Towards a child focused support system.
In New Zealand we do not have Child Support. We have a child tax. This tax has absolutely nothing to do with supporting a child.
In my view the entire premise of child support is flawed anyway.
Inside a marriage, the government does not define how much one of the parents must pay to care for the child. In New Zealand, after separation, in every instance the government defines a liability for one parent. Suddenly one of the parents has no right and no say on how much of his income should be spent on the child and what it should be spent on. In other words, in New Zealand when a mother separates from her partner, this man has a forced separation from his child. He automatically looses all rights and control over the finical support for that child.
This is not rational. It is also not child focused.
It is not rational to remove the father’s rights and control over his contribution to the financial care for the child. He cared for the child and spent some of his income on the child when he was married. It is not rational to assume that every father would suddenly abandon this aspect of fathering simply because the parents separated. In fact this flies in the face of available evidence. The vast majority of fathers willingly support their child after separation. Studies have further shown that the more a father is involved with the day to day care of the child after separation then the more willing they are to provide financial support for the child.
There is simply no basis in fact to assume all separated fathers are bad, uncaring, ineffective and uninvolved parents. Yet this is the assumption behind child support.
It is also not child focused. 75% of separations are initiated by wives. So most likely it was not the father’s choice to separate from her. Yet what occurs is a forced separation between the child and father. The financial fathering of the child is instantly removed. This is a double blow to the child. Not only is the child denied the day to day contact but the financial aspect of fathering is also denied the child. Allow me to explain.
Parenting is less about resources and more about interaction. Transferring money from the father’s bank account to somewhere else does not mean the child has any awareness that the father’s efforts are providing the child with a benefit. Quite the reverse, it hides this key aspect of financial parenting. When a child directly experiences various day to day consequences of the father’s financial efforts and decisions then the child is influenced. The child may react in various ways thus providing feedback to the father about the influences his financial decisions have. We can describe this as a parenting dynamic. I am coining the term financial parenting to describe this dynamic.
No rational person can support the concept that removing this dynamic is a positive thing for a child. The only way this can be supported is in the situation where the father has absolutely no concern about how his financial decisions affect the child. An extremely rare occurrence when the child is allowed to provide day to day feedback the father. Yet child support removes this parenting dynamic this for every child of separated parents.
In the USA an assumption is made that most parents are good parents. Children are better off is the government does not intrude. This is overwhelmingly confirmed in the research. If one parent does not accept a voluntary arrangement, that is the time when the courts can step in. The Court then considers all the circumstances and makes a ruling. Unfortunately these orders in the USA have been used to create grievous human rights violations in the USA. However that is another issue. There are other problems with the rulings made in those courts but the assumptions behind the system are sound and child focused. That is more than can be said about universal compulsory child support systems.
Unfortunately in NZ the powers that be as well as much of society are not rational when it comes to this subject. Furthermore the NZ family courts have such a low degree of public confidence that few people would expect that court to make child focused and fair decisions. Some middle ground that excluded the NZ family courts would have to be found. Unfortunately the political will for this is not evident. We are unlikely to see any move to assume, encourage or incentivise voluntary arrangements any time soon in NZ. The most that will occur is some meaningless lip service in this regard.
In any case NZ has such a deeply flawed system it seems a step too far to strive for an ideal child focused system. The fundamental flaw about the NZ system is the simple fact that it is not a child support system at all. It is a child tax.
More about the NZ system soon.
help me in a way to change the system of fathers rights and fairness in child support
Comment by Lee Garrett — Mon 6th June 2011 @ 9:13 pm
Join the club Lee
What do you propose to do?
Comment by John Brett — Tue 7th June 2011 @ 9:04 am
A question. If I stopped paying child support, can NZ law send me to jail like it can in the U.S ?
I’m thinking of starting a civil disobedience campaign. Put the money somewhere safe as I do care for my children, but refuse to work through IRD. Before I do, any advice…
Comment by noconfidencewithnzfamilycourt — Sun 10th July 2011 @ 10:24 pm
In short No,
But we can instruct your employer to pay us and not you.
We can tell your bank to empty your accounts and pay us.
We send the balif around to take your car, your stereo, your Tv etc and auction them on your behalf to pay our debt.
We charge 38% interest in year one of every debt and 27% each year thereafter. In a short time the interest becomes more than the substantive debt very quickly and goes up and up and up.
We arrange for our colleagues the Police to arrest you on several occasions and take you down to Family Court and throw you in the cells till the Judge is ready for you and “assess your means” and tell you, you are naughty and you are neglecting your kids.
We do these things every day.
One chap ex of this list paid over $18,000pa for private education for his child and refused to pay any Child Support and we did all the things above even though he was contributing significantly to his child but not a cent via his ex other than that “collected” by my colleagues and I as I describe above.
Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Sun 10th July 2011 @ 10:47 pm
Anyone interested in stopping the practice of jailing men for child support arrears from spreading from the US to the rest of the world, please visit http://www.facebook.com/savetheturnips and “like” this campaign to get men out of prison for child support arrears. International support and perspective is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 11th July 2011 @ 2:26 am
So MsIRD
You admit you can do what you like to innocent Men caught up in child support lies and inunendo by their ex’s the Custodial Parent ..even though these Men pay through the nose in child support. So if suddenly these Men say enough and rebel against the injustices served on them MsIRD will see to it that these men suffer even more?? So this is NZ justice is it?
Child support was supposed to help mothers support their kids by asking the non custodial parent to contribute a part of their income NOT all of it.. Where does IRD get off charging extra like late payments and adding interest on top of that costing the non custodial parent even more financial pain on a day to day basis.
The children don’t get the extra in penaltys or interest they still only get the basic income required. Oh wait thats right you get off doing that so that it pays your wage and that of your boss the Govt. So its not about the Children in the end its about what the Govt coffers can get out of it meantime you MsIRD destroy what fragments there are Left between Non custodial Parent and Child relationship’s.
You are Truely EVIL MsIRD to dictate what laws you invent and will enforce to get what you want you have no conscience no morals You are heartless in the extreme, No wonder good men turn evil in response because you drive them to it.
Comment by MsSomeone — Mon 18th July 2011 @ 6:07 pm
DearMsSomeone, it seems that you are taking this all too seriously. When people take these issues seriously, then they open themselves up to be very seriously damaged. People who can laugh at IRD child [and spousal] support, have much better life expectancy – because they choose not to give them too much power over their own life.
It does work both ways. You should have more sympathy for the IRD child [and spousal] support staff. By accepting bonuses, for buying into these values, they saddle their own lives with a degree of suicide risk, matched only by the poorest victims of familycaught, ie some fathers who have totally lost their children and some mothers who have totally lost their children, through familycaught relationship vandalism.
In the longer run, no doubt when this suicide risk is better documented, then the taxpayer will have to pay compensation to the families, of these child [and spousal] support staff, who have lost their [loved????????] ones.
They say, live by the sword and die by the sword. This seems to be particularly apt for these child [and spousal] support staff. Live by thievery and die by the guilt attached to this thievery……
So, MsSomeone, you may feel hard done by, but I believe that you still have your integrity. Value it, it will stand you in very good stead. You still have your heart. I suggest, look down in pity, on the IRD child [and spousal] support staff, who are pathetic shadows of people, if even that? These are people who will pay=reward women for having sex with underage boys and then make the boys pay child [and spousal] support, for 19 years….. About 150 boys a year, must number in the thousands by now….
To incentivise child rape – what sort of reflections of people are these?
You might feel robbed of a few coins, or robbed of a few freedoms to enjoy life, but you are still a person!
I have seen their crown law barrista in highcaught. Looked human, but when you listened to her words, as a human parent, I was revolted. Good looking clothes, but hung on a caricature of a person.
Appreciate what you have got!
Better still, please put your energy into exposing IRD and showing them a better way to live life.
Best regards, MurrayBacon axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 18th July 2011 @ 8:40 pm
MurrayBacon;
I can see what you are trying to say but have to disagree with your light hearted view of it.
just last Friday I received a letter telling me that they had received a request to review the shared custody arrangement that my ex and I have. They have decided that my ex must be right and as such I am no longer able to claim for my share of the child support. The fact that I have the children 50% of the time during school holidays plus 5 nights every 14 is obviously not enough. Yes; I’ve done the math and can’t work out how they arrived at their decision since I meet the criteria for shared care. I asked an IRD staff member to look into it as she couldn’t work it when I called on Friday and I had to leave to take my daughter to one of her activities. Of course they promised to call back but never did. So; you may think that they care and are somewhat guilty enough to have a high suicide rate. I have seen no evidence of that and as such think your remark is out of line.
It’s people like me on the front line that are being hit daily by the feminist leaning government departments and courts.
It’s a very sick country we live in. The question is really just how much longer I expect to stay here, before I am added to the list of ‘deadbeat dads’ who have left because of the ridiculous situation that is occurring here.
Comment by noconfidencewithnzfamilycourt — Tue 19th July 2011 @ 12:02 am
Dear Chap,
We wonder at your maths.
5 nights care for 26 fortnights equals 130 nights in your care
plus half the holidays at 7/14 provides 2 more nights times 6 weeks = 12 nights.
The Govt provided calculator on the desk shows 130 + 12 = 142 which is not the 146 nights required by s 13(1) of the Act.
We don’t make the rules we just apply them.
Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Tue 19th July 2011 @ 11:58 am
Dear noconfidencewithnzfamilycaught,
I do apologise, if you feel that I am being lighthearted about IRD child [and spousal] support. I have paid $960 per month, to take care of my own children, while my supportive ex-wife holidayed through UK and Germany. (That was 20 years ago, so perhaps equal of a few more dollars today…) The excess money that they took, certainly did restrict what i could do with my own children and I still resent it, a bit. But, it has also given me some strength and resolve.
I take suicide issues fairly seriously. Maybe I am out of the gun, but it is not so long that I have forgotten.
I do have confidence in NZ familycaught, I know that they are thieves and manipulators at almost every opportunity. I have seen them in action often enough, to be able to see what their paramount interests are. They say “the Lord helps them, who helps themselves!”. I have seen them helping themselves to family assets far too many times.
Anyway, I cannot offer you support through chat on a website. Why not look me up in Auckland telephone book and give me a call? This would allow a more sensitive conversation and better relationship building.
Best regards, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 19th July 2011 @ 9:29 pm
Mrs IRD,
You are so much like your co-workers, you select what rules to apply.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 21st July 2011 @ 2:51 pm
Hi Scrappy,
Long time since we crossed swords.
Absolutely we select the rules we apply. It is all according to the internal handbook by our CIR Robert Russell et al.
You don’t think we would actually allow those plonkers from parliament to actually have the last say in how we apply legislation (Hell our own Minister is a planker). That would just be too easy and mere plebs might think they could understand the minutia of application. There must always be some mysteries which are kept for TIA’s and other godly beings to interpret.
Scrappy according to department policy we are all Ms and we are not allowed to reveal our marital status such as Mrs or Miss.
Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Thu 21st July 2011 @ 4:59 pm
Mrs IRD
I thought your minister was a plonker as well as a planker and quite probably a wanker also.
Beware the revolution Mrs – we all know that IRD employs single mothers by choice.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 22nd July 2011 @ 3:46 pm
ms ird officer and the systems standover tactics…hope you rot in hell
Comment by Ford — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 9:57 am