Administrative Review?
I have recently been made unemployed and have since found out that I owe 12,000$ in Child support from the periods ending 2004 & 2005, I thought this was strange because I become bankrupt in 2004.
After some investigation into this I found it was estimated on my 2003 income @ the maximum allowed – I did not earn that much during 2004 – 2005
After discussing this with the person in charge of my account, they have told me that I will have to apply for an administrative review.
Although after reading through a lot of this site it has become apparent that this isn’t necessary a good idea.
Although all the other cases seem to be about actions brought against men?
If someone could please perhaps point in the right direction or give some tiddbits of advice I would be forever grateful
Mattgnz
Commiserations on your problem. You have a battle ahead it appears!
Your story leaves many questions unanswered such as why you have only just found out that you have a large and long aged deb, whether your aim is to reduce that debt or to reduce your future liability etc etc etc.
Given that to be the case it will be hard for anyone to give you definitive advice on the best way to proceed.
That said all I can alert you to is the fact that while I have never fronted an admin review with IRD I have know many fathers who have gone through the process. While one or two have received a reasonable result the majority have not but all have said the same thing. “Avoid an admin review at all costs if you can”. The process is inquisitorial, aggressive and in other ways extremely unpleasant; after all that pain one emerges drained and with little chance that its result will be favourable. There is also a strong chance that you could come out much worse off than when you went in! The lawyers who undertake the reviews are inconsistent and universally anti men/fathers, their decisions vary enormously with some accepting certain facts or spending as legitimate to offset against child support liability with others refusing those same facts/expenditure for others.
Before going down that road of last resort I suggest you look at the possibility of whether you can apply to estimate your future income if, as seems to be the case, it is expected to be in excess of 15% less than you previously earned then current liability should be based on the new estimated figure and therefore significantly reduced. You can get the form and other advice on the estimating process from the IRDs website. Its relatively straightforward.
As I understand it, bankruptcy does not discharge a debt to IRD and I think that applies to Child Support payments in particular (particularly if an ex is on a benefit).
Does your debt include penalties and interest? Should the principal debt have been paid? If the answer to the latter is yes you could always try negotiating with IRD to remit part or all of those penalties on the basis that you will agree a payment plan to get shot of arrears.
IRD took a friend of mine to court over a $48,0000 dollar ‘debt’ ($28,000 in penalties and interest) and started bankruptcy proceedings against him. We gave them a run for their money and gradually wore them down. They remitted the penalties and interest and he is now paying off the arrears in regular instalments and they stopped bankruptcy proceedings. So it can be done.
I hope this goes a little way to helping you. . GOOD LUCK! You need it.
Comment by Kelvin Dunn — Fri 11th May 2012 @ 7:05 pm
Contact Allan Harvey of the UOF for guidance.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Srap_The_CSA — Fri 11th May 2012 @ 7:21 pm
http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8465864/man-found-burning-in-hastings-toilet-dies
WHY.
Comment by Down Under — Fri 11th May 2012 @ 8:15 pm
Thanks for the replies, and I have just emailed Allan
I had someone else dealing with my affairs and just was not passed on this information at all – as far as I can see my child support after that time was assessed at my actually income and I have paid accordingly since.
ideally I would like to have it reduced and recalculated.
Comment by mattgnz — Fri 11th May 2012 @ 8:36 pm
IRD Admin Review Officers get paid a fixed lump sum for each review they do – the fee does not vary at all (even if complex) and surprisingly it is quite small- about $300. This means the less time they spend on it the more money they make. IRD is under huge pressure to make Child Support ‘economic’ and keep administration costs down to a minimum.
IRD will pressure you to provide as much information in advance before the hearing which they share with the other party. Keep your powder dry. IRD wants you to provide as much information beforehand as possible so the Admin Review officer can make a decision on the papers and spend as little time at the hearing as possible. They set a time limit of 40 minutes for each hearing, but won’t admit this. The Admin Review officer will try to rush you through the hearing as quickly as possible. You will in fact find the decision has already in reality been made before you appear and the hearing pays lip service to the law.
Section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides:
“Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.”
This right includes the fundamental right to be heard.
Section 96I92) of the Child Support Act 1991 provides that:
“The Commissioner shall give an opportunity to the applicant and the other party to the application to appear before the Commissioner, and be heard by him or her, if they so wish.”
Through bitter experience relayed to us by many men, we advocate simply responding to any Admin Review with a request to be heard. Say and provide nothing else until the hearing.
IRD by law then has to hear you – if you provide information beforehand then they do not have to actually hear you in person – believe it or not you’ve already been heard as far as the law is concerned. Ignore their bleats to provide information beforehand. They will try and bully you into this by saying you have a set time frame to supply it in advance. But insist on a proper hearing.
If you ask to be heard and they refuse to accommodate you then you can have any decision they make overthrown by applying to the High Court for judicial review on the grows of procedural impropriety. The High Court jealously guards fundamental rights such as the right to be heard. If however you fall into the trap and provide information beforehand, the law considers that right to have been observed.
Liable parents in this country could begin a quite revolution of Civil Disobedience against Child Support by following this practice. It would force the Review Officers to spend more time on the reviews; it would drastically reduce the income they earn and place pressure on IRD to pay them more. This in turn would put pressure on IRD’s administration costs for Child Support.
Take your time during an Admin Review. Talk slowly. Ask to go to the toilet. Slow it down and take your time. Even if you get screwed, you will have the satisfaction of knowing the hack lawyer conducting the hearing will get bugger all pay for doing it and will hopefully try to find better paying work.
Doug B for GerryMen Fathers’ Action
Comment by GerryMen — Fri 11th May 2012 @ 8:47 pm
There was a list of Admin Review people to avoid on Menz a while ago. From memory they were …
Stewart Benson
Christine Edwards
Miriam Long
Mark Millar
Comment by golfa — Sat 12th May 2012 @ 2:49 pm
The adminstrative review process is a complete SHAM – dont waste your time with it, I was told by a friendly IRD person, that once a decision is made – they are rarely overturned by another review person – so that makes a complete mockery of offering future reviews. Sadly you are entering another phase of this oppressive system – if you want to try and change the first biased, discriminatory decision you will have to PAY, and go to the high court, waste more of your time and effort in the hope you can convince another lawyer to help you. I am in a similar situation, I was assessed to pay maximums,even when I no longer earn the salary I once had, on top of that they are demanding I pay private school fees as well – totally rediculous when I dont have that income any longer – your filed accounts mean nothing to these rapists – they dont even consider them, what they will consider though is if you have assets – they will demand maximums knowing you dont earn that, and force you to sell anything you have left to pay the maximum – more discrimination, so the system is not based on INCOME, if the IRD see you have anything left after divorce, they want some of that as well, to pay more to the maggot who wont let you see your kids – yes what a great system.
Comment by hornet — Tue 15th May 2012 @ 9:22 pm
Sadly hornet has got it in one and these are some of the Nazis that help do it.
Stewart Benson – Auckland
Christine Edwards – Manukau
Miriam Long – Wellington
Mark Millar – North Shore
Demand someone else as a Review Officer other than these cretins if you have to go through with this shame. My advice is don’t bother, find another avenue.
Comment by Tony — Tue 15th May 2012 @ 11:28 pm
Reply to Tony#8 and hornet#7…
‘Sadly hornet has got it in one’…Correct… experienced it first hand…Never again
hornet your comment ‘mean nothing to these rapists’…Hmmmmm…To me its more like this ….’means nothing to these Gestapo Kiwi women feminist control government departments, staffed with Man/Father hating Kiwi Gestapo women feminists that take the greatest pleasure of been ‘asset’ and ‘financial’ rapists to the Kiwi women Gestapo feminists cause’
Kind regards… John Dutchie …Free at long last
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 16th May 2012 @ 11:09 am
Just been informed by my IRd that ex is applying for admin review. I earn 100k she earns about same plus property income (trust) of about 15k plus child support from me of $125 per child. I agreed in mediation that i was not opposed to children attending catholic school but preferred state option. she is now seeking school fees and stating her allowance is grossly unfair given my income. Her house is work about 800k and i live in defacto relationship with new partner.
My argument at hearing will be
1. I have nothing
2.She does not need to live in such an expensive house
3. I pay for many activities any way.
Thoughts?
Comment by Alistair — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 11:41 am
#10 Alistair, they will assess you at any amount they see fit and they will send you documentation justifying their “decision”. You can only appeal their decision by taking it to the Family Court. Take a voice recorder with you so you can record the meeting at the IRD. Place it on the table. If the assessment person objects, tell them to find someone who doesn’t object. If they refuse, tell them to notify you when they find someone who is willing to have the meeting recorded,take your paperwork and leave. If any of the following people are doing your assessment, object to them. Miriam Long, Mark Millar, Christine Edwards, Stewart Benson.
Read this …..
http://menz.org.nz/2011/choke-off-the-cream-that-child-support-admin-review-officers-earn-from-the-taxpayer/
Comment by golfa — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 12:00 pm
Thanks Golfa.
The past 5 years have been a nightmare. Filed applications for none removal of the kids to Australia (mediated our way out of that), filed for a protection order against her (denied because i had not been murdered at that stage) and sought joint custody.
In mediation i conceeded for a number of points for the sake of doing a deal.
You oscillate between anger, rage and then back to a sense of defeat. I will fight this as i have no option but it really does tire you out.
Little comfort to know there are hundreds if not thousands of us out there
Comment by Alistair — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 2:05 pm
#10..you’re screwed
Comment by Ford — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 2:08 pm
Reply to Alistair#12
‘Little comfort to know there are hundreds if not thousands of us out there’…If you think about it long and hard Alistair…Its ‘Millions’ of decent,caring and loving Fathers in that gut retching situation that you have described in your post, in the western European ‘feminist equality’ society
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie “¦Free at long last
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 2:57 pm
Reply to Ford #13
Correct, if you stay in the feminist cesspit called N.Z
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie “¦Free at long last
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 22nd June 2012 @ 3:17 pm
Well,
Had my administrative review yesterday.
What a joke. Review officer had not read my submissions. After eleven minuts informed me she had enough to make her decision.
(I managed to spin it out to a half hour).
Presented me with My ex’s financial data at the hearing and could not explain some of the figures to me.
What an absolute Kangaroo BS process. She had clearly decided on the outcome prior to meeting me.
I advise anyone going through this process-take a support person and tape recorder.
Feeling shafted
Shafted
Comment by Shafted — Fri 13th July 2012 @ 9:04 am
Anyone had the misfortune of having Review Officer Allan Little. ?
Comment by A Mulholland — Fri 13th July 2012 @ 1:54 pm
#16,,i notice your reveiw officer was female
Comment by Ford — Fri 13th July 2012 @ 8:18 pm
Yep female. seemed to quite reasonably assume that i was worthy of punishment and treatment as a dog, given that i am male.
Wife earns more than me, etc etc.
Had not read my submissions.
Disgusting.
Happy days
Comment by Shafted — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 10:28 am
#20..females tend to add a personal side to their decisions..women sticking together an dealing out their own sense of justice even when they dont know each other
Comment by Ford — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 3:08 pm
If an admin review is a wate of time then what is the answer?
Comment by Vman — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 3:38 pm
#21. The process of administrative review is based in historical ‘administrative” law.
The Child support act contemplates special circumstances and “reasonable expectation”. unfortunately, a special circumstance now amounts to being female and wanting more, and reasonable expectation has been replaced with “wants or desires, and therefore should have.”
No wonder men tak eoff overseas or jig their income to avoid these overly onerous penalties. All we ask for is equity as opposed to subservience
Comment by Shafted — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 3:58 pm
#21
An admin review is not neccesarily a waste of time but you do need advice before you start the process to decide if it may work for you or might work against you. Too many apply and find they have shot themselves in the foot with their own application.
Get some decent advice before you apply not after.
[email protected] can normally assist.
Comment by The esteemed Order of Protection — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 4:24 pm
I don’t really know what has been going on but here is what I think has happened. The ex has asked for an Admin review. I was never actually notified but I have no interest in dealing with them even if they had. I gather they must have had the review without any information from me anyway. They seem to have decieded that last year I earnt 4 times what I actually earnt and this year I earnt about 12 times what I actually earn. They have set the payments accordingly. So obvibously the so called debt is wildly out of control. There is no chance in hell I would ever pay anything remotely like what they claim.
I have never earned 6 figures in my life. Not even close. And definately not in the last 10 years. yet somehow they have deceided I earnt over $120,000. I have no idea how they could dream that up. Why didn’t they make it $700,000? It would be no less reasonable.
I don’t have the emotional strength to fight this system. I just don’t.
I have tried in the past. It’s a black hole of dispear to even try.
Their obviously ludicrious outcomes only prove to me how pointless any communciation with them would be.
There entire system is failing under it’s own weight but they appear to me to be getting worse.
Comment by Vman — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 4:41 pm
#24. I feel for you. It grinds and grinds away at you till you have nothing left.
The uncertainty financially is unbearable and you have the benefit of the potential for an annual admin review
What a joke
Comment by Shafted — Tue 17th July 2012 @ 11:27 am
#24 the reason they didn’t make it $700,000 is that $125,000 or so is the so called maximum.
They assess you on this figure to try and flush you out of the woodwork.
It seems the ratonale is pop you, and if that does not work then poke you harder and if that does not work they either assume you are dead, immune, or gone no adress and you will pop up sometime later with other tax affairs and they will nab you then.
Comment by The esteemed Order of Protection — Tue 17th July 2012 @ 12:50 pm
Advice Required
Ive had 4 admin reviews ,the 3rd was held by one sneaky ,snoty noised little man who twisted every thing I said. As per the norm from what im reading. I wrote a letter of complant about his tactics and expressed outrage if I had this person again. My ex is hell bent on my demise and as a CYFS worker in Invercargill has the tools.All of the reviews to date have been cancealed at the last minute as my ex is friendly with the local admin review officer.You would think after 4 times they would get it right.
Each time someone new is appointed with short notice . One the last review Allan Little from Nelson was flown down again.Not telling me who was taking the hearing i became suspicious and asked in one week it was Allan Little again . Well I explained my previous concerns to deaf ears.
On the day of the hearing I told him I did not wish any part of this hearing or him and was there under protest my support person a witness. He lost his cool several times as did I.
I am now complaining to a panel of top people within the department as is my right on the grounds of procedural Impropriety . Will the Gestapo agree and allow another review is it any advantage.Can a review be awarded for 2 years as she requested ?? Any advise would be much apperciated .
Allen
Comment by Allen — Tue 17th July 2012 @ 3:35 pm
#27.
Review can only cover one period.
are yu saying that the review officer Allan is known to your ex? if so, he woudl have an obligation to excuse himself based on conflict of intrest.
But your remedy (other than the tribunal-what is that?) is appeal to the family court.
You would have to argue that the outcome was unfair for a whole lot of legal reasons. His relationship with your ex would amount to a smack inthe face with a wet bus ticket.
Comment by Shafted — Tue 17th July 2012 @ 3:49 pm
Shafted that was quick ,ok only a one year period wonder why he considered 2 years .
The Review officer Allan is not known to her. He flys to Invercargill from Nelson to deal with people
for one reason or another I guess. The person she works with ect has been assigned every time but
then at the last moment they realise a conflict of interest arises . The review situation then always changes . That part of it isnt really to important . Its a complant about Allan and the process that
allowed him to review me a secound time.
The internal hearing is for dealing with complaints laid against a review officer.Its there i will
also put the procedural impropriety to them in writing.This internal hearing takes place in Auckland.
Allen
Comment by Allen — Tue 17th July 2012 @ 5:26 pm
Hi Allen.
Good luck on the complaint issue.
Would be interested in hearing the outcome in due course. I too am complaining against a review officer.
Comment by Shafted — Mon 23rd July 2012 @ 3:09 pm
Hi there. I have just read all the comments on the page and I honestly cannot believe how the system works. I am a 28 year old male and I have 3 kids who I love with all my heart. When the ex and I decided to end it she got the kids while I got to move out and to my mothers house and all the bills and that was after losing my job as a manager. So I found a new job but it didnt matter to ird that my financial status had dropped or that the bills were for me to pay and not her. But I have applied for the review and are awaiting to have the hearing, i just want to be heard and to have my payments dropped by anything. Its so hard it just feels like they want to rip a new A HOLE in you and look back and laugh at you. But if more information was passed on to male dads it would be so much better or if actually felt like it was evenly judged and the information was used and not used to wipe their asses.
Comment by john — Sun 29th July 2012 @ 8:55 am
#31. Its tough. VEry similar to me. I lost my job at the same time as our separation. Was unemploued for first time in my life. You will get through it-we all do.
Take care
Comment by Shafted — Mon 30th July 2012 @ 9:27 am
john, if you are paying child support you don’t also pay all of the bills. Why are you still paying all of the bills?? Just stop. If your income has dropped, you fill in a form to say what your expected income is and the payments drop. How is that so difficult?
Comment by Wow — Mon 30th July 2012 @ 1:31 pm
#33 “If your income has dropped, you fill in a form to say what your expected income is and the payments drop. How is that so difficult?”
Ive filled in forms, waited on phones, spoken to operators and supervisors, and to be honest have never found it anything but difficult.
I do agree with you that if youre paying child tax then paying the bills as well amounts to double dipping. This is usually encouraged by a huge guilt trip placed upon you that its all for the good of the children and you should just pay, pay and then pay more. These same guilt trips are never to be laid on a custodial parent though as that wouldnt be fair.
What a crock!
Comment by Mits — Mon 30th July 2012 @ 1:49 pm
#34..a little like being in a relationship and payday is the most regular day you get laid
Comment by Ford — Mon 30th July 2012 @ 8:11 pm
Perhaps if you guys supported equal pay, paid maternal leave, etc these “issues” you have would disappear.
Comment by Wow — Mon 30th July 2012 @ 8:28 pm
Dear Mits, IRD don’t follow the Child Support Act on issues around dropping income. My accountant wouldn’t answer my questions in this area, but he asked me questions. I went around a loop and on the 3rd time, I realised this was the conclusion that he was leading me to. In my opinion, their deviations from legislation amount to deliberate abuse and I would guess this behaviour to be a powerful suicide driver, in about 15% or people trapped in this situation.
I have heard rumours that IRD CS operate a bonus system based on penalties. If this rumour is correct, then maybe the staff can personally benefit from tripping people into penalty situations. Whether this is the reason that they abuse people in dropping income situations, or whether they perceive this as benefiting the children, I wouldn’t care to guess. I am happy to try to understand the innocently insane, but the deliberately abusive terrorists is an area that I stay away from at present.
Dear Wow, once you give something irrevocably, you have given away all bargaining power. The familycaught$ like to renegotiate issues, but where some issues are locked down and the new issues are to be negotiated. This is a very unfair ratchet effect, when the victims can be conned into accepting it. I say, when a party unilaterally demands to renegotiate one issue, then the total package becomes open for renegotiation. Changing circumstances often lead to a need to renegotiate situations. Dropping income is a common situation in western countries and we should handle it fairly.
Lets work towards honest fair negotiation, rather than building up more and more abuse and gravestones. This doesn’t mean that I see only men’s complaints, our negotiations should be fair to all involved parties.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 8:44 am
Wow (#36):
Yeah right, that’s the kind of reasoning we have grown accustomed to! Like perhaps if we fix the car then the dishwasher will work.
But actually, a lot of us do support equal pay, maternal leave etc. Most of us support gender equality generally, but we notice that feminists don’t actually want gender equality at all. Very few feminists are prepared to be on the ‘paying parent’ side of the separated parent equation (for obvious reasons); very few even agree to equal shared care because that would mean they don’t get as much free ongoing money from government and from their ex extracted for them by the government. I have never heard a feminist object to inequality when men are on the disadvantaged side, such as vastly different sentences for the same criminal behaviour (and several gender-specific categories of crime that advantage only women such as ‘infanticide’ and ‘male assaults female’), much harsher conditions in men’s prisons than in women’s prisons, less money and attention paid to men’s health problems, a suicide rate for men over four times greater than that for women, a male workplace death rate about 100 times that for women with workplace serious injuries almost as unequal, a shorter lifespan for men, an education system that works better for girls than for boys, various benefits such as ‘unsupported women benefit’ and ‘widow’s benefit’ for which there has never been a male equivalent, greater empathy and assistance provided to women struggling in any way (such as when they fill in those official forms to which you referred earlier), numerous women’s refuges throughout the country heavily funded by government while not one single refuge for men receives government support even though it’s overwhelmingly men who are thrown out of their homes on to the street through police ‘safety orders’ and Family Court ‘protection orders’ regardless of who was the main aggressor in any domestic conflict.
I support employment equality including equal pay, but surely that should include women contributing about 50% of deaths and serious injuries doing the most dangerous, dirty, uncomfortable, body-wrecking jobs required to provide the infrastructure to our privileged lifestyle? Or is employment equality only about executive board membership, the highest salaries and privileges? That certainly seems to be the feminist view, and it amounts to seeking yet another inequality in women’s favour.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 9:46 am
http://www.ird.govt.nz/online-services/service-name/services-e/online-cs-estimate-income.html?id=righttabs
Seriously, it don’t look that complicated. You just need to be honest with them and there’s nothing to fear.
Mr Laven, your analogy makes no sense. As for women preferring to struggle on a benefit than work in their career of choice – would you? I understand that predictions are that male/female life expectancies will equal out with women sharing the stress of providing financially for families. Many more women are entering more dangerous work careers: police, army, construction (remember the hot welder in Flashdance). See Durheim’s work “Suicide” – adult male to female suicide rates vary according to the ease of obtaining a divorce. Do remember female mortality rates reached very high levels in the 1800s, sometimes climbing to 40 percent of birthgiving women. They ain’t always had it so good. As for this idea that the education system works better for girls than boys – what a crock of crapola. Anyway, none of that has anything to do with the fact that the IRD forms are all available online as noted above.
Comment by Wow — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 10:16 am
Wow you think we are living in Utopia?
I have just been assessed a further $280 per month (on top of formula assessment) due in the main to being male.
The admin review process is grossly unfair. The reviewing officer took 11 minutes to arrive at the above decision.
Why fill out the forms?
My submissions were not even read.
A joke
Comment by Shafted — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 10:28 am
So your income increased or your circumstances changed and you have to pay $70 per week more – had nothing to do with the fact that your male. That’s just paranoid thinking.
Comment by Wow — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 10:34 am
Wonder whether Wow is an IRd officer. ?
Comment by Shafted — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 10:42 am
Nope, but I can read financial accounts. It’s not rocket science. You earn X you pay Y … you expect to earn less, you notify IRD; you expect to earn more, you notify IRD. You file your income tax returns with IRD; they know what you’re earning … it’s all on the IRD site.
Comment by Wow — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 11:01 am
#43 Hahahaha, if only it was that simple. IRD can (and frequently do) assess you at ANY amount they see fit.
Comment by golfa — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 11:38 am
Hi Wow, Firstly I am a huge supporter of equal pay, and as I have stated on this site numerous times, If you can point out to me which company it is that is paying someone less, who has the same experience, qualifications, ability, work ethic etc simply on the grounds of their gender I will happily join you on a protest outside their building
I see no need for maternal leave, if the gummint will allow parental leave as I cant understand why you would want said parental leave restricted to only one parent?
I have had my pay office, an accountant and even minions from IRD try and fail to explain the fluctuations on child tax, penalties added sometimes remitted other times not. Ive had IRD admit that the reason they stopped sending out statements for child tax was that people couldnt understand them and would ring to clarify and IRD couldnt understand them or clarify them either. So the best remedy they could come up with was to stop sending out the troublesome statements.
I wish it was simple as you say tell them your income and they act accordingly but I would suggest that while it appears to work for you other evidence from talking to paying parents would suggest this is not the case. Of course I am assuming that you actually pay child tax and are not a recipient of it. My apologies if this is incorrect.
But thanks for the heads up on the form I need to fill in as according to you all my problems with child tax should now dissapear as if by magic
thankyou
Mits
Comment by Mits — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 12:15 pm
golfa – no they don’t – it’s based on your income. How can they prove your income is more than it is?
You’re welcome, Mits. I’m sure you’ll let everyone know easy it is when you file the appropriate paperwork.
Comment by Wow — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 1:31 pm
Perhaps if you guys supported equal pay, paid maternal leave, etc these ‘issues’ you have would disappear.
Righhht.
Wasting your time Wow. I’m one of the lucky guys who never get caught, so I don’t have any “issues” needing resolving by following your feminist prescription.
I’m a dyed-in-the-wool male supporter now. Men are my people and you are the enemy. I’m really looking forward to the next decade as more men assume the same outlook as me.
Comment by rc — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 1:38 pm
Wow,Wow.
It would appear that your are either a propagandist for the feminist revolution, unbelievably naiive or more than likely part of the system. Perhaps your expereince was as the person seeking the administrative review. I trust that process has assisted in affirming that every bad thing that has happened to you in life is as a result of your ill treatment at the hand of men. Thanks goodness for your saviours at the IRD. At least they have the intellectual capacity to understand yuor rantings.The beauty is, when the children grow up (and not before, as we put their well being first) we can provide a counter point of view to the indoctrination they have received at their mother’s knee.
Enjoy your shekles.
Comment by Shafted — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 2:52 pm
Im still waiting to know which company pays less on gender alone
Wow seems to have skipped over that part.
Like she skipped over shafted comment that he’s been charged more on top of the formula assessment which would put paid to the argument that its based on income, as isnt the formula assessment income derived.
Sorry guys, Wow seems to be an entitlement princess trolling for a windup
Comment by Mits — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 3:06 pm
Well if he’s paying more than the formula assessment it must be due to arrears or penalty or perhaps to make up for a previous year’s underpayment based on estimated income.
Comment by Wow — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 6:31 pm
Hi Wow,
At IRD we have a little trick up our sleeve. If we suspect a bloke of hiding a dollar or two, or he dissapears off our radar for a period of time or we just don’t like the cut of his jib we set his income at a “deemed’ level. $120,000 is always a good stab in the dark. Flushes out most and they rant and rave and then begin talking and we settle for something more reasonable in a year or so once they know who is boss.
A public service lot we are.
Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 7:43 pm
Oh I hadnt thought of that,
so your statement of ” If your income has dropped, you fill in a form to say what your expected income is and the payments drop. How is that so difficult?” might not be the panacea that you claimed it to be. If you give any credit to what I added about penalties being added remitted without logical reason from IRD then it could also be a fault not of his making.
Its a possibility you must agree?
and the company paying less on gender is……..
Comment by Mits — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 7:59 pm
Ms IRD Officer is not an IRD Officer. Have any of you applied to the Family Court for a review? http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/4/a/4a15a7004bbe5a9e935dd3bc87554a30/ir174.pdf
Comment by Wow — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 8:18 pm
Hmmph, I resent your suggestion Wow and we all know you are impersonating a World of Wearable Art as well.
What you say about estimation forms if your income is lower than assessed is much less than the situation. You need to read more of our informative booklets and identify we only reduce payments required if you earn 15% less than our estimation of your income. Hence we can perfectly legally charge people up to 15% more than is reasonable and that’s even before we start playing games with imaginary deemed incomes.
Hmmph, I think I will audit World of Wearable Art in the morning just for my amusement.
Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Tue 31st July 2012 @ 10:16 pm
‘Wow’ is not someone with whom it is possible to debate reasonably. (S)he ignores most points that are inconvenient to her/his preferred fantasy and provides weak arguments or denials in an effort to dismiss others. (S)he ignores the testimony of various contributors here who have been shafted by pro-female admin review officers who have been identified here in the past for the same misandrist behaviour.
‘Wow’s’ attempts to dismiss the many gender inequalities disadvantaging men would make an ostrich with its head in the sand proud. (S)he waved away longstanding, ongoing workplace death statistics by claiming more women are entering dangerous careers such as police and construction (referring to an old movie as evidence), as if a slight trend that has not yet affected the statistics significantly is enough to deny any ongoing issue. Entering a career is not the same as putting oneself in the most dangerous situations on the job (despite demanding equal pay). Without being prepared to gender-balance workplace death statistics, feminist demands for employment equality amount to little more than a call for increased enslavement of men in the service of women.
‘Wow’ also sought to dismiss resilient modern suicide and lifespan statistics by claiming that suicide varies a lot and by referring to a claimed situation 100 years ago. This is a favourite type of feminist argument, attempting to justify modern feminist duplicity by referring to situations long past and situations in third world countries. And of course, the claims about history and other countries always lack accuracy, balance and context. As for variability in suicide, men’s suicide has been several times that for women for many years.
And ‘Wow’ denies as a ‘crock of crapola’ the reality that our education system has become feminized and no longer works well for boys. That’s despite the statistics about male vs female achievement in education, and despite the reality that only a small proportion of teachers are now male since men realize they are likely to face feminist back-stabbing in schools including false allegations of ‘inappropriate’ behaviour according to feminist values.
Without some reasonable standards of debate it’s really not worth the time to continue the dialogue.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 8:27 am
“Imaginary deemed incomes” vs “imaginary positions at IRD” and tax evasion. As I said above, I can read financial accounts. It’s not rocket science. Get yourself a copy of Staples Ms Imposter. As I asked, have any of you applied to the Family Court to review your child support situation? Most judges also can read financial accounts (statements of assets and liabilites, income statements and balance sheets, etc). Here are a few decisions: http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/family-court/legislation/decisions-1/child-support
Comment by Wow — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 8:29 am
Au contraire Mr Laven – http://www.learndebating.com/download.htm. My debating skills are quite keen and your attempt to dismiss my contributions as my being “not someone with whom it is possible to debate reasonably” is simply naughty. But back to the matter of child support and Family Court decisions, please. Stop going off topic Mr Laven.
Comment by Wow — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 8:47 am
‘Wow’ (#57), you went off topic by the irrational claim that if men supported feminist demands such as equal pay and maternity leave then their ‘issues’ regarding child support might disappear.
So-called ‘child support’ is and has always been designed to enslave men in the service of women with no reciprocal obligation. The amounts seized from many fathers are much more than the actual cost of raising children. For example, it’s usually many times more than the difference between an individual welfare benefit and the benefit provided to care for children as well. Paying fathers have to provide the same kind of accommodation, transport etc as paid mothers do if those fathers wish to maintain the fullest possible involvement in their children’s lives, but this is ignored in the so-called ‘child support’ system. Fairness doesn’t come into it and the experience of many fathers throughout the process simply reflects this reality. It may be true that review systems are in place and that some fathers who have followed them have been treated according to the rules. However, rules pertaining to an exploitative system provide little consolation, and a system that is inherently unethical will tend to corrupt many of its administrators.
Children’s welfare also doesn’t come into it. So-called ‘child support’ is financially wrecking many separated fathers’ lives to the disadvantage of those men’s children. Also, this financial contribution extracted from fathers in no way contributes to the quality of the father-child relationship because it is channeled through the receiving mother.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 9:22 am
Wow, in simple terms people like you are the essence of the problem.
You are like (if not ARE)the officers at the IRD. If you repeat your socialist egalitarian man hating mantra often enough, somehow your rantings become facts, or commandments at the very least.
To spell it out (not that you need that given your awesome ability to read financial statements-(i am an acountant with a masters degree but what would i know?)) I HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS A SINGLE PERSON WHEN I AM DEFACTO AND AM PAYING FOR private SCHOOL FEES DESPITE SPECIFICALLY MEDIATING THAT I WOULD NOT. There is no change in circumstances, there is no hidden income. No matter what your god given talents for reading financial statements are, the point is, i have been shafted by a system that basically says “here are the rules, but part of the rules are the exceptions to the rules, which are pretty easy to get”
No doubt you will have some pithy feminist response or perhaps just a reference to a helpful website. Try living in our shoes for a while. Try continially being unable to plan financially due to constant curve balls coming your way. Try being the parent that cannot afford to do anything with the kids (yes i know there are fun and free activities). Try all of the above then i suggest i may at least listen to your idealistic juvenile crap.
My children were informed last week that as daddy refused to pay for tennis lessons, and did not care for them, they could not play tennis. Hope they enjoyed the skiing trip and are looking forwad to the overseas holiday at christmas.
“Daddy cant afford new tyres for the car”-go figure.
Comment by Shafted — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 10:49 am
We know how to get our man.
Even african coppers cannot escape the long reach of child support.
Tuesday, 31 July 2012 12:48
HARARE – A member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police landed himself in hot soup
after he failed to pay maintenance towards the upkeep of his three minor
children.
Jealous Sithole, 41, yesterday pleaded guilty to charges of defaulting in
paying maintenance, when he appeared before Harare magistrate Anita Tshuma.
He is accused of Contravening Section 23 (i) of the Maintenance Act Chapter
5:09.
During mitigation yesterday, Sithole told the court that he was only taking
home $9 from his salary after several deductions.
He told the court that he was involved in an accident in February this year
and part of his money was going towards the maintenance of the victim’s’
vehicle, hence the failure to pay maintenance.
Prosecutor Innocent Chingarande told the court that on May 28 this year,
Sithole was ordered by the maintenance court to pay $200 per month, towards
the upkeep of his children.
Sithole was also ordered to pay school fees for his three children and the
order was granted with effect from June 30.
However, Sithole failed to pay the $200 maintenance for the month of June as
well as school fees amounting to $190, forcing his wife to take legal
actions against him which led to his subsequent arrest. He will be sentenced
today.
Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 12:58 pm
Why are you paying the school fees then? Just stop. Most people have no problems with the formulas and from my workings they’re no more than you would pay if the child/ren were in your care. I think the real problem most of you here have is the “channeled through the receiving mother” part. But again, who’s going to make their application to the Family Court for a review first? Shafted, you should have no problem representing yourself given that you claim to be an accountant with a master’s degree – which is in essence, tax law.
Comment by Wow — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 2:00 pm
Hi Wow
when you say, “Most people have no problems with the formulas”
could you define where you get the most people from
I would agree that most recipients of child tax have no problem with receiving all the loot with no checks or balances in place that they spend it on the children
also the vindictive ex’s who’ve signed up to the DPB and enjoy the fact that IRD are hounding the other parent for cash while they apply the guilt trip to get even more cash as “its all for the children” they probably have no problems with the formulas
I will go on record as saying I believe the formulas a a complete crock so please dont add me to your list of most people being happy with them.
and at the risk of being accused of going off topic
you never got back with which company is paying a lesser rate soley on the grounds of gender, I want to support you in your efforts for equal pay but you need to show where the problem is actually happening
Mits
Comment by Mits — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 6:38 pm
Just for the records,I totally agree with you Mits. Wow, please don’t add me to your list of people who are satisfied with the child support ‘formulas’. It would be interesting (yet unsurprising) to see the results if IRD did a survey on this subject.
Comment by namxa — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 7:15 pm
Most people have no problems with the formulas and from my workings they’re no more than you would pay if the child/ren were in your care.
So how do you Explain over 1/2 of liable parents being in debt?
As to the costs of rasing children the formula is grossly unfair, thats reality even the tax man admidts that.
By the way, the proposed changes will make it worse.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 1st August 2012 @ 8:54 pm
Wow,
Your assumption that my masters somehow equates to a speciality of tax law confirms to me not only your resounding ignorance but also your willingness to make gross assumptions about almost any topic you claim to have an understanding of.
To assume that i have an issue with “the chanelled thorugh the mother part” as you so eloquently state it is making (once again) an assumption that i consider the “maggot” a mother. A mother cares for children and is concerned with their physical mental and psychological well being. Maggot fails on 2 out of 3 counts.
i am making the assumption (as guided and allowed by you) that you are a simialr type of mother.
Comment by Shafted — Thu 2nd August 2012 @ 8:26 am
ac·coun·tant (-kountnt)
n.
One that keeps, audits, and inspects the financial records of individuals or business concerns and prepares financial and tax reports.
If someone is an accountant and is unaware of tax law, his or her clients are screwed. I did not mean to infer that your masters was in accounting but can see how it may be read as such. Still, I would argue that someone capable of completing a master’s degree would be able to work their way through a family court application. But your “maggot” comments are bizarre, so, maybe not. You have no evidence that I am female even yet you assume I am a mother … pot … kettle @ gross assumptions.
Comment by Wow — Thu 2nd August 2012 @ 8:39 pm
Wow,
I see you had to look the definition up. (accounting)
I have sufficient evidence that you are female.
Your inarticulate left leaning bra burning semantics suffice.
Comment by Shafted — Fri 3rd August 2012 @ 8:49 am
Ok, yes, I see your point as would any reasonable Family Court judge. Not! However, yes, now it is obvious that representing yourself in Family Court child support procedings would not be advisable.
Comment by Wow — Fri 3rd August 2012 @ 3:32 pm
Wow,
Good bye. I have expended too much energy in this exchange.
I have foolishly allowed myself to enagage with you.
i now realise that the act of communicating with you is equivalent to me talking with a challenged gold fish.
Toodle pip and happy bubble blowing….
Comment by Shafted — Fri 3rd August 2012 @ 4:06 pm
My current partner has 2 children he pays child support for. They have different mothers. One of his exs review his child support, they decided that he should be court ordered on the grounds that he has more or an obligation to pay for his biological children than his step daughter (my 11yr old). He applied for his own review after our baby was born, they said the living allowance they allocated was sufficent.
My confusion comes where he pays 1 mother X amount as he is classed as Single/married with 2 dependent children (my 11yr old and our newborn son), yet the other mother who got granted her review gets more child support by $100 and on this statement he is classed as Single/married with 1 dependant child (our new born son) as the review officer removed my 11yr old from his living allowance.
How can the same man (my partner) have 2 dependants for 1 mother and 1 dependant for the other????? Two different allocated living allowances????
Comment by Nickstar — Sat 20th October 2012 @ 8:57 pm
Nickstar; whilst I agree the system is ^&*^%#$, one question goes begging:
If he is assessed (rightly) to contribute to the upkeep of his two children, then presumably some man somewhere is assessed to pay YOU towards the upkeep of your child?
Comment by Exotic Ant Hills Vodka — Sun 21st October 2012 @ 6:17 am
Exotic Ant Hill Vodka; My daughters father and I have 50/50 shared care of my daughter, 1 week to 1 week. We cut all of her needs and expenses in half school fees etc, and if she needs anything while she is in our care clothes etc, we buy those things. Together we decided this would be the fairest way possible for my daughter to have enough access with both parents and no IRD involved. This arrangment we have has been this way since our separation 2yrs ago. If you havent guessed, Im a woman, but think every parent reguardless of gender should have equal rights to their children, hence why I have adopted the 50/50 care arrangment with my daughters father.
Comment by Nickstar — Sun 21st October 2012 @ 7:40 am
Nickstar – so you are both very lucky and your daughter will be the better for this. Your approach is the most logical, is in the best interests of the child and is FAIR – and this I would guess is what most of us who write on this site – wanted but were refused.
Refused at every level. And to add insult to injury we are then hounded like criminals by IRD, forced to pay excessive demands with penalties and SUFFER treatment even those who break CRIMINAL laws don’t get.
All I can say again is that you are both very fortunate, and its a credit to you both that you were able to put differences aside and work together for the best interests of your child.
Now all we need is for all these legal and Govt wankers who are only interested in there INCOME to take your example and assist PARENTS ( MAINLY FATHERS ) RECEIVE THE SAME. EQUAL RIGHTS, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AND FAIRNESS IN SHARING COSTS – NOT A DIFFICULT REQUEST.
Comment by hornet — Sun 21st October 2012 @ 9:54 am
In my case – there was AGREEMENT personally before separation = to never stop each other seeing the kid – but as soon as the SYSTEM got involved – the child was MANIPULATED and USED TO LEVERAGE anything and everything = and the system allows this to occur. My new family and great wife of ten years have NOTHING which would have prevented us being given shared care and more time with the child – in fact we had everything you would list as being a POSITIVE for the child = but the system DELIBERATELY prevented it – held us to minimum contact -and when and if we had time with the child – the mother was allowed to use every BAD BEHAVIOR, ALIENATION, MANIPULATION tactic = and still does – to make it difficult and unpleasant for us to see the child. The child is now Severely Psychologically harmed – two family court reports – nothing done about it – the system has systematically been a party to this – has done nothing to help stop it, and in my view is as GULTY as the person who caused the harm. Its a sham to make money. Nothing more, nothing less – they dont give a fk about kids.
Comment by hornet — Sun 21st October 2012 @ 10:16 am
NickStar – I am genuinely pleased to hear that.
As for the &*(*$%*^) @ IRD / Family Court – most of them haven’t got a clue which side of reality they are on, and are only interested in exerting power, no matter how unjustly.
Your husband’s chances of fairness out of them are about as. slim as the chance that Ants actually manufacture exotic vodka in their exotic anthills.
He shouldn’t hold his breathe, and if you read other posts on this site, brace yourself, coz CS debts will end up following him to the grave and beyond.
Comment by Exotic Ant Hills Vodka — Sun 21st October 2012 @ 11:56 am
There are so many things IRD contradict themselves on its unreal! For example, because my partners situation is affecting not only him, but myself and our other children, I had questions for IRD. Because the court ordered he pay more to only 1 of his childrens mothers, on the grounds that he has not responsibility to finacially support my daughter, even tho she lives with us 2weeks of every month. I inquired with IRD that is I was the sole income earner of our family, whether I would be responsible for his child support payments, as those children are not my responsibility as they would be my step children. To my surprise YES I WOULD BE!!!! I asked how, when he is told hes not allowed to pay for his step daughter, why should I have to pay for my step children???…when they couldnt answer my question I was put on hold for 40 minutes then cut off!!!! This system is affecting our other children who live with us which is driving me insane!!! we can’t properly provide for them because my partner is forced to pay for his exs extravagant lifestyles!!! I am at my wits end how to get some kind of justice for our other children but refuse to give up! They are my kids and I will try my best to give them the life they deserve. I am going to see our local MP about this government agency to see if some of my questions can be answered. Thoughts on this approach???
Comment by Nickstar — Sun 21st October 2012 @ 8:40 pm
NickStar – more examples of DISCRIMINATION by a govt department – and in a way its good to see it being imposed on a female – What is so terribly wrong – we have NO COURSE of redress through the human rights or united nations – Apparently govt and the justice department in NZ, can discriminate with impunity and are not held accountable – just so as you know I have already looked into it. ASk your MP what they think of that and let us all know. They have protected themselves from any responsibility or accountability.
Take your situation and expand that out to all the Fathers who are currently in another relationship – a good family with a loving wife and children – and this system refuses to place any emphasis on that and help parents keep the good family together. No I think the system would rather actively assist in the demise of that good family – so they get more child support tax – that seems to be whats going on here.
I – Like you my wife and I are trapped in a system which assists in supporting an unrealistic extravagant lifestyle for an ex partner – to the detriment of my own family. This is a BIG problem and it needs addressing. ?????
Comment by hornet — Sun 21st October 2012 @ 8:56 pm
Reply to Hornet#77
Your comment of “more examples of DISCRIMINATION by a govt department”…..And its going to get a lot worse in western social engineered Feminist european society…See link below
“Laws of the Near Future”
http://goo.gl/4DCGi
Kind regards to all…John Dutchie….Free at long last from the feminist cesspit of hell…Called the western Feminist european society…
Comment by johndutchie — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 6:49 am
@ Nickstar – Interesting situation. When I read your comment about your 50/50 relationship about your ex I wondered what the hell you were doing her but that is why you are here. Somewhere along the way somebody has twigged to the fact they you have a shared parenting arrangement and the IRD has sought a court order to cover it arse.
To put it simply if the IRD acknowledged the relationship you are talking about they would also have to acknowledge similar relationships where the DPB is involved and that would affect benefit recovery.
Follow the money as they say; that will usually give you a clue to other people’s motives.
Comment by Down Under — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 7:55 am
“Follow the money as they say; that will usually give you a clue to other people’s motives.”…Correct….See article below with link….And note the “Man tax”…No wonder Kiwi women feminists hold Sweden as the feminists shrine of Feminism
“Vision Of A Feminist Utopia
October 28, 2008 by Heartiste
I will now present to you a vision of hell as dreamed up in the minds of the man-hating women who litter internet toilets like Feministing and who live in countries like Sweden, once proud nation of Viking warriors. This is what the world would look like if feminists had their way.
Man Tax
Men commit most of the criminal violence against women so it only makes sense according to feminists to tax them for the stress they place upon the social order by their existence. Think tanks (and I use the term loosely) in the USA are seriously considering this measure. Naturally, law-abiding beta males would contribute the most to this anti-man wealth redistribution scheme from men to women. I’m assuming as part of the deal to win passage of this tax real criminals would be let out of prison to ravish the feminists and impregnate them with their dangerously sexy seed.
Thought Crimes
Let’s face it: Hate crime legislation is really a Trojan Horse for thought crime laws. These kinds of laws will never be applied fairly or objectively. They will be targeted against men, particularly straight white men, and the ultimate purpose of such laws will be to break their spirits, just like Big Brother did. The justice system was fine before “hate crimes” when criminals were prosecuted for the hateful acts they committed, and not the truly grievous sin of thinking bad thoughts. By the way, I’m wishing Whoopi Goldberg gets run over by a bus. Lock me up!
Ban on Porn, Sexbot Research, and Foreign Brides
Porn, the coming sexbot revolution (and it will be a revolution greater than the advent of the Pill, mark my words), and sweet foreign ass all achieve, directly and indirectly, to chip away at female sexual market power. More sexual choice for men means less mating choice prerogative for women. Feminists loathe the idea of men having freedom of choice in the sexual market.
Mandatory Castration for Crimes Against Women
If a man hits a woman during a domestic dispute, it’ll be straight to the snippity snip chair for him. Sounds implausible? Oh, my naive readers, you just lack imagination. Given complete freedom to mold the world in the way they see fit, I predict the majority of self-declared feminists would passively welcome this kind of draconian anti-male society. Sure, the beta males would bitch and moan, but who cares about them?
Rape = Death Penalty
Feminists are usually leftwingers who are against capital punishment, but they’ll make an exception for rapists. This includes “date rapes” where the girl and guy were drunk and banged one out on a grimy couch in a frat house and she regretted it the next morning, and he neglected to be responsible for her morning-after feelings before he funneled eight cans of Miller Lite. But don’t worry, feminists will still be against the death penalty for mass murderers as long as their targets are mostly other men.
Better Pay
Even though the supposed injustice of “equal pay” is a farce, feminists in a perfect feminist world won’t be happy with anything less than “better pay”. They will justify this as a reparations plan to rectify the pain and suffering women have had to endure at the hands of men for thousands of years. And they will insist that women deserve higher pay for the same work because they juggle career and family.
Legalized Polygamy
The soft polygamy that has metastasized throughout Western society since the sexual revolution will be codified in law. The West will slowly return to a primitive state of nature, where 60% of the men got no pussy at all. Eventually, the pendulum will swing back once basic infrastructure begins to crumble as the betas decide their services are no longer appreciated. The masterworks of beta cooperation will be a relic of the past.
Ban on DNA Paternity Testing
This is as good as done if countermeasures aren’t taken. There’s a reason feminists are beginning to advocate against paternity testing – the smarter ones among their ranks understand that it shifts the balance of power decidedly in favor of beta males. Feminists want to retain the privilege of cuckolding. It is a power too good to abdicate, because it offers complete freedom from compromise with men to pursue sex and resources in the way they want. Paternity testing will mean an end to fucking alphas on the side and tricking betas into footing the bill. It will mean women will have to be more responsible and forward-thinking, instead of blindly following their vaginas.
Sexual Harassment Laws Expanded
If you are an unacceptable male who looks one second too long at a woman you can be tried for sexual harassment. The penalties, of course, will be more severe. If you are an alpha male who can read women’s minds and know which women will welcome your advances, you are free to harass with impunity. The laws are meant to make the job of attracting alpha attention and shaming beta attention more convenient for women.
********
Don’t think for a minute feminists wouldn’t welcome this dystopian femicentric world where betas are utterly emasculated and serve only as goo fodder for women and the alpha males they’d fuck on a rotating basis. I used to think such a world was an impossibity, but Sweden is now requiring that their men sit to pee. It’s no longer in the realm of fantasy.”
http://goo.gl/Oyj5m
Comment by johndutchie — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 8:08 am
@ Nickstar – Your case is also significant because it exposes the Family court’$ propensity to protect the state’$ financial interest$ rather than the welfare of the child or the integrity of law.
Comment by Down Under — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 8:10 am
Down under; YES! my partners exs got wind of the 50/50 arrangement I have with my daughters father so is this why they have court ordered my partner to pay more and refuse to count her as a child we provide for?
Do you think my approach by going to our MP is a step in the right direction??
I need to do something, we are really stuggling to provide for the kids we live with, and no one seems to be able to see that!!!
If I were to go and gain full time employment would that effect the amount od child support my partner has to pay???
Comment by Nickstar — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 10:05 am
nickstar start screaming from the rooftops, go to the media, try all the things we have all tried before – and yes you are right – they do not give a damn about the GOOD FAMILY and the parents who are trying to do the right thing – in fact my experience has taught me that doing the right thing gets you nothing but a kick in the backside – time and time again……..
Comment by hornet — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 10:22 am
I also questioned IRD about the fact that if myself and my TWO children were, recieving a DPB and I moved in with my partner, he would be expected to support all THREE of us, so why is he not allowed to support his step child now. The response I got was “your not in that situation so it is irrelavant” Again no one could answer my questions, or it was the fact that no one wanted too
Comment by Nickstar — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 11:34 am
@Nickstar – Mentioning the DPB and child support in the same conversation – that would have been very frightening for them, for sure.
It is generally very difficult to get anyone to give any attention to child support issues. You can only try as many places as possible but there is the advantage that you don’t have the ‘bad dad’ label working against you.
As you can see you are certainly pushing some buttons – do keep us informed.
Remember IRD monitor this site 24/7 so if you do get a reporter interested don’t say anything about till after it goes to print.
I learnt the hard way. I had a reporter contact me once asking for personal situations to write into a story so I used a site similar to this to ask other guys for info.
He rang me back fifteen minutes later and said
“My editor just told me to can the story. It was just an idea; I hadn’t even told anyone I was doing it, let alone him.”
At least he had the decency to ring me back and tell me not to waste my time.
Comment by Down Under — Mon 22nd October 2012 @ 12:06 pm
I will get someone to listen, this is effecting not only children from separated parents but the kids in the liable parents new family.
My partner often gets upset, as he cannot provide for his two children he lives with, but is forced to pay for children hes not allowed to see due to thier mothers bitterness and lack of maturity which would make his child support income number THREE!!!!! into thier household. In the meantime we have to struggle, borrow money from our parents to pay for my childrens needs. Its degrading and humiliationg and someone out there will listen to me, and all of us alike. Changes need to be made!!!! and they moan about child poverty…UMMMM pehaps this is another cause of that u dumb parliment idiots!!!!!!!
Comment by Nickstar — Tue 23rd October 2012 @ 7:29 am
No-one will listen to you. They will all just tell you to give up.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 23rd October 2012 @ 9:04 am
Why will they tell me to give up?
Comment by Nickstar — Tue 23rd October 2012 @ 9:27 am
Cause that is what they want you to do and once you have exhausted every avenue, that is what you will have to do, as you will no longer have the funds or the health to continue.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 23rd October 2012 @ 10:01 am
Yep sorry to say Nickstar but I have to agree with Scott B
I think the problem you have here is that you are confusing child tax with supporting children. If that actually occurs then that is a happy side effect and not the intended result. Its called Child Support as that is more palatable to all who receive it, be it the gummint to cover the DPB or, as has been pointed out, lever against loans etc or the custodial parent to fund their lifestyle choices.
Its got nothing to do with childrens welfare. If it was there would be some checks and balances in place to ensure the children actually benefited from all the loot.
I pay child tax for two children and have a further two in my current relationship. As my ex has remarried this effectively means that there are three adults supporting the first two and only one and a half supporting the other two. Surely this should mean that the older ones should want for nothing as they have the lions share of the cash available but it is overwhelmingly apparent this is not happening as the ex decides where the money will be spent and tells them that there is no money for things, “ask your father”. She divorced me but the love affair between her and my wallet is an unbreakable bond.
Child tax is about benefit recovery, govt financial dealings and ex spousal support it has nothing to do with children.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Tue 23rd October 2012 @ 10:31 am
My experience with administrative review is so bad that I felt I deal with criminals, and that the IRD mafia is most likely to continue butchering me. I think I’m still in a trauma, honestly.
Comment by Divorced Man — Sun 4th November 2012 @ 10:06 pm
My partner has a 20k bill with ird for his 2 children from previous relationships.
We have a child of our own and he’s oldest child also lives with us. I am going to apply for an admin reveiw as the majority of the debt is penaltys. We have an agreement for 1 child to pay the mother directly as she works and could go outside the ird system. This is working fine except for we have in writing from ird and her that she has requested and ird have accepted her request to wipe any previous money owed to ird for the child and they have only partially removed these amounts even though we gave her the money directly. Next issue is the child that lives with us we have spent thousands of dollars on flight in the 2 years leading up to him living with us full time and also had him with us for extended periods for example 4 months at a time, on top of this we have also had some of the period where the child was loving with us full time. I guess I want to know in the opinion of people that have been thru admin reveiws what our chances are of receiving a fair reveiw.
Comment by Jaded — Sat 10th November 2012 @ 12:47 am
‘fair’ and ‘review’ are mutually exclusive terms.
Comment by concerned dad — Sat 10th November 2012 @ 5:37 am
#92 More chance of meeting Elvis.
Comment by Scott B — Sat 10th November 2012 @ 7:23 am
#93 – Jaded – did you know this PENALTY industry is what is allowing the govt to BORROW huge sums against it.
Currently $2 Billion is outstanding in Child Support DEBT = $1.5 BILLION of that is PENALTY FEES – How can that be healthy for PARENTS?
What it states to me is that the MORE PENALTIES we can generate the MORE we can BORROW against it – that is what is happening here and as PARENTS we need to fight this. Start yelling from the tree tops that this is UNACCEPTABLE – totally and utterly unacceptable to you.
Far too many parents are currently being asked to contribute way in excess of there actual INCOME – so they are LOCKED into a PENALTY regime. This has to be a worry for all PARENTS. There has been a rise in BACK DATED demands, huge sums being asked of parents that they simply do not have.
What is worse, is that by DESIGN this system has been deliberately made to be difficult – time consuming and too costly – if NOT IMPOSSIBLE for any individual parent to oppose or challenge – in particular – these draconian and unrealistic rulings coming from these REVIEW officers.
Not only that but we must all agree that these reviews are NOT IMPARTIAL, they are Not based on facts or evidence of INCOME and they are currently open to ABUSE. I have seen first hand how a review person can simply make up a NUMBER – the new catch phrase is = YOU PAY based on your POTENTIAL EARNINGS. What?
As a review OFFICER = I dont have to be impartial, I can be as BIASED and as DISCRIMINATORY as I like and you cant do a thing about it – because guess what – You cant report me to the Human rights commission – because they are NOT ALLOWED to investigate me. hahahahahaha. That is the current system and it needs exposing.
As a review OFFICER – I can breach your bill or rights and your civil rights and you have NO recourse against me. Again because the system has protected itself from recrimination.
And if you don’t do as I DEMAND – we will arrest you, take your property to pay off these insane demands, stop you leaving the country. Huge consequences all based on a subjective OPINION as to what I want to take from you.
This is not JUSTICE, it is NOT fair, it is DISCRIMINATORY and it it OPEN to huge ABUSE – which we are all seeing right now.
Comment by hornet — Sat 10th November 2012 @ 9:17 am
#93 Jaded – would you join this CRUSADE to stop this insanity?
A PARENTS movement – get Fathers and Mothers Together on this – because remember this – there are many MOTHERS – GOOD WOMEN married to good fathers who are EQUALLY disgusted by this system. I spoke with two yesterday = good people, good parents each with children from both sides of the equation living with them – both sharing horror stories as to how they are being treated – totally UNFAIRLY. Both the father and the mother.
This is the AIM we must all focus on – Draft up a list of COMMON points of concern and work on those – leave the Shit fight between the sexes in the gutter – because that just plays into the hands of those making lots of money out of that conflict.
Divide and RULE = A PARENT organisation – which says enough is enough, will be a very powerful section of society with a VOICE.
1. Lets start here – IT IS NOT acceptable to have a system which leverages borrowing against the plight of children and parental separation.
That is the current system – it is designed to be difficult to challenge – it is discriminatory, and it is currently about INCOME through PENALTY – that agenda needs to be flushed out for what it is. While the PENALTY regime is in place, there is NO incentive for this system to be improved. In fact the more penalties imposed increases the systems income – and that can not be good for ANY PARENT – male or female.
2. As parents DEMAND a child support system which is based on FACTS alone – many parents would not understand that the current system is being re-designed to target BOTH parents assets and your hard earned property. It is insane for the system to expect people to agree to the current way in which these outrageous demands are made – no one should have to accept the word of a person, who can simply make up a number, not based on any factual evidence of your income – and send you down a path of financial misery for the rest of your life. Unless of course they are deliberately told to create this situation so the PENALTY industry can improve.?
Demand a that a simple set $$ amount per child be set for all children – this would be FAIR and easy to manage and I don’t think you would have a single parent who would be opposed to that. That has to be better than the current shambles – which is only making lawyers richer – to the detriment of children and parents.
3. Demand that any system can be investigated for any breaches of a PARENTS human rights, and Bill or rights and civil liberties, and that its processes MUST be fair and IMPARTIAL – because currently it cannot be investigated by the HUMAN rights commission – IT is a PROTECTED species BY DESIGN – Even The General public would be abhorrent that that – get the PUBLIC on side – DEMAND that Govt MUST be equally accountable in its procedures and processes – in the Child Support Review process it IS NOT.
Target the things that matter, and the things which we all know can make a difference – seek to Define COMMON ground and set your targets there – keep all Conflict between men and women out of it – because if we can do that the CHILDREN – the most important people in all this – the ones currently being totally destroyed by a system of GREED and CORRUPTION – will benefit in the long term. And so will PARENTS.
Comment by hornet — Sat 10th November 2012 @ 9:20 am
That sounds very much like a lobby group or a political party. We’ve got plenty of both. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to join one on the existing respective lists. The process has fractured not only society but also its holistic social concept. The rebellion against Godhead has left people isolated and increasingly ignorant or able to resist the inexorable rise of self-interest.
Comment by Down Under — Sat 10th November 2012 @ 10:18 am
Nickstar #72
It is great to see that there are some good women in this world who retain a rational and child focussed attitude. How much better this world would be if there were more like you! All credit to you. IRD of course come along and stuff it up using Child Support as way of reducing public expenditure! The principles of childrens welfare and best interests count for nothing as we all know eben though Peter Dunne and his minions use the phrase as their justification for what they do. IRD and Government are responsible for many of this country’s social ills and failings…….
Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Sat 10th November 2012 @ 11:35 am
#97 – so would that be such a bad thing if it got results? We are not getting any at the moment?
Comment by hornet — Sat 10th November 2012 @ 9:19 pm