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

NZer kills himself over Child Support.

Filed under: General — golfa @ 10:27 am Sun 6th May 2012

Or should that read Another NZer …..

There’s outrage across the Tasman after debt laden New Zealander Paul Jenkins felt so helpless, he killed himself.

The 39-year-old died in Geelong after receiving a $53,000 bill from Australian Child Support Services.

The money was to support his ex-partner and teenage daughter, who are still in Wellington.

Inland Revenue had asked the Australian authorities to chase the debt because Mr Jenkins had moved there.

Fees and interest repayments have forced automatic $125 deductions every few days, which his father Tony says he simply couldn’t afford.

He says the letter Paul received demanded an immediate payment of $813, but didn’t explain why so many automatic deductions had been taken.


  1. Reply to golfa

    Another wonderful and successful outcome for ‘Kiwi’ women, with in there Gestapo feminist ‘Kiwi’ women controlled government departments….

    Rubbing your hands in pure statistical Glee ‘Kiwi’ women….???? Especially the Gestapo ‘Kiwi’ feminists employed at ‘The ministry of women’s affairs’

    King regards …John Dutchie …..Free at long last from this Kiwi women social engineered Gestapo feminist state called New Zealand

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 6th May 2012 @ 11:54 am

  2. I forgot to add the following of the Kiwi women Feminists controlled government departments…

    Rubbing your hands in pure statistical Glee ‘Kiwi’ women”¦.???? Especially the Gestapo ‘Kiwi’ feminists employed at ‘The ministry of women’s affairs’…The I.R.D…And at W.I.N.Z……

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 6th May 2012 @ 11:59 am

  3. the person that sent this guy a debt that altimately led to his death should be held accountable..thats how it works isnt it?

    Comment by ford — Sun 6th May 2012 @ 12:07 pm

  4. Reply to Ford#3

    Yeah right..Another ‘Tui’ bill board advert in the making…

    This whats going to happen Ford …

    The Kiwi women feminists beasts employed at the Feminists controlled I.R.D…they will spin this totally around in the media and loudly proclaim ‘they’ are the real victims..

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 6th May 2012 @ 12:29 pm

  5. #4,,if women were killing themselves under the same circumstances im sure men would be jailed for sure..a bet worth taking

    Comment by ford — Sun 6th May 2012 @ 1:31 pm


    The Herald article on this stated “The money was to help support his daughter, 17, who lives in Wellington with his former partner.” What a fraud! How can over $53,000 be needed to ‘help’ support one child? Clearly, the fact that so-called ‘child support’ accumulates to such levels shows it is intended primarily to support the mother’s lifestyle either directly or through reimbursing government for its destructive DPB system. The actual needs of an average child would be covered by $150 per week, half of that would be $75, so even allowing a bit of generous leeway no more than $100 per week could reasonably be justified as child support.

    Of course, the father will have spent money already on supporting the child whenever that child stayed with him and for maintaining communications and other needs. All such contribution calculated on a time-proportion system should be deducted from the $100 liability per week such that a zero amount is reached when the parents care for the child equally 50% of the time. That is, if the children stay with Dad for two days then his child support should be reduced by 0.57 for that week, being the proportion 2 days over 3.5 days.

    $100 (reducing for the time the child stays with father) is on the basis that father is willing to care for the child 50% of the time but agrees to the mother’s preference to provide care for most of the time. If he is not willing to provide primary care then he should contribute additionally towards the mother’s time in providing child care duties during his 50% of the week.

    $100 per week should be a maximum. For fathers who earn below the average, a reduced maximum liability proportional to income should be calculated.

    This simple regime would see many more children benefit from full involvement by fathers who will not resent the extortion currently in place and who will have the resources to spend directly on children. It would also lead to many more families staying together, usually providing the safest and most secure upbringing for those children.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th May 2012 @ 2:02 pm

  7. Reply to Hans#6

    Wise words you have written Hans…Here below, is a link to a website that you will find very interesting, it raises very similar view points that you have posted

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 6th May 2012 @ 3:45 pm

  8. Reply to Hans

    Your comment ‘MORE BLOOD ON PETER DUNNE’S HANDS.’ You are correct Hans,but do remember that Mr ‘Feminized’ Peter Dunne’s is just a mere clueless feminist puppet for the Kiwi women feminist movement

    Here below is website,which this author writes a very interesting perceptive on the powerful political influence of feminism in the Australia political system ]

    Tongue in Cheek…Could have sworn this astute author was writing about New Zealand….

    Kind regards John Dutchie…Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 7th May 2012 @ 6:47 am

  9. #8..i read the article about the rugby league players..the woman should be jailed and made to compensate the men that have lost their jobs because of her malicious money making accusations..they are dogs

    Comment by ford — Mon 7th May 2012 @ 9:23 am

  10. Reply to Ford#9

    No, that won’t happen Ford …..
    Western European women feel that they are above the law regarding laying false and malicious rape/sexual allegation towards the male gender,and they feel perfectly ‘Empowered’ to do so….

    And just to prove my point to you western European kiwi women and also the Kiwi women feminists employed at the ‘the Ministry of women’s affairs’ that spy on this web site…Do all of you want to challenge me with my statement above …well then,please feel free to do so

    Below …Are some published quotes,made public for the whole world too see, from ‘your’ beloved, revered,prominent and distinguished world famous western European women feminists that you Kiwi feminists worship and idolized….

    “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983..

    “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience.” Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3,
    1991, p. 52..

    Don’t have to say anymore do I…..??????

    Oh by the way….’Tongue in cheek’ here Ford…Dogs are amazing animals Ford….So if you wouldn’t mind, please don’t insult a dog,as in to compare a dog with western European women,that paying a western European women a sincere compliment

    King regards John Dutchie…Free at long last…..

    Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 7th May 2012 @ 2:26 pm

  11. John Dutchie: thanks for the excellent references

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 7th May 2012 @ 2:34 pm

  12. Interesting the way this has come about. It is a weekly occurrence in New Zealand – has been for years I might add – and nobody bats an eyelid but the New Zealand IRD pursuing excessive amounts of child support with accumulated penalties from the Income Tax Act has raised the issue in another country. Maybe this will bring some awareness as to why we have 10 -12 people, most of whom are men with children, ending their life each week.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 7th May 2012 @ 4:32 pm

  13. #10..i like your posts john and you dont have to prove to me what is already common knowledge and my utmost apologies to dogs

    Comment by Ford — Mon 7th May 2012 @ 5:00 pm

  14. This commentary and comments are worth a read.

    Tax specialist Terry Baucher looks at the heavy hand of the law when it comes to penalities on child support payments and questions their effectiveness. Your view?

    Regards Scrap

    Comment by Srap_The_CSA — Mon 7th May 2012 @ 8:39 pm

  15. Reply t0 Srap_The_CSA #14

    Have read the article,and the comments….Here are four comments that I copy and pasted…Sober reading don’t you think Gentleman…???

    And the moral of the story…To all the decent single Kiwi Men that still are in New Zealand…….

    Please don’t make the worst mistake of your life and become a caring, and a loving Father with a Kiwi women in this feminist cesspit state called New Zealand…

    You as the Father are viewed and judged by the Gestapo Feminists state of New Zealand as the scum of the Earth…And You as the Father must be punished at all costs….

    by Justice | 07 May 12, 8:12pm
    These stories put me off EVER having kids full stop. The CS system only cares about the money and not the actual welfare of the family unit. It creates bitterness, jealousy, hatred even. It’s totally distructive and pits one parent against the other.

    You can have a great deal of fun , but not make alotta babies with the blow-up sheep dolly ….

    ……. sad , but true , ewe know ….

    by meh | 07 May 12, 2:14pm
    The govt. doesn’t care about the raising of the children. They care about the welfare state (and the votes it gets them) and the tax revenue to support it.
    There is no concept of encouraging the financial support by both parents – he who earns has the ability to pay and must pay.
    There is no concept of what is a fair and reasonable cost of bringing up a child – you earn, we’ll take a constant % no matter what.
    It’s not the penalty system that discourages payment of child support, it’s the inequitable and unjust calculation of the child tax that discourages it.
    Some of us pay it anyway because we do believe in being financially responsible for our children. There will be a large number of society who don’t and most of these are probably on a benefit anyway who only pay a minimum $12 a month. There will be a number who can take advantage of loopholes and not pay any.
    There is no avenue for appealing to common sense when setting/calculating the assessment of child tax.

    by Banksterbasher | 07 May 12, 11:25am
    Many fathers have given their left nut trying to gain time with their presious little ones, but the state blocks them through the legal system (note “legal system” not “justice system”).
    All the while having their net worth (and along with it their ability to give their little ones the best life they can) extracted from them by the state.
    Often the ex sees little or no incentive to raise herself out of her situation. As sitting on the benefit, having her accommodation and cost of living paid for, and endless challenges paid for against her kids dad in court as that much easier than allowing dad to have a bit more time with the kids and doing a bit of work.
    This is the moral hazard that is created by this sort of culture.
    And this is the culture the child is living into to repeat the cycle.

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 8th May 2012 @ 6:15 am

  16. Whoops I missed out this comment which I consider is the best response to Tax specialist Terry Baucher article

    Read and rejoice Kiwi women/Kiwi feminists and then you Kiwi women ask ‘where have all the smart men gone too’ ……

    You don’t have to a half brain on why no decent and honorable Man doesn’t want to go near a Kiwi women anymore……

    ‘by mist42nz | 07 May 12, 1:37pm

    CS stuck me with a bill for around 40% of my gross income a couple years ago. I didn’t have paperwork they would accept and I had just been screwed over by my accountant so I was busy doing the business’ accounts and didn’t have the time or papertrail to set CS right (I was too busy making sure the company filed & survived the IncomeTax.)

    I made the mistake of borrowing the amount to meet the CS bill. !!!!!

    What I didn’t know was that to get your ACTUAL taxable income recognised you HAVE TO file an income estimate form. Even if it’s the last payday of the year and the all the year has gone by, you *must* file that estimate form and meet it’s 15% deviation rule if you are going to get your actual income recognised.
    Because I thought the amounts were “squared up” at the end of year (which had always happened before, since I’d always had to file estimates because my income is all over the place) and it was late February before I got the last of the company’s accounts processed and correct, I didn’t think it was worth filing an estimate with only 1 month to go. WHAT A MISTAKE. I thought, ‘hell it’s just a waste of beaurucracy time. I file it, they query it, we fix it. then by the time that happens its year-end’. BIG MISTAKE. They took my $6000 overpayment (which represented over 30% of my net income for the year) and kept it!!!!!!

    I’m still paying off the loan for the money (I figured I’d just repay the majority of the loan with the overpayment) and the interest on that – not to mention the cashflow issues that has caused for me. (I’m down 6k cash, and up 6k of my ‘leverage allowance’, + servicing)
    I tried to get it reviewed.
    BUT. The people who hear the case at IRD, CS; have NO accounting training. They don’t know their credit from their elbow! Can’t tell revenue from expense, let alone income/profit.
    I have a flat that I rent in town (that is ‘home’). But I have to spend time at the farm, for security purposes (Bailee responsibility and vs theft). So their “expert” decided that the value of the farm office/house must be added to my income. Also all electricity used at the office, and phone also got added. I had to supply a car for the job, to the company, which FBT is nil because I contributed 100% of that purchase value to the company… but they added more than the cars value to my theoretical “income”.
    Fortunately the family trust had made losses, so when they tried to add the trusts income to mine, as if I had the income personally, it would have reduced liability – so they ignored the losses.
    The company had paid a large amount of Provisional Tax, so that got added to MY personal income (it showed as net profit [bT!!] ).
    The company had also increased its inventory and materials by 20%, so THAT got added to my personal income TOO.

    The rental properties that I own… that had already had their income and expenses accounted for in my taxable income, and on my IR3R (most positive cashflow that year)…the _gross_revenues_ were added …. but not the received amounts! They took the gross rental payment per week and multiplied it by 52 !!!!! despite one property being empty for 4 months!
    One ex- had run up student debt, got a replacement late model sceond hand car, smokes, drinks, can afford to support 2-3 cats, has so many books/knickknacks/toys for her and kids you can hardly move in their house. Her 20k debt for this was taken into account.
    My (company)500k debt for business and (personal) 200k mortgages was not taken into account. except they declared me “asset rich”

    That “I was able to pay” CS’s overcharging WAS taken considered “proof” that I could afford to extra, despite not actually being liable for it.
    My only recourse was to take the issue to the Family Court, pay a lawyer (they still kept my 6k, and I’m paying it off as well as the normal Child Support for my pay grade this year). And take the time away from the farm and business to pursue the matter in court.
    CS closing remarks on their report, were that my ex should take -me- to court for part of the action/profits in the business, farm and houses. (all got after we divorced).

    Not a bad scam considering she chose to leave me, and all I had left was a kitchen table and a couple of old black’n’decker power tools (& a half interest in one house, which I brought her out after the divorce, from money gifted to me). I was so poor after the separation, that a baliff visiting about a forgotten speeding ticket, offered to let me off (the collection fee) !!!’

    Kind regards John Dutchie free at long last from this Feminist cesspit called New Zealand

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 8th May 2012 @ 7:39 am

  17. Coroner wants more open suicide reporting.

    The Coroners Act 2006 says a coroner can authorise the particulars of a death to be made public only when satisfied the information is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety.

    “It creates an extra threshold for coroners to get over,” Judge MacLean said.

    Purpose of this Act
    “¢ (1) The purpose of this Act is to help to prevent deaths and to promote justice through-
    “¢ (a) investigations, and the identification of the causes and circumstances, of sudden or unexplained deaths, or deaths in special circumstances; and
    “¢ (b) the making of specified recommendations or comments (as defined in section 9) that, if drawn to public attention, may reduce the chances of the occurrence of other deaths in circumstances similar to those in which those deaths occurred.
    (2) To help to achieve its purpose, this Act-
    “¢ (a) identifies deaths that must be reported to a coroner and the process for reporting and investigating those deaths:
    “¢ (b) recognises both-
    “¢ (i) the cultural and spiritual needs of family of, and of others who were in a close relationship to, a person who has died; and
    “¢ (ii) the public good associated with a proper and timely understanding of the causes and circumstances of deaths:
    “¢ (c) provides for an independent coronial system for investigations of deaths by coroners liaising with other authorities permitted or required by law to investigate those deaths:
    “¢ (d) repeals and replaces the Coroners Act 1988.
    Section 9
    “¢ specified recommendations or comments means, in relation to a death, recommendations or comments by the designated coroner on either or both of the following:
    “¢ (a) the avoidance of circumstances similar to those in which the death occurred:
    “¢ (b) the way in which any people should act in circumstances of that kind

    It is quite clear that there is a public authority to be executed in the public interest and for the public benefit. Public Interest refers to an interest common to the public at large or a significant proportion thereof.

    71 Restrictions on making public of details of self-inflicted deaths
    “¢ (1) No person may, without a coroner’s authority, make public any particular relating to the manner in which a death occurred if-
    “¢ (a) the death occurred in New Zealand after the commencement of this section; and
    “¢ (b) there is reasonable cause to believe the death was self-inflicted; and
    “¢ (c) no inquiry into the death has been completed.
    (2) If a coroner has found a death to be self-inflicted, no person may, without a coroner’s authority or permission under section 72, make public a particular of the death other than-
    “¢ (a) the name, address, and occupation of the person concerned; and
    “¢ (b) the fact that the coroner has found the death to be self-inflicted.
    (3) The only grounds on which a coroner may under this section authorise the making public of particulars of the death (other than those specified in subsection (2)(a) and (b)) are that the making public of particulars of that kind is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety.
    (4) In determining whether the grounds specified in subsection (3) are made out, a coroner must have regard to-
    “¢ (a) the characteristics of the person who is, or is suspected to be, the dead person concerned; and
    “¢ (b) matters specified in any relevant practice notes issued under section 132 by the chief coroner; and
    “¢ (c) any other matters the coroner considers relevant.

    Public Safety refers to the welfare and protection of the general public.
    Public safety involves the prevention of and from events that could endanger the safety of the general public from significant danger.

    Using section 71 to restrict media access to 600 suicides a year in this manner is nothing short of legal quackery

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 8th June 2012 @ 9:20 am

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