, he is in debt up to his eyeballs, it’s very possible that he may go bankrupt and to top it all off he barely sees his children if at all. Some politicians call this man a “Dead-beat Dad” and try to pass more legislation to come down harder on him. In truth, out of the fathers that are unable or not allowed to see their children at all, more than 60% are still paying their Child Support. There is only a very small percentage, around 10%, of the total number of Fathers who are forced to pay Child Support that are not paying and around 64% of that is due to afford ability. In other words, there is only a handful of non custodial parents that are “Dead-beat Dads” but it seems that brush tars and scars most of the Men paying Child Support. The upshot of this is that Fathers who do not live with their kids are seen much like criminals. They are looked down on. They are no longer needed by society and feel useless because their role as the provider has been taken over by the government and all they face now is persecution. This is all fueled by the CSA and the Family Court and it gets to a point where the man will admit defeat, see himself as a failure and commit suicide. This happens almost once a day – to more than 300 men a year.

There are around 300,000 fatherless children in this country and growing. There are around 170,000 Fathers (and the occasional Mother) who have had their children removed from their day to day lives and sometimes for good. Statistics are widely published illustrating graphically the horrific consequences of children growing up without their Father including the greatly increased likelihood of depression and suicide . And we are told that this is in the best interest of our children.


  1. Very nice.

    Edit: I mean, this is very good. Well done.

    Comment by julie — Sat 7th February 2009 @ 10:46 pm

  2. Tigereye,
    You’ve just done a great job of describing NZs beat dead Dad’s (pun intended).

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 8th February 2009 @ 3:55 am

  3. “Of course the Mother has to live and has to raise the kids and therefore needs the financial support,”

    Basically there are a couple of principles here, firstly there is the idea that children should not experience a fall in the standard of living following divorce/separation. So by default the custodial parent must also not experience a fall in the standard of living.

    Hence the money has to come from somewhere, and that is out of the pockets of the main income earners, this means that the main income earner can never be properly divorced until the children no longer need income support.

    Much of this thinking can be traced back to Lenore Weitzman’s research.

    Comment by Phillip — Sun 8th February 2009 @ 5:21 am

  4. Yes Phillip,
    and therein lies the fraud.
    You aren’t totally divorced, only partly.
    For you are divorced from you spouse (whether you want it or not under our stupid ‘no fault divorce’ laws).
    She can unilaterally initiate the divorce, but you are NOT according to law divorced from providing her and your children an income.
    The opposite occurs.
    You are bonded financially as we know. You become her serf.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 8th February 2009 @ 5:42 am

    The above link is of interest.

    “The new guidelines are harmful to children, not just their fathers. Children spend up to a third of their time in their fathers’ care, yet Massachusetts’ child support guidelines financially destroy many divorced fathers, leaving them chronically broke and thus unable to provide their children a nice home to live in during visitation. The state child support guidelines give fathers little if any reduction in child support payments for the time and money they spend caring for their children during extensive visitation, even though such care reduces the child-care costs of the recipient mother and increases the father’s expenses.

    This financial havoc can’t be justified by claiming that divorced fathers had it coming: most divorces in this country are no-fault divorces initiated by wives”,

    Comment by Phillip — Sun 8th February 2009 @ 5:36 pm

  6. Yes again Phillip,
    It is most cruelly the kids who suffer when Dad is alienated by that toxic mix of a vindictive ex and a couldn’t care less family court /child support system.

    thanx for the link.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 8th February 2009 @ 5:53 pm

  7. The Christchurch press ran this article today:

    Men become richer after divorce

    Women losers in divorce titles the Press and quotes
    Ruth Smallacombe, of divorce specialists Family Lawyers in Partnership, said: “The general belief that men get fleeced by their divorces while women get richer and live off the proceeds has long been due for exposure as a pernicious myth. In reality, women often suffer economic hardship when they divorce. In addition, the resentment caused by unfair financial settlements has many knock-on effects.”

    Comment by tren Christchurch — Tue 10th February 2009 @ 6:15 pm

  8. I know one truth:
    I was forced to separate by the family court (protection order)
    My family is destroyed as a result.
    My family became poorer (me, mum and children) and lawyers and judges and a raft of agencies got richer and laughing all the way to the bank.

    Comment by tren Christchurch — Tue 10th February 2009 @ 6:19 pm

  9. Great find of an article Tren.

    The only way to level the playing field is to make men and women more alike in terms of roles in the family and in the labour market. “Until these fundamental issues change, these realities will remain essentially unchanged,” he said.

    Comment by julie — Tue 10th February 2009 @ 7:28 pm

  10. Of course Ruth Smallacombe would say such things.
    She stands to make a fortune by keeping the status quo father shafting D V
    (Divorce / Violence) industry.
    good on you guys for realizing it’s an industry.
    I like Angry Harry’s point of view on this. At his website he calls it
    an organism which needs constant and regular supply of food to keep itself growing rather than withering away.
    That’s why I reckon a marriage strike is a good thing.
    Then the organism quickly runs out of nutrients (you and I) and withers away.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 10th February 2009 @ 8:00 pm

  11. I read through Jenkins’ research on which the “men become richer after divorce” article was based. Jenkins actually highlighted the fact that women’s (claimed) incomes were increasing more rapidly over the few years after separation than they used to. Jenkins clearly undertook his work from a position of bias, seeing the improvement in women’s income recovery as “good news” and any ongoing difference between the income of men and women after divorce as “bad news”. Although he mentioned that the majority of children live mainly with their mother after divorce, no acknowledgement was made that this was the mother’s choice often against the preference of the father.

    The findings were based apparently on self-report data from survey interviews, without any reliability checks e.g. against official tax returns. It’s possible that men tend to overestimate how well they are doing and that women tend to underestimate what they are receiving. Further, the figures in Jenkins’ study were based on estimates of income over the previous month. That may mean that men who run their own businesses had not taken into account tax liabilities that would reduce their annual profit as compared with last month’s takings. I note however that I was not clear about those matters because no detailed information was provided about the nature of the survey interviews that Jenkins studied. What was clear however was that the findings were based on various statistical manipulations that tended to inflate men’s apparent incomes relative to women’s. One glaring result was the finding that when a man leaves a childless marriage his income immediately rises by 25%. This is not a real rise in income but due to the statistical method that recalculates incomes taking into account how many people live in the household. It is a statistical artifact, an illusion rather than reality. Of course, separated men know that their incomes tend to fall after separation as they deal with their distress, fear and loss. It is not uncommon for men after separation to move into less stressful, lower paid work in order to cope. We have seen other studies that more simply and clearly show such reductions in men’s income.

    Other conclusions appear biased. For example, look at the claim that child maintenance made little difference because only 31% of mothers received any. I expect that’s because most of the remaining 69% were on a sole parent benefit, meaning that they were receiving child maintenance indirectly that was being paid to reimburse the government. Those who received child maintenance separately will mainly have been in paid employment, in which case the maintenance had to make a significant difference to them.

    Jenkins’ research may well be accurate in showing that women with children following divorce will have less income than their ex-husbands who lose the day-to-day presence of their children. It would be surprising if that were not the case. The ideological assumption is that women should be as well off as men after divorce even though the women don’t engage in paid employment to the same extent. That is essentially a call for the enslavement of men in the service of women. And the retort that the women are raising the men’s children without adequate reimbursement does not take into account that many or most of those men would gladly provide at least half of the child care as long as they didn’t also have to pay for the women’s half. Even with shared care, men would still probably pursue their careers more actively and earn more. That’s a sin?

    The newspaper article goes right off track in interviewing divorce lawyers. Those lawyers bleat on about unfair marital settlements (unfair usually only because women don’t get more of what men worked for long before the relationship even commenced). Marital settlements were not studied in the Jenkins paper at all so the lawyers’ comments were largely irrelevant. It is in the interests of divorce lawyers to encourage feminist resentment about men’s apparent greater wealth because this will lead to more bitter, prolonged and renewed legal battles over property. The underlying feminist assumption is that if any women pairs up with a man she is then entitled forever to enjoy at least the same standard of living as his. The lawyers even claimed that without that privilege women were not able to move on with their lives. How does expecting your ex to remain responsible for your standard of living amount to moving on with your life?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 12th February 2009 @ 12:27 am

  12. Very Good Tigerseye

    I am wanting to bulid a network of guys to fight for a change to the way IRD work out the child support assement as i am not much of a computer geek would you be willing to help?

    My local MP has said she will help if i can get some other people to come aboard with me

    cheers Tim

    Comment by timy — Wed 25th February 2009 @ 11:10 pm

  13. Count me in

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 26th February 2009 @ 6:34 pm

  14. My experience is a warning to all men.
    If you’re in doubt have a vasectomy.
    My ex wife became pregnant when I was 50.She knew that I didn’t want children at that age and she assured me that she was on the pill.
    Now I’ll be paying child support until I’m 70.
    If I’m fortunate enough to ‘expire’ before then,rest assured she’ll have the IRD dig me up just to make sure that I will never rest in peace.
    They may even take the handles from my coffin to go towards the next year’s child support payments.

    Comment by rigormortis — Sat 28th February 2009 @ 6:47 pm

  15. Too right!, but what options do we have? I am paying for 2 kids with my EX and have 2 kids with my wife of 9 years!. I work long hard hours and have managed to further my education to gain pay rises, every time i get a pay rise i get a letter from Inland revenue upping my child support payments.
    Although I love all my children, I see the 2 with my ex approx once a year and who decided that the 2 with my ex are worth $240.00 FN when working for families say the 2 living with me are worth $18.00 FN.
    In reality i am the only income into our household and i agree with you skeptik…. i am surrorting myself, an EX wife, a Wife and 4 children.
    Makes me think about chucking in my job and going on a benefit, I’m sure to get more allowances and money in the pocket!!
    I’ll let the power and phone get cut off and paid for by work and income along with a huge list of other perks beneficiaries get.
    My EX is a leach who seems to know the system inside and out and unfortunately for me my 2 kids living with her are becoming as corrupt.
    All i want to do is pay my own way and provide for my family, but come on Inland revenue, i want to save for a future too and if i get a pay rise…. leave me and my current family some!
    I’m probably repeating myself so sorry for that, it just infuriates me that middle income families seem to pay for everyone and everything without the support bludgers get. DPB is now an income and job where someone gets a payrise for each child they have without ever having to get off their arses and give something back.

    Comment by Jesson — Sun 8th March 2009 @ 10:06 pm

  16. IRD are the real Problem here.

    Why is it the norm with the ird to take more from a man just trying to do better for himself and his children when you earn extra money for the year and the IRD can give it to the ex.
    The norm should be based on your hourly rate X 40 hours a week, which is the norm for most people.
    Thats what the ird should be basing their chld support allowance on, not sucking any extra they can get for when a man works more over time so as to improve his self a little more.
    My experience is that my ex has a very healthy bank account, gets paid $600 a week from her job gets family credits on top of that from the ird and my large $500 a month for one child.
    So who is getting richer from this ??? my ex thats who, and the ird are only interested in making it so, as they only attack the poor bugger who has not got the child and are prepaired to send him to the cleaners.
    The government in power now has the power to change this shit and both parties should be looked at as to were their money comes from and if they are in a financial posistion to look after the child at thier own expense as many many and many ex”s with the children are only using the child for money benifits only.
    This government has to wake up to this and get stuck into the ird and make it fair for all involved not just the ird and the person who has the child.

    Comment by Mark Jensen — Mon 9th March 2009 @ 3:49 pm

  17. count me in too

    Comment by jesson — Mon 9th March 2009 @ 6:26 pm

  18. call me i will be in on this,

    Comment by Mark Jensen — Mon 9th March 2009 @ 10:35 pm

  19. I have just come back from an admin review session and was hopeful that maybe the review officer would see some sense ….but no I was wrong …this review was brought about by my ex who thinks I have lots of money which I don’t ….the thing that disappointed me the most is that I submitted my situation in writing prior to the review which I was told to do and then in the review the office ( who flew from Queenstown to Christchurch) had not even read it and asked me again about everything …then when interviewing my ex he accepted further documentation from her on the day which I was told couldn’t happen for me …I have shared custody of two children and one child that is now full time with her mother and I now liable to $800 per month …I agree with above twhen they say who is getting richer ??…I have a partner who also has a children with us full time and this whole system is very much focussed on the female gaining everything and the male losing the lot ….but we can’t fight IRD SO NOT SURE WHAT TO DO ???

    Comment by Richard — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 10:23 am

  20. Count me in too. I am convinced IRD stands for Irresponsible Relentless Destruction (of men’s incomes and lives).

    Let’s face it, most people have know idea what paying parents are facing every month / year. This needs to be brought to the public eye. I have some idea’s that would make our situations very public and embarrassing to the IRD. But I need a secure network to get this in place…

    Comment by instinct — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 8:23 pm

  21. I agree – some child support PAYERS are female too you know and have highly paid jobs – the system is not fair. But why do you have to make it a male vs. female thing? One more time. Some people are male. Some people are female. Some bad people are female. Some bad people are male. Why do some of you insist that ALL men are bad or ALL women are bad. Think. Stop stereotyping.

    Comment by Angela — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 8:54 pm

  22. A wise man told me many years ago to beat the child support system which is loaded against the non-custodial parent (the vast majority of whom are men)the best strategy is –
    Appear income poor, whilst working to be asset rich.
    There are many ways this can be refined once you get the concept.

    Comment by skeptik — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:37 pm

  23. I dont put men or women in a sterotype bin, yes men and women are both paying for child support to ex’s that are well of and can really look after the child or children in their custody.
    My point is that when you are seperated from your ex, and at that time you should be assest by the ird that your current posistion is,,, that you were earning an income of X amount per year, when your situation changed , that the other wished or used a family court to go their own way this was the income you all survived on at that time.
    Now you are seperated?? paying child support based on that income, why destroy the paying parent (male or female) for moving on and earning a better income in the future??, if the IRD and ex’s out there think that because you are earning a new or better income the IRD and ex should get a benifit from it, because they are missing out??? No, the ex”s out there would have benifited from the new income have they stayed in the family relationship, but no they moved on.
    Paying parents try very hard to move on too, but when you meet and fall into a relationship with another partner you may find it really hard to keep this relationship because of the extra bagage you carry from paying extreme amounts of money to an ex.
    Their are many ex”s out there who find out about a new relationship and find that the new partner earns a good wage,and will try and combine your wage and your new partners wage and try and get a whole new child support benfit from that.
    Many new relationships dont last because of this,,and so your ex runs around telling every body who will listen that you are a bad person because your new partner left you, but the truth is that the new partner could not handle the crap from your ex or the amount of cash they are ripping off from you.
    Only the government can change this law and make it fair for all, the child will never benifit from all this and will always be in the middle of this crap.
    We need a good MP or PM to look at this and change it to-day.

    Comment by Mark Jensen — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 1:43 pm

  24. Men have one or two choices.
    1 To be a law abiding citizen
    2 To be a coniving shit house rat just like the IRD are

    Comment by Rosie — Wed 18th March 2009 @ 10:35 pm

  25. Hi Rigormortis,my husbands ex did the same to him
    so you are not on your own there.he will be 72 by
    the time she and the ird are finish with
    should tell them when you intend to depart this earth
    as it could incure penalties

    Comment by Rosie — Wed 18th March 2009 @ 11:10 pm

  26. Appear income poor, whilst working to be asset rich.
    There are many ways this can be refined once you get the concept.

    Rules changed last year and retrospective admin reviews are being initiated against parents who are/have been asset rich and income poor.

    Only the government can change this law and make it fair for all, the child will never benifit from all this and will always be in the middle of this crap.
    We need a good MP or PM to look at this and change it to-day.


    Agree only goverment can change the law, not all situations end with the child in the middle of the crap. The only way the law will change is when politicians are forced to change it.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 18th March 2009 @ 11:40 pm

  27. @20
    I still know there are legal ways to appear income poor whilst getting asset rich.
    Friends taught me how to successfully do so.
    The system stinks for men in many ways (family caught DV industry etc) yet there are loopholes and I thought screw ’em because they’re screwing me.
    At the same time I’ve got no argument with Scrap. I reckon he’s absolutely bang on target with working for the abolition of the terrible child support/tax regime in place in NZ.

    Comment by Skeptik — Thu 19th March 2009 @ 2:41 am

  28. Count me in please!!!
    My husband has a child with his ex who he was with for one year,
    and we have three. ‘We’ were paying $200.00 weekly in child support
    and when our youngest was born IRD allowed us an extra $18.00 for the
    extra child reducing our weekly payments to $182.00. This broke my
    heart to say the least. Have had face to face meetings with IRD,
    Admin Reviews (unsuccessful). How dare IRD value one child at $200.00
    and another at $18.00…Am desperate for any action to tackle the
    situation. Am sick of food being taken out of my babies mouths
    everytime thier father gets a payrise!!!

    Comment by Helena — Thu 26th March 2009 @ 1:13 am

  29. where did you get the stats for it killing 300 men a year?

    Comment by Scott — Thu 26th March 2009 @ 7:44 am

  30. Thanks for that Jesson, I am in exactly the same boat.I have two children that i am paying child support for in New Zealand, but i also have two that live with me in Australia.How can i get ahead and provide a good home and environment for the two that live with me when i have to use the New Zealand child support calculations for our living allowance, and it obviously costs a hell of a lot more to live here in australia. The other issue i find with my circumstance is that i have to pay according to the exchange rate, why should she benefit from me trying to get ahead in another country, how does it cost more to bring up my children in New Zealand because i get paid in Australian dollars. go figure?.My ex-wife now has five children to four different fathers,what an income and at whos expense?.

    Comment by darren — Sat 28th March 2009 @ 12:32 pm

  31. Count me in!

    Comment by Corsair — Mon 13th April 2009 @ 7:13 pm

  32. The number one thing we all can do also is to get your points that have been written above and more to your local MP and the MP for msd dept and so on.
    I have written about a dozen or more now and all i get back is letters from MP saying that it has been passed on to the minister involved in these affairs????,.
    Just keep writting letters to this mob in government and one day it might sink into ones head that there is a problem.

    Comment by Mark Jensen — Mon 13th April 2009 @ 8:51 pm

  33. Tim,

    if you are still out there, check out my various comments, which would perhaps have been better posted on this thread, instead of at – issues with child support.
    I too have been (recently) looking for men who feel disaffected by all this, and who are prepared to make a noise about it. It appears to be more difficult than one might imagine. Love to jump aboard with you if you think we are on the same page. I am not much of a computer geek either, but I like to think I can express ideas in writing….
    Regards G.

    Comment by glenn — Mon 4th May 2009 @ 11:08 am

  34. Bugger, my attempt at attaching the link didn’t work. Will try it again, Told you I was no geek.

    Comment by glenn — Mon 4th May 2009 @ 11:12 am

  35. My husband has a child he has never seen, and is likely to never see (crazy ex-shag).
    He is basically a sperm donor who now pays over $1200 a month to a woman who also has
    a well paying job. We literally cannot afford to have our own children. We can’t
    afford for me to ever stop working, because of the amount of money leached from us.
    And if I did have a child the amount we’d have to pay would stay pretty much the same,
    I think it would go down around $100 a month, because my child is worth less than
    someone who got pregnant on a one night stand?
    I really feel the child support system is totally unfair, and should be looked at on a
    case-by-case basis. Why am I being denied the opportunity to have children because of
    the actions of someone on a drunk night out?

    Comment by K — Thu 14th May 2009 @ 1:01 pm

  36. And I thought polygamy was illegal in new zealand.

    Comment by Scotty — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 3:24 pm

  37. In my experience the worst aspect of the so called “Child Support” system is not the legislation itself but that the administrators of the act repeatedly refuse to apply the grounds for departure prescribed therein.
    The problem therefore seems to be one of ideaology and culture withing the child support and administrative review offices which further legaslitive changes are unlikely to change.
    Who then, i wonder, is putting the pressure on supposeadly independent review officers to ignore the clear provisions of the act? And why are these people not held accountable for their ignorance of the act.
    Furthermore this is the only place in New Zealand (ass) law where it is prohibited to employ an advocate or vocal support person and probably one area where it is most needed. In any other area of law the responsible party would leave themselves open to litigation if they were to suggest that professional and effective representation was not allowed.

    Comment by Scotty — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 3:45 pm

  38. and me, please mail me information.

    Comment by Scotty — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 3:46 pm

  39. Not quite true that other areas of NZ Law you are barred from advocacy. The disputes Tribunal, Tennancy Tribunal, lower levels of employment mediation also discourage or ban representation by solicitors.

    The CS review procedure was modelled on disputes tribuinal after the Fc got blown away by the plethora of cases coming their way and they amended the legislation super super quick.

    Comment by allan harvey — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 6:28 pm

  40. Hi, your situation is EXACTLY LIKE MINE, wow so many affected by our goverment, i would give someone my vote next election if they overhauled the child support and family court system.

    Comment by J W Buckley — Sat 9th January 2010 @ 8:09 am

  41. Time you all thought more about your kids and not so much about your big fat male money driven egos! O poor you, you have to be responsible for your children.
    Both partners suffer financially in separation and divorce and it is completely ignorant to think otherwise.

    Comment by jen — Sat 5th June 2010 @ 9:48 pm

  42. Time you thought about the children, jen. Those who don’t live half the time with their fathers would benefit greatly from the bonding, trust and security that results from their father showing direct caring for them financially and otherwise. The state currently ensures that for most of those children, their father’s financial contribution is hidden from them. The children experience only their mother buying them school uniforms, medical care and all the basics even though much of that money is provided by the father. The amount that is taken from fathers, much of it quite blatantly to support the mother’s lifestyle rather than the children, means those fathers have less to give their children. After losing around a quarter of their net income to the government coffers (in addition to normal taxes), many fathers cannot afford accommodation that is appealing for their children to visit. Many children lose their fathers completely because the child tax system legitimates shutting fathers out (mothers get paid the same regardless of whether they promote children’s relationships with fathers or alienate them from their fathers). Other children lose their fathers completely because some fathers are not prepared to be enslaved and exploited according to the terms of government and their exes. Much better for children if their fathers are able to contribute directly to their children’s needs and that any such contributions are deducted from IRD child tax. Much better for children if the child tax obligation is modest and realistically related to actual expenditure for average children, thereby leaving the fathers to build their lives and to be better supports, resources and role models for their children. Much better for children if their fathers are helped to maintain some dignity, optimism and success rather than enslavement, despair and Depression.

    Few contributors here have suggested, and few fathers would suggest they should not share half the financial responsibility for their children, so your sarcasm is as invalid as it is nasty. Most fathers yearn to be special, generous dads for their children but they are impeded in doing so under the current system.

    Money driven egos are not the main motivation for concerns expressed about child tax, and anyway are not the domain only of males. Note, for example, that liable mothers are more likely to default on child tax than are liable fathers.

    And I haven’t read anything here to suggest that contributors think both parents don’t suffer financially after separation, so the only ignorance is your own in making that accusation. Of course parents will suffer financially when a family that was being catered for with one house, one power bill, one phone bill etc suddenly requires expenditure on two separate houses and lifestyles.

    Of course, if one really wants to think about NZ children then encouraging families to stay together until children reach independent adulthood would be the best thing of all. To achieve that outcome, making separation less appealing will be important. The current father-exploitation child tax basically encourages and facilitates separation. That’s one of the most damaging things we can do to our children (except in rare cases of extreme violence).

    So jen, it’s time you thought about the children rather than your own self-interest and that of only your sisters.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th June 2010 @ 1:08 am

  43. Thanks Hans,
    for spelling things out so fully and clearly to jen.
    Hopefully jen will think again and drop the male bashing attitude.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 6th June 2010 @ 6:12 am

  44. Problem is that if she is going to track this site down just to make such remarks, I doubt she will be willing to listen and learn or even be open to such discussions.

    Comment by Scott B — Sun 6th June 2010 @ 8:37 am

  45. Absolutely Scott I completely agree.
    Its the old, there is none so blind as they who will not see routine

    Both partners suffer financially in separation and divorce and it is completely ignorant to think otherwise.
    While that may be so jen what are your thoughts of up nineteen years later and one partner is still being forced to supplement the others lifestyle choices with child tax aka spousal support all in the guise of “its for the children”
    Seriously how long should we have to prop up these losers ex’s?. children are a responsibility for life and I dont see my role as parent stopping just because they have turned 19. All that will change is that I wont have to pay the ex what she feels is her entitlment.
    Read the posts here jen before you spout off with such inane dribble. The guys motivated to post here want to be and are responsible for their children. Its paying bitter ex’s that see child tax that doesnt go to the children thats a problem.
    I would suspect that jen is collecting child tax not paying it and feels her sense of entitlement should take precedent over the ex’s ego or wellbeing.
    Sorry Hans but I reckon asking someone like jen to think of the children when her eyes are clouded by dollar signs is a lesson in futility.

    Comment by mits — Sun 6th June 2010 @ 11:26 am

  46. I would love to get the IRD Child Tax mail list. Imagine what we could accomplish if we could contact all parents paying child support. Imagine if you got 300,000+ voters in a voting block. That is real power. Imagine how fast the laws would change then!
    Anyone know of a legal way to get a hold of that mail list?

    Comment by Dave — Mon 7th June 2010 @ 4:29 pm

  47. Put the idea to Petter Dunne Nothing and offer him a contribution to Untied Future.

    Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Mon 7th June 2010 @ 7:03 pm

  48. Actually, I just realized I made an error in my writing. The sentence in line 8 should read

    “After losing about one third of their nett income to the government coffers (in addition to normal taxes), many fathers cannot afford accommodation that is appealing for their children to visit.”

    I forgot that the percentage child tax is against gross income but of course is taken from what’s left after tax, so this means that it will amount to about one third of the money fathers actually earn after tax. My mistake is of course exactly what the state hopes for, that most fathers will be fooled into quietly accepting their exploitation believing they are being taxed only around one quarter of their income. (I refer only to fathers because they are the huge majority of child tax slaves.)

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 8th June 2010 @ 12:33 pm

  49. Kay
    It was also your drunk husbands one night out.He should have put something on it!Does he not know basic hygiene?

    Comment by Get a grip — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 4:27 am

  50. The fuss some of the men here make about paying Child Support makes me think think they are not grown up themselves.They seem to want the woman to be responsible for everything.Taking care of children is not a walk in the park.Men can avoid Child Support by putting a condom on.Easy!Stop whinning and count your lucky stars.

    Comment by Get a grip — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 4:32 am

  51. hey gripper..i want women to be responsible and stop dumping all the responsibility onto also like things to have a more even balance and id like to see a stop to the malicious vindictive games some women get a grip tosser

    Comment by Ford — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 6:58 am

  52. Men can avoid Child Support by putting a condom on

    No they can’t.

    It doesn’t matter how a woman acquires the sperm. Used condom taken from rubbish bin? Man up and pay your child support. Only ten years old and statutorily raped? Tough luck, pay up. Never had sex with her at all? Prove it.

    A while back in my state of Victoria a thirteen year old Gippsland boy stayed overnight at his mates place. During the night the mate’s drunken mother enters the bedroom and mounts the nocturnal stiffy of the visitor. She got pregnant. A couple of years later, with the help of our federal government, she’s getting some of his youth allowance.

    I’d love to hear Get a grip explain things to that young Gippsland boy.

    Boys and men have no reproductive rights. They have no right to consent to parenthood. Even their right to consent to sex whilst implied is never honoured.

    Comment by gwallan — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 1:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar