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

Dunne claims child support amendment formula will be fairer: Yeah Right

Filed under: Child Support,General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 7:06 pm Thu 1st November 2012

Media Release

Dunne claims child support amendment formula will be fairer: Yeah Right

Long time child support reformer, Jim Nicolle, describes Peter Dunne’s claim that the new child support formula would be fairer as a ‘Tui Billboard’.

‘The proposed changes produce a complex formula based on IRD official’s guesstimates at the cost of raising children. This type of income shares child support model is designed to give a perception of fairness, perception and reality are two different things. The devil is in the detail’, observed Jim when commenting on the Ministers claim.

‘Dr Stuart Birks , Director of Centre for Public Policy Evaluation, at Massey University in his paper , An Assessment of Proposed Changes to the Child Support Formula, sums up my concern when he states ‘In summary, it is clear that costs may vary markedly across households according to circumstances and lifestyles. Any estimates of costs will be subject to large error’, commented Jim Nicolle when asked to quote research to support his Tui billboard claim.

‘This tinkering with child support is about recovering the DPB , framing dads as deadbeats and has very little to do with mums and dads providing for their children.

The provision in the bill of Henry VIII powers, to the Commissioner of IRD enabling him to bypass the normal scrutiny and transparency of parliamentary process does not bode well for parents. I suspect this legislation will, overtime, come to be known as Dunne’s Disaster”, concluded Jim Nicolle.

Jim Nicolle can be contacted on 0275058421 for further comment


  1. These changes do nothing to help me, I have my son %60 of the year and I have to pay the mum $80 everyweek even after claiming from her, My partner earns well over 100k, do these changes mean she will be paying aswell

    Comment by Criag — Fri 2nd November 2012 @ 6:27 am

  2. Well done for getting a media release out Scrap. I hope some media pick it up but issues of concern to men seem to be actively rejected by all media.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 2nd November 2012 @ 7:33 am

  3. Ditto Craig, I have my kids 50/50 but even after offset claim against ex I still have to pay her $170 a week. She is off benifits now but I cannot get it lowered without her agreement.
    I have the same costs she does yet still have to pay her. My partner has the correct voluntary aggrangent with her ex, 50/50 care, 50/50 share costs and no other money changes hands. That is how it should be!

    Comment by PB — Fri 2nd November 2012 @ 10:31 am

  4. Craig and PB dont expect any relief from this tinkering -your going to be sharing your income via this taxation without representation based on guesstimates of the cost of rasing children developed by the tax collectors.

    Regards Scrap

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 2nd November 2012 @ 11:46 am

  5. Thanks Hans,

    Your observation is very true.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 2nd November 2012 @ 11:48 am

  6. What is the new formula? I’m really keen to analyse it mathematically. We should do it BEFORE the legislation, because after the change it will be hard to change it again.

    Comment by Divorced Man — Fri 2nd November 2012 @ 6:54 pm

  7. And it is not only about the formula – it is also about other processes / powers that the child support bill giving to IRD, like administrative review, which are giving IRD power as strong (if not more) than the power of court. The minister should address those issues as well.

    Comment by Divorced Man — Fri 2nd November 2012 @ 6:57 pm

  8. can someone help me please…im not sure how to start a new post. we had a review done by mark miller, went real bad. we are able to apply for a new review on new information, can we apply under the same grounds as we have new information that wasnt available at the time (medical reports) or do we have to apply under a new ground (cant see anything that would be applicable otherwise) also am obviously going to request i dont get miller again, is there anyone else who is actually fair or any other rouges to avoid as such. i need to get this new review done asap so any help would be appreciated.

    Comment by yoyo — Fri 2nd November 2012 @ 7:06 pm

  9. I applied once on the same grounds but they said they can’t examine application on same grounds, and just didn’t look at it, even that it was OBVIOUS and CLEAR case. I wouldn’t expect much from Admin Review, don’t forget that you can go to court but only soon after admin review decision. If I had the chance I will go to court then, but when I went to court they didn’t know which form and after all this back-and-forth game I lost the chance. If you go to court I would suggest to do it without a lawyer, because all what you might earn there will have to be paid to the lawyer.

    Comment by Divorced Man — Sat 3rd November 2012 @ 9:20 am

  10. Now that I’m in court for other reasons I understand it could be done by yourself.

    Comment by Divorced Man — Sat 3rd November 2012 @ 9:21 am

  11. yoyo (#8): I suggest you also join the closed group Paul’s News ([email protected]) where you can communicate with knowledgeable people with more privacy. Just send an email introducing yourself and what you’re dealing with.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 3rd November 2012 @ 12:06 pm

  12. The fundamental flaw with this is that child support increases as the paying parent’s income increases. This is based on flawed ideology. What we need is a system based on the cost to provide the basic needs of a child. It is not up to the state to tax people and force them to pay for luxuries for their children. That is a parenting decision and must be voluntry by the parent.
    The whole attitude needs a 180 degree shift to focus on voluntry support of children with the state being a last resort to avoid extremes only.

    Comment by V_man — Sat 3rd November 2012 @ 3:46 pm

  13. Rest assured; one thing is undisputable. Tha TOTAL tax take – I mean Child support income transfer – WILL INCREASE.
    O it might be redistributed a bit so some more vocal deponents benefit a little; but the silent majority will get dinged more, and overall more will be ‘recovered’ the name of supporting those poor unsupported mothers – especially those with ‘no other option’ but to sign up to the biggest lie ever sold to society – dpb.
    And in the name of cost recovery,/ user pays, it’s only a matter of time before the government takes a small(92million?) slice of the pie to cover ‘ádministration’ costs.
    And to cover the cost of dpb.

    Comment by Rock Paper & Scissors — Sat 3rd November 2012 @ 4:39 pm

  14. Yoyo: I wonder, how do you know it was Mark Miller – do you have any formal IRD letter that saying it was “Mark Miller” or have the person that made the review told you that his name was “Mark Miller”? Could you look at your document? I suspect they say “Mr. Miller” but you don’t really know his full name. Please tell me if I’m correct. Thanks

    Comment by Divorced Man — Sun 4th November 2012 @ 8:37 am


    The new hit squad has been given access to Australian Government databases to track down the defaulters and the right to contact their known associates.
    The taxman now also has the power to apply directly for arrest warrants in Australia and warrants to seize personal property, and even order house sales to pay off the mounting debt the defaulting parents have left back here in New Zealand.

    The crackdown comes as the number of New Zealanders owing child support surpasses the threshold which Australian authorities can manage.

    Debtors can also be prevented from leaving Australia under the arrangement.

    This is going to be interesting.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 4th November 2012 @ 9:13 am

  16. @Hans. A question for you.

    Will the Ministry of Men’s affairs be writing to the Australian foreign minister asking,

    1. Under what circumstances they have agreed with the New Zealand IRD to prevent New Zealand Fathers from leaving Australia?

    2. Will the agreement target any alleged child support defaulter or only those who are not Australian Citizens?

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 5th November 2012 @ 7:29 am


    Interesting conflict of Interest I think.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 5th November 2012 @ 8:24 am

  18. DUNN told parliament last week that calculating child support was easy – simply plug in the figures into the ONLINE calculator – anyone who knows the reality – knows this is total bullshit……..if that was the case many of us would not be complaining – the reality is these REVIEW scum, will make up a number and demand you pay it, regardless of your actual income – not based on facts or actual filed tax returns of your income – no there decisions are based on what ever your ex says, and what ever the envy eyed review person thinks is a good number – the higher the better – so they know you cant pay – then the penalties go up, govt can leverage more borrowing, and they can then make outrageous demands for you to sell property to pay for it……..lock you up, treat you like some criminal, deprive you of your rights and freedoms, ……..its a sham people, a total sham…..and it needs to be exposed for what it really is……

    Comment by hornet — Mon 5th November 2012 @ 10:08 am

  19. Interesting to note that 20% of the 18,000 child support defaulters are actually women.

    3600 Dead beat Dads in Australia just changed their gender. I wonder if the media ever considered ringing setting some of them up with a surprise phone call like Sainsbury did on Close Up.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 5th November 2012 @ 11:13 am

  20. Down Under #19. After Close Up ran that story I wrote complaining about the fact that they and other media only ever air womens biased stories and that they should have the decency to provide balanced reporting. A little while later I had a call from their reporter Jihan Casanada(?) saying that another programme would air in due course. I advised him of aspects that needed to be fully investigated to facilitate that process, I commented on the new formula proposals and their likely adverse affects and other iniquities (like the current penalties regime and that under the new formula the 28% threshold for shared care would not be dropped to 14% as it is in UK and Aus because IRD realise that doing so will reduce its ability to recover DPB payments). I also referred him to Stuart Birks paper on the costs of raising children and that he concludes that IRDs and Dunne’s proposals are likely to result in conflict between parents and in administrative problems and that the estimated costs basis for calculating CS is deeply flawed. Casanada said that much research needed to be done to prepare the programme and he had no idea at that stage when it might go to air. I, of course, offered my full assistance in preparing the programme! I will be very surprised if that kind offer is taken up. I suggest you keep you eyes open for announcements about when that programme will air (if in fact it does!).

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Tue 6th November 2012 @ 7:01 pm

  21. Hasn’t close up been canned?

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 6th November 2012 @ 9:04 pm

  22. NCD (#20): Was it the article that screened last Friday November 2? A bit short in length and on analysis, but it made a positive impact on a female colleague of mine. Nothing came out about the unaccountability of the review process or the abusive decisions that can come from it. Unfortunately the guys they interviewed did not have sophisticated understanding of the issues and for example still suggested that ‘deadbeat dads’ were still a common problem. Dunne says “I see a number of cases where the dad is the one who’s struggling and yet he’s still got to pay the child support”. Well Mr Dunne, I have seldom met paying fathers who are not struggling because the formula takes so much of their after-tax income and they can’t resist spending lots more on their children during contact time. Yes, many mothers struggle too especially on the DPB. The fact is that when parents live separately the cost of running that family almost doubles, so many separated parents are struggling. Yet the state facilitates and encourages family break up.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 6th November 2012 @ 9:30 pm

  23. Who said What.

    Here is a link to the subissions for the child support bill in select committee.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 7th November 2012 @ 9:56 am

  24. Hans
    Thanks. I was not aware that Close Up had done their piece! Casinader was supposed to let me know when it aired! He didn’t but no surprise there, though!!
    Clearly, this piece was just a sop so that they can say they did a balancing perspective. It was so short on analysis and and the absence of discussion on contact and accountability of how CS is spent that it was largely meaningless. Indeed, what was the point of concentrating on a system that is in its death throes when they should have concentrated more on the new formula and the problems it will throw up and on arguments around why CS is calculated on Gross income when it has to be paid out of net income etc?

    Those two guys in the on line video didn’t seem to be badly off financially even given the high level of CS the one voluntarily paid on top of what the IRDs formula might require him to pay. They could have selected to air the views of another man who is really struggling to pay CS and who has no contact with his children etc. I haven’t calculated the featured man’s income but given his weekly mortgage, living expenses and CS payments he obviously has a very good annual income.
    Sadly mens perspectives on the subject will never be taken seriously or given the deep and meaningful analysis and supporting argument that it requires. That programem did nothing to further our cause.

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Wed 7th November 2012 @ 3:03 pm

  25. @ Non Custodial Dad. ‘Our Cause’ Yes, it was one mother’s submission that this bill was dreamed up by Peter Dunne and the Father’s Rights groups he represents.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 7th November 2012 @ 3:44 pm

  26. This is taken from the Family Law Society submission (representing nearly 1000 lawyers)

    The settlement under Part 6 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 may include reference to the payment of child support, which can be overturned. In contrast, the property aspects of the agreement are binding. (Which is not actually true because the Family Courts allow women not to pay a settlement if they claim child support against it). It is essential that this discrepancy be addressed.

    Obviously the discrepancy exists because it is beneficial to the state to have the ability to re-assess a liability (then they can attack assets (and some women trade on that by not paying their settlements)) but the end game here for the law society is obtaining initial substantial and if necessary court ordered child support for women clients.

    This is going down the American celeb path where millions are ordered in child support.

    Watch out for any amendments to the Relationship Property Act brought about by the passage of this bill into law.

    High income? How big are your pocket books boys?

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 7th November 2012 @ 4:22 pm

  27. #24 totally agree and I commented previously as such – closeup did not address the real concerns – the fact is – the online system of calculating CS based on income – is a charade – its there purely to make people think that CS is based on INCOME – it is NOT. As we all know – the reality is that methods used in calculating child support has nothing to do with INCOME at all….. its all about what PROPERTY and or any ASSETS you have left and what can they take. I see far too many instances here where fathers are having to pay CS based on – WHAT THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL to earn – obviously a new strategy to maximise contributions. How opened ended is that criteria – how open to abuse is that – and this is exactly what we are seeing = an opened ended mechanism for a biased, discriminating REVIEW person to pick a number – a big number if you have assets left after divorce – and since you have NO WAY of challenging these rulings – costs prohibit most fathers – thats oppression – you are then captive of the state – and since you have no way of paying what they demand – they can increase penalties and keep borrowing against what they claim you owe for your child – that you are prohibited from seeing………..

    This sham needs to be exposed for what it is. Its a cash grab and its going to get even uglier once they can openly target everything BOTH parents own. Thats all you will see in the changes – more specific opportunity to take from what ever the family has left……

    Comment by hornet — Wed 7th November 2012 @ 5:28 pm

  28. dont have kids and dont own without women is so hassle free

    Comment by Ford — Wed 7th November 2012 @ 6:16 pm

  29. @ Ford. Women really have become disposable, haven’t they? Good call – have a whisky and a night in with Mrs. Palmer.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 7th November 2012 @ 6:31 pm

  30. mrs palmer never gives me grief and not getting laid is only an issue for those who wish to make it one

    Comment by Ford — Wed 7th November 2012 @ 8:09 pm

  31. Extracted from the submission by the Human Rights Commission

    Nowhere is this discussed in the submission then suddenly in their recommendations this little gem pops up

    support positive financial value being attributed in the scheme to the work
    of a parent who provides child care at the cost of participating in the fulltime paid workforce.

    Watch this space.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 3:53 pm

  32. I think what means is …
    We’ll tax the working parent 60% of their post-tax income, and pass 5/6ths of that on to the at-home mum, so she is paid; he has covered the cost, and we (IRD) keep an extra slice for ourselves (‘admin costs’)
    i.e. earn $100,000, pay $30,000 tax, then pay another $42,000 in ‘at-home mums’ and keep the other $28,000 for yourself. Out of that $42K, we’ll pass $35,000 to the at-home mum, and pocket the other $7,000 in admin costs.
    Sounds fair to me. At least they’d be able to carry the same formulae over if the parents seperate, and simply re-label it ‘child support’.
    Oh wait – we’ve got that already.

    Comment by concerned dad — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 7:32 pm

  33. How would ‘cost of participation’ be interpreted

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 9th November 2012 @ 9:08 am

  34. support positive financial value being attributed in the scheme to the work
    of a parent who provides child care at the cost of participating in the fulltime paid workforce = supports maximisation of benifit recovery via childtax

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 9th November 2012 @ 10:52 am

  35. the system encourages liable parents to default or be dodgy.
    the nz govt encourages ppl to be on benefits, and penalises the taxpayers.
    im a woman,and have been in the situation that a father would be in.
    Left my ex, went straight to work becos i believe my children were my financial responsibility too, not the states or solely my ex’s.
    gave him shared care to be fair. he went on a benefit, got a legal aide lawyer and i got screwed.
    i eventually gave him day to day becos of the bullshit he was doing to the kids.
    if you earn greater that 48k, your not eligible for legal aide, you pay 30% income tax and after CS deduction and adjustment for living expenses, you endup with about half your annual income. wheres the incentive? the best thing i can do i pop out more children? stupid right.
    i got penalised becos i didnt screw my ex over – and he capitalised on all the benefits that this bullshit welfare state country supports. sorry if women cannot comment on this thread, i just, have alot of sympathy for fathers who go thru this.

    Comment by calli — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 9:39 am

  36. Calli, we need women like you to expose the fraud – this is a PARENT issue.

    I have exposed the fraud of the PENALTY regime here before – the system is deliberately creating DEBT, so that loans can be leveraged against that DEBT – why else would we have currently – $2 Billion owed in Child Support – of which $1.5 BILLION is penalties.

    Why would they create a system so difficult to challenge – actually IMPOSSIBLE for any parent to challenge, REVIEWS not based on FACTS or actual circumstance, allow breaches of HUman Rights and other rights, because the system is PROTECTED, so you are locked into a perpetual state of penalty and debt – DEBT is GREAT if you are leveraging loans against it and using KIDS as LEVERAGE.

    This is the system.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 9:48 am

  37. All are welcome.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 9:51 am

  38. @ Hornet, why else. It is like a loan, it doesn’t matter if the principal never gets repaid as long as the interest is collected. Penalties are excessive interest rates. To me the leveraging aspect is negligible in the scheme of things. I think the DPB and child support is being looked at as an investment in the opportunity to pillage. The tax take is down, and they are even launching a raid on the Australian economy to fund ours.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 10:56 am

  39. Calli # 35

    Welcome. I think most reasonable man would acknowledge that there are some decent women caught up in the FC and CS systems and that some of those have ex partners who are truly “deadbeats” and deserve kicking into touch and whose kids would be better off without them in their lives. Good on you for your stance and I am sorry you got turfed over….. If any progress is to be made with these issues there must be significant emphasis on publicising the complexity and iniquity embedded in the CS system in particular and the adverse wider social consequences of that. Sadly, the upcoming new CS formula will make matters worse for a lot of people (and better for only very few). As has been mentioned by others, the regime is predicated on the basis of childrens welfare etc but in fact that is a front for subsidising the reduced tax take and to offset more DPB payments via penalties and interest.

    The latter intention re DPB is confirmed in IRDs own paper that at para 51 states “………care could be recognised, again on a tiered basis where it is in excess of 14% of annual care…… this is the threshold adopted in some other jurisdictions (e.g Australia and Britain). Although this option would provide recognition to more paying parents ………, it may be see as too generous…… It would also involve a greater fiscal cost as more child support liabilities would be reduced, thereby further reducing the amount received by the Government to offset benefit payments to receiving parents.” Hence shared care percentage set at 28%, better than 40% but offset by other propsals that will see little or no reduction in amounts to pay!

    1 April 2013 will soon be with us. It might as well be Armageddon (and may well be!!!!)

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 11:25 am

  40. Welcome Calli. Welcome to this corrupt system that seeks to destroy us with all of the empathy that the state can muster.
    As in pprevious posts, my ex is ead f…g the kids too. I am torn between continuing to see them or giving up for my sanity and theirs.
    Standing by watching my children becoming needy, none coping little madams. And nothing i can do to stop it-i have tried it all. They are being taught that men are objects of derision worthy of no respect. and in all likelihood they too will alienate their future husband’s and thus continue the cycle.
    The joke is, i will likely be a burden on the state in my retirement because i am unable to put anything away financially.
    Go figure

    Comment by shafted — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 11:42 am

  41. The new child support bill allows child support debt to reduce your pension, so you won’t be able to afford to live in a house – you’ll have to go and live in a men’s retirement camp and they’ll put you anti-psychotic drugs to shut you up while they wait for you to die.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 12:18 pm

  42. Yep.
    They will be happy when i die, as long as they have wrung every last possible cent out of me beforehand

    Comment by shafted — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 12:23 pm

  43. #41 – they can not afford to pay retirement to all the baby boomers – so these measures are all aimed at taking your property, or targeting any assets or remuneration you have worked your life for – all designed for YOU to pay that debt forward. Pushing up the age of Child Support to 19 years – is a deliberate attempt to remove liability for children unable to get a JOB, because there NONE. they have systematically removed or lost many great businesses in the last decade. Apparently its BETTER ( for GOVT ) to have us IMPORT everything, depriving NZ’ers of JOBS and EMPLOYMENT and RESPECT. Easier to collect the GST at the gate – export all our RESOURCES so we have to RE-IMPORT them all more expensively. have we woken up yet……..

    Comment by hornet — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 12:32 pm

  44. #40 =shafted – I forgot to reply to a couple of your previous posts – The Shopping centre incident you described was exactly like my experience – I was there picking up my child under an approval from HER lawyer – as I removed the child from the car seat – in the middle of a crowded car park – SHE SCREAMS – HELP HELP this man is STEALING MY CHILD. Security guards came on scene, public members all on cell phones – I am surrounded by Police who pull me over in my car – the child is distressed. I am released when they read the letter – lucky for me I had it on me, and they realised I was not a nutter, not drunk or on drugs and that the child was MINE.

    In her next day WITHOUT NOTICE filings requesting PROTECTION ORDERS and VIOLENCE ORDERS and ACCESS ONLY under SUPERVISION – she claimed that I had some how bribed the police into not arresting me…….fortunately my lawyer was onto it and we managed to get submissions in to counter the without notice filing – and everything was THROWN out. I was just very lucky at the time. The lawyer working for her, should have been taken to task, because there were NO GROUNDS at all for the filings…… my lawyer refused to pursue the complaint against another lawyer.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 12:37 pm

  45. Shafted – as for Making the child feel DEPENDENT – exactly the same tactic used on my child – Mother kept claiming the child had all they health issues – which she DID NOT. Keep making the child feel like she had to be there to look after the mother – always telling the child how she needed her to look after her – just completely mind fked this kid.

    FACT – Child assessed as suffering SEVERE PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM – directly as a result of what the mother has done to her.

    Family Court – supposed to be there for the best interests of the CHILD – have done NOTHING ABOUT IT. yes I think there should be a Damages Claim for negligence and allowing harm to be caused to a child – for being a party to Child Abuse – Actually commits the offence or actively assists, Aids, incites, abets or counsels someone in the the commission of the primary offence. yes I think there would be a case against the system for this.

    Surely standing back and watching and doing nothing could be interpreted as Aiding and Abetting ?????

    Comment by hornet — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 12:43 pm

  46. #41..i aspire to be a blanket under a bridge will be my retirement home or in the bush..and ill live out of rubbish bins and eat rats. mice,rabbits etc

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 12:55 pm

  47. Hornet #43

    Don’t want to nit pick but, to be fair and in acknowledgement of one good provision under the new formula, the age at which CS stops will be reduced to 18 if the child has left school. It only continues to 19 if the child is at a “Registered School”. I have yet to bother researching what a “Registred School” actually means so would appreciate any advice others might have about that!
    My understanding is that the 19 year age limit has always been in force, at least it has for the 10 years I have been a “liable” parent!

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 12:58 pm

  48. These changes are going to see more children miss out on their fathers (and some mothers) In the best interests of the child? Yeah right!

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:15 pm

  49. Oh Yes. The gift that keeps on giving year after year.
    I was (a year ago) in her house. She provokes an argument and i do the right thing. I attempt to leave the house without saying anything. She drapes herslef across the front door and will not allow me to leave (the kids see all of this). I try the back door but she beats me to it. I say-please let me leave. She is in the hearing of the neighbours at this stage and starts screaming that i am thretening and intimidationg blah blah and to please leave the house.
    Yep-thats me-public enemy number one. When i used to go into school the teachers loked at me with a mixture of abject pity and disgust. I cut that behaviour off at the pass by taking my legal papers to school and presenting a contrary side to the story. The point is, shit sticks. Those that were so quick to judge me in the past now are thinking that all is not as represented. However, the damage to reputation is done, so all that is irrelevant. I learned long ago that there is no point in defending oneself from other’s opinions. This above all to thine own self be tru and all that.
    But the hardest thing is the destruction of your relationship with the children whose opinion is reenforced by her bra burning mates who witnessed absolutely nothing.
    Nothing-but i was hung drawn and quartered without trial.

    Comment by shafted — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:18 pm

  50. shafted..been through the same thing..x screaming at me to get out then blocks\ed the exit saying..’where the fck you think yopur going’ i barged my way out and got accused of assaulting a pregnant woman..not that the police ever turned up nor arrested or charged with anything..also went to jail for drink driving and upon my release and relocation to where my kids were the school was by her mouth given the impression i was some kind of agro violent offender just released from maximum security..the scholl was told by the x should i turn up the cops were to be contaced immediately..after a convo with the school they told me their impressions of me had just changed and they wouldmnt listen to her too much in the future and i shouldnt hesitate to talk to them if the need arose…at least with me i can move forward as she will always be stuck where she was 18 yrs ago..a lying manipulating user

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:32 pm

  51. LOL Ford.
    Yep. The school used to just about breath test me until they realised it was BS.
    I have had the scool say “the kids have been through a lot” without ever having been informed by or actually questioned me. Their mere father.Every opportunity is used to blacken my name. If it wasn’t so serious it would be funny. And there is a whole industry built around this that serves to keep my smacked down and subservient. I am not allowed strong opinions because that confirms that i am unreasonable and threatening and intimidating. Used to be ignored by the other parents but now they have lightened up having discovered i am not an immediate danger to themselves or their children.
    I will have my day in terms of the children coming to underrstand the truth but must be patient

    Comment by shafted — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:39 pm

  52. also ive lost count of the times the x wouldnt rant at rave at me whilst cooking and wave a bloody carving knife at me

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:41 pm

  53. been chased with a knife and had a remote control hurled at me causing a black eye. She advised all and sundry that she was merely passing the remote to me. Dennis lillee would have been proud of the arm action

    Comment by shafted — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:43 pm

  54. Ah schools, “sorry we only deal with the custodial parent” Really? The law says otherwise… again there are no consequences though.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:45 pm

  55. when i met my x she was going thru this crap with her then x..he kicked her out of his flat and kicked her up the arse on the out injuring his tail bone..affa davit came out and said..he told her to leave and gently guided her out the door with his foot…lol..what a classic..that man is now a prison

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:47 pm

  56. I think that the tragedy is, in my case, that my ex actually believes she is abused blah blah blah. You see there is an indsutry out there that affirms that everything that happens is because they are abused blah blah. She thinks she is the battling solo mother fighting the evil ex to make a life for the kids, when in reality she is a parasitic lying conniving leech that should have nothing to do with any children least of all mine.
    She is mentally unwell but can be charming and convincing, hence me cast in the role of darth veda, and her as the princess.

    Comment by shafted — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:52 pm

  57. 56 word for word.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:53 pm

  58. 56 word for word

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 1:56 pm

  59. LOL

    Comment by shafted — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 2:42 pm

  60. shafted…do you know my x cos you described her to the letter

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 3:24 pm

  61. thanks yall, thats too cool. had i not gone thru this i would be ignorant to your struggle, and im sorry. your right, this is wrong, it needs to be highlighted and addressed. Non custodial dad, to articulate an intelligent argument for this, i take my hat off to you. i have spent the last 4 years fighting to kp my sanity. hornet, i feel for you. that happend to me, my ex tried to make me out as sum nutter calling the police at every pickup. @ shafted – bn thea too. pumped up school secretariies thinking they know you wen they dont know shit. coniving manipulaters winning, working tax payers not.
    #56 feeln that. on top of being phucked over financially, your screwed mentally and paying your lawyer, as well as theirs and the kids with your taxes.
    i want to help. i will keep yall on lock, and see what i can do. am working on sum projects, but power to implement change comes in unity and focussed effort. dont give up any of you. i feel sad wen i read in forums tht sum men just move to america and never come back. keep ya head up yal. and come on man, start a fb page. id rep that.

    Comment by calli — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 3:54 pm

  62. sorri and scott b – shout out. had the same experience at my school, felt incredibly pissed, wanted to do a haka. get the council for child to write to them, and keep ya head up, all of yall.

    Comment by calli — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:00 pm

  63. Wouldn’t waste your time with lawyer for child. They have their own agenda. The one that I appointed interviewed my kids and my ex and refused to interview me stating ‘I’ve got everything I need.” Guess who she sided with? I’ll give you a hint, not with my kids or me!

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:06 pm

  64. Also Calli this is your struggle and everyone’s children’s struggle too.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:09 pm

  65. oh, mine wrote me a letter. guardianship issues such as schooling are not restricted to the custodial parent, and ignorant schools need to know that and shouldnt treat ppl like shit. i forced the issue, won, then showed up looking at the school luking pshyco Hott (ok that was just to piss that lady off). the thing i admire most, is that your all here and you keep fighting for this. its humbling.

    Comment by calli — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:17 pm

  66. i just remembered, i won my council for child over. not initially, but eventually. unfortunately, like alot of things in life, its a ppl game. and tru colors come out in the end. believe that yall. the bad things that are done to you, will be visited upon those ppl. stay strong and keep the faith.

    Comment by calli — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:20 pm

  67. counsel for my kids manipulated court orders to suit the x for an upcoming xmas period..only page in the whole document without signatures on it

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:35 pm

  68. alsdo i complained to my lawyer about and told him to jam it up his arse and i never paid him everythin g i owed him..i have never heard from him over money owed

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:36 pm

  69. Ford, yep thats pretty much where I left off – refused to pay any more for no service.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:41 pm

  70. Calli, should not come to that when dealing with kids – there should be clear guidelines with consequences if you much parents around. Kids, kids, kids – but I think the system has forgotten thats what was established to protect.

    As for the guardianship act – the most useless piece of legislation ever created – while well intentioned – practically impossible = try getting anything enforced – months, years, cost to get a point agreed and enforced, only to start over again the second you have finished – I have resigned myself to the fact – I HAVE NO SAY in my childs upbringing, her schooling, anything which the guardianship act states I have – impossible to enforce.

    Even with a psychological report stating the current school is too stressful on the child given her circumstances – I have no means to get this changed – none whatsoever – too costly, too time consuming, too difficult – been there done that.

    And the irony – Child support ignore this concern as well – and force me to pay for it. Force me to Pay for something identified by the systems professionals – as harming my kid.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:47 pm

  71. i also have guardianship rights but as you say hornet..what a complete waste of legistation…at the end of the day it means sweet FA

    Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 4:50 pm

  72. Lawyer to me – you have guardianship, you have the rights to a say as to the important matters which effect your child – you are protected you know…….

    Lawyer – not lets move on – to charging you excessively under the FALSE PRETENCE – that I can help you see your child – lets file more affidavits = $$$$$$$ years go by, mediations, court appointed conferences, more counsellors, mediations, pay pay pay – for NO fking result.

    Me to lawyer – but my child is being subjected to the most horrible behavior = can you do something about that ?
    lets file more affidavits – put it all before the court – more hearings, more mediations more conferences more councelling…….more $$$$$$$ for no fking result.

    I finally get a judge to agree to having the child assessed – years after complaining about the harm – the professional assessement – confirms EVERYTHING i have been complaining about – for years. The kids been harmed now – severely.

    file more Affidavits = more $$$$ we can get a result here if you keep filing more affidavits = more paper more paper more paper – more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    For NO fking result – ever.

    They are NOT addressing the concerns – the are refusing to deal with the causes of CONFLICT – because this is what is earning them a fortune – charging for services which they are NOT delivering on.

    I challenge anyone out there to ask this question of women who have been victims of domestic violence…..

    If you had NOT stopped your partner from seeing his kids, and if you had not deliberately used your children to leverage money and property, and if you had NOT acted badly – exposing your kids to horrible – bad parental behaviour all designed to assist with the first two points ……..

    Would you have been a victim of domestic violence if you had not done all those things??????

    My money is on NO……….

    So was your provoking conflict the cause.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 6:14 pm

  73. Hornet mate, you keep telling my story! Funny how so many of us have almost identical experiences.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 6:34 pm

  74. That why I think we need to band together and flush this out in the open……

    Comment by hornet — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 7:30 pm

  75. Agreed

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 7:57 pm

  76. I,d like to know if in assessing the new formula the ird can look through to companies/ trusts?my ex wife has the kids but has structured her affairs that all income goes through a company/ trust. She declares almost zero income, yet sends the kids to private schools/ trips overseas etc. I know she works hard, but under the new rules I will actually end up paying more. Under the new proposed legislation will they be able to look at these sorts of setups?

    Comment by Mark — Mon 26th November 2012 @ 9:18 pm

  77. Hi Mark,
    The key words are “my ex wife has the kids”.
    As such it does not matter what her income, structures assetts, access to funds etc is.
    Ground 8 (for admin reviews) only applies to the paying parent. If you have less than shared care it benefits you not at all. The one benefit that the new changes have is that shared care is to be widened such that having more than 27% care (4 nights a fortnight on average) will allow both parties to claim from one another and to thus fall under the tryanny of ground 8 investigations.

    Comment by allan harvey — Mon 26th November 2012 @ 9:42 pm

  78. #76 – welcome to the club mate, bend over and wait for the glove – when your veins are empty, they will then rip those out as well. Can you hear the chanting – DISCRIMINATE, DISCRIMINATE, DISCRIMINATE – like a horde of Maniac Darlicks – remember them……find an empty phone booth and hope to be transported somewhere else = because down here in little old N – ZUD – its all about taking your money – as much as they can – to help pay off huge debt.

    Comment by hornet — Mon 26th November 2012 @ 10:02 pm

  79. Mark # 76

    In short, YES!

    Under the new CS formula starting 1 April 2013 the definition of income for CS purposes has been wwidened to include Family Trust Income if a parent is the Settlor of a Family Trust. If the Trust also ‘owns’ or has shares in a business/Ltd liability Company then the retained earnings/profits of the business/company (if not passed to the Trust as Shareholder Dividends) is also treated as the liable parent’s/Settlor’s income for CS purposes. AND if the liable parent/Settlor uses a company car on which FBT is payable then the value of the fringe benefit is also treated as income for CS purposes.

    The shared care percentage is being reduced from 40% of nights to 28% although there is also provision for a reduction if less than 28% of nights of shared care but there is a ‘substantial’ amount of
    other daytime care.

    There is much more of course. If you haven’t done so I suggest you read the publicly available IRD documents on the matter including their Commentary on the CS Bill which containsthe new formula at page 6. It also contains much other valuable information which should cause many to tremble in trepidation of D Day! See also the IRDs Regulatory Impact Statement of 26 July 2011.

    I hope this helps……

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Mon 26th November 2012 @ 11:08 pm

  80. Thank you all for your feedback. I shall look at the ird documents. It’s exacerbated in that my ex works in a family business, lives with her parents and claims the money is provided by them. I’m moving to Auckland to be closer to the kids, taking on a bigger mortgage. Hopefully a admin review takes that into account, although my experience with an admin review is that they are one sided. I’ve never felt so powerless in my entire life.

    Comment by Mark — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 5:06 am

  81. #80 – I’ve never felt so powerless in my entire life. – why is this such a common feeling among parents who get sucked into this system, why is this direct discrimination, oppression, isolation allowed to continue – generation after generation – destroying so many great parents, and families – why – because they attack you as an individual, they seek to totally suppress your ability to defend yourself, challenge these rulings, or even lodge a complaint against this system. IS this a fair and impartial, and well meaning service to the public? Is this benefiting the effected children?

    How does having a parent totally decimated, impoverished, isolated and barely able to fend for himself = helping that child in the future?

    I spoke to a mate of mine recently high up in the police – hes been through this, but he had a caring ex partner who allowed him to OPT out of the IRD persecution process and yet he still mate a comment to me which I really objected to – he said “those dads who protest dont do themselves any favors by standing around with placards and looking homeless”……..etc

    I replied by asking him this = but if you have your income stripped of you, if you are left with barely enough to just survive, if you lose your kids, and if you have been persecuted for so long – HOW ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO LOOK = your going to look disheveled and homeless with a beard and raggged clothes. Wake up I told him – this is the horrible perception and the systems crowning glory – the end game result. Because once you look like that, no one will give you any credibility. Which just helps this entire system.

    So yes #80, we all feel like this, it is the worst of feelings and that is by design – you will be stripped of your soul, and every last asset you thought you had – NOT to help your kids, but to help the state pay off its debts.

    Comment by hornet — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 7:30 am

  82. I can see once this comes into effect many many fathers losing more time with their children and paying more for that privilege.

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 8:52 am

  83. 81 this is a good point, when we finally get around to having a structured set of goals and how we are going to go about it. We need to look respectable. Beg borrow and steal any suits/good clothing (nice dresses for the ladies. It may be superficial but I believe it will help.

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 8:59 am

  84. Scott B, yes mate, I currently look like something from an old 70’s biker movie, the wife thinks I look like a YETI. To some extent I have actually enjoyed just being myself, rather than putting on a face to gain public acceptance – like I used to have to. I have also found I meet the most sincere and genuine people – looking like I do currently. Isnt it amazing how society judges people -INCORRECTLY – its the clean shaven wankers in suits we all need to fear.

    Comment by hornet — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 9:05 am

  85. I know shafted and I are in Auckland, where is everyone else – who have expressed an interest in meeting to plan against this sham system?? THATS all PARENTS, male or female, father or mother.

    Comment by hornet — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 9:07 am

  86. Hornet, I agree I just think for this we should all scrub up a bit. Auck here

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 12:04 pm

  87. palmy nrth and will be in aucks next i dont scrub up..take me as i am

    Comment by Ford — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 5:18 pm

  88. Ford, thanks for the input. I agree, we should be allowed to just be ourselves, sadly we live in a world where we are JUDGED by appearance -and that is a fact – if we want legitimacy we must present or at least make sure that whoever represents and speaks for us, looks the part – then we have credibility.

    What I would like you all to think about – is this .

    What has this all cost you, this discrimination and bias you have been through ( man or Woman – PARENT ).

    What has it cost you, financially, emotionally and health wise – and of course loss of your own children – thats a hard one to ever put a price on, but that must be quantified because that is the reality – you are being deliberately deprived of your kids – sent down a path where this is part of the overall strategy, so you are then locked into a lifetime of child support?

    Who here also feels they are being deliberately asked to contribute MORE than there INCOME – More than if they had inserted figures into the Child Support formula – has the REVIEW process been totally unjust and excessive in determining your contributions.

    I am talking to a few people with the view to seek damages on this, so input on what the bias and discrimination has cost you will be an important point to prove.

    Comment by hornet — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 6:09 pm

  89. at a point in life where im sick of living up to a level that other ppl think i should tired of caring what ppl think of me and how i should look or speak,,im happy with the person i am and if noone else likes it i guess its tough shit for them..on the 9th of jan im getting my neck tattooed..both sides

    Comment by Ford — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 8:06 pm

  90. I am writing a book on child support in NZ. I would be very interested in talking to anyone that would like to tell their story. All confidential of course. I have some experience of everything described.

    Please email me [email protected]

    Comment by cswriter — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 8:09 pm

  91. Ford – excellent.

    Comment by hornet — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 9:29 pm

  92. 90 what is the context of the book, what it going to be called and what are you trying to achieve? Contributors will want to know beforehand. Are you are looking to expose this SHAM, differentiate between what the public are led to believe versus what is actually happening to parents. Are you going to discuss the reality of the REVIEW process, and what it is doing to good parents and families in this country and the direct harm it is causing kids, including those kids NOT the subject of the C.S industry – ie the kids to parents from separations – who have started new families – which are being systematically torn apart – because their children are NOT recognized or considered = by this C.S INDUSTRY – which is focused solely on taking as much as it can, to their detriment.

    Comment by hornet — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 9:37 pm

  93. Exactly that. I don’t have a name for it. That will come. But I intend to bring the whole thing into the sunlight. I don’t believe people know, or care, what’s going on. I want to change that.

    I have been dragged though the cs system and, after a long time thinking about it, the best way for me to respond is to write a book about it.

    Why not email me and see how it goes.

    Comment by cswriter — Tue 27th November 2012 @ 9:49 pm

  94. It must be the end result of what we have been through. I have not bought new clothes for a couple of years now (i can’t afford them and can’t be fucked). all the things i used to think were important aren’t. The things i value now are family, honesty and peace. The rest is just B…..S. The one thing that this whole awful process has taught me is what is important and what’s not. What you see is what you get. I no longer say anything PC-i speak from the heart. good on you ford-you and the rest of us are grown ups and can do what the hell we want.
    I no longer have fear of anything. The courts, the ex, the schools, the lawyers-they threw everything at me and i am STILL STANDING. And i am no longer bound by societal conventions. I have opinions on gay marriage, gay adoption, race, religion, the treaty and legislation against lolly scrambles-and you know what-they are MY opinions. Not the ones i am supposed to have. MINE. And if people don’t like it they can take some razor wire and ram it where the sun don’t shine. I will no longer be told what to think, or how to act. I am more at peace with who i am than ever.
    I will no longer be told that certain lifestyles are ok and that i am not getting the programme if i think otherwise. I tell you-it is a liberating feeling-NOT to be bound by the rules. Not to bow to the leftist intelligentsia. FUCK EM!

    Comment by shafted — Wed 28th November 2012 @ 7:43 am

  95. Watch this video – big picture stuff – our concerns on this site – are part of a bigger global concern – this Anti FAMILY agenda, those in control are now concerned they are LOSING the information war. People are waking up.

    They are concerned the general population are waking up to the lies…..surprise surprise…..they are worried about the likes of you and me, who know the TRUTH – those of us who have survived the beating and are now more understanding of the FACTS and REALITIES of these systems we are all forced to live under.

    In a recent speech at an event for the European Forum For New Ideas, former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed that ‘populist activism’ and the ‘resistance’ movement were hindering the globalist march towards a new world order.

    Watch the video here

    Comment by hornet — Wed 28th November 2012 @ 9:25 am

  96. Shafted – you are right there with your comments – after you come out the end of this – if you survive, it defines you – you end up with very firm values that you want to live by – your own rules. This kicking actually makes you stronger and more resilient………

    After ten years I have seen first hand the direct refusal of the state and its systems to help me see my child – I have seen nothing but a direct attempt to distance me from my own offspring in the pursuit of money – because they know a parent will do anything to try and see their own kid – a parent will spend all they have, a parent will do what ever they are told – until they are bankrupted and destroyed. That is the system. Put that in your book.

    Comment by hornet — Wed 28th November 2012 @ 9:29 am

  97. Ford, all I am saying is the spokesman for the effort needs to be well presented and articulate.

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 28th November 2012 @ 10:37 am

  98. Hornet. Was it you that mentioned the effects on small business?

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 28th November 2012 @ 2:47 pm

  99. #98 well, men aren’t invited.

    “The members should be able also to represent business related issues facing women, Maori and Pacific SMEs and those seeking to start-up businesses.”

    Comment by Rogered — Wed 28th November 2012 @ 6:49 pm

  100. 98 – I have mentioned several concerns for small business in NZ – firstly we see far too many good small businesses destroyed at separation – one parent wants the money – the CASH out of it at all cost, regardless of the impact on keeping the company running and employing people – and even if one parent can be PAID OUT in cash – this usually destroys both the company and the owner who founded it in the first place – and funnily enough was probably NOT MOTIVATED by cash when they started it – usually passion and a love for what they do is the motivator – cash comes as a result – and people forget that part of the equation – After any payouts the businesses struggle and rarely ever get things back on track. If the stress of running the company stripped of cash does not kill the owner, the IRD will do there best to demanding Child Support payments he can not afford.

    I spoke once to a Registrar at court – and her story was this – we see so many good NZ men ( the ones who have WORKED hard and probably did not have much luck with women – until they made a few bucks ) coming in here looking beat up and shell shocked – because they just spent THREE years with a woman who clearly was only there for the money – and now wants half of all he owns. ( im sure some men do it to women ) We see it all the time, and worse still are the foreign girls who come from hard times, they are clever and cunning, they hit on young lads, stay the minimum 3 years required and then take them for everything they have. This is the registrar of a court talking – relaying what she sees week after week. And this is JUST ONE COURT.

    Thats one concern, the other of course GOVT is now more intent on the easy money – collecting GST , because we have to NOW IMPORT everything we need to live = everything we once made here – now gets made overseas and taxed at the border. The aussies picked up the last few good small businesses when they offered really low Company taxes a few years back – I personally saw lots of great small companies and there owners pack up and head over the ditch – we MISSED the boat, did not look after them and now sadly they are gone for good.

    When you have bankers leading the country = what else do you expect – they come from a mentality of PENALTY to make money – charging for EVERY service – surely you have all seen that over the years with charges on your account. We see the exact same mentality across all GOVT SERVICES for things we used to get for FREE, as part of our taxes and rates – now everything is divided up and costed out. Pay twice for the same thing. ( surely you all notice we pay more for less )

    The child support INDUSTRY as I have explained is just another offshoot of this desperation to collect or borrow more money, because we no longer have a small business economy like we once had. Govt have sucessfully fked them all, or done nothing to encourage them to start up here, because we dont elect small business owners into politics to lead us.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 29th November 2012 @ 8:38 am

  101. Ill give you an example of the type of idiots we have in high places – I attended a tri lateral trade discussion years ago, and I had a european company wanting to establish business down in the south pacific – when I broached the opportunity to see what incentives we could offer them to come here to NZ, and create JOBS, the response was – can they buy more dairy and beef from us??? I said no, they are not even in that industry – but thats as far as the discussion went – unless they could do some contra deal, they were NOT INTERESTED – the company then went on to set up in another country which RECOGNIZED how to GROW an ECONOMY – in this other country, they gave that business a FIVE YEAR tax free status, with the option to increase that for another FIVE years, if the company grew in the first five years – that country understood – EMPLOYING PEOPLE, who then go on to pay taxes and buy locally is GROWING an economy – and more importantly they ATTRACTED that industry to stay and grow.

    We have narrow minded fkwits in high places who do not understand this concept. Rather we pay excessively high $$$ for people to run state owned enterprises – many of which could just about run themselves – Eg – how hard is it to collect money each month supplying phones to everyone.

    Another company I did business with in Europe – EVERYONE was PAID THE SAME – wow, now there’s a thought – this was the NORM – all staff were treated as EQUALS and the company thrived as a result.

    What do I see here in green eyed monster land – Example – Staff hired as MANAGERS in a GOVT company who don’t even know the business – give them BUDGETS – so the less they spend on STAFF and business needs, the more they get as a BONUS – so the company and staff suffer through a lack of resources – I saw this recently where unemployed dairy managers were HIRED to run a FREIGHT company – they were given budgets which they did not want to SPEND – so staff went without the BASICS, health and safety was a shambles, ( thats right folks govt run companies are the worst offenders ) and the managers got huge bonuses at the end of the year because they spent nothing – this is how our GOVT run there own businesses in NZ.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 29th November 2012 @ 9:09 am

  102. I don;t know if anyone’s reading this anymore, but I have something to share. My ex-wont do any kind of deal with me so that IRD dosent charge me over and over becuase she wants every cent, So I started paying out of my wages, biggest mistake ever!!! Two years later tehy send me a bill for late payments, I called up and said WTF It cant be possible I always pay you guys take it straight from my pay I dont even get the chance to not pay.
    But I am liable for $1800 100% of which is charges that should never have happened. They never contacted me in order to pay them. Yet they send me letters informing me that they are going to take more form my wages to pay off (cough) the debt.

    Comment by To Tired... — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 1:44 am

  103. Too Tired # 102

    You have thrown up a point I commented on to the Select Committee many moons ago when the consultation paper was first issued. I drew attention to the fact, for example, that when a liable parent pays CS direct to IRD Child Support through monthly automatic payment (2 days prior to the due date if paid from a bank other than that used by IRD to allow for bank processing) that gets recorded immediately by them.

    However, if CS is taken from monthly or weekly pay it is paid to those who process PAYE who in turn have to inform the CS unit that payment has been received. That extra handling obviously builds in a short time delay as it is the time of receipt at the CS Unit that determines actual payment NOT by those who process PAYE! Even if payment is receipted a day later than it should be the penalty regime kicks in even if IRD are to blame!

    Needless to say the time delay problem seems to have passed without being considered by IRD in its final recommendations. Unless thay are actively working on resolving the problem I can see your issue being amplified many times over once the compulsory deductions from wages takes effect. Of course, even those like me who have paid CS by automatic monthly payments for 10 years will now have to stop that and have the payments taken from wages! All at extra cost to employers and IRD. Bureaucracy gone mad…….

    While the new CS regime has some redeeming features they are more than offset by the bad points and I fear that post April 2013 the glitches in the system will create havoc for liable parents and a headache for IRD!

    Comment by Non Custodial dad — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 8:53 am

  104. I am against them taking the money directly from my account/pay as they never get the amount right and quite often changes. I will find myself out of pocket very quickly. But hey… at least it is easy to get them to admit to a mistake and they quickly sort it out… NOT!

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 9:05 am

  105. Taking CS payments direct from pay should cause few problems for those whose pay is the same each month as their monthlu payments will also remain the same (as in my case).

    HOWEVER, problems will inevitably arise when pay varies, when holiday pay and holidays and other casual emoluments are taken into account etc. Also, there are rules governing the total amount of deductions that can be made from a person’s pay as a certain % (I can’t remember what that is) of pay has to be paid each pay period so that the liable parent has some money left to ‘live’ on!

    It will be interesting to see how the new rules work in practice. But given the drama over teachers’ pay I am not convinced the transition will be anything other than calamitous!!!!! (If there is a problem with deductions from pay who do you speak to? CS Unit/PAYE etc. They don’t even speak to each other!!!!!!!

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 9:17 am

  106. “there are rules governing the total amount of deductions that can be made from a person’s pay” If you expect them to follow any rules you are in for a rude awakening.

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 9:20 am

  107. Scott B

    My comment was a simple statement of fact; it was intended solely to highlight another likely contentious issue post April 2013! (though it could have been better elucidated had I taken a little more time).

    I didn’t say or even imply that IRD do or will follow their own rules! Indeed, one would need to be totally bereft of any common sense to think that IRD strictly comply with any law, internal rule or administrative procedure. I happily blow my own trumpet when I say that I think I possess a modicum of intelligence and common sense!!!!!!

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 10:16 am

  108. Phew! Thought you’d lost it for a minute there!

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 10:21 am

  109. Scrapping the child support system in NZ will literally save the country billions.

    Comment by To Tired... — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 10:21 pm

  110. I’ve emailed campbell live and a few mp’s. I hope others do aswell.

    Comment by To Tired... — Tue 4th December 2012 @ 11:51 pm


    Comment by To Tired... — Wed 5th December 2012 @ 12:42 am

  112. What are the current child support debt figures?

    As at 31 March 2012, child support debt assessed and unpaid was $637 million. In addition there are $1,668 million worth of unpaid penalties, giving a combined total child support debt of $2,305 million as at 31 March 2012.

    Since the scheme’s introduction in 1992, Inland Revenue has collected over 89.2 percent of all child support payments assessed.

    Comment by To Tired... — Wed 5th December 2012 @ 12:59 am


    I liked this post.

    Comment by To Tired... — Wed 5th December 2012 @ 1:06 am

  114. To tired. Child Support is a BUSINESS – an INDUSTRY – you can only look at it like that – they LEVERAGE huge Borrowing against the DEBT – so there is NO INCENTIVE to reduce that debt – in fact the entire system is designed to create MORE DEBT.

    Why else would you make demands of parents over and above what they earn in INCOME.

    Why else would you have 2.2 Billion in unpaid Child Support – of which 1.5 BILLION is PENALTIES – artificial DEBT – against which you can BORROW against….to pay off more debt – see the picture……

    And lastly – why would you not make it an offence to harm a child – through alienation and or bad behavior – rather the penalties are only directed at those who refuse to pay the demands…….

    Comment by hornet — Wed 5th December 2012 @ 7:15 am



    I went to this site from a link on MENZ, it reads like a advert for IRD, and to actually seek them out when seperating, and there are no comments about it, so I wrote one and it doesnt appear, I guess they check to see if it isnt negative about the IRD.

    Comment by To Tired... — Tue 11th December 2012 @ 12:14 am

  116. 115 Gotta love this gem… “If ever you are unsure about any aspect of your child payments speak to the IRD.”

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 11th December 2012 @ 7:45 am

  117. Yep-i have always found them to be even handed, reasonable and looking for that “win/win” scenario.

    Comment by shafted — Tue 11th December 2012 @ 10:30 am

  118. I was asked to review a questionaire on the current Child Support Act by MP Joe Goddhew back in 2010 as the Government were considering changes to what we all know as a flawless system. Recently I wrote to Dunne and received the usual avoidence letter outlining that the proposed changes would take place in 2015.
    What this gutless so called Christian is saying is he has no more interest in changing the law than I have going to the moon. Had I known then what I know now I would have put an end to my life.
    How long would the government take to repair a tax loophole….Ans around 6 months
    Child support stops at nineteen yet this so called child can vote at 18, go to the pub, go overseas and drive. Am I to supposed to subsidise all of this?
    Why does it take from 2010 till 2015 to make an ammendment?
    To all concerned….we don’t need words anymore but direct action, even if it means people getting hurt.

    Comment by SBS — Fri 28th December 2012 @ 9:13 am

  119. takes that long because it needs to fit in with the budget and revenue take

    Comment by Ford — Fri 28th December 2012 @ 10:26 am

  120. also my youngest is 19 in 2015

    Comment by Ford — Fri 28th December 2012 @ 10:27 am

  121. Any updates on when this policy will be passed into law? So we know whne it might become reality?

    Comment by Too Tired — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 9:41 pm

  122. Too Tired # 121. What ‘policy’ are you referring too? If you mean the new child support formula that date has been referred to many many times in previous posts! But for clarification it is 1 April 2013 with other changes taking effect in 2014.

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 9:59 pm

  123. I thought that the 1st of April was only on the draft papers, I thought that the GOVT still had to pass these changes? That’s what I meant to ask, is it going through parliment again and when?

    Comment by Too Tired — Wed 9th January 2013 @ 8:51 pm

  124. The select committee report has been presented to the house.
    I think it awaits a second reading, then a third reading then it is signed by GG into legislation. I don’t think dates for these steps have yet been set.
    Some changes are good and the shared care changes will help those sitiing with 27-39.9% of overnights. It may be not what we desired but Peter Dunne has done something and our nickname for him may need to change a tad.

    Comment by allan harvey — Wed 9th January 2013 @ 9:57 pm

  125. Too Tired # 123

    1st April is when the (Draft)Child Support Amnendment Bill will receive Royal Assent thereby transforming into the Child Support Amendment Act 2013. As one who worked in Government in the UK for 30 years (including on Policy work relating to new Acts of Parliament) I can assure you that the new formula will come into force on that date and IRD continue to confirm that date. What is presently unknown is exactly what changes (if any) have been made to the Bill since its last ‘public consultation’ was undertaken. What I am not sure about is if the Bill is due for a final ‘reading’ (debate) and vote in the in the House to pass it into Law! But whether it is or not is largely irrelevant since a new Law will be with us on 1 April and there is nothing anyone can now do to effect any changes (I don’t think the Select Committee took note of any of the suggestions paying parents’ made in the past in any event!!!)….. Not sure if this helps!

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Wed 9th January 2013 @ 10:14 pm

  126. Allan # 124 Your comment came up after I posted mine! I tried to find out about the stage the Bill is at but unsurprisingly I received no reply to my enquiries from the Committee Clerk, local MP or Dunne!!!!

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Wed 9th January 2013 @ 10:17 pm

  127. You can check legislation progress and select committee reports by accessing parliament’s website. I recall seeing a recommendation that the dates be changed due to the slow progress of the legislation.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 7:56 am

  128. It may be not what we desired but Peter Dunne has done something and our nickname for him may need to change a tad.

    Suggestions please I’ll start

    -Dunne over Dads
    -Been Dunned

    to describe the bill – Dunnes disaster

    Dunning is the process of methodically communicating with customers to ensure the collection of accounts receivable. Communications progress from gentle reminders to almost threatening letters as accounts become more past due. Laws in each country regulate the form that dunning can take. It is generally unlawful to harass or threaten consumers. It is acceptable to issue firm reminders and to take all allowable collection options.

    The word stems from the 17th century verb dun, meaning to demand payment of a debt.[1]

    Dunning is also the process of methodically communicating with individuals to ensure certain requested action is taken. It follows a similar process of progressive moving from gentle reminders to almost threatening letters as due dates approach or pass. Businesses frequently use an automated dunning process to remind their employees about certain activities or actions they are expected to take by a certain date. Examples include automated reminders for Performance Appraisal submission, mandatory training, etc. The process may begin with an early letter indicating an approaching due date. Letters typically become stronger in tone as deadlines approach or are passed.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 9:54 am

  129. He’s put a hex on us. Witch hex. No, Dunnnosaurus Hex.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 10:16 am

  130. Dunnations from Dads for the IRD please, more Dunnations from Dads required. Dad’s donations for the needy.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 10:21 am

  131. Pay your Dunnations and remember – Dunnations are not tax deductable either.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 10:28 am

  132. How to stay in New Zealand and not pay child support.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 2:49 pm

  133. ‘She got $600,000 and it was only her second divorce.’

    About time we joined in the humour.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 3:19 pm

  134. Dear Down Under, you really don’t have enough sympathy for our poor manslaughterer friends, in Department of Conservation. They manslaughterered 14 people at Cave Creek. They were never held properly accountable. The staff with souls cannot sleep properly. The 14 victims aren’t really sleeping properly either…..

    The viewing platform was a mantrap, set to fail when the maximum possible number of trusting people were relying on its support. They sailed down through the air, in peace, to meet the jagged rocks below and die slowly……

    I guess they are trying to claim ownership of 14 lives, in some form of misguided payback for their unaccounted sins.

    If they feel that bad, how does ex-principal judge Peter Boshier sleep at night, for parents driven to suicide, as a roadkill consequence of his court’s winding up the stress levels on parents going through familycaught$?

    I know that the suicides of women, fathers and children are a perverse effect of their thieverous manipulation of parents, but manslaughter is manslaughter, murder is murder and many manslaughters for cash is practically murder. I wouldn’t defend people so selfish, so callous, so greedy.

    I am guessing that familycaught$ has about the same number of suicides as Minister Dunne’s staff in IRD child [and spousal] support. As a christian he doesn’t have to worry about accountability. He has a pass recognised by Saint Peter, good luck to him (Saint Peter I mean, not Minister Dunne.)

    He has publicly admitted the smallest credible number of such driven suicides. My guess is many times higher than his public admission. In law????????? you take your victim as you find her or him.

    May God have mercy on his soul. I would prefer full accountability, real professional competence and a cessation of the hundreds of merciless killings.

    For the rest of the country, fine weather. (I need professional help for my sarcasm..)

    Best regards, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 3:29 pm

  135. Berlusconi rips ‘feminist’ magistrates over divorce deal

    Comment by Luther Blissett — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 5:39 pm

  136. @ Scrap Oh yes, he has done something. pDunne pDunne pDunne The pink pamperer has Dunne-it-again.

    Perhaps that should be the pink pimp?

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 14th January 2013 @ 6:44 am

  137. Hi, not sure if im posting this in the right place, but what is the go with child support if you have 50/50 shared care of your children???? can anyone help??

    Comment by Nickstar — Thu 31st January 2013 @ 5:26 pm

  138. Nickstar # 137. You need to be more specific before any advice can be given! What does “what is the go” mean? What exactly is your/concern or interest? Happy to help if possible but need some clarity so that a targeted response can be provided.

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Thu 31st January 2013 @ 9:59 pm

  139. Nickstar this isn’t the place to discuss specific matters.
    Try [email protected] and then as NCD says be specific with what you seek to know.
    The go for shared care is formula percentage falls, your living allowance rises and you wend up paying bit more than half what a non-shared care assessment is. The go is also you can claim of your partner and depending on if her income is more than yours she end up paying you, if the same then nothing is due from either party and each pays their own costs and if she earns less than you, you have the privelidge of topping her income up each month. I think the latter situation is the most common.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 1st February 2013 @ 7:14 am

  140. Looks to me like the child support bill changes have been postponed from 1 April 2013 to 1 April 2014, due to the fact IRD needs more time to get ready for it. This seems to be confirmed in the report back from the Select Committee. Hasn’t been much on the newswires about this though?

    Comment by Interested party — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 10:28 am

  141. Interested Party # 140. It has. I put a post here a few days ago about it but it seems to have got ‘lost’. Dunne confirmed on 11 Feb that the Select Cttee recommended a delay to introducing the new formula to 2014: this due to…… “legislative pressures and give Inland Revenue sufficient time to implement the changes”. Other changes (unspecified) to be introduced in 2015! Haven’t read the commitees report though, yet. Wonder why this hasn’t been publically announced? To avoid embarrassment to Dunne I presume.

    Comment by Non custodial Dad — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 11:53 am

  142. Heard through the grapevine that changes cant be done till significant investment Is made in IRD IT infrstructure. Even then its likely the changes will be an IT disaster like Nova pay.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 2:32 pm

  143. Scrap # 142. Not surprising really! Given the complex nature of the changes the time frame for their introduction was always overly optimistic but the time imperative always took precedence over a considered approach! And as you say when the new system comes into being it will be no better than the current novopay debacle. Any delay is to be welcomed…….

    Comment by Non custodial Dad — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 7:05 pm


    The status of child support in the parliamentary agenda and the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 27th February 2013 @ 6:42 am

    Hansard transcript. This from Paul Goldsmith (National MP) on Child Support …

    What is it, to be a good citizen in this country? I think the starting point surely must be looking after yourself and your family. That is the starting point of what it is to be a good citizen, and it is not optional; it is fundamental. It is a right that is appropriately asserted in legislation.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 27th February 2013 @ 7:04 am

  146. Sue Maroney Labour …

    He said the outcome would have been better for the parents. He had no comment to make about whether the outcome would have been better for the children or not. That is the basic mistake that the Government is making, because the whole point of this legislation is to ensure that, in situations where there is a family relationship breakdown, the children are taken care of. That is what this bill is about. It is not about serving the interests of the parents. It is first and foremost about serving the interests of the children.

    It’s not Bullshit Castle anymore, it’s the country’s biggest crèche. She no doubt thinks God is a woman too.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 27th February 2013 @ 7:13 am

  147. I was unfortunate enough to catch part of the “Second Reading” debacle on TV yesterday. That those morons who spoke have power over so many families lives and finances is indeed very worrying! But perhaps the biggest idiot (and obvious misandrist) was Moroney who talked a load of Bollocks!!! She was long on sanctimonius diatribe and short on constructive comment. Her oft repeated assertion about childrens’ interests was vomit inducing!!

    I would be interested to learn how she sees the principle of childrens interests working in practice/theory if it was enshrined in the Bill/new Act! Given that childrens welfare and best interests is all too often ignored by the Family Court and associated hangers and most custodial mothers I hold out no prospect for a similar provision under CS legislation being any more reflective of childrens true needs.

    ALSO, Moroney was hypocritical by, on the one hand preaching about childrens interests, but on the other omplaining about the adverse financial affect on custodial mothers arising from the recommended reduction in shared care percentage for liable fathers! I would love to debate this matter with her!! I feel a letter to Moroney coming on!!!

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Wed 27th February 2013 @ 12:44 pm

  148. How about handing out a ‘Fuk em to the Dad that had cutsody of a son while the mother had cutsody of a daughter, both of who had to suffer the needless bureacracy of a department collecting the EXACT same amount from each in LPC.Fuk em, Fuk em, Fuk em….The inisator of that Fuk em I venture to suggest is more keen about proving a point than she/he is about actual welfare of the chillun in question. The thing that used to pis me off most was that it was clear that “recovery” of money/debt was the primary goal rather than a child’s welfare…….to the extent that those that are honest and pay effectively subsidise the “dead beat dad’s” AND the dead beat mothers. I have one such “dead beat mother” as a neice!Her motivation for pregnancy and sex was economic and I’d suggest not uncommon. Of the four children, ALL were eventually fostered, and the youngest of the two are now in the care of those “fuk em!!! dead beat grandparents – who actually get ‘cutsody’ by default (tho’ not in the legal sense) whilst the “dead beat mother” continues to collect her DPB….house and clothe her dysfunctional wife beating spouse, and continue to prick her forearm with any needle loaded with cheap and nasty drugs. Also not uncommon (it could just as well be alcohol or any other shit).Dead Beat dad is a convenience!. IT’s actually equal opportunity gender non-specific dead beat shit….and the sooner people realise that dysfunctions of various sorts can fuck up mothers just as readily as they can fuck up fathers, the better we’ll all be.Meantime….. 60 plus sis will look after the offspring of the dysfnctional daughter that keeps going back to the abusive Sgt at Arms asshole – but then “fuk her”! her own silly fault for having a daughter that is a fucked unit

    Comment by Maria — Mon 14th December 2015 @ 6:17 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