Child Support 103 – What Remains of John
The continuing story of John the Grain Farmer and The Drained Man.
It was a small funeral, mostly the grain farmers from the hostel.
The children sat with their mother, listening intently to the few men that got up and spoke about John, hoping they might hear a little about the father they never knew.
The three boys had only ever known what their mother had told them, that he was married to the land and not to her, although they didn’t quite understand how that worked.
Their mother was always telling them that she would see that they did not grow up to be like their father, and when they got married they would give their wives the best the city had to offer.
The mother had pointed out the two men in uniform when they had arrived. The boys knew the officer of the city, but not the administrator – according to mother he was the one they had to see.
Mother had told the boys that their father had grain assurance, and now that he was dead, they would not need to be given grain by the city – there would more grain than they could imagine – enough to last them all a life time.
After the funeral the family was surprised when the officer of the city said he would call next week with their grain as usual, and they went immediately to the administrator asking after John’s will.
Yes, the grain assurance is all that remains of John’s productive life the administrator told them – he was bereft of any other worldly goods unfortunately.
Who would benefit from his estate, the mother asked the administrator.
His children of course, had there been anything left once I paid the officer of the city what was due.
But the grain assurance is more than I have received from the city, complained the mother. We should receive the grain assurance and repay the city what we took and keep the rest for ourselves.
The administrator was quick to disagree and reminded the mother of the piece of paper she had signed the first time she had met with the officer of the city.
He also reminded her she had agreed to the grain payment for the undertaker.
“So, there’s nothing to be had of the grain assurance,” complained the mother with both bitter voice and startled look.
“There’s a modest amount which I shall retain. You’ll understand, we all need our grain.”
“You can collect John’s ashes next week, if you wish. That is all that remains of the man now,” said the administrator – “that and his wish as best I can recall ‘to die in peace, without debt around his neck, slowly strangling life from his very existence’.”
Rest in peace John, I was in Ashburton yesterday when another John chose another ending to his story.
Comment by dunnuffinwrong — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 6:30 pm
Downunder, I recall you mentioning a cs group for special operations, perhaps outside of legislation, using a mythical name something like Deborah Smallhome. I cannot recall exactly the name that you said. Does this element need to be added into your ongoing story?
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 6th September 2014 @ 3:42 pm
These are two different things.
The special operations group, operated out of Christchurch, and this is no secret, it was written about in the media.
Deborah Smallhome as far as I am aware is a mythical beast relating to certain cases.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 6th September 2014 @ 4:47 pm
Of course, I get your point, that maybe the officer of the city got a little corrupt.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 6th September 2014 @ 5:08 pm
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1. Life and Security of the Person
You have the right not to be
deprived of life
Are they trying to cause his suicide
subjected to torture, cruel treatment or punishment
Self explanatory
subjected to medical or scientific experimentation.
Refer to right to life
Right to justice
If your rights may be affected by a decision of a tribunal or public authority you have the right to
a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker
like that’s going to happen
apply for judicial review of that decision.
refer to the fair hearing lie
You have the right to bring civil proceedings against, and defend civil proceedings brought by the Crown in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Sat 6th September 2014 @ 6:43 pm
As we know, the application of the bill of rights only applies to women.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 6th September 2014 @ 8:09 pm
@Murray Pretend Minister Dunne
Comment by Downunder — Sun 7th September 2014 @ 1:58 pm
@Murray I don’t know for sure but I doubt the original Christchurch ‘special squad’ still exists, it was under the last Labour Government who were a rather nasty lot, when it came to men, and Dunne was also revenue minister back then.
Then there was this:
That led to the suicide of a Kiwi father in Australia.
That brought about the current legislation which can’t be implemented because the IRD never had the computer system.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 7th September 2014 @ 2:18 pm
#8 Downunder, thanks very much for the suggestions for action. I had the need about 15 years ago and lacking any constructive advice blundered my way through it, ok but not well.
There is a huge need for this to be written clearly enough for the people in need now (men and quite a few women) to be educated, so that before they drop into these holes, they can quickly realise what is going on and get appropriate help to bring the situation back to under legislation.
While people are playing these paperwork games, they aren’t working productively, or properly caring for their children……
So what is the “real” object of this legislation – filling prisons with emotionally neglected children of all ages?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 8th September 2014 @ 8:27 am
@murray
The blockquote @8 was extracted from a 2006 post; I don’t think we have made any significant progress since.
The destructive nature of marriage, divorce and child support laws are well known, and historically have been contentious enough to spark civil war.
The object of any public legislation – one would think should be to benefit society. [Puts on Tom T Hall and sings along to ‘Old Dogs and Children and Watermellon Wine’]
Comment by Downunder — Mon 8th September 2014 @ 10:44 am
The idea of a crack IRD hit squad really makes me laugh. If you can call shooting a swarm of fish in a small barrow marksmanship then perhaps they may pass as a hit squad 🙂 The ATO and IRD have been swapping info for many years now and if you’re on PAYG in Aus you will be detected by the ATO(CS)/IRD child tax computers before you receive your first pay check. No hit squad required.If you’re clever enough to work under the table or have your money laundered somehow I doubt if the ATO or the IRD would have the combined wit to catch you unless you were very sloppy with your bookkeeping. And NO you hideous IRD spy’s out there, I’m not one of those clever ones who is smart enough to hide my income. I’m on PAYG, yep here fishy fishy BANG BANG 🙁
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 9th September 2014 @ 1:16 am
The difference here (and it’s important to see the distinction): you are describing a reciprocal agreement which is typical between many countries – this ‘hit squad’ is not working through that agreement – the New Zealand IRD is operarting under a separate agreement between the two jurisdictions allowing the NZ IRD to operate within the Australian jurisdiction.
The suicide above was not caused by the Australian authorities but by the behaviour of the NZ IRD recovery team.
The media focus in this story is the typical bitchy bitchy get the bastard theme.
This doesn’t take into account that a person is able to be made subject to legal action without
a. deportation
b. being able to defend the action in a court.
We need to see this from the point of view as to how an international agreement might work within the Western World.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 9th September 2014 @ 7:20 am
Most of the newspaper accounts of driven or triggered suicides include an elements of
1. had all the data including contact address and telephone number,
2. unexplained large delay in contacting cs payer NCP,
3. pouncing suddenly and cruelly.
In my opinion, this is obviously risking driving a substantial fraction of the population to suicide, thus meets the definition for manslaughter. (Peter Whittle has never been prosecuted for 29 obvious manslaughters at Pike River Coal Mine..)
Such a repeated practice demonstrates that someone is being served well by this modus operandi, who?
The Government doesn’t directly benefit from a cs death, loss of future CS payments and likely increased benefit payments. The cost is huge, in addition to the children’s loss of parenting and the present spouse’s loss of relationship too (if there is a present spouse).
Some have suggested that IRD cs pay staff bonusses based on penalty payments. If cs staff perceive this as justifying the present suicide rate, then these are dangerous people to have in our society.
Some people have suggested that the ex-wives want the father of their children dead, or out of the way, so that their new relationship can look like a stable and complete marriage. (Such image is more important than the child’s relationships, would suggest that these are dangerous parents in terms of parenting skills.)
However, if working, even these parents lose income after a cs suicide and I don’t believe that many really want the death of their ex. (If so, then this is why I have suggested we offer “suicide and escape” service, to save the lives of these men and a few women, hounded to death by ird cs.)
So – ird cs bonusses look the most likely or largest single factor?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 9th September 2014 @ 8:46 am
Hi Downunder, I see what you mean. The NZ IRD CS people are genuinely vindictive and have a vendetta against liable men. I am absolutely certain of that based on the comments and behaviour I have experienced from their staff over the past 12 years. At one point , when I had 2 in my custody and she had only one (my daughter), I was told by some surly man hating woman that I have a responsibility to my daughter to pay her mother $750 per month in child support. The fact that this $750 was needed to feed and clothe and educate the 2 kids in my care was completely lost on this heartless c##t. I did some basic arithmetic and found that by the time the $750 from me, the working for families tax credits and her part time income were added up she had a monthly net income exceeding mine by $500. You can’t tell me that this scenario was in any way benefiting the kids in my care and I don’t believe for a second that this scenario would have been allowed had the genders been reversed. But when will this change?? Never, I’d say. We vote National in and Labour out and vice versa and both parties have almost identical policies and are both in the pockets of the femo extremists. It’s the same over here in Aus unfortunately.
Comment by Had_Enough — Tue 9th September 2014 @ 11:54 am