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

Family Court Lump Sum Payment

Filed under: Child Support,General,Law & Courts — Had_Enough @ 12:29 am Thu 14th February 2013

The mother of my children is going to the Family Court asking them to make me pay a lump sum Child Support payment.

I have always paid my fair share of child support and am currently paying $2000 NZD per month for 2 children. I went into arrears last year and the previous year when I was unemployed for a few months but am currently paying that back. I am living in Australia and there is no form of assistance for unemployed Kiwi’s over here so I had no choice but to go into arrears and missed about 5 payments over a two year period. Other than that I have always paid the full amount on or before the 20th of the month for the past 11 years and have always paid at the higher end of the scale.

She has hit me with admin review after admin review and always manages to win despite the fact that I was already paying a huge amount but the Admin Review people seem to be a happy hunting ground for greedy custodial parents who want to put their ex-spouses into severe financial hardship. I have always had custody of at least one of our 3 children and have always wanted to be in my children’s lives but she has breached parenting order after parenting order meaning that I have seen very little of my non-custodial children over the last 11 years. The Family Court did nothing to enforce the order despite repeated attempts by me to have it enforced.

Anyway I will cut to the chase. I have just received the details of her latest admin review claims. The review is scheduled to take place in a few weeks and I will defend it. It’s the same old same old crap but with a twist this time. The twist is that she has a hearing booked with the Family Court in March. She is going to ask them to force me to make a lump sum payment in advance for the 20014 – 2018 period for my daughter. My daughter will be 19 in 2018.

I am a responsible parent who always pays my dues and I just don’t get this. Why would they even give her a hearing? I am about to fill out an IR 178 which was given to me by the CS Admin Review people. I will fill it out and it will prove that I spend more then what I earn on frivolous luxuries like food and mortgage and credit card repayments but I have lost all faith in the NZ institutions and am really worried. Can the Family Court really make me pay a lump sum in advance? It would be about $70,000 all up for my daughter over the 2014 – 2018 period.

Is there a precedent for it and can they force me to sell my Australian house (not that there’s any equity in it and it’s half owned by my new wife). I have been paying my assessed amount + arrears and living on the bones of my backside as a result but at least no one can say that I have been in any way avoiding my Child tax! Can someone please advise me on this? You can’t get blood out of a stone but I am worried that they will give it a go anyway. I am happy to supply my contact details if anyone would like to respond.

Had Enough!!!!


  1. When you people begin to act like men and cancel all family court by force and deny every NZ judge of their kids for life in return of what they did to you, you will suffer more, the [ Group name removed by moderator. ] will never leave you live in peace, they want you all gay.

    Comment by Kamal — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 1:46 am

  2. Well thanks Kamal. That really helps a lot

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 2:35 am

  3. The Child Support Legislation is in parliament at the moment. It was the case previously that an action could be taken for future lump sum support and I doubt that will change. There seems little point in that unless you have an asset or a wife with an asset from which the money could be recovered.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 3:04 am

  4. Hi Downunder. I realise that the legislation is currently before Parliament. I have read it and don’t see anything in there that will address the IRD’s penchant for bankrupting non custodial parents.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 10:19 am

  5. @HE No, however if there is some knowledge that you have contributed to those assets and you have been made bankrupt then the official assignee may pursue the recovery of that part of the asset and bankruptcy or threat of bankruptcy of your wife or partner would be the path to that.

    The difficulty for men in your position is that a claim can be made (true or false) and you have no choice but to defend it or an order could be made based on the information provided in the claim. Once the debt is established it is an ongoing process of recovery and not a section in the Act as you have looked for.

    The other bitch got the money and I want my share scenario and that might be your position – of course you won’t answer that question here.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 1:35 pm

  6. Ok, I understand the legalities of that but surely the FC should be a place of last resort in these cases and not an option used against ncp parents who have always paid their child support. I dont understand why she is allowed to take a case to them when she is getting a massive payout from ird each month which I am funding. Im not bankrupt by the way.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 2:40 pm

  7. The law exists, the court exists and a claim can be made. Because there is new legislation coming up and also because Australian based child support payers are the current focus of the IRD direct debit team (and the media) expect some cases to be taken to establish precedents. These people know each other and co-operate so I would suggest anyone in Australia who finds themselves in the firing line in the near future beware – they will be after a result of some description that they can hand to the Australian authorities to turn into money.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 2:54 pm

  8. Just a random thought or two:
    Can your ex prove that your daughter will be a financial dependent for the next 4 years, and not commence paid employment, leave home or marry in that time? Both of which would cease your CS obligation (leaving home to study at uni would not). Can she prove your daughter will even live till age 19?
    Can she guarantee that you won’t have other children yourself over that time, which would reduce your CS obligation (slightly)?
    Can she prove you yourself won’t die?
    Of course not.
    Ok, so say you are required to pay in advance that far out. What guarantee / redress would there be for her to refund any unused portion back to you, in the event that circumstances change that would under current or future legislation reduce or terminate your obligation?
    There is a reason that CS is reassessed year-on-year. It ensures (more or less) current circumstances are taken into account. Otherwise the law would simply determine the future full liability at the time of separation through to age 19, irregardless of the above factors. And it doesn’t.
    These are thoughts you might present in defence.

    Comment by OMG! You're *&^% — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 5:07 pm

  9. At last some constructive and practical feedback. Thank you! Those are all really good points and highlight the issue I have with this lump sum option being allowed to exist on the statutes.I will be attending a judicial conference re this next month and will raise those points then. I can understand the FC being a place of last resort for custodial parents whose ex spouses have absconded without paying a cent in CP but it shouldn’t be used to harass people like me who are already suffering under the weight of a massive assessment which I always pay

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 5:28 pm

  10. And you’re probably have to leave the ‘woe is me’ stuff at the door. FC – and IRD – won’t give a toss about how tough you’re finding it to cover the current assessments.
    You might want to do some donkey work and find similar cases to yours, and the FC rulings.
    Good luck.

    Comment by OMG! You're *&^% — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 6:27 pm

  11. Yeah that’s for real. The mother of my children does more than enough ” woe is me” bullshit and I’m not going to add to it. I’ll just stick to the facts and if that doesn’t work I’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 14th February 2013 @ 8:05 pm

  12. @Had_Enough. What you call sensible is beside the point. The Family Court doesn’t think like a man, it thinks like a women. Decisions are arbitrary, often without any foundation in commonsense, reason and law – the only place you might get the alternative is in the High Court.

    When you look at the changes to the Child Support Act they must be understood from the perspective of feminist jurisdiction and further the potential use of the legislation (In that respect it is only making legal what has been done illegally anyway). What we are about to see in New Zealand is a change in the business of the Family Court – less about custody and more about child support.

    If you look back through postings and links made on this site over the last decade you will see that this is exactly what Judith Collins MP said that she intended to achieve if she was part of a government and this is reflected in the legislation that is currently passing through our parliament.

    In ten years time this post will be long forgotten however thousands of men will have paid dearly from the financial legacy this woman is leaving partners of New Zealand women. The Family Court is secret and not publicly accountable for its actions. That and the thinking and perspective in our media, which is predominantly women, will allow the published acceptance and the unpublished truth about the massive transfer of wealth from men to women, not only in New Zealand but also from Australia and to a lesser extent other countries.

    You may call this fanciful and find it hard to believe but once again if you look at postings on this site you will see that the New Zealand Family Court sent representatives such as Judge Jan Doogue to international meetings in Europe at which the agenda was exactly this – how to extract child support from men living in other countries and facilitate the international collection and transfer of child support to the jurisdiction of the mother’s residence.

    What may not be clear to you at this point are the reality of what you are actually dealing with and the intention of those people who see the potential to line their pockets at your expense. 2013 will be a significant year in the development of this aspect of feminism in New Zealand and the impact will be felt outside of our borders, particularly in Australia as the process is implemented.

    Good luck with your impending battle.

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 7:47 am

  13. Carrying on from post 9… Can she prove that you won’t have custody of your daughter at some point during that time?

    There are probably other such questions too, but in my experience they will fall on deaf and ignorant ears.

    Comment by Scott B — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 10:08 am

  14. Hi Downunder. I agree with all you have said especially re the secrecy of the Family Court. I was not even invited to the hearing but I am going anyway. The part that worries me most is that she is able to get a hearing with the FC even though I am paying my excessive child tax assessment every month without fail. The mother of my children is an undischarged bankrupt and if the FC steals 4 years of CS from me and puts it in her pocketit will evaporate within a few months and no doubt she will be back at the FC with some lame claim for more of my hard earned cash. It never ceases to amaze me how the least competent parent gets the kids and is rewarded by the state for being a benefit defrauder

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 10:15 am

  15. Hi Scott. There is no way she can prove that particularly seeing that the custody of my 3 children has changed many times over the years. I am actually preparing a case which I will take to the FC for custody of my daughter and son. Not that I have much chance seeing I live in Australia but her rapidly deteriorating mental health could work against her.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 10:22 am

  16. @Had_Enough. You have raised the point of the custodial mother being an un-discharged bankrupt. That raises other concerns – you mentioned above you missed some payments due to unemployment.

    You may have the blame for bankruptcy placed on you.

    The documents may appear in her name but the case is being pursued by the official assignee.

    A man probably couldn’t imagine the bankruptcy and child support arguments that could be dreamed up by a feminist mind.

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 10:36 am

  17. At the time she went bankrupt she was on the dole so my payments were kept by IRD and she was given a dpb benefit from winz. I gave the cow my half of the house and contents + the car and all other joint assets when we split and she still managed to go bankrupt. Like I mentioned she isnt mentally well and makes bad decisions re money.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 10:44 am

  18. There are family court cases where the women didn’t want to pay the matrimonial settlement and her lawyer has taken a case for lump sum child support (same amount as the outstanding matrimonial settlement of course) and so she simply doesn’t pay the matrimonial settlement.

    If you look at the opposing position you would at least have an argument that you paid an unacknowledged amount of child support but then the standard response to that is that what is given as a gift doesn’t count toward child support.

    At the end of the day they are after money and the real questions are how much and on what is the basis of the claim but you should already know that if you have been served with the papers.

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 11:45 am

  19. Greetings everyone, and happy new year – had a good break with my wife and child – and was deprived yet again of another christmas and birthday with my other child – two years in a row now – breaches of court orders yet again – and as we all know the system WILL NOT enforce these orders for fathers.

    The only way I have been able to move ahead recently, has been to accept I have NO say in my childs life, no legal or systemic means to enforce contact, so moving on and enjoying my current family seems the only option.

    So had Enough – we all share a COMMON and similar problem – this system is by design intended to completely fk you over, you have no legal recourse and no ability to take the system to task. So where do we all go? And what can we all do.

    My observations are well documented on this site – when you have a system which NO FATHER ( or parent ) can challenge we have to come up with another way to expose what is going on.

    I have seen recently – with Govt debt increasing – a new tactic – they are doing more of this – LUMP SUM demands from good parents, who are forceable deprived of time with their children.

    You see once you understand that Govt borrowing is leveraged against Child Support DEBT, ( along with Student loans – why else would you allow this to balloon to 14 Billion unless of course its of some benefit – ie. you can borrow more against it ), and Kiwi saver, and anything else they can cobble together…….to create DEBT……….

    Fact – Currently there is $2 Billion owed in child support in NZ, and yet $1.5 BILLION of that is for PENALTIES – PENALTIES created by demanding more than a father earns, or demanding Lump sum payments he does not have, so you have to sell your property does that not explain why good parents are being hounded to death to help support another ponzi scheme – creating borrowing by actificially creating DEBT – and then borrowing against it – This explains why we are all being persecuted to pay more than we EARN< more than we actually owe – and deliberately depriving you of your children – is a means to an end.

    Perhaps its time FATHERS in NZ used the treaty to demand protection of our PROPERTY – protected under the treaty for ALL NEW ZEALANDERS – otherwise this deceitful process is going to rape you of all that you have………by forcing excessive demands on you, and when you cant pay, they will take whatever property you have left……..

    I know – we have already had them here taking the family cars, including my wifes car = illegally seized.

    Comment by hornet — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 12:33 pm

  20. Well, no, I haven’t been served any papers. No such courtesy was extended to me by the FC and I only found out about the Judicial review because it was mentioned in her latest Admin Review documentation that she didn’t want me to see…When I gave her my half of the house and other assets I was naive and stupid and dumb enough to think that I was acting in the best interests of the children. It is no wonder that people are leaving NZ in their droves. Aus isn’t much better in many regards but at least there is employment over here. The whole NZ economy seems to be based on greed and envy and taking money from people who work for a living and giving it to people who bludge benefits for a living. I tried to get custody of my children many times and was successful on two occasions but the kids found it hard living with me because I had to work 10 hours a day so as I could afford to pay child support for the 1 child she had in her custody at the time. In return I got nothing from her or the state who wouldn’t even subsidise my child care costs. I won’t tell you what I’d like to do to the FC and IRD on here because I know that those pricks read posts on this site and would try and track me down and find more ways of disadvantaging me. I am well aware of the gender bias adhered to by the FC and the IRD CS. It’s not even true feminism. True feminism was supposed to be about equality and women not being the chattels of men. How is that true if I am expected to pay for her (not the children) HER, long after I have separated from her and remarried!!

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 1:04 pm

  21. She is going to ask them to force me to make a lump sum payment in advance for the 20014 – 2018 period for my daughter. My daughter will be 19 in 2018.

    @Had_Enough Did you notice in the new legislation that the child support age reduces from 19 years to 18 unless at a registered school.

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 1:24 pm

  22. HAD ENOUGH – mate this entire system takes good parents, usually fathers and make them very bitter – I too paid my ex out very well with a house, and cash in the bank, did more than I was supposed to, so she could move on with her life and look after the child – all I ever wanted was peaceful quality time with my own child – a simple request and yet I am still not ten years on being persecuted, hunted down like some common criminal, having demands made of me over and above my actual income and then physical seizure of the property I have left. Its a fking disgrace. The system is out of control – this is either a deliberate tactic – to force good parents away from their children and then demand more than they owe to artificially create a false debt, in which the politicians are corrupt, or the only other viable excuse is that we have bureaucracy out of control – completely missing the point, and failing to link FC decisions with CS.

    None of my agreements – and settlements reached in FC, are even considered during CS reviews. Neither is my actual salary as tabulated by accountants. That I cant understand, they deliberately ignore actual filed tax returns and make decisions based on fantasy – usually made by a bitter and twisted individual, a drop kick lawyer who could not make it in the commercial world and as my experience has highlighted – someone with big envy issues and a man hating agenda.

    No father or parent could possibly be expected to accept these rulings – they are a complete sham, not based on fact or truth. So clearly any sane person is going to rebel against them and refuse to pay what is demanded.

    My concern is that this system seems to be a deliberately planned to be difficult – to create a false debt.

    And the legal profession dont want to help in any way either – they are quite happy taking all your money in your quest to try and get time with your own child, but as soon as you ask for help with CS rulings – they run a mile. Too hard, too expensive, we agree with your position but we cant help…..wankers…..

    Comment by hornet — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 1:35 pm

  23. Given the size of the childtax you pay and the potential size of a lump sum payment you should seriously consider engaging a specialist CS lawyer in NZ.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 2:29 pm

  24. @Scrap Is there such a thing as a CS specialist? I didn’t think they existed.

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 2:46 pm

  25. Hi Hornet…Mate your experience of IRD CS payments and custody misery is very similar to my own experience. You actually have to live through this to believe that it is allowed to happen in a country that considers itself to be a paragon of virtue when it comes to human rights. Down under, I did read the bit about the age being reduced to 18 for CS liability but is there any indication as to when the bill will be passed and become law?? I’m not sure because I’m a bit out of touch with the progress of the bill. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this..

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 3:18 pm

  26. I am inclined to think that the decision would be made on the law that existed at the time of the application rather than the law that might exist when the decision is made. My original point being is the application only about an extra years child support (a significant amount) rather than something more sinister. Reading through what you have posted the question I am asking is who is actually driving this action; your ex, the review officer or the official assignee?

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 3:32 pm

  27. Raewyn Sporle -After graduating from Waikato University with Bachelor of Soc Sci(Psychology Major), followed by LLB, I practiced for several years in general practice with emphasis in Family Law including Separation & Relationship Property, Parenting, Guardianship and Contact, however I have specialised in Child Support Law for the past 15 years.

    Their is also Allan Harvey, who while not a lawyer, has outstanding knowledge and experience in child tax law.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 3:37 pm

  28. @Scrap Is that a recommendation or an observation?

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 3:47 pm

  29. Hi Downunder,, the ex is definitely driving the action. Most of the state and legal institutions are sick of her and normally let her have her way just to get her off their backs and make the whining stop.
    My daughter has 5 years of CS liability left to run (assuming that Dunne nothing continues to do nothing). Her claim doesn’t make much sense to me because I have PAYE income so have to pay my assessment whether I like it or not otherwise IRD will get their henchmen (the ATO) to raid my bank account each payday. And, I am almost at the max level of assessment so we aren’t talking $50 a week here. Basically what she wants is a lump sum payment for my last 4 years of liability, i.e. 4 years starting from April next year. She claims its for a disability that she imagines my daughter has. We are talking about a mild psychological disability that I don’t believe exists although 1 or 2 psychologists have said that she might be at the mild end of the Autism scale (i.e. Aspergers or similar). To be honest I think this is complete bullshit. My daughter was always happy when around me and other family members but miserable when around her mother. It’s not like she needs the money for special ed (which is paid for by the state anyway) or any other big ticket item. My daughter is a meal ticket as far as my ex is concerned and she uses her alleged disability to get all sorts of state handouts and more money from me. I suspect that she might be trying to get a lump sum to fund a move to Australia but that’s just a guess. She might want to buy a house or a car or more beer and weed, who knows, she’s not sane.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 3:58 pm

  30. Thanks Scrap. I have noticed Raewyns details on the Internet before. It’s a pity there are no lawyers who will represent on a pro bono basis. Mind you they would all be broke because they wouldn’t get many wins. I have already spent 15000 on lawyers and most of them charge 300 bucks just to say hello so I’m a bit cautious about lawyers.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 4:48 pm

  31. 31 “had enough” – wise decision on the lawyer front mate, I have spoken to the best of the best, spent a fortune and had very good advice from supposed experts in this field, and basically this is what they said – off the record of course – yes they agree with me, but unfortunately the law is very complex, very difficult even for lawyers and basically they tell me, there is no point trying to change these draconian review decisions … design – this is the position of the govt – make things so complex and costly … will NEVER overturn a decision – unless of course you have deep pockets and lots of spare time to go insane trying…….

    And that suits the govt perfectly – pay some scum sucking loser lawyers a low pay per view fee to make up high numbers at review, protect them by resstricing any investigations into their actions – yes thats right the NZ hunan rights department is NOT PERMITTED to investigate their decisions – protected by law – so knowing you have NO way of contesting the decision – they demand excessive CS payments from you – then when you cant pay – they then pass these binding decisions over to bailiffs and repo agents and have them sieze property worth three times the value sought and sell at no reserve auctions. And hard luck of they sieze the wifes car – the family car – no fking apologies, no consequence.

    All this bullshit about changes to the current act – is window dressing – if you read carefully the implications of what they are actually looking to do, is open the door to take property from wives, partners, grandparents, even gays who adopt and split and anyone else associated with the effected child = all in the name of C.S. All so they can expand the catchment pool and increase this artificially inflated debt and borrow more against it.

    I agree 31 – never ever would I have believed this shit could happen here in NZ, unless you actually have to go through it and see first hand how corrupt and underhanded the entire system is…….

    Comment by hornet — Fri 15th February 2013 @ 8:24 pm

  32. Hi Hornet, the worst thing is knowing that there is no State institution to turn to for assistance in battling these bastards. They completely rule my life. I had a job that I quit about 6 months ago. I was happy there but I wasn’t earning enough to pay the 2000 per month I was expected to pay so I found another job. The pay was better but I was working 14 hour days and most weekends and had a c**t of a boss who ended up terminating my employment at the end of my probationary period. I have another job now but live in fear of losing that to because I can’t even afford one week without pay or else the bank will want to know where their mortgage payment is and the CS scum will be on the phone demanding their cut. It seems to fly in the face of natural justice that they can demand large sums of money even when this means that the payer can’t even afford the basics of life with what little cash is left to live on. The credit cardss are all max’d and I don’t know how I’m going to pay for everthing next month. I’m not feeling sorry for myself because I know what I have to do but can’t say on here. I have been a solo dad and know how much it costs to feed, clothe and educate 2 children. It csrtainly doesnt cost 500 bucks per week but thats what I am forced to pay her. The kids are dressed in rags and she’s stopped sending my daughter to school. It’s a funnny old world isnt it where incompetent mentally ill child abusing parents are allowed to stop their ex’s seeing their children and forced to hand over one third of their after tax income to pay for her drug abusing, alcohol consuming lifestyle. If I try and tell the FC that they won’t even listen. Won’t even do a mental health assessment on her although it’s clear to all that she’s barking mad and an unfit parent.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 3:15 am


    @Had_Enough. Do you think your ex might have seen this and thought here is a way to some easy money?

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 8:59 am

  34. i don’t understand how one can take a lump sum to pay for a time in the future. Wht if the ex got hit by a bus next week. Would they pay it back to you? How could they then legally keep it?
    Its like your power company demanding you pay your power bill till 2019. How do they know what it will cost, will power prices stay the same. I understand CSA makes no sense at all on a normal day but to get FC to request a lump sum forward payment cannot be seen in any way except some kind of extortion. How do they know the child will benefit from any of the lump sum? Thats nuts!!

    Comment by roo — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 9:29 am

  35. This concept of a lump sum isn’t a starter and the Review Officer does not have the ability to make such and order.
    It may be what your ex wishes but it isn’t going to happen.
    I once offered a lump sum in lieu of Child Support to my ex and the concept was rejected by IRD.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 10:05 am

  36. @Allan But the review is being taken to the Family Court and they can and do make lump sum orders. Perhaps the order of events here is that the review officer has said we can’t do that but you can take it to the court and she has.

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 10:14 am

  37. Hi Downunder yeah I think that’s pretty much the course of events. She regards govt institutions as banks. If she can’t get what she wants from Westpac she goes to Kiwibank. I get the impression that she has lied to the FC and told them that I have disappeared and have never paid child support. I phoned and emailed the Hamilton FC yesterday and told them to get off their lazy butts and make a phone call to IRD and do some homework rather than assume that the bitch is telling the truth and hounding me for money

    Comment by had_enough — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 11:23 am

  38. @Had_Enough. How might some people think – try and get the annual increase from the review and then go for 5 years or could there be another scenario here where the ex is not after the 5 years but an annual increase by review plus a lump sum for something the IRD child support doesn’t deal with?

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 11:52 am

  39. Had enough and others,
    You may well have had enough but the Court staff including Judge don’t see the job of gathering evidence as theirs at all. That is what affidavits are about and you need to lay out your case in the ridiculous gladatorial competition that is FC. It isn’t a fair competition but you handicap yourself if you get Court staff offside and expect they are going to do any investigation for you.
    Ye FC judges have a wide discretion regarding CS but I would be surprised if they went tooo far forward with a lump sum unless there is some issue not stated here like a lump sum being about. The principle of the legislation is based on income not assetts as well so even if you had a windfall it is only the reasonable interest earnings from the windfall that could be attacked (normally). I do accept that normal isn\t a word the Court always follows.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 1:11 pm

  40. @Allan Harvey. What you are saying is that child support is not based on taxable income but income by legal definition and sometimes this makes it appear to be based on assets?

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 2:58 pm

  41. @DownUnder – you are about right there – it is based on assumed or likely income, not taxable income. Everyone knows some people successfully hide some income and thus lower their taxable income. IRD seeks to drive at real income (all income, all sources, not just final taxable income) to negate this.
    Unfortunately sometimes they go too far, and make unrealistice even fanciuful assumptions regading income, or income potential. That is where some of us suffer assessments based on past income that ignores current reality, such as unemployment or inability to sustain previous income.

    Comment by OMG! You're *&^% — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 3:53 pm

  42. First you denied true God from being worshiped, second you didn’t listen to his orders to protect you (for example like not drinking alcohol, don’t you know that God wants to protect you health? but you are stubborn), then you willingly destroyed you leadership by (physical stupid equality, don’t you see men and women are physically created differently for different roles?, where is your brain?) then you denied its Sharia laws by scum majority laws (do you know that your vote is equally powerful as a vote of a street prostitute? can you run a company by that democratic system, show me a single company that succeeded with that? again where is your brain)? then if you did all that then don’t cry when your role as father comes to an end, do you think yourself smarter than God? Where is your brain you stubborn moron, if God does not care about you, he would leave live in a happy life until you die then go to infinte hell, but God wants to send you a wake up call, think with your brain, know that life / afterlife = ZERO, and if you take Islam for serious and apply it, you would win both.

    Comment by Kamal — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 8:14 pm

  43. Kamal, why would I want to be involved with a faith that is as intolerant of women and other cultures and faiths as the NZ IRD CS and FC system is of men? I have nothing against the Muslim faith but you are clearly a Muslim extremist. Perhaps you think it was OK for the Taliban to shoot that young Pakistani girl in the head for daring to suggest that girls should be educated. This site isn’t anti women, it is anti a system that allows SOME women to drive men to suicide because they aren’t allowed to see their children and are expected to hand over a huge percentage of their income each month to Government agencies who clearly discriminate against men to the benefit of women. Sort your own twisted understanding of the Muslim faith out first before preaching about how others should conduct themselves Kamal. I think what we are aiming for is a society that values and supports mothers and fathers equally and doesn’t discriminate on gender. I have a feeling that your version of Islam doesn’t live up to that ideal any more than the Femonazi man haters that have been given the keys to the kingdom by simpering, politically correct emasculated White Knights at the expense of decent male New Zealanders.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 8:26 pm

  44. First, Taliban, Al qaeda, is a [ Group name removed by moderator. Conspiracy Theories are NOT on topic for this site.] CIA system, we all know about that, and Taliban where created by Pakistani intelligence which belongs to CIA, second you are brainwashed by the western media, this is not extremist islam, this is true Islam, and what intolerance you think? Did you read what other religions about women, Islam is the most religion that gave women their rights, Islam makes women has their financial own wealth, while for example Judaism does not, but this does not mean that Islam encourage to put 2 captains on the same family, this is wrong, any country, company, family, system must have a single captain, men are naturally created to lead, even if you ask a marxist doctor he will tell you that the brain of a male is totally different than the brain of a female, and men natural role is to lead and protect their women, and yes we do protect them and we don’t show our women flesh like pigs, we value our women, they are not cheap, and this prevent a lot of cheating and adultry. and by the way the adultry penalty is eaqual for men and women in Islam.

    Comment by Kamal — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 8:38 pm

  45. One final word, any woman who shows her flesh subconsciously thinks that she does not find true men that she respects in that country, and women do not respect who is not jealous about them and then become feminist and try to take the man role,

    Comment by Kamal — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 8:51 pm

  46. roflmao!!!!!!!

    Comment by happy larry — Sat 16th February 2013 @ 8:55 pm

  47. Had_Enough

    Can the Family Court really make me pay a lump sum in advance?

    First, I do agree with Allan; shouting at Family Court staff isn’t going to stop an application.

    Second, we know the New Zealand Family Court does what it wants regardless of the law so assuming that a court order is made then is it enforceable in another country.

    You may have read the Stuff media report posted above. I suspect a lot of what has been written by Michelle Robinson is a load of tripe – makes me wonder if she’s a bitter and twisted sandwich-maker with an ex in Australia.

    For your own peace of mind I think you need to make some enquiries in Australia NOW while all this is going on in New Zealand. Our two countries already have a reciprocal child support agreement in place so, does another agreement actually exist where respective revenue service can march into another’s jurisdiction with a court order from another country and start selling up houses?

    Possibly your new partner is an Australian citizen and I think that would cause a major issue. Even if you are both residents I think the Kim Dotcom case shows that you are subject to the laws of the country rather than the law of the aggressor.

    Surely your child support services must have an opinion on this and it should be of interest to the Australian media because it could potentially affect thousands of Australian women/citizens who have kiwi husbands.

    It may be the case that such orders are totally useless when it comes to enforceability in Australia.

    Another issue to consider is if an order did exist what might happen if you were to travel to New Zealand. I haven’t heard of anyone being stopped at the border because of child support issues – last time I heard Dunne comment on that he said he wasn’t prepared to test the legal waters on that issue.

    Whatever you ex is up to it could certainly raise some curly questions on both sides of the Tasman and all over what sounds like more money to finance illegal activities, insane behaviour and child abuse in New Zealand.

    Really, what an absolute pain in the arse for you and your partner to be put through this because of what is happening in New Zealand. At least there is some record here of what is going on and some moral support.

    I look forward to hearing what you find out at your end.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 17th February 2013 @ 9:39 am

  48. Seems as though “legislative pressures” have delayed implementation of the proposed new child support formula. Select Cttee apparently recommends they (now) take effect 1 April 2014 with the other changes following in 2015!

    Comment by Non custodial dad — Sun 17th February 2013 @ 1:48 pm

  49. 40. When are you going to realise that is not based on actual income but “potential” income (whatever that means!)?

    Comment by Scott B — Sun 17th February 2013 @ 2:47 pm

  50. @Scott B
    If you look above I asked the question about taxable income and legal income and what you are asking is; what is potential income?

    Feminist jurisprudence is very arbitrary; if that’s the way we want it, we will make it that way because that’s what we want. Child support law is actually based on real law with a logical legal foundation. You will notice, and this is often complained about, that child support is based on total income as opposed to taxed net income.

    When we look at supporting the child with money, there needs to be a source of money or something that can be turned into money -legal income. To cut to the chase – in this case it is the Father that can be turned into money or is the source of money. So, you are turned into money and that amount is deducted from your taxable income.

    Because child support is deducted from our taxable income we misunderstand and confuse the legal concepts and assume that child support is based on taxable income not legal income.

    In order for you to be turned into money there needs to be a contract. The contract between a woman and the state is not to seize your taxable income but to turn you the father into income or money and it is that legal basis that allows the concept, as you put it, of potential income.

    To put this another way, you are enslaved to the state in the name of the child (by contract) and you are income so money or assets that are a consequence of you can legally be seized.

    This is partly what Karmel is on about in his brash Muslim way – he doesn’t want to be a slave to the state. He prefers a society that is not elected democratically but ordered or ordained, where those who keep the faith rise to the top and he therefore has a different perspective on freedom.

    We have a similar religious theme in Christianity where God gave his only begotten son – to beget, all that you have created. I give you nothing but my son. (And don’t forget in this storey one of the disciples was a taxman)

    We are having the same arguments here as they did in ancient Rome and Palestine (the Roman name for the land of the Jews) and we are dealing with the same outcomes. In that respect we need to give some credence to those religious perspectives not necessarily because they are right or we share their overall belief but because their philosophy asks many of the same questions we are trying to answer here.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 17th February 2013 @ 4:23 pm

  51. Hi Downunder, I was just reading your earlier post re the FC selling a house that is half owned by an Aussie spouse. My wife is a kiwi but I have often wondered if IRD or the FC are allowed to force the sale of a jointly owned house in another country. I suspect they can because men get the same crappy deal in Oz as they do in NZ when it comes to child custody and child tax. I’ve just re read my ex’s Admin Review documentation. She also wants IRD to pay the arrears I owe from last year directly into her pocket. The fact that she’s a long term beneficiary and my CS payments go to IRD directly doesn’t seem to have occurred to her but it gives an insight into the mentality we are dealing with. So, as things stand she wants me to pay her nearly 60k in a lump sum, pay her 20, 000 in arrears that I incurred while I was unemployed and while she was bludging every benefit on offer and, also pay her a higher monthly amount for my other child in her care. Just wondering if I’d be better off migrating to Pakistan or wherever Kamal comes from. The human rights for men over there is probably way better than in NZ.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 17th February 2013 @ 6:06 pm

  52. 52 thanks… I think but it is still a made up sum based on what the IRD decides is your potential income. Has no basis in reality at all.

    Comment by Scott B — Mon 18th February 2013 @ 8:59 am

  53. @Scott B

    52 thanks”¦ I think but it is still a made up sum based on what the IRD decides is your potential income. Has no basis in reality at all.

    We are coming at this from different perspectives because we commonly use words like income, dollars and wages to describe situations in our daily life.

    If the slave-master says “you will move one hundred rocks today and when you have done that you will be fed and you can rest for the night.” What is being assessed is labour – what can be exerted from you.

    The principle being employed here is that you are income and you can be turned into money. The requirement rather than being expressed as rocks is expressed as dollars. You will exert yourself to the required level, which is forced labour.

    This forced labour is then attributed to meet certain demands. The first 50 rocks are attributed to child support; if you only move 50 rocks then there is no dinner for you. If you do move the other 50 rocks then you are able to satisfy other demands such as income tax and cost of living. Child support takes priority.

    This is represented in the financial system as mathematical equations and percentages that we are all familiar with.

    The point I am trying to make is that we need to understand and be able to express the concept being used against us because this not only relates to what you are calling “potential income” but also the requirement to satisfy penalties to the state which are expressed as a monetary value rather than extra rocks or as demands against our labour.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 18th February 2013 @ 10:22 am

  54. Hey Scrap, re 28. Raewyn Sporle is an Admin Review officer. Conflict of interests? Mind you poachers can make good gamekeepers I suppose

    Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 19th February 2013 @ 9:16 pm

  55. had_enough – I think you need to come after your ex agreesively for court costs. Make a claim that the proceedings have no merit and that your ex needs to file a deposit towards the courts costs she is inenvitably going to have to pay to you. Also initiate a counter claim that your payments should be reduced on the gounds that you have to spend a lot of money on frivilous court proceedings such as these.

    Also at the first judical hearing ask that the case be dismissed. If it is not dismissed, then ask that the case (minus the parties names) be allowed to be reported. Explain that it is in the public interst to know what sort of cases the Family Court allows to proceed. The tax payer will be interested to know.

    Comment by Vman — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 12:32 pm

  56. Hi Vman,, thanks mate, those are really good points. I hadn’t even thought of Court costs but I haven’t done anything wrong and I will be spewing if I end up having to pay the Court as well as her. I like the idea of making public. Is this something I can ask for during proceedings or should this be included in an affidavit?

    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 22nd February 2013 @ 9:49 am

  57. @Had_Enough Look at interlocutory hearing: getting that question answered in advance of her hearing and if the decision goes against you then you can appeal immediately to the High Court also before her hearing goes ahead.

    Comment by Down Under — Fri 22nd February 2013 @ 11:53 am

  58. had enough you may need to realise the basic motivation of the state is to ruin families so children are vulnerable.they employ dirty tricks disguised as law, perpetrated in pretend courts.yes your common law rights have and are being ignored as are your rights as a father. get creative and fight for what is best for you and your family!

    Comment by rich parsons — Sat 23rd February 2013 @ 5:21 am

  59. You’re right; we can’t just talk about it. The average woman spends about 20,000 words a day and the average man about 7000. Verbal transaction tax, that’s what we need here, quite justifiable, global warming and all.

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 23rd February 2013 @ 7:24 am

  60. Hi All
    I would like to ask why are we so scared to voice our concerns and discuss our situations in openly in fear of who may be reading it? don’t you all get it that thats a psychological weapon they use to control us? the less details we know about each others issues, who they had dealings with and the details of outcomes, the less perfect our plan/ tools to fight back for our kids and our lives. Why are we in fear of legal action?.. what more can they take from us??

    Comment by kirannjiharr — Wed 27th February 2013 @ 12:10 pm

  61. PS Had -Enough, what they do is refer you to the child support agency in Australia who then utilise collection agencies to sell your items, messup your lifestyle, and take from you monies in a lump sum. they do not care about your commitments, dependent or expenses, OZ will not back you up even if u are an OZ citizen. If they are feeling generous they will leave an unreasonable paltry sum (estimate 10% ) of what your actual expenses are to take care of 100% of your expenses and commitments. (PS this is in OZ)

    Comment by kirannjiharr — Wed 27th February 2013 @ 12:15 pm

  62. Oh they will give you a letter saying you can object but thats ijust it.. you can object on deaf ears…

    Comment by kirannjiharr — Wed 27th February 2013 @ 12:17 pm

  63. Hi kirannjiharr, I am well aware of the fact that the FC and IRD CS will do their best to destroy me and take whatever I have and give it to the mother of my children regardless of which side of the Tasman I am on. I realise what the problem is. It’s solutions that I am looking for not a rehash of what I already know. By the way, I don’t live in fear of anyone, but I’m not going to reveal any tactics that I may have up my sleeve on the public domain. Am happy to discuss offline though with anyone who is interested.


    Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 4th March 2013 @ 2:57 pm

  64. Well I have to give credit where credit is due. The applicant’s case for a lump sum payment got thrown out of the FC yesterday. The judge was a no nonsense sort of guy, sounded like he may have been in his 60’s, and saw right threw her lies. Very happy with the result! Thank you judge, I wish there were more like you.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Sat 9th March 2013 @ 1:58 pm

  65. @ Had_Enough. That must be a relief for you and your partner.

    Who was the lawyer that took the case to court? Publishing the decision here (without identifying the parties)in a separate post with a suitable title could be a good resource and easy found by others searching for help.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 10th March 2013 @ 6:52 am

  66. Hi Downunder, she didn’t have a State funded lawyer this time and represented herself. I like your idea of identifying these parasites though. In the past she has used State funded lawyers for dubious purposes such as reduce my access visits for no good reason. I was unable to use my own lawyer to fight back because I work for a living and can’t afford a lawyer at $300 per hour. It seems unfair that a vexatious litigant such as the mother of my children has been allowed to use a state funded lawyer to achieve a negative outcome for me and my children. They should only be available for people who are genuinely being F’d over not for applicants who want to F over others.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 10th March 2013 @ 12:00 pm

  67. Wow you actually had a WIN ! in the family court , (are you sure you are a male lol) Congratulations Had Enough 🙂

    Me I am Just another random NZ male raped by the family court and had all of the above happen and still happen on a on-going basis.

    Its enough to make you leave forever after all the courts want nothing more to split a family up and give all the benefits to the mother at the fathers expense, Good on ya !

    Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Mon 25th November 2013 @ 4:47 pm

  68. Now there is an old biker slogan – Dilligaf – very appropriate on this forum…..

    Comment by hornet — Mon 25th November 2013 @ 5:26 pm

  69. Excellent win had Enough – enjoy the celebration

    Comment by hornet — Mon 25th November 2013 @ 5:27 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