Mark Miller now in private practice
Hello John
I understand you are the owner and administrator of Menz.org.nz. My name is Mark Miller and I am a practising barrister and have been a child support review officer for IRD for over 12 years. My work with the IRD is highly regarded by the department and my name is mentioned regularly in the Menz website for my work as a review officer.
I am leaving IRD as a review officer & intend to utilise my years of experience & knowledge as a review officer and undertake private work in the child support area.
I have a wealth of experience as a review officer & would like the opportunity to offer the following services to your members:
- Advice on applying for child support;
- Advice on applying for an administrative review hearing either as a custodial parent or as a liable parent;
- Advice on being the “other party” in an application for an administrative review hearing;
- How to prepare for an administrative review hearing;
- Commissioner Initiated Administrative Review hearings (CIAR);
- What information should be sought prior to a review hearing;
- What to except at an administrative review hearing;
- Court cases that are relevant to each particular Ground;
- What needs to be established before a departure is made;
- Post review hearing – application for suspension orders, appeal process & likelihood of success;
- Complaints process;
- Other Family Court matters such as contact issues, contracting out, separation, relationship property settlement and so on;
- Civil litigation;
- Criminal matters.
I can provide all assistance in relation to child support matters as well as other Family Court matters. I have also had over twelve years in the NZ Police before becoming a lawyer & have acquired many interpersonal, investigative & other skills.
My hourly rates are very modest and as an introductory offer to your members, I am happy to offer a 15% discount on my fees for the next month. I offer an excellent legal service in friendly & easily accessible surroundings & work closely with my instructing solicitor to ensure value for money for my clients.
I can be contacted on 845 5166, 027 665 0308, 845 5167 (fax) or by email at [email protected]. I also have a website currently under construction which should be up and running fairly soon. My office is situated on the main road in Pt Chevalier and client meetings are by appointment. There is plenty of parking outside my office.
I would appreciate it if you could pass my details onto your members & other similar organisations & I look forward to working hard for your members.
Regards
Mark W Miller
Barrister
Sounds suspiciously like advertising to me?
Comment by Gwahir — Tue 19th March 2013 @ 4:13 pm
Mr Miller states;
It is wonderful that Mr Miller knows his work was highly regarded and well remunerated by IRD. I’m sure his job satisfaction equates to the dissatisfaction with his work that so many write of here.
I do wonder why he is leaving IRD? Was this by his choice or their choice? Is he saying that he will refuse to accept appointment as a review officer again. If so that will delight many of his previous IRD customers (many here would even call them victims).
And yes that is a pretty blatant advertisment for which John P should expect a significant donation.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 19th March 2013 @ 4:39 pm
Advertising has always been allowed on MENZ if I approve it.
In this particular case I also consider it newsworthy for this audience.
Mr Miller is trained as a lawyer, so if he is good he will be aiming to get the best deal for his client.
There is at least the possibility that the professional qualities that MENZ contributors have complained so bitterly about over the years, may in fact be ideal if he is working for you.
I look forward to feedback from anyone who does engage his services.
I expect there will be a wide range of reactions to this post! If you want your comments on this page to stay here, please make sure they are respectful, and in accordance with the rules of this site.
Comment by JohnPotter — Tue 19th March 2013 @ 7:42 pm
Fair call John.
Poachers, gamekeepers, lawyers.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 19th March 2013 @ 7:45 pm
Many people have trained for various professions – Miller IS trained as a lawyer. Good choice of words, JohnP.
Comment by Down Under — Tue 19th March 2013 @ 8:09 pm
Very newsworthy John.
I’ll still refer to Allan for self representation and group support but would consider retaining a child tax lawyer to get an opinion on a specific technical legal matter.(Saves a truckload of reading and analysis!)
I view the move as positioning for the changes planned for 2014.These changes will be a gold mine for lawyers.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 19th March 2013 @ 8:52 pm
John how do you know this is actually for real? We hope it is but are skeptical.
We know this guy very well and yes he is good…at screwing fathers. Irony of irony if it is true, that he now comes looking for sustenance from the very ones he previously sought to suck dry on behalf of IRD. He speaks Chinese and somehow beat the height requirements for cops to rise to the dizzy rank of sergeant. He has a mustache that would humble even Biggles. Was apparently on the DPB himself at one time and was a custodial parent – which is perhaps where he got his incentive to pursue non-custodial parents with such a vengeance.
He is in our view the most complained about Admin Review Officer IRD ever had as a contractor, which is perhaps why he and IRD have finally parted company. The guy has been in private practice as a lawyer since 2000 after getting an honours degree in law from Auckland University after quitting the police in 1996. He may have a good degree but we’re unable to find any cases in the legal databases where he has actually represented clients in any hearings. So that’s the first question we reckon anyone thinking of retaining him should ask. What’s his case record? His legal aid payments have been about $8000-$9000 per year for quite awhile, so that doesn’t suggest a high case load or experience.
We guess his selling point is his track record and he’s a now a hired gun for sale but we urge all to remember this – IRD holds all the ammunition. He’s a hired gun without any bullets and section 96J(6)(b) of the Child Support Act says you can’t engage a lawyer to represent you in an Admin Review hearing. IRD also has about a 70 percent success rate at defeating appeals from Child Support Admin reviews. In our view the money would be better spent on anything other than helping Mark Miller make up the income he’s lost by the termination of his contract with IRD.
Bryan for GM
Comment by GerryMen — Thu 21st March 2013 @ 1:46 am
@ gerrymen Let’s read between the lines here.
The rat is always first off the sinking ship so does that mean less admin review dollars, possibly because the fancy calculator will cut out the bottom end.
Follow the money – the top ends reviews that have been turning up lately have been significant amounts of money and the decisions can only be challenged in the Family Court.
What do we end up with? Contract judges (admin review officers) kicking the shit out of high income earners and self employed men and we have the likes of Miller positioning himself for Family Court work rather than admin review work.
Sounds like standard appeals process descending on the incomes of New Zealand’s higher earning men.
Comment by Down Under — Thu 21st March 2013 @ 9:38 am
And Miller’s long term aspirations – perhaps Family Court Judge specialising in child support cases.
Comment by Down Under — Thu 21st March 2013 @ 11:50 am
Very few Child Support cases ever make it to Court. It is just too expensive given the limited chances of success (unless one is self-represented and prepared to do a lot of work). Mr Miller or any one else wouldn’t find half a days work a week specialising as a Judge in Child Support matters.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 21st March 2013 @ 1:29 pm
Dear Allan, most judges I have seen could featherbed out half a day a week of work, to more than a fool time job. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 21st March 2013 @ 1:59 pm
@Allan, look at numbers coming out of some these reviews.
Some people are likely to appeal the potential income assessments, don’t you think.
This potential income game could be a real industry starter.
Comment by Down Under — Thu 21st March 2013 @ 3:39 pm
Your Axe is razor Sharp my friend.
Thanks for your comment Murray.
I was fooled by my own pun.
Yes you would think there was potential money in Child Support Admin Review appeals given the dissatisfaction taxpayers have with these.
If someone wished thay could ask an Offical Information request for these statistics from IRD. They can provide numbers of applications under each of the 10 grounds and the decisions be they status quo, or in favout of paying parent or receiving parent. You can also ask for number of cases taken to Family Court.
From memory (of the last time I made this request) this is about 10,000 Admin Reviews a year with only 34 taken on to Family Court.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 21st March 2013 @ 4:36 pm
Another point we raise about Mark Miller – we are aware there is currently a case against him before the Law Society over his alleged practices while an Admin Review Officer which the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) has been examining now for over a year. Could it be IRD decided their faithful servant of so many years was now too hot to handle and let him go before the LCRO releases his decision?
Tony for GM
Comment by GerryMen — Thu 21st March 2013 @ 11:38 pm
@Allan I see the comment you made about having to claim child support from the other parent before making an application. How many parents are going to be in this position when the new act comes into force? Surely, they would be contracting new review officers for the flood of applications.
I wonder how much of this potential income stuff is going to surface especially with women coming off the DPB and then I am picking there will be some backdating and penalties.
The drop in penalty rate is not great. I did a rough calculation a while back and while the first year penalties do drop down under 30%, I’m picking this will be a better source of revenue than the existing penalties that make up the alleged 2.7 Billion debt.
Comment by Down Under — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 6:55 am
Shared care decisions and applications against other parents are administrative matters and don’t need the intervention of Review Officers. Sorry all those Family Lawyers about to become redundant because even Judith Collins (“I’m a Family Court Lawyer myself”) accepts that lawyers can cause more problems than they resolve at early stages of the process. Her current bill and recommendations probably means about 25-40% less Family Court Lawyers in practice. Hopefully we keep the more experienced and conciliatory and loose mainly the newer more adversarial types.
The Govt have been attempting to move people from the DPB for years. It used to be the gold plated benefit but lots of it’s add ons (such as study fees and extra allowances for transport) have been removed and now it’s more of a shiny chrome benefit. No backdating or penalties for DPB recepiants as the pocket being tapped a little is yours and mine as taxpayers. Smile blokes we pay Child Support and Pay taxes. As Scrap has always argued when it comes to Child Support we have always paid twice.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 7:26 am
You don’t need a lawyer , you need men, real men that can start a country wide revolution.
Comment by Kamal — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 8:58 am
I have just instructed my lawyer to lodge papers in the Manukau Family Court seeking a departure order that stems from my administrative review.
A review adjudicated & conducted by Mark Miller.
I will tell you what Mark Miller has done for me and let you judge for yourselves if you want him as your lawyer. I will add that I have paid child support for 5 years, I have never missed a payment despite having to get a court order allowing me to see my children, I have just spent $6k in legal fees in the past 4 months and spent Friday 15th March at the family court all day.
I missed my administrative review as I was caught up at work. I had written into IRD and lodged my defense to the claim by my ex wife. My ex wife wanted extra child support as she discovered I owned a rental property, the property is 100% leveraged and generates no cashflow, hence no child support is payable. Mark noted this but then decided as I work in sales that I must have a company car, and as such any company car is worth $15k extra a year on top of my salary. Mark Miller gave me no right of reply and nor did IRD who presented me with a large bill back dated to last year, payable in 6 weeks.
If Mark Miller had only picked up the phone and asked me he would have realised that as the vehicle is used more than 80% for work purposes it would not be equitable to levy the full yearly cost of the car on to my salary.
Also not happy with magically raising my salary by 15% he then went further and decreed that I should be paying child support on a total of 37% more than I actually earn and this to is back dated to April last year, magically I now owe IRD $13K payable within 6 weeks.
The only good news I have is that after 7 months of supervision and not seeing my children, I finally get my children back.
So Mark Miller, do you think you did a good job? After I get a departure order against IRD I will then becoming to see you.
Comment by Chris Eccles — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 1:44 pm
Chris take great care with what you say here. IRD monitor this site and Posts often pop up in Family Court against you.
Flick me an e-mail and I have a few Child Support suggestions for you.
[email protected]
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 1:51 pm
Hi Chris
Got the same T-Shirt but via another review officer.
Allan-can you explain someting to me. The act states that in administrative review they have to give regard to the financial circumstance of both parents. Why then in review did the review officer state that the mother’s income was of no concern to them. She has a company car also yet no similar adjustment was made as per Chris above???
Comment by shafted — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 2:12 pm
Shafted,
You are asking too much for logic and consistency and accuracy and even handness from Child Suport.
Mothers income does not count (unless in a shared care situation and you have applied against her) because it doesn’t. That is the logic and the internal policy.
THere are three tests for an admin review.
Special circumstances that set this case apart from the norm. Not quite unique but not your average situation.
Second is fair an equitable and in this mothers income is considered. The test used is if she has some, it is not concern to you and so we don’t take it into account. Alternatively if we considered her multi million income and free car and personal jet and holiday home and per diem and use of the company yatch (including the crew) then that would not be fair and equitable to her.
The third test is “Otherwise Proper” and it would not be to reduce your child support just because she is very weathy and doesn’t need your money and is just using IRD to harrass you.
I jest not.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 3:34 pm
The good news Shafted is Mr Dunne believes he has the remedy for your complaint awaiting it’s third reading in the house. I’m not quite as confident as Mr Dunne.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 3:35 pm
Yeah Allan,
That’s as i read it-a complete and utter inequitable beat up. Like i said in previous posts, at least i get relief of $20 per month for my 17 year old son now living with me. He eats that much for breakfast
Comment by shafted — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 3:48 pm
I guess The proposed changes to Family Court law – especially taking the mother’s income into account when assessing child support, goes some way to explaining WHY IRD HAS RAISED THE MAXIMUM INCOME THRESHHOLD FOR CS-TAS SOME 128% in the last 20years, some 74% OVER AND ABOVE THE RATE OF INFLATION.
By raising the maximum threshhold so deliberately over the last 20 years, I guess most men will under the proposed changes be liable for the more or less the same as they would have been were the formulae not changes, and the threshhold had only moved over the last 20 years inline with inflation, not 2.5x the rate of inflation.
Comment by Peter - I Just Got Dunne — Fri 22nd March 2013 @ 8:30 pm
Mr Miller: I am about to undergo my third Admin Review in 4 years. Both previous times, I was assessed at about 30,000 above my actual income. Two children involved. Fortunately I was able to use an inheritance from my uncle to clear the debt that rapidly accrued.
This time my father has died, and I should receive a good-sized inheritance (about $100K). No doubt I’ll see 22% of that disappear in additional CS assessment – this year, and a further 22% for each of the following two years, given that is how CS assessments work (based on your preceding two years’incomes).
Yell you what Mark, since you’ve no doubt performed these types of assessments on poor sods like me, all to IRD’s benefit, why don’t I give the remaining 34% of the likely inheritance to you for nothing. That’s right, up front, you don’t have to do a thing.
Coz I know if I engage you, you’ll drag this through an appeal in Family Court, and in the course of a year or so, nothing will change, and I’ll be $20K or more out of pocket to you anyway.
So go on. Take the lot, and don’t worry about a thing. It’ll save me a year of stress, and I’ll lose the lot anyway, so I might as well accept it and start out the way I’ll end up, and not get too optimistic, only to have any hopes eventually shattered anyway.
Your cheque’s in the mail.
Comment by Black Pete — Sat 23rd March 2013 @ 6:20 pm
Mr Miller certainly is an odd chap.
I note that on a newspaper blog site he commented in 2009 that
Such a public comment is unusual for a lawyer.
I’m sure IRD didn’t appreciate the idea that unpaid Child Support could be converted to community service or time behind bars in a fines court. That will do nothing to lower their mythical debt mountain.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 24th March 2013 @ 5:12 pm
Dear Mr Miller
I have to say I was very surprised to see your post on this site.
I am sure there are lots of people, apart from me, that have been badly affected by your work as an admin review lawyer.
In my case our review together didn’t start well Mark. You were very late in calling. And during our 20 minutes on the phone your mobile rang and I could hear you walking around, reading papers, opening draws and being, well, distracted. You even told me right there on the phone you were going to make me pay a lot of money.
Never mind, I thought, surely you would be a professional and would do some background checks before making a decision and apply reasonable thinking to the review.
Well you could have knocked me down with a feather Mark! Imagine my surprise when you decided my salary should be more than 4 times my actual salary – and far higher than $126,577 (as you know this is what IRD call “maximum income” for child support).
Golly – that was surprising. The maximum income wasn’t enough?
Hell, why not back date it to create an immediate debt of multiple tens of thousands of dollars. 30 days to pay. 10% and then 2% every month after that. If you thought the national debt was spiraling out of control just check my statement.
One could, if one were being generous, take all of this as simply a bad roll of the dice. Hard but fair. One of those things.
But where your agenda became clear, Mr Miller, was with your comments.
You see, when I finally got around to reading your review I thought, at first, you had mixed up my case up with someone else.
I was confused. These are not my circumstances. Wait there has been a mixup! But then it dawned on me. I realised you’d simply taken the mothers comments at face value – and based the entire review on this.
Then it occurred to me – these things could all be shown to be wrong. There are records that could be shown with a few quick checks of my child support records.
Nothing too major really – probably a few clicks of the mouse.
But you didn’t bother Mr Miller. These are facts that can be checked Mr Miller. Not a grey area. Not my interpretation. Or yours. But facts.
No wonder the kind staff I have spoken to at IRD have expressed surprise. I don’t think they liked it much either. No one likes a massive injustice do they?
So you can see why I am surprised to find you here touting for business Mr Miller. From the very people you ruined through negligence and/or incompetence (I am being charitable here Mark).
Simply put, you are asking me to pay you to represent me to argue against your own review?
Umm, I might pass Mr Miller.
Comment by toast — Mon 25th March 2013 @ 8:36 pm
Finally someone that actually had MR Miller and had a bad experience. Real facts at last, love it!.
I wish more IRD (vermin) employees trolled these sites and realised that they! are the problem not just the Paying Parents, they would also learn that not all paying parents are MEN!.
I just met a lady at school camp that also pays child support and had issues when calling IRD explaining her case as the IRD professional was confused that a WOMEN had to pay child support.
We laughed our asses off.
Go IRD you guys rock! That in-house training must be rigourous, during the hiring process what exactly is the test for low moral values? and little to no concience?
Comment by Too Tired — Mon 25th March 2013 @ 9:00 pm
@ toast.. hypothesise Mark miller contradicting his own findings!!??!.. that would be hilarious..
Comment by kiranjiharr — Tue 26th March 2013 @ 1:48 pm
It would seem by the posts on this site that my experience with the IRD is not an isolated case.
What bugs me is the way IRD, its administrative review officers and staff do not allow the paying parent the right to reply before making their judgments. They make and enforce their judgments without seeking all the pertinent facts and circumstances.
I was told by Marino Leef (case officer IRD admin review) that the only option open was a family court departure order, this was to negate the error that IRD administrative review office had made. Surely this is not democratic nor lawful?
Marino Leef was not initially prepared to give me the name of her supervisor, Lorina Afakasi-Flavell, It was only after demanding this information that it was supplied. I told Marino that I would be laying a complaint against the way IRD has handled this. My complaint has to include the head of the department as they are responsible for fostering this culture of discrimination.
For all interested parties in proceeding with action against the IRD Administrative Review Office based in Manukau Auckland, please contact me, [email protected].
I will not allude to my plans on this website as the unhelpful staff at IRD troll through here garnishing information.
Comment by Chris Eccles — Wed 27th March 2013 @ 7:40 am
Twelve years…that’s how long I’ve been living out a suitcase.
Comment by Peter — Sat 30th March 2013 @ 6:09 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcIUrA68_JU
SPOT ON!!!
Comment by Peter — Sat 30th March 2013 @ 6:11 pm
A suitcase? Luxury!
There was four of us, living in a single suitcase. It was so cramped, we’d take turns sleeping. They flies had to file flight paths, and the only window with a view, was the keyhole on the top. We’d all get home at midnight after working 27 hours a day, and our dad would slice us in two …
Comment by OMG You're *&^($^% — Sun 31st March 2013 @ 1:36 pm
This guy Miller and his terrible assessment decisions were my reason for leaving new Zealand 6 years ago
Comment by Michael Q Todd — Mon 8th April 2013 @ 10:57 am
The problem is that there is not enough of these discussions. The idiocy and weirdness of these multiple decisions is rarely discussed
Comment by Michael Q Todd — Mon 8th April 2013 @ 10:59 am
Unbelievable……….
Miller touting for business here cos his IRD gig is finally up.
It’s like the mugger who has just stabbed you in the chest repeatedly suddenly asking “are you feeling ok?” “can I help at all?” Then charging you $10,000 to call an ambulance.
Perversly and steeped in irony is that Miller is exactly the correct type of conscience free maggot to do well on either side of the fence.
Maybe he has run out of targets to maim and is simply broadening his options??
Comment by Broke Father — Tue 9th April 2013 @ 4:07 pm
From the discussions I had with various IRD staff members I would suggest he was thrown out. Why else would he quit from a place where he could persecute people. A little Hitler.
Now he is touting for business from the people he persecuted.
I am now making complaints on his conduct via a number of channels. I guess where there is blood in the water…
I have plenty of time. I am quite patient.
I encourage anyone else that been exposed to shoddy reviews from Mr Miller should consider doing the same.
Comment by toast — Tue 9th April 2013 @ 9:06 pm
@ toast – post 37.
Please let me know how to complain about his conduct. I took legal advice after a biased and incorrect review and was told family caught was my only option.
Comment by Broke Father — Wed 10th April 2013 @ 7:54 am
has anyone dealt with Elizabeth Collins?
Comment by kiranjiharr — Wed 10th April 2013 @ 12:36 pm
#38 well, I spoke to IRD this week and they tell me that Mr Miller has left. Even though his review of my case had comments that can easily be shown were wrong (a few clicks of the mouse would provide the information) I was told that reviews are ‘quick and cost effective’ and ‘they have no requirement to investigate the facts’.
I had this conversation with ird because I wrote to the complaints department.
Regardless that he made comments that were incorrect, the IRD said his review is supported because I am the father and so should pay the amount he decided I should pay. His incorrect comments had no material bearing on my estimated incomce (5x actual salary, close to $150k).
So while this didn’t return any material result for me now, I strongly suspect mr miller got the boot because of mine and other complaints. I suspect that the person I spoke to was embarrassed by the obvious disregard for facts by Mr Miller. I also suspect my previous letter to Peter Dunne about mr miller may have helped hastened his departure. No one wants to associate with someone that can potentially embarrass them. Maybe I am wrong and mr miller left of his own accord but I can’t imagine mr miller pulling his snout out of the trough.
Now I am going to the law society. Filling in the forms.
The system is stacked against us but I liken it to the slaves in America…you have to chip away against it. If we roll over then nothing will change. We write, we call, we complain…like a dripping tap.
Ps Mark Miller, I truly hope you are forced to add value to make money. If that were the case you will starve.
Comment by toast — Thu 11th April 2013 @ 9:24 pm
Hello Toast if I hire a contractor and they mess up I am responsible.
IRD hire a mongrel dog and then set him on paying parents it is their responsibility, they are to blame. This shows the culture within the department. Yes totally agree that the dog needs to be put down, however the owner is culpable for the dog’s actions. They must be held to account.
Yes I totally agree with you, we must continue complaining, bitching, writing letters to MPs until changes are made. This squeaking wheel has only started complaining, I can be very persistent.
Let Mark Miller reap what he has sown.
Comment by Chris Eccles — Mon 15th April 2013 @ 12:30 pm
can someone please tell me who else to steer clear off? at this stage miller has ruined our lives completely, without going into matters too deeply we will have to do another review, are there other mark millers out there to avoid? can anyone give names, and has anyone come across a nice review officer yet? if we go down the same path as the first review i just dont know what we will do
Comment by here we go again — Sat 4th May 2013 @ 6:21 pm
@here we go again: I wish I could pass on some positive feedback. I actually made a compliant to the IRD as suggested by an MP. I pointed out to the IRD during a long conversation that in my review it appeared they had mixed up my case with someone else’s. The review was clearly off and didn’t relate to me at all.
As you can imagine its a bit disappointing to have a debt of $30k landed on you out of the blue accompanied by a stack of pages unrelated to my case. Gosh! What a surprise!
Anyway, during the conversation, the IRD told me (head of admin reviews apparently) that the review officer has no requirement to establish the facts or do any investigation. The fact they got it so badly wrong is irrelevant since the wrongness probably didn’t contribute to the $30k. There was nothing they could do to help and felt there would be no reason to help even if they could.
You are just gong to have to hope like hell you get someone that is human and smart and reasonable. There is no justice. Good luck.
Comment by Toast — Tue 7th May 2013 @ 8:38 pm
Hello Toast
Flick me an email on [email protected]. I will send you a document that may interest you.
Comment by chris — Wed 8th May 2013 @ 8:36 am
valuable reading..for someone new to being shafted by the IRD its good to see Im not alone.
Comment by Trying — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 12:49 pm
#45. another one bites the dust. No toast, you are not alone. Like us, you are now part of a rather large club of people that are regularly rogered (normally annually as opposed to analy)by the ex and the IRD. Just keep hammering away at MP’s, IRD, Peter Dunne etc and occasionally you get some respite-but not often. Commiserations to you!
Comment by shafted — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 1:34 pm
We need an IRD CS Ombudsman.
Can’t see it happening, somehow.
Comment by OMG you're *&(^^(^#%^$ — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 7:28 pm
there is one in OZ.. should be a kiwi equivalent there..
Comment by kiranjiharr — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 8:15 pm
Can one just contact the ombudsman? Where does one go when the MP can’t help, the IRD are corrupted and couldn’t care less and the family court process cannot work. And one is so far in debt that one will never surface…and the debt survives bankruptcy and death
Comment by Toast — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 8:31 pm
Basically Toast it cannot survive Death, it can become a charge against an estate. If that’s empty, what’s there to get? The worst part was IRD would not cease its harrassment of the deceased’s immediate family until it had sighted the death certificate 🙁 In the event of a coroner’s enquiry.
Comment by Gwahir — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 8:38 pm
Sorry Gwahir
Child support liability is extinquised upon death of paying parent but rest assurred they will extract any debt and penalties from the dear departed’s estate.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 9:39 pm
Agreed Allan. The circumstance was a sudden “Unexplained” Death. There was no estate. His partner dissapeared! and IRD would not cease harrasment of the deceases’s, mother and sister until they could produce a death certificate (9 Months later) Payments and penalties accrued until that majic piece of paper was seen by them. Bankruptsy, they continue to hound.
Comment by Gwahir — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 9:55 pm
@Ghwahir what is this case? I am not surprised but I haven’t heard of it.
Comment by Toast — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 10:09 pm
The matter was several years ago. The victim had been imbibing ‘P’ I took the last phonecall!The death occured in the grounds of Keneperu Hospital. They wern’t open at night! It happened very close to christmas.
Comment by Gwahir — Fri 17th May 2013 @ 10:14 pm
Mark Miller, so glad that he is no longer around although having had him TWICE as a review officer my husband now requests that he not be in attendance. Both times Mark Miller assessed my husbands income at triple what he actually earned and back dated it so that he now has arrears that will be cleared by the time the child he is paying support for turns 21. He is a horrible man, very cutting and calculating and clearly thinks that the NCP is out to shaft the CP everytime.
I have complained about him, I have written to the IRD and Peter Dunne and I somehow helped to have him removed from that department.
Tomorrow is my husbands 13th Admin Review in 5 years. He made a cross application along with his response to CP’s application and it has been incorrectly filed by review staff and will now result in another review in a month or so. In the meantime he goes to a gunfight without a gun tomorrow as his response is not in the file that the review officer will have in front of her. In fact she has nothing but the financial statement completed by the CP ommitting income so it makes her looking as if she is suffering hardship. But it appears from what I have read that they don’t look at documentation so why waste the tax payers money and our time even bothering?
Another review officer to be wary of is Stuart Benson, whether he is still around or not, who knows? But if he is decline him as your review officer.
Thank god this is my husbands last year of paying through the nose through the IRD. I do feel sorry for those that have to continue in this system as although changes are coming next year, I can’t see it making any difference to the pro feminist attitude and thinking of IRD child support staff.
Comment by Toni — Tue 21st May 2013 @ 10:59 am
Toni-had exactly that experience at admin review. I filed my info (what a mistake) before the review. Was presented with her info AT the review. Asked questions about her info of the review officer who did not know the answers or care. I pointed out some lies in ex’s statement of position and subsequently provided proof. It is an offence under the act to lislead the commissioner. The legislation specifically says so. You guessed it-was told this was not a matter for the IRd but i should “see my lawyer’ or litigate in the family court.Got the usual-yes xxxx, i can see how frustrating this must be for you (they must have a little card to read from), i can hear that you are frustrated and i relate to that blah blah-then proceeded to skull fuck me with backdated penalties plus interest.
Comment by shafted — Tue 21st May 2013 @ 3:49 pm
The question is why does the IRD ask the respondant, usually the NCP, to file a response when the actual review is hijacked by the IRD contracted lawyer? and furthermore the paper work IRD sends out says that you will not be disadvantaged by not attending, Yeah right!
The fact that IRD purports to follow a process, that is supposedly fair, is bollocks, the process & procedures are run by staff with an agenda utilising contracted legal guns that are often biased against the NCP. Its a total set up from whoe to go.
IRD do not afford you the opportunity of response or reply, even when they mess up! This is insane. Peter Dunne does not care, but I bet he would care if the conduct of the IRD is brought to the attention of the media. The fact the IRD is breaking the law by their conduct is another issue!
Surely its time to stand up to the cretins at IRD?
Comment by colin — Wed 22nd May 2013 @ 12:06 am
Damn good question Colin. They pay lip service to the process. In one review I never even got to see the mothers financial position until after the review came in. I asked why but they weren’t interested.
Another time my lawyer wrote to the commissioner asking for the review to be postponed since we were planning to go to FC. According to the Act the IRD had to reply. They didn’t. Because I trusted in the process in those early days I expected the review to be on hold pending a reply but the review went ahead anyway. Still waiting for a reply and that was two years ago.
Why bother participating when the head of IRD reviews tells me on the phone that ‘admin reviews are a fast and cheap process’ and ‘there is no obligation for the review officer to do any investigation of the facts’.
Nice one.
Comment by Toast — Wed 22nd May 2013 @ 6:57 am
Have just seen the above. Surprised IRD allowed Mark Miller to stay as long as he did. After a long process involving the Ombudsmen and finally an independent investigation, IRD apologised to us for Mark Miller’s behavior and it’s own failure to respond adequately to the problem. It gave compensation being an amount equal to the year’s child support awarded by Mark Miller plus another amount to compensate for the trouble he had caused (which was quite a good amount). At the meeting for the formal apology there was no evidence of IRD’s high regard for Mark Miller. (Personally we think he really struggles with his understanding of the law and English).
The investigation looked into Mark Miller’s decision and IRD process generally,as some of our complaint was about the fact that basic principles – eg the need to supply the respondent with the applicant’s submissions and evidence so that the respondent has a chance to respond adequately – were not being applied. The investigator in his report had a lot to say about lack of proper process in this regard. If IRD has continued to fail to supply the applicant’s statements in time, especially given the investigation that was carried out in our case, there should be complaints to the Ombudsmen.
Comment by Red — Sun 25th August 2013 @ 9:34 am
The easiest way for IRD Admin Review officers to get away with some of the injustices they are renowned for, is to withhold information. It starts with not explaining to people in terms we can understand, our rights. It continues with them not providing the applicant’s submissions. It concludes with them not explaining the basis for their decisions.
Further, they treat every case in isolation. Divide and Conquer. It becomes poor old father against the might of Conglomerate IRD. Our few dollars cannot fight the bottomless state-funded pockets of IRD lawyers.
This shroud of secrecy is embedded with the threat of legal action against anyone disclosing their decisions (we must not say or publish anything that identifies the child or either party, must we?)
In your case, Red, you must have been brave, inexhaustible, and maybe even rich, to take on IRD. Well done! No doubt you entered IRD’s clutches knowing little about their process, your rights, and believing IRD were fair and just.
So if a decision goes against IRD, as in your case, Red, why is it not published in the media? Or in sample case law on the Ministry of Justice website? (maybe yours was, I don’t know). In other words, how do we get the word out there, that IRD do get things badly wrong?
How do other mere cash-cow non-custodial fathers learn and better equip themselves from your experiences?
Could I suggest, this site, and maybe a few good men who deal with and guide others to deal with IRD, need a copy of your decision, or a summary of salient points, so that they can refer to it when challenging IRD?
Comment by OMG You're *#$&^&) — Sun 25th August 2013 @ 9:54 am
Red, can you advise who you went through at the ombudsmans office? I have the very same situation as you describe going through with this miller character, coupled with some very serious instances of them breaking onto my property, while we were away, illegally taking my wifes car, the family car and the family truck, refusing to allow me to every attend a review meeting – not once have I been permitted to attend physically, and yes the latest trick, was to not send me the applicants submissions as I requested, and also refusing to postpone any of these sham review meetings to a date I could attend.
I also have a big problem with this situation where they can demand more than you actually earn = some fantasy based on your potential to earn, completely ignoring your rights to be a parent to other kids if you so choose, ( I have no problem paying child support but I have a big problem being demanded an amount based on more than I earn ) and when you cant pay, which obviously you wont be able to – they are then seeking warrants in PRIVATE – under secrecy – which you have NO opportunity to attend to present FACTS – and then they are stealing personal property to pay down this bogus debt.
On these issues we must make a stand, because if they get away with this – the next thing you know, child support will be based on what you OWN – what property you have – and they will then steal it to pay down some fantasy debt. I notice the new changes allow IRD to demand a Cost of living allowance – $$$ currently undefined but will probably be proportionate to the govt DEBT – from BOTH parents – do you all realize just how dangerous this could become – demand more than either parent earns, and then come into your home and take property to pay for the debt – this concerns me immensely.
I am also concerned that our very Human rights commission refuses to take complaints about these scum. Parenting rights, property rights as enshrined in the Treaty and the Civil Rights act are being totally decimated by these bullying thugs…..
Comment by hornet — Mon 26th August 2013 @ 9:38 am
ON another note,, I have been doing some research on the following …..
Parental Alienation Syndrome and Narcissistic personality disorder – collective both of these two conditions define exactly what most of us are all being subjected to by ex partners and which the Justice department and its officers are collectively assisting, and encouraging – you see if these two issues were addressed and prevention was introduced to limit this occurring – it is my strong belief that Child Abuse, Domestic Violence and Separated parent conflict would diminish – but we cant have that can we, because this great little business these worms have created for themselves would end.
What I have been calling bad behavior by my ex partner which has and is harming my child, and which has caused me much unnecessary stress – is the very definition of these disorders……which the system refuses to deal with and help PREVENT.
And because of that – it is my contention that the Justice system and its officers are directly a party to child abuse, because they actively assist this, aid abet or incite this behavior which destroys so many good parents – whose lives are being unnecessarily turned inside out – by false allegations and attacks on their credibility and reputation and integrity, for “money”.
Some links below for those interested….. there is plenty of information out there, but for all you PARENTS who have problems seeing your kids, these are the two clinical conditions you are fighting – which the system knows about, but refuses to address!!!!!!! because they would lose business – this is the area that PARENT groups must take a stand on……demand action to help reduce the impact of these conditions on children and good parents……….
Parental alienation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Parental alienation is a social dynamic, generally occurring due to divorce or separation, when a child expresses unjustified hatred or unreasonably strong dislike of one parent, making access by the rejected parent difficult or impossible.[1] These feelings may be influenced by negative comments by the other parent and by the characteristics, such as lack of empathy and warmth, of the rejected parent.[2] The term does not apply in cases of actual child abuse, when the child rejects the abusing parent to protect themselves.[3] Parental alienation is controversial in legal and mental health professions, both generally and in specific situations.[4][5] Terms related to parental alienation include child alienation, pathological alignments, visitation refusal, brainwashing, pathological alienation,[6] the toxic parent and parental alienation syndrome[7] though the last term is a specific formulation of a medical syndrome proposed by psychiatrist Richard Gardner that is not well accepted.[8]
http://www.parental-alienation.info/publications/24-sigofparalisynandhowtocouitseff.htm
http://www.parental-alienation.info/index.html – a host of court cases and instances which demonstrate how horrible this is for kids and parents…. well documented facts………
http://www.breakthroughparenting.com/PAS.htm
http://www.drreenasommer.com/PAS_effects.html
http://www.hostile-aggressive-parenting.com/
http://www.daughtersofnarcissisticmothers.com/mothers-with-narcissistic-personality-disorder.html
http://www.angriesout.com/grown17.htm
Comment by hornet — Mon 26th August 2013 @ 10:05 am
And I thought I had problems with the wankers at IRD, you know who you are bitches
Comment by Brian — Mon 26th August 2013 @ 11:15 am
I was surprised at the success via the ombudsman. I was presented her financial data at the review meeting and was told then as now, that it was within the review officer’s discretion to allow this or otherwise. Thus, she had 2 weeks to scrutinise my data-i had 2 minutes. I have complained about this to Dunne and to my MP. A senior representative of the department “heard where I was coming from” and could “sense my anger” but the upshot was…..NOTHING.Was also told that despite my ability to prove her fabrications in her statement of position (and subsequently providing the proof, that as her comments were not made under oath, they did not consider an offence had been committed-but that i was “free” to take the matter up with my lawyer or the family court. DISGUSTING dishonest malevolent coercive bullying i say.
Comment by shafted — Mon 26th August 2013 @ 1:48 pm
I wouldnt be in any hurry to take the matter up with the femily caught.
On my last appearance there I pointed out to the judge that lawyer for child and the ex’s lawyer had both failed to file their affadavits in the prescribed time. Exs lawyer the day befor the court date and lawyer for child actually in the foyer of the building as we were about to walk into caught. As I was representing myself this left me little to no time to properly go over their affadavits. Didnt phase the judge though he felt it should proceed.Then during the proceedings I pointed out that the ex was changing her story and it didnt match her hastily read affadavits or testimony she had given for the last 20 minutes. Judge informed me he took a dim view of my calling “the mother of my children” a liar. Got the notes read back and proved this wasnt the case but then I asked the judge did he want to do anything about the admitted perjury as she was admitting to not telling the truth while under oath. Not something the Judge felt needed adressing as this wasnt a criminal court. WTF
So Shafted while you are free to take this up with the femily caught I wouldnt hold out much hope of even getting a better answer there
sorry I can’t be of more help
Mits
Comment by Mits — Mon 26th August 2013 @ 6:28 pm
OMG – we’re trying to dig out the investigator’s report. It was a few years ago now. It would be official information held by IRD in any case. The terms of reference stated that it was an investigation into the practices and processes used by IRCS for the exchange of information in an admin review and into the policies IRCS has in place to deal with allegations of breaches of natural justice (amongst other things). Given the content of the report we thought things would change at IRD after that. Maybe IRD took no notice.
Hornet – there was no one in particular at the Ombudsmen’s office. It took a long time for us to work through the issues there. The upshot was that the office finally brought pressure to bear on IRD to hold the independent investigation. We actually weren’t very happy with this because we didn’t expect an investigation organized by IRD to be independent (Yes, our initial faith in this system had gone by then). The Ombudsmen’s Office will probably want you to try and work things out directly with IRD first. We spent probably a year working through the complaints mechanisms there, often getting really silly answers, before we complained to the Ombud. Our complaint to her was mostly about process. (The principles of natural justice require a fair hearing. You need to know what the other party has submitted, if it’s relevant, and be given sufficient opportunity to respond. Handing things to you at the hearing itself may not be sufficient. Not giving the information until after the hearing or not at all is not going to work at all – this is very basic law which review officers should know). The whole thing took a lot of time.
Comment by Red — Mon 26th August 2013 @ 10:00 pm
Hello Red, interesting to read your comments. According to what you recount and my own personal experience It is fairly clear that IRCS has continued working according to their own mandate, they contract hired legal guns that are biased to adjudicate proceedings where the NCP is not given all the information nor given the right of reply. This is a clear breach of natural justice. IRCS know that they are breaking the law, yet no one holds them to account. I would be very interested in passing a copy of the investigator report that you mention to my lawyer.
Comment by craig — Tue 27th August 2013 @ 8:44 am
Red, really appreciate this, it will help me tailor my complaint so it is very specific ……
In one instance, after being refused attendance and being reduced to the phone call – I asked the review person, if she had read my submissions – NO I have not – I then asked her how this could be a fair and impartial review, if she had given time to the applicant – personal time with a sit down meeting and a coffee, and had clearly garnered knowledge of her submissions…..the review officer then got really angry with me, that I had challenged her in any way, and screamed down the phone – speak now or not get another chance……..
So this is how they are still behaving ……its not fair, impartial, or unbiased……
I would have received more of a reaction if I had talked to the grass on my lawn….they are not interested in facts, filed tax returns, or truthful accounts …..they have their minds made up before you even engage with them – but I guess you all know that from experience with these dogs…….
Ill be including this incident along with my being refused Applicant submissions in the latest review – to which I did not even get a phone call or a visit……..someones not keen to meet me face to face………
Comment by hornet — Tue 27th August 2013 @ 4:20 pm
Well surprise surprise, I should have guessed – how times have changed since Red had some success with the Ombudsman’s orifice – the very organization we are supposed to go to – to investigate concerns we the public have with government departments and their practices – is now also complicit in protecting the corruption and refusing to help in any way at all.
No it seems that depriving parents of their rights to NATURAL justice in the IRD review process is acceptable behavior which does not warrant investigation. Dont know how you got a positive result red – just not going to happen in todays climate…….
( in their response its interesting they refused to actually address this concern directly as a bullet point – but packaged up the response to include everything in general terms – being specific where it warranted on issues not so contentious – so no we wont be looking into this – not their job apparently – so what do they do??????)
Discriminating against parents at family court and child support services – is acceptable behavior not worthy of investigation.
( again failed to actually give this point its own paragraph and be specific – so ill be going back to them on the specifics they refused to address directly………… )
Allowing kids to be harmed by narcissistic alienating parents is perfectly acceptable. Palmed off to the family court if I want to take this further…..
lawyers for child can effectively stand back and watch their clients be harmed – and abused – thats acceptable practice by lawyers working for the family court. Palmed off to the family court if I want to take this further…….
IRD child Support can use children at will – to spy on parents – thats acceptable practice which does not warrant investigation.
Apparently with the IRD concerns I was supposed to take complaints directly to their office – go through more reviews and appeals or court at my cost – sorry is that not why I went to the Ombudsman – because I no longer trust those protecting their horrendous behavior at IRD……….
The SHAM Child Support review system can continue in its present form and does not warrant enquiry by the Ombudsman apparently – it matters not, that you are not allowed to attend in person, and that you are not given any information before a hearing – that you are directly discriminated against and not given a fair and impartial hearing – this is perfectly acceptable practice by IRD and does not warrant investigation at all by the ombudsman.
lastly – privacy – where property was seized illegally and there were direct unreasonable searches and seizures of property by IRD child Support – have all been referred to the privacy commissioner if I want to take these complaints further………
What a total crock of )&^%. We as parents = have no hope of ever getting a fair go at any level from government agencies.
The days of fairness and genuine concern for kids and parents are sadly gone.
These pricks just don’t want to know – it is clear given the response I just received that they are not wanting to look into any of these genuine concerns.
Their expectation is that I go back to court – spend more of my hard earned money, and time trying to fight the injustices and the sham I just complained about – the system is designed to bankrupt you, destroy you and at every level deliberately deprive you of your most basic rights and at the very least offer at least some protections to your children. The justice system is no longer about justice at any level.
Do you see a similar pattern here – offer a service to investigate injustice but don’t ever deliver – this is a total crock.
Thats two organisations now which have refused to investigate legitimate concerns – the Officer of the Human Rights Commission and now this lot at the ombudsman’s office.
Comment by hornet — Thu 19th September 2013 @ 2:06 pm
Hornet there is another remedy that some have tried.
Upskill, self-represent, take charge. Don’t expect others to resolve matters for you. They will never share your passion. They have no desire to walk in your shoes.
However nothing to stop you walking in their shoes and mastering some of the steps they use.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 19th September 2013 @ 3:21 pm
Allan, I am fast learning how the system works = plausible denial of facts is the game = its funny how the motto for the Ombudsmans office is ” FAIRNESS FOR ALL” and yet my recent experience reveals – the system PREFERS that the first stages of contact with IRD Reviews must remain to be deliberately UNFAIR, DISCRIMINATORY, and against all the LAWS of NATURAL JUSTICE – the EXPECTATION of the system of a parent being, they must spend money and time back in court fighting those decisions – so make the first contact and the decisions awarded – difficult and unfair as a matter of course. That is not justice and it is not something anyone would have any trust or faith in.
My concern and what I am fighting for, is that the first contact MUST be fair and impartial and not discriminatory otherwise why have that service at all – if must be held to account – especially since the decisions which come from these reviews place such a huge burden on parents and these decisions have such a big impact on parents, kids and family for years into the future.
I will NOT ACCEPT that the review service should be allowed to conduct business and go against every aspect of the laws of natural justice when making those first determinations. it should NOT BE a parents role to then have to take that same service to court to prove otherwise especially to not to fight decisions which were awarded against the laws of natural justice in the first place.
The laws of natural justice where formulated to DIRECTLY protect people from UNFAIRNESS, BIAS and anything which may cause them to distrust the justice system. Without fairness and trust the justice system will not function and that I believe is the perception today by most parents who have been exposed to it.
How many others out there have had the same result from IRD reviews – walked away from each review, shaking your head thinking that would have to be the most unfair, unjust, biased, discriminatory process you have ever experienced in your life…….it cannot be allowed to continue in that format. And it cannot be allowed to breach the very foundation stone upon which the justice system was founded…….natural justice – fairness, impartiality and not biased in anyway.
Comment by hornet — Thu 19th September 2013 @ 8:20 pm
I am fast learning that there are certain acts that public servants must adhere to.
am sure NZ would have these as well.
These can be used against ALL public servants.. IRD workers included. No point fighting IRD. take their workers to court. pretty soon they will all start to behave and fall in line.
Comment by kiranjiharr — Thu 19th September 2013 @ 8:29 pm
Hi Hornet,
Back in 1981 and 82 there was no such thing as Admin Reviews and all applications for variation of the Child Support formula went through the FC. The system was inundated with applications and the whole concept of natural justice went out the window by legislative amendment of the Child Support Act. There has been over 2 generations of Child Support liability passed through the system since then and I don’t like your chances of a revolution overnight.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 19th September 2013 @ 10:23 pm
thanks Alan for that information, i wonder if anyone has actually challenged the system on this point?
The Ombudsmans office in their initial response seem to have the view that its an acceptable practice for there to be injustice at the Review level, and if you want fairness then you have to pay for it……
This is a familiar theme we see being rolled out across all facets of government – as they turn what were once public services into corporate business units…….. most recently DOC – fire all the managers who were actually there for the environment and replace them with corporate lapdogs as they partner DOC with business to make money, next with charter schools as they look to make education a cost to parents rather than a free service –
Already gone is policing and many local council services – repackaged and rolled out with a cost……..did you know Detectives are now having to write tickets = 8 per shift, four stops per hour….. this is pure revenue collection at the expense of their core function – investigating serious crime…….
Yes Alan, I think I get the picture, and I dont fancy my chances but I have to give it a go…..the fact is …we all know the Review system is a shame – I will try and expose it for what it is……….and at least try and expose the lies behind the charade…….
Freedoms, and laws which used to protect the people are all being gradually taken away in the pursuit of greed and power – same shit, different players……….I am just sickened they got away with destroying an innocent kid along the way………
Comment by hornet — Fri 20th September 2013 @ 5:36 pm
Yes we have tried and I think the Principal review Officer of IRD has done fairly well making the best of a bad lot. The system is openly agreed to be rough and ready (IRD’ds description) and low cost, and “prone to variation” (read that as bias if you wish). The advantage is that decisions are fairly quick.
This system has meant very few cases go to Court. I have taken several and assisted guys there but not for several years. If you want to try it in FC I’m available to offer an opinion but it needs to be a good case to be worth the effort. Too many idiots have taken matters to court poorly prepared and all that achieves if entrenched decisions that are then used as precedents against applicants. You will be up against IRD’s legal team but it is a complete waste of money to invest in your own barrister to take Child Support matters to Court and that is the way it is.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 21st September 2013 @ 9:31 am
Interesting Alan, ill wait and see what the response is to my latest letter and plan from there. appreciate the information and advice – ultimately I want to make sure no family has to go through what we have been through = having our home invaded, family property stolen, unreasonable search and seizure of our family home – all based on lies, untruths, hearsay by an ex, and the unchallenged opinion of one fking lawyer working for peanuts = not to mention the direct breaches of the human rights act – direct discrimination and complete disregard for the laws of natural justice at all levels during review – is just not acceptable to me……. yes I think there will be a very strong case to take forward……it will demonstrate how a good family, a good father and his wife have done everything the system asked – and we have never seen a single positive result, how we have been ravaged by the system at every turn – i deliberately avoided reacting to the endless provocation to react because the system you go to for help – refuses to help you = so my slate is completely clean in that regard – they have nothing which would demonise me or present me and my family as anything other than a good NZ family trying to do the right thing – and getting NOWHERE – this is not justice, it is not acceptable and those protecting this need exposing…….no family should ever have to go through this – never.
Comment by hornet — Sat 21st September 2013 @ 1:47 pm
No person should ever be enslaved to pay for the lifestyle choices of another. Slavery was long ago abolished in civilized countries, but men are now routinely enslaved to pay for women’s lifestyles under the fraud that is ‘child support’, aside from general taxes and cases of alimony or spousal support.
No person should ever be allowed to steal a substantial proportion of the fruits of another person’s labour. But now we define those fruits as ‘relationship property’ whenever this might advantage women involved, and allow those women to engage in theft of the property earned by men they were disloyal to.
Such immorality cannot continue, and a society based on it will not survive.
Comment by Luther Blissett — Sat 21st September 2013 @ 2:34 pm
… or the fat arses of judges and politicians.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 21st September 2013 @ 4:36 pm
One of the things I learnt with admin reviews was the difference that the admin review officer made. Here in HB we made a list of review officers who had a history of reaching unreasonable descisions. Within the applications we included a list of these people. Saying something like “I do not wish to have any of the following people as admin review officers. (List included) In the past fathers groups have complained to the IRD about the conduct of NAME, NAME and NAME beleive that they have behaved in an unethical unprofessional and biased manner. I am a member of said father’s group and my view is that it will be impossible to have a fair hearing if they are the review officer.” It was an approach that mostly worked. In one case the Dad on hearing the name of the review officer requested the supervisor come in and repeated the details of the complaint. The officer was withdrawn from the case and another one appointed at a later date.
Also the message I have to guys whtther going through child support or contact issues is ‘fight the case not the system’.
Regards
Comment by Ken — Sun 22nd September 2013 @ 1:10 pm
I have just been on the web site MENZ and wanted to let you know that Mr Millar is a friend of my ex husband, both ex-cops. Mr Millar represented him behind the scenes in an Admin Review, I made serious complaints, and he ended up not having his contract renewed. Now he is angry with me for putting the final nail n his coffin and is using the Family Court system at the mercy of the children we have to get revenge.
He has represented my ex 5 times now over 6 years and has lost 5 times. Couldn’t win any of the following: Protection order, Parenting Order, Admin Review, Fighting Admin Review. His method is not to settle anything, but to ensure the fight continues. He encourages court action as I believe he has so few clients he likes to use my ex for practice in court. It is abuse of his role as a lawyer and he should be taken to task now by the Law Society. He is not liked by judges and I have even witnessed the Judge mock him in court, something he was unable to understand because he is seriously lacking in linguistic skills. He is also seriously disorganised.
He encourages the father of my children to fight and fight and fight and hide any income; he even fought an IRD decision in my favour, in the courts and lost again. I wanted to warn you all that Mr Millar is not a lawyer you could ever hold in high regard.
Many thanks
Debs
Comment by Debs — Fri 12th December 2014 @ 12:07 pm
The view I have of Miller is that he has a superiority complex and doesn’t have any respect for other men.
You’re probably quite right that he is just using your ex for living expenses.
He is well known to many who have been on this site, and unlikely to receive any form of recommendation from here.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 12th December 2014 @ 12:22 pm
Unfortunately there is a significant number of Police or ex-Police who hold such entitled, or superior views.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 13th December 2014 @ 10:51 am
I agree that there would be many serving Police officers who hold such views, but to be fair, can you name any ex-police officer who fits your category, apart from Miller?
Comment by Downunder — Sat 13th December 2014 @ 5:47 pm
I note Kim Dotcom, bless his oversized soul, has been given access to $80G per month from frozen assets in Hong Kong. I guess the Courts won’t mind that it was probably all illegally gained money because, after all, he needs plenty to keep paying the lawyers. The Courts and lawyers will probably chew up most of his ill gotten gains in the process of enabling the US authorities to prove they were ill-gotten gains!
Stretching any relevance to MENZ Issues I know, and as a comment to an old post, but I couldn’t resist…
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 4:48 pm
If you would like to pay Mark Miller a visit.
M Miller, [address removed by moderator], Point Chevalier, Auckland, 1022 , New Zealand
Companies Office – Legal services
Comment by John Doe — Wed 17th July 2024 @ 10:46 am
If the address you posted was Mr Miller’s professional chambers I might have let it stay, but it looks like a private dwelling to me. I have never supported protest action outside people’s homes.
I also note that according to this 2020 Disciplinary Tribunal Decision [PDF], Miller is no longer in practice.
In fact, if this recent obituary is the same guy, the best place to “visit” him is likely to be Purewa Cemetary.
Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 17th July 2024 @ 6:32 pm