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

Dads say child support system is failing our kids

Filed under: Child Support,General — Julie @ 7:07 pm Sun 1st August 2010

Union of Fathers president Allan Harvey says “The system is too crude at the moment and encourages one parent to be a care parent and one to be a cash parent. That’s not best for our children.”

Child support reform advocate James Nicolle also said the system was failing both parents and children. “It’s just not fair to anyone – I have seen case after case where people have been pushed to the wall by the amount of child support they have to pay”,

“Systems like this don’t work anywhere in the world. If you go to the UK, Australia, the United States, Europe . . any system that is based on a percentage of income of the parent results in massive debt. They don’t just work – they’re unsustainable,” Nicolle said.


Well done dads!!!

To read the rest of this story, click here.


  1. There once was a dog, a Labrador. He was both a playful and gentle family pet for the children as well as a brave and strong guardian.

    One day the lady of the house wanted a change. The Labrador was sent away to become a pig hunting dog.

    Tragically for the Labrador, it’s instinct to protect weaker creatures was it’s undoing. Outnumbered, It would fight off the ‘attacking’ dogs to liberate the pig!

    The Labrador was put down.

    A true story……humans.

    Comment by Peter — Mon 2nd August 2010 @ 1:03 am

  2. By 2050 most of the world will experience more deaths than births as a result of not only an aging population but human divisions, divorce and the demise of the Family to rebirth or repopulate.

    It is time for Family unity and love again! But there is a fundamental problem! If Male and Female are equal then how does a Mother have more power in the decisions of a child’s life from birth more than the Father or courts? Most mothers can claims benefits, child support, ignore the Father, Child and choose as many partners as she likes without scrutiny, penalty or blame. MOTY AWARDS supports equal and shared two-parent support structures for all children of the world regardless of whether the parents are dating, married or divorce.

    Comment by MOTY AWARDS — Mon 2nd August 2010 @ 1:17 am

  3. In my opinion, changes to Child Tax can only happen and be effective with changes to the family caught and law.

    Comment by Scott B — Mon 2nd August 2010 @ 8:40 am

  4. stop letting the women of the world manipulate every1…cut the PC bullshit out…no more reading between the lines…and how about some more males manning the ph’s in call centres…isnt it funny how first point of contact is usually female

    Comment by Ford — Mon 2nd August 2010 @ 10:35 am

  5. That is a profound story. I will use it and never forget it.

    Comment by Dave — Mon 2nd August 2010 @ 1:24 pm

  6. Excatly what Allan and James suggested in the article.

    The whole matrix of Family Law needs changing, child tax is the bridgehead.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 2nd August 2010 @ 6:26 pm

  7. FYI This is another Dave – not me (I’m the long time contributor).

    Comment by Dave — Mon 2nd August 2010 @ 10:32 pm

  8. I’m glad to see that this issue has been put before the public on the StuffNZ news website.
    I’m surprised that Lois Cairns wrote the piece after recently producing a father bashing article which glibly looked at Mom’s contribution to home life whilst dismissing the enormous amount of work men do to provide for home life both inside and OUTSIDE the home (when they’s allowed to reside ina home with a family that is!!! here.
    Perhaps she’s matured a little from the feedback she would have gotten from ‘disgruntled’ dads.
    I’m quite pleased with the tone of the article. I mean at least it’s opening up a discussion.
    I do have major misgivings about a couple of statements in the article however.
    First there’s this –

    Auditor-general Lyn Provost said while Inland Revenue was doing a good job managing child support payments, it needed to focus more on preventing debt piling up in the first place.

    and there’s also this –

    “The system is fraught with problems and inequities,” Harvey said.

    “It is stuck back in this care versus cash parent model rather than a more dynamic model like the Family Court has moved to,

    So there we have it folks Child support is being well managed despite there being a sinking ship with a 1.3 billion dollar hole! And the family court is now “dynamic”.
    Wow, try asking hundreds of thousands of fathers and fatherless kids if it’s dynamic!
    I suppose it’s SO dynamic the demonstrations outside the homes of femily caught staff are pointless eh?
    Gosh, I’ll rest easy tonight knowing NZ is in such good hands!
    I might even rush and fly back to start a family (if I can get a seat that’s not next to an unaccompanied minor that is. Wouldn’t want to upset the feminazi-chivalry~diculous Air NZ OUR national carrier now would we?)

    Maybe Lois Cairns has quite a ways to go yet!

    Oh well, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 3rd August 2010 @ 2:13 am

  9. Good work to those who contributed, getting these sentiments published.

    Not wishing to be unkind though, I have seen many ‘killer truths’ like this one published on Child Support over 20 years, but by themselves they dont make for change. They are like small calibre bullets that bounce off the thick armour of the state.

    For every favourable article, I guess 50 unfavourable ones are published.

    Bruce Tichbon

    Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Tue 3rd August 2010 @ 7:47 pm

  10. Bruce,

    While I understand your negative attitude I challenge your comment “For every favourable article, I guess 50 unfavourable ones are published.”

    The ratio is about 1 to 1 having changed considerably in the past 6 years. (Figues taken from google daily news feed tracking over 6 years)

    I do agree however that this by itself does not bring change but it is part of it.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 3rd August 2010 @ 9:15 pm

  11. Family court and law do not need to be changed, but ELIMINATED!!! They don’t do anything that real criminal courts and real law are supposed to do, except they do it without due process, habeus corpus, judicial review and burden of proof. They can’t be changed because too many people are profiting from family law and court the way they are now.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 9:07 am

  12. That’s correct. Women need to be eliminated from the picture. There’s a reason that any civilization that has ever advanced did it while the women were not in the picture. The women need to be stripped of their rights to property ownership, employment and voting. Unless these things happen, our once great civilization is doomed. Declines experienced in the past forty years, and particularly in teh past five or ten, are the direct result of feminism and irresponsible women and their mail enablers. I’ve said it before and I meant it and everyone will find out the truth of my convictions at some point in time that unless men take up arms against the those who oppress them, then they will never be free. There is no legal, political or social solution to our circumstances. Only war.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 9:12 am

  13. Your sarcasm and humor refreshing.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 9:14 am

  14. Darryl, You are spot on: too many people are profiting from (de)family law and in the courts for anything to change. There are plenty of collection agencies $$$ but you will never find one single child contact agency. Men must keep paying for the woman on the pedestal but the real and very serious harm being done to his children is being ignored

    Comment by Larry — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 9:17 am

  15. I found some interesting information about divorce and the family court on NZ Statistic’s site and wrote a post with it. I’m sorry I didn’t keep the link.

    In England prior to 1857, only an Act of Parliament could permit a full divorce allowing remarriage and it could only take place in England. This was very expensive so 10 years later the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in New Zealand which meant the judgement on divorce proceedings was passed over to the courts where it had to be heard in Wellington before three judges. A husband could divorce his wife on the grounds of her adultery while a wife could divorce for cruelty, desertion or bigamy. In 1881, it was changed from three judges to one judge and all the way up to 1968 law changes were made to give up to 24 grounds of divorce and lessen the time to wait.

    Divorce rates rapidly rose in the 60?s and 70?s with all these new ‘faults’ as ground for divorce, making the way for even further changes. In 1980 the Family Proceedings Act was passed that removed divorce from the High Court to the newly created Family Court where for legal purposes, the term divorce became ‘dissolution of marriage’, and with it came ‘No fault’ where an application for dissolution on the grounds that the marriage had broken down irreconcilably, could be made jointly or by either the husband or wife, provided they could satisfy the two-year separation requirement.

    There were 4 divorces in 1857 while now one third to 50% of marriages end in divorce (research varies). Added to this are women and men living in de facto relationships, women by choice being solo mothers through sperm donation and men being solo fathers through surrogacy.

    Also interesting and informative is a book I’m reading at the moment by Ian Wishart titled ‘Absolute Power – the compelling unauthorised biography of a political machine’.

    It’s about ex Prime Minister Helen Clarke and the Labor government and how they have proceeded to destroy families for their own personal agendas. Not only do these leaders have a conflict of interest doing their job of caring for New Zealander’s but they are corrupt as.

    Comment by julie — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 10:43 am

  16. Darryl X,
    I can understand your feeling outraged at the injustices done to NZ in the ‘family’ ‘court’ system there.
    I can understand your feeling outraged at the way women in NZ must seem terribly self centered there.
    I can understand your feeling outraged at the way many men act dumbly as enablers of these women.
    I can understand your feeling outraged at the way most men in NZ are viewed as disposable success objects.
    What I can’t understand or condone is why you would want to sink to the level of men’s enemies and commit atrocities. Please look at a Non violent approach instead.
    You might for example get a few buddies together and burn your wallets on the steps of a courthouse.
    You might wear a black armband all day and explain to folks who enquire about it why you’re doing so.
    The number of non violent actions you can take to get people thinking about Men’s rights is only limited by the imagination.
    Please let us know how you get on too.
    You can share valuable information which aides the struggle that way.
    Yes it’s a culture war, but I’m afraid violence will only loose us allies not gain us friends who respect us for being humane and just.

    Comment by Skeptik — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 10:49 am

  17. Thanks for the thought, Skeptik. I agree with you. However, peaceful means have failed for forty years and at the foundation of the problem is physiology and no law to mitigate it. The laws regulating the kinds of injustice we experience exist already and they do not work. One of our first Presidents and many other forefathers of the US recognized or foresaw the kinds of problems that are happening in the US and NZ and the rest of the developed world. For that reason Thomas Jefferson (and others) recognized the necissity of revolution to restore peace and order. Revolutions are inherently violent and require the elimination of those who oppress us. They will not give up their power and contro and oppression peacefully. You cannot appreciate how much I admire your patience and stoicism. At the same time, after forty years, it’s annoying. Each day that change is not made is a day lost to our children all over the developed world. Perhaps revolution may inspire those in power to negotiate with others like yourself. I don’t see it happening otherwise.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 11:14 am

  18. And again, I’m here to help if you need it. I think you will some day. Peaceful means will not work. I’m Darryl X. Put a spot-light on the sky some dark evening in the shape of a giant “X” and we’ll come to take out the trash. Don’t be afraid to admit failure of peaceful means. You tried and your attempts are admirable, but changes of the magnitude you’re considering have never happened by peaceful means. Not even in India. Anyone who thinks they worked there hasn’t visited in a while. That’s by design. We are at war and there’s only one way to win a war.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 11:29 am

  19. You are nice to the family court.
    I say simply that they are a mafia.

    Comment by tren — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 12:54 pm

  20. Tren. I stand corrected. You are right. They are a mafia or even a cult (that’s also how we have described them in the US).

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 4th August 2010 @ 1:16 pm

  21. Hello
    This is my first time adding to this site but I have read it many times. I can understand the frustration of Fathers on this site. Myself a stepmother and my lovely husband have just been through a rough ordeal and we both feel the anger now as well. All legal people involved could see the issue for the Mother was about money and probably power over the ex but of course nothing they could do. She has also alienated my husbands children against us both. Needless to say we are both bitter and getting twisted over the amount of child support we now have to pay. It is so high we have to sell our house to afford it. Yes my husband earns a good wage but we are a one income family and he actually commutes from Christchurch (where the girls live) to Auckland for work so big expenses there. I dont work because he is away and our two little children need someone at home. The ex has her own company with 60 employees and her Husband is also a high income earner. We have been told we can do an admin review because we are in a grey area but of course no promises. Disclosing our personal details to the ex for the review is intollerable. It is just simply unfair that a percentage is set through the IRD before reviewing both families personal details. The fact all legal parties could see what the ex wanted (money) and nothing could be done because she is “entitled” to it just makes be balk. I can now understand why non custodial parents are bitter and skip the country. How are the IRD going to look after my two little girls or are they not as important. Any insight appreciated.

    Comment by kathleen — Fri 6th August 2010 @ 8:15 pm

  22. Kathleen and others

    I am also in the same situtation.I have written so many letters to Peter Dunn to follow why it is taking so long to bring changes to this unfair system, but no reliable response.Now IRD has started charging a convinience fees when i make my payments via my credit card. IRD is screwing us in all ways. How can the same government decide the working for familes be paid until age of 18 and child support until age of 19,where is the definition and justice of a child becomming financially independent. DPB for a child is $100.00 per week, but child supported is calculated on the percentage of the gross salary minus the pathetic living allowance.I hate the government and their child tax laws that I will not vote.I am very bitter towards IRD and Peter Dunn,they are making our lives misrable.Child tax should just be enough to cover the child basic needs, but the current system works is a way that I have to finance my ex wife life style. We are hit twice once thru the divorce and now child tax for 19 years. This child tax is never about the CHILD but the ex. Shame on you IRD and the ministers

    Comment by Disappointed NCP — Fri 6th August 2010 @ 9:22 pm

  23. Try living in the US where you pay child support until 21 and now some states 23 years of age. And if you lose your job, they throw you in prison, take away your passport so you can’t skip the country, take away your driver license, suspend your credit, seize your assets and property, etc… The US has become a post feminist dystopian police state in every sense of the word. It is ruled with an iron fist by a cult of mindless psychopaths. In the US, trafficking of children is normal – more than 50% of all children in the US have been trafficked and one-third of all adult men sold into slavery. Child support is the reason our economy has collapsed. It is the reason approximately one-sixth of adult men are engaged in some kind of criminal activity during the past forty years – to pay. It is the reason another one-sixth are either in prison or destitute or both during the past forty years. Suicide rate among men exceeds that of women by a multiple of four (4). Blah blah blah. Read my other posts. But the bottom like is NZ can and likely will get a lot worse. There are not limits to what a psychopath will do to get what it wants – the problem is that some people want more than anyone else and they don’t care how they get it. Soon, NZ will start suspending passports, driver licenses, and creidt. It will start putting men in prison – lots of them. It’s happened in the US and now starting in other countries. The pathology is all the same. It will take the same course. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 6th August 2010 @ 11:26 pm

  24. The context within which all this is happening cannot be ignored. The US economy is collapsing completely and utterly. Soon, there will likely be nothing left. More than twenty years ago, I predicted the attack on the Trade Towers in NYC, the mortgage crisis, and severe financial and economic decline we are currently experiencing. No one believed me then, basically calling me crazy. But I was right then, and I’m right now when I predict the following:

    (1) Within the next three years, the entire economy of the US will bottom out. That means there will be no economy and there will no be recovery as the damage will be irreversible and permanent.

    (2) Within the next five years, widespread civil unrest will portend complete unraveling of the fabric of social cohesion.

    (3) Within the next ten years, the single most bloody and violent civil war in the history of the war will consume the US, killing several million directly in the first couple years, and then over the next ten years an additional ten to twenty-million.

    (4) Within the next fifteen years, an addition one-hundred-million will die from starvation, violence, attrition, epidemic disease outbreaks, etc…

    Get the picture. I do not make these prediction lightly. They are based upon a comprehensive analysis of many volumes of data gathered in compliance with the Scientific Method. I have never been wrong in my predictions about such things. For instance, I predicted that terrorists would destroy the Trade Towers in NYC using air planes. The only way reality deviated from my predictions is that I predicted nuclear weapons would be on the airplanes. Twenty-two years ago I predicted the mortgage crisis based upon nothing but common sense inspired by my grandmother. How can anyone purchase such large homes that they can’t care for and don’t have the income to support or pay for? They can’t, and the consequences are obvious. Don’t buy what you can’t pay for. Don’t buy what you don’t need. Certainly, don’t go into debt for what you don’t need. That includes child support. When so many men are paying excessive child support that doesn’t help the children because its more than what children need for support, and the mothers are using the support for their own excesses and addictions and the men are denied the opportunity to make responsible decisions about how to invest responsibly the money they earned, what do you think is going to happen to the economy. Many of the best and most respected economists and historians have made similar predictions to mine. Mine are probably the worst, but others aren’t far behind me. Look at people like Gerald Celente of Trends Research. The future of the developed world as a result of its crimes and excesses is bleak. Child support is a very important contribution to this development.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 7th August 2010 @ 1:53 am

  25. women need to learn to take responsibility..once they sleep with a guy and get preggars its not all about them anymore…but ‘its always the mans fault’…the system punishes the man and rewards and takes care of the woman…how dare that brute act like a human and get you preggy…women in the workplace and having power jobs and females sucky attitudes towards men show through in how the system is treating men

    Comment by Ford — Sat 7th August 2010 @ 11:48 am

  26. Ford, not all woman are irresponsible…some like me take on men with ex wives and children and try their hardest to make things work. I did my utmost to include my husbands ex in the lives of her children while they were with us. I looked after her children when SHE had to work, I even cared for her son to her new husband and had him for sleepovers. The list goes on, but it just comes down to people and their natures. As much as I hate the fact the ex wife is TAKING the money from us, I am angrier at a govt which can allow someone to take advantage of an unfair system. We are meant to be a high income family. Our one income family pays for our family of four plus $400.00 per week to the other family. Once we pay the high tax rate, child support on our gross wage, and we have lost our tax credits, our family is no better off than a low income family, and we are struggling and now have to sell our home. So personally I think it is the govt which is accountable.

    Comment by kathleen — Sun 8th August 2010 @ 10:50 am

  27. Yes, the goverment is accountable and have Dunne Nothing.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Sun 8th August 2010 @ 10:59 am

  28. Ford I forgot to mention, I also sent a letter to my local MP which was sent to Peter Dunn. His reply was, my husband was paying no more than others on the same pay scale and that the formula was fair in most circumstances. I am drafting a reply refuting that claim of course! Ridiculous to think that everbodys ecconomic circumstances are the same and crazy the paying family has to grovel at an admin review (if you can get one or are prepared for further emotional turmoil) to have payments reduced! Makes me very very angry that my two little daughter are now disadvantaged so that the custodial family can live the high life!

    Comment by kathleen — Sun 8th August 2010 @ 11:16 am

  29. Darryl X: Prediction of the future is a difficult business. If a large number of predictions is made then the few “hits”, approximate hits, vaguely relevant aspects and metaphorical similarities that might be achieved can be emphasized while the incorrect predictions are ignored. This is the basis of the psychic industry. However, your predictions are well-based, and many men are concerned about such developments our current social policies are moving headlong towards.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 8th August 2010 @ 12:39 pm

  30. Reading along agreeing with you Kathleen, until
    As much as I hate the fact the ex wife is TAKING the money from us, I am angrier at a govt which can allow someone to take advantage of an unfair system
    Im angry at both the govt and the ex but although, the formula, dunne nothing, and IRD are all fundamentally flawed it is the ex that is gleefully taking this money with no concern on how hard it is to earn it in the first place.
    Surely it is the ex that should be held accountable. What is she doing that entitles her to child tax. Just because its there doesnt mean that it has to be exploited. Is she not able to support the children on her own and if not should she then have to consider the option of relinquishing custody to your Husband as he seems to be able to properly care for the child?
    I dont know how to do it without shaming the children who I love and want to protect but I would love to name and shame my ex with all her outrageous demands and the way she uses child tax to fund her and whom ever she is currently having sex withs lifestyle.
    They say its for the children, bollocks I say.

    Comment by mits — Sun 8th August 2010 @ 12:53 pm

  31. At least no one is going to jail yet. But give it time if no one does anything. Psychopaths are negative pressure breathers and have to be actively stopped or esle they will do something evil. It’s not like they are good people and do good all the time except sometimes when they make a mistake and do something bad. They are always evil and if they are not discouraged constantly from doing evil, they will. You must stop them. A letter will not work. Think something a little more persuasive and imposing.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 8th August 2010 @ 3:16 pm

  32. I always laugh when someone says, “I wrote a letter”. How quaint. These people don’t care. They are trafficking your children and systematically destroying your lives. They don’t care about you or the children. They just want to use you and children to get what they want. A letter verifies their success. It makes them happy. Are you nuts? Maybe if you shoved the letter up their wang.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 8th August 2010 @ 3:23 pm

  33. when/if i ever meet a responsible 1 ill let you know

    Comment by Ford — Sun 8th August 2010 @ 9:03 pm

  34. Yes Mits, IRD said “we should have a private agreement” as it would make is so much easier and fairer for everyone. Just another govt flaw assuming custodial families are playing fair. The ex will never cut a fair deal after she has said she was “going to get us”. Ridiculous.

    Comment by kathleen — Mon 9th August 2010 @ 12:35 pm

  35. I know what you mean there Kathleen. Entitlement princesses with a huge case of the gimme’s are never going to go for a private agreement that could possibly reduce the amount they receive. Shows what callous unfeeling witches they are. Govt even suggest that they might reduce anything to a DPB biarch and listen to the banshee howls of protest.
    I manage a wry smile when IRD agree with me that Im paying to much and should go for a private arrangement but their hands are tied and Dunne nothing continues to do nothing but will spend a few more years “looking into it, as its very important” Ive given up on that ludicris tosser. By the time he ever achieves anything on child tax it will either be when my children have children or possibly grandchildren. And then the idiot will probably raise the formula citing how its all “for the children”
    I blame the custodial parents. They seem to want to divorce the hubby while staying firmly married to his wallet.
    There should be a special type of children at school enviously looked upon by all the other children as one of those blessed kids who has two families financially supporting them, wants for nothing, trips clothes treats ponies etc etc etc has it all and the best of everything.
    So why is it that the kids of child tax recipients usually have less and mummy’s off to forfill herself as a person with “her money” that arrives each month
    Still look on the bright side all things being equal over the next 7 years Im going to get a $10 000 a year payrise while the money grubbin ex takes a 10K pay cut.
    You have to look for something to make you smile

    Comment by mits — Mon 9th August 2010 @ 2:02 pm

  36. I do not agree.
    The onus is on the government to set up a fair system.
    The ex is just using a bad system to her advantage. There is no guarantee about a person being good or bad. But there should be a guarantee that a government system is fair. Men also would use a bad system if it is advantageous to them. That is the mafiosi system that needs to be fixed

    Comment by tren — Mon 9th August 2010 @ 5:05 pm

  37. Where’s that IRD person that used to “comment” in such a rediculous manner when we need them! haha. Our CS shambles is now affecting us borrowing against our mortgage so we can buy a new car. Unfortunately they are taking into account the fact my husband pays $900 a month (cos its an expense) but not taking into account that Í’m actually owed $40,000 from a dead beat ex! Gee I wonder what else its going to affect! I’m gutted! Can’t even get a new (but used) car! (Hey to transport the children when we have them every second weekend!). So where to from here I ask myself!

    Comment by Debbie — Mon 9th August 2010 @ 6:55 pm

  38. There we go again Deb
    Í’m actually owed $40,000 from a
    Its not you thats owed unless the ex was your mums ex ie your Dad.
    Surely its your childrens money and you and the new man shouldnt be using the children to fund yourself into a new car anyway.

    Comment by mits — Wed 11th August 2010 @ 7:49 am

  39. A new x’s mother use to nag and go on at me about getting a new car…”you cant have my grandchildren getting around in that pile of junk” she would say…so i got another 2 cars actually and the relationship fell to bits and she kept the car i bought…now that i have the kids and havnt had a vehicle for 3 yrs..wheres my bloody car…because of my living arrangements i barely get more than $900 a mth on the dpb…stop whinging lady and start walking…get a pushbike

    Comment by Ford — Wed 11th August 2010 @ 11:14 am

  40. p.s
    Talk about deadbeat x’s

    Comment by Ford — Wed 11th August 2010 @ 11:32 am

  41. Yes mits & Ford,
    You spotted the entitlement attitude really well there.
    I had no car for many years.
    I had a fitness bike to get around on and a great strong lean body as a result.

    Comment by Skeptik — Wed 11th August 2010 @ 11:54 am

  42. Wow there’s a favourable article in the Herald this morning!

    Quote –
    “A top Government adviser says child support payments should be paid directly to sole-parent beneficiaries, not kept by Inland Revenue to offset the costs of the benefits.

    Carl Davidson, who was named the new head of the Families Commission in July, said the move would encourage more absent parents to pay, and reduce child poverty in sole-parent families.”

    I was staggered to learn that the IRD has said that implementing this idea would “cost” them $185 million – crikey that’s a LOT of stolen money which they have absolutely no right to in the first place. It also goes to show that they don’t give a rats about the rights or wrongs or the social consequences – they only think in terms of pay up or we’ll smash you.

    This Carl Davidson deserves our support. If he reads these forums I’d ask him to go a step further – take the power to collect child support away from IRD except in extreme cases.
    Any ideas on this?

    Comment by GH — Mon 27th September 2010 @ 9:27 am

  43. It interesting to look at the numbers that are in this article. According to this article there are 137,821 custodial parents in New Zealand, and out of this 77,200 are on the DPB.

    This means that approximately 56% of custodial parents are on the DPB.

    Since 90% of the time the woman gets custody, this accounts for 69,480 women and of course a much smaller number of men that receive the DPB.

    Of course the truly disturbing part of the numbers given is the amount of child support stolen by the government.

    If the government was paid $365 million a year in child support in 2008 and pocketed $185 million then this again means that approximately 50% of ALL child support in fact goes to the government. So much for child support being about payments for children’s’ upbringing.

    It’s important to remember that the government has NONE of its own money. All the money that the government has control over belongs to the taxpayer.

    Child support is simply a cleverly hidden tax grab by the government. There is no question that the government could easily afford to distribute this money to the parents concerned, or to simply not fleece non-custodial parents in the first place. This country has a GDP of around $130 BILLION American dollars, while $185 million NZ dollars may sound like alot, it is a mere drop in the bucket as far as the government is concerned.

    Comment by Phoenix — Mon 27th September 2010 @ 12:12 pm

  44. The IRD also has its blinkers on – as always – on the issue of unintended consequences. I personally have reduced my working hours and therefore tax paid as I can’t see any point in working hard for the government, and it allows me to spend more time with my kids. Not that I get any credit for it.
    Can the IRD (yes, we know you’re watching!) supply some figures on the amount of tax LOST by taxpayers choosing not to play the game – either by reducing hours, changing jobs, leaving the country, going on a benefit, or simply not paying? I doubt they have these numbers but I bet it goes a long way towards negating the $185 million that they think they will “lose” by being pig headed.

    Comment by GH — Mon 27th September 2010 @ 1:31 pm

  45. Yes Carl Davidson does deserve our support.

    He is trying to apply some new thinking to the problem faced and proposes a solution that will likely work. Its refreshing to see this from the Families Comission.

    IRD is trying to solve the problem with the same type of thinking that created it.

    I have taken quite a bit of time digestibng the discussion paper, work committments prevent me from posting a response to the document for a while yet.

    My major concern remains that the discussion paper is trying to solve the problems with child tax by applying a taxation model that cant work to it.

    Please give Carl Davidson support, we need voices like this.

    Next big change that would help-caculate on after tax income not grosss.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 27th September 2010 @ 8:09 pm

  46. I agree with you about the IRD trying to apply a taxation solution.
    Anyone who has filled in the online survey (link on the homepage of this site – do it now if you haven’t already) will have noticed that it’s all about thresholds, ratios and formulas and nothing about the reason behind anything. The range of options is also limited in a way that may appear biased.
    This in my opinion is the way their collective mind works and any real change must come from outside pressure, preferrably not from the women’s lobbies.
    Having said that some of the formula changes suggested in the survey would be beneficial – for example getting credit for having the kids less than 40% of the time and taking the custodial parent’s family income into account when calculating. I remain deeply suspicious that some of these suggestions will also be twisted around and the old “well we reviewed it, that’s it for another 15 years” mindset will come into play.

    Comment by GH — Tue 28th September 2010 @ 8:36 am

  47. Funny how eveyone calls the ‘Broken Family Court’ the family court…..

    Comment by john — Thu 30th September 2010 @ 5:44 pm

  48. out of my take home pay 3600/month i pay 1000.on top of that as i tried second time round i have a little guy i love dearly so part with 100 bucks on average on top of what ird problem is they just re assess you and lets chuck another 10k of penaltie at him to really stick it to the penalties just keep mounting up and they know you can,t pay them.what choices do i have left in my puny life?

    Comment by roy — Sat 2nd October 2010 @ 11:38 am

  49. Kathleen,
    I’m on your side here. Most of us are.
    You need to attack this from another side here…i.e, you need to appeal to your MP on the basis that the children are suffering, not you.
    You are right in what in you have said so far, especially about your comments about the Income Based unfair system.
    I’m not that well off myself, aged 56 now with a 13 year old son who lives with me most of the time, but yeah, I wonder why I pay my ex $222 a week when she works, lives with a high income partner, and refuses to buy my (our) son the expensive stuff like a new bike and phone and all the gear the teens need these days to keep up with the Joneses.
    I live in a run down house and yet i am a high income earner at $80k. But by the time i pay all the bills including child support, I haven’t got much left over.
    Its not fair, but you are not alone.
    I have sympmathy for you and I am trying my best for change, so take heart from that please, and keep on fighting the inept system.

    Good on you for posting. And keep doing it. And stay in touch here please!!!

    Comment by Morris — Mon 11th October 2010 @ 6:20 pm




    Hey, I just want to say to you guys out there, it’s hard, damn hard, but not impossible.And wait for a bit…

    Comment by Morris — Mon 11th October 2010 @ 7:20 pm

  51. Hi there, We are presently enduring the same turmoil as you speak of.
    My husband is on a good wage & supports 8 people.He has 2ex’ so 2kids to pay for..but one ex has decided a private arrangement after 15yrs isnt good enough, She has a husband,but oh no, she knows mine earns more than them so is sucking us dry thru IRD! My peev is that we have had No luck in admin review thru IRD to show hardship that will happen to us if we continue to pay the new amount of $300wk- Just for one child. There are a total of 6kids in our family, And we dont get any assistance other than my husbands wage. IRD told us to reduce our housing/food/clothing costs etc & to re organise our finances. They also told us it is normal for families to struggle! This is Disgusting. Now we have to decrease our living & the kids in our house go without, while the other half sibling gets to live the high life, & travel overseas every month or so. Pure Greed!
    I am fighting this on hubby’s behalf as he is soo stressed, now sky high blood pressure & health issues caused from stress.
    My ex pays support for our 3kids together, & that amount helps contribute to thier upbringing… but the amount he pays a month for ‘all 3’ is LESS than what we have to pay each week for just 1 kid grrrrr my blood boils at the unfairness of it all.
    The stress that is in our household is huge, & Im not gonna let it go, even tho I think we will probably get turned down again.

    Comment by Shay — Tue 19th October 2010 @ 12:45 pm

  52. I wrote a post on child support and it’s affects on separated parents (you have to look under the join now part on the link) I was also pleased with what Family First wrote about it.

    Because it’s finally on the political table for change (National’s office says so also) it’s an opportunity for people to get together and do something so it isn’t left to interest groups who care for the well-being of the receiver only. *This may be your one and only chance to change your circumstances legally*

    I think it’s important leaders here step up and put forward a plan so I’ll nag some, lol and hopefully very shortly we’ll have a direction for a collective group of fathers and their supporters.


    In the meantime, if you visit here and would like to help (yourself), please contact me so you are kept in the loop: [email protected]

    Comment by julie — Wed 20th October 2010 @ 10:03 am

  53. yeah shame on ird, maybe if all fathers quit there jobs they would then complain as there would be no child support or tax for them

    Comment by k — Wed 1st December 2010 @ 3:36 pm

  54. as i women i agree, first they say its our body our choice, if say the women wanted to abort the child and the father says no thats the first thing that they say her body her choice, well maybe she should support that choice herself them

    Comment by k — Wed 1st December 2010 @ 3:39 pm

  55. same as a stepmother the only time we here from my 12 year old step daughter is to ask for money if we say no my husband gets called a bad dad and that she doesnt want to see him again then a month later another txt asking for money

    Comment by k — Wed 1st December 2010 @ 3:41 pm

  56. Hi shay and k
    After trying to explain to the IRD why we could not pay our last bill, (and to cut a long story short the sale of our house did not happen due to chc earthquake which then put further financial stress on us leaving no option but but to move in with family and rent our house), he was told that they were not a budgeting service. He has studied and worked hard spending time away from his present family for the so called high income he is on. This high income is all we have for our family of four. We do not live the high life and certainly didn’t when we had 50/50 shared care. We certainly didn’t have the money then to give 2 children out of 4 their own $360.00 per week. Child support was unexpected after many years of good shared care parenting. It was pure greed that started it and basically payback. I cant understand how the IRD just expect a family to find that sort of money out of the blue. It is negligence towards second families, making them and their children second rate. No wonder second families fail quicker! We too watch as the other family take trips to club med while we have eaten our savings just to survive. Also Shay I watch my husband get sick from worry and stress too…

    Comment by Kathleen — Mon 20th December 2010 @ 6:33 pm

  57. ooh I forgot to mention after not paying last months bill and trying to explain the very valid reason to the IRD – we then got hit with a 10% penalty…made by husband ill.

    Comment by Kathleen — Mon 20th December 2010 @ 7:00 pm

  58. What’s equally incredible in this situation with abortion is that it is “My body. My choice.” But, as soon as a woman is pregnant her body becomes the life support system for another human life, in essence her body is not just hers anymore.

    This completely innocent and helpless life has NO say whatsoever in whether it is given the chance to be born or not, the mother can murder it with total impunity under the “My body, my choice” ethic.

    You could equally well use the “My body, my choice” and apply it to the child growing within her, how come that child has no say on whether it lives or dies.

    Abortion is murder, plain and simple, and every woman who does this to her child should have the pieces of the dismembered foetus that was within her handed to her so she can see exactly what she has done to her own baby.

    Comment by Phoenix — Mon 20th December 2010 @ 7:13 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