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

Take note NZ Family Court Judges ….

Filed under: General — golfa @ 9:48 am Tue 18th February 2014

This is how you do it. It’s quite simple really, it just requires opening your eyes and ears.


  1. Wow, okay.

    Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 9:54 am

  2. Finally common sense prevails…..

    Comment by kumar — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 1:26 pm

  3. All those things could be said about my situation. Sadly this is not a common outcome.

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 2:57 pm

  4. dont count on that happening in NZ

    Comment by kiranjiharr — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 3:09 pm

  5. 4. I for one won’t be. This ruling goes against everything the NZ family court thinks and does.

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 3:10 pm

  6. This sort of spoiling by lack of careful judgement by solo mothers more than solo Dads is quite common in this country. Not all solo Mums behave like this and some [a very small minority] solo Dads fail in this regard. My judgement cruel though it may be is based on 37 years of classroom teaching. In my opinion sole custody can be a very poor decision for the children.\.

    Comment by Andrew McCarthy — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 8:07 pm


    check this out, I enjoyed the read. Guess how far we’ve come form one side of the coin to the other, apparently mothers used to never get access to thier kids.

    Comment by too tired — Wed 19th February 2014 @ 3:44 am

  8. Thats great news. Score: Fathers 1, Mothers 733,443. Not good odds but fathers are heading in the right direction.

    Comment by Lukenz — Wed 19th February 2014 @ 1:26 pm

  9. @#4: I agree. Much Easier to change a Govt here.

    Comment by kumar — Wed 19th February 2014 @ 1:30 pm

  10. @7.. yeah we have come far and gone beyond..
    starship feminism.. exploiting all frontiers and beyond…

    Comment by kiranjiharr — Wed 19th February 2014 @ 2:35 pm

  11. @ Luke NZ ,
    @ too tired, agreed, way too far ya think …..

    but just wait till you are accused of being “sexist” lolz, by guess who !

    The 733443 feminists 🙂

    I just read this today and posted it on Facebook,

    Argue with these facts,

    William Derington Turner

    Family Law Tactics Australia, The virtues of yesterdays ‘feminism’ are mainstream when it comes to equity. I think you’d be hard pressed to find support for any policy against women these days. When an inequity against a woman is publicised it quickly receives main stream media attention. But – I don’t often agree with Germaine Greer, but I believe she is quoted as saying “It is a pity that the advances of women have come at the expense of men because it was never intended that way.” Post modern feminism has had a structural and especially legal backlash on men. 80% of the suicide rate is men. 50% of that is post relationship breakdown. In 1995 the Australian parliament enacted the Family Law reform act to address the courts issuing 95% of custody to single mothers as sole parental custody. By 2003 – rather than decrease – the rate increased to 97.4% to mothers custody. Again the Australian Parliament addressed the issue with the Shared Parenting Act of 2006, and now about 85% of custody goes to the mother. That is the outcome where men fight for custody to a judicial decision, and in effect loose. There can be no argument, that fathers continue to fail in their attempts to spend more time with their kids. All this, considering that Pre 1975, – Pre Gogh Whitlam – children when with their father because their father could financially support them. We have swapped one bias and sexist logic favouring fathers for an equally bias and sexist logic that favours mothers. But the truth is in between. The International Human Rights of the child – to which Australia is a signatory – states that it is the Childs Human Right to have a meaningful relationship with BOTH parents. And that is what we have to effectively introduce into Australian Family Law. See Article 8 – 12 for detailed international law principles in this regard

    Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Wed 19th February 2014 @ 3:35 pm

  12. Andrew McCarthy #6: Thanks for sharing your experience as a teacher, a very valuable perspective.

    NZ encourages and facilitates the break up of children’s families through making easily and immediately available the DPB, i.e. by paying parents, mainly women, when they separate but not when they keep their families together. Sole parenthood is most often a decision by the woman to get rid of the hassle of having to cooperate with, compromise with and depend on the man she had children with. Sometimes solo mothers have children to multiple fathers none of whom they ever intended to make a family with, and this too is rewarded by a secure ongoing DPB plus various supplements that often afford those women more money than what they would have available in a single-income partnership and certainly greater than many of them could earn through their own qualifications or talents. And the men who had sex with them are required to pay exorbitant, dishonestly named ‘child support’ to reimburse government for its DPB and/or to add to those women’s income and lifestyle. Yet media, in a trick of propaganda, have successfully spread the myth that all or most sole parents are brave mothers committed to the welfare of their children despite being cruelly abandoned by the children’s father. True commitment to children’s welfare would be demonstrated by maintaining for them the security and identity of a family unit with both biological parents, except in rare cases involving unusually high levels of dysfunction.

    Through facilitating and rewarding family separation NZ governments have perpetrated massive abuse against children. Through then further wrecking and allowing the wrecking of children’s relationship with one of their separated parents, NZ governments are guilty of crimes against humanity.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Wed 19th February 2014 @ 11:18 pm

  13. NZ governments are guilty of crimes against humanity.

    Yup and don’t forget that the Human Rights Commission is, and I quote “not allowed to comment or look into anything to do with the Family Court”.

    How can the government have the power to stop the Human Rights Commission?

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 20th February 2014 @ 8:30 am

  14. Question. Ex is autralian-lived here for 14 years. 2 kids together aged 12 and 10. She has informed me she wishes to relocate to Australia due to needing more “support”.Mediated our way out of her last request 2 yesrs ago and she and kids stayed here. If she pursues this, is it likely she will be referred to mediation in the first instance, or given the nature of her request, hearing? Does any one have any idea about the waut time for such hearings. Usual stuff-kids being coached etc etc

    Comment by shafted — Thu 20th February 2014 @ 9:23 am

  15. The BIG PROBLEM here is that children over twelve years old get FAR too much say in the New Zealand Court. If asked, the 11 and 14 year old boys, in this article, would probably choose to live with their mother, being best friends with them. The NZ court would grant that!!!
    My situation is EXACTLY the same.. my daughters…tongue studs at 14? quit school at 16? ear-stretchers, marijuana? etc etc etc. quite all right with their mother.
    My objection to the lack of structure, discipline is seen in New Zealand as abusive, which warrants a protection order….and i am seen as the villain!
    Some fathers don’t get a say and thus should not be expected to pay!!
    Dads, if you find yourself in this situation, I would recommend leaving to Australia.. There you can get out of the BAD weather, literally speaking. become self employed and earn nothing on the books.
    …and then you see all these poor mother complaining on national TV about fathers who don’t love their kids.. what a joke.
    If NZ followed this judge, many problems could be avoided.

    Comment by Mikey — Thu 20th February 2014 @ 9:37 pm

  16. 15 yes but only until the new law comes in and then when you see your kids less you will pay more for the privilege!

    Comment by Scott B — Fri 21st February 2014 @ 8:17 am

  17. No 14 Shafted: Get yourself one on one help. But in a nutshell – the key is the children’s home is here in NZ. Your response all the way is “I don’t agree for our children to be re-located to Australia.” None of the attempted re-location cases I’ve been involved with over the last fve years have succeeded. If you think she’s likely to just go consider getting a non removal order.

    Comment by Ken — Tue 25th February 2014 @ 4:53 am

  18. Question/Help. Getting my ass hauled into admin review (second time). I live with my partner (3 years) and her 2 kids. My ex successfully argued, 2 years ago, that i was to be assessed as single not defacto, due to fact that partner is independent financially (she technically could be but hardly loaded). This same argument will be run this time-any pointers or advice? Secondly, how do i object to a prticular review officer that i think was biased, unprofessional etc etc?

    Comment by shafted — Wed 12th March 2014 @ 11:24 am

  19. Shafted this isn’t the place for advice re Admin Reviews. IRD keep an eye on this site and match it to admin reviews. On the first matter re your new partner you are totally screwed by buckets of previous precedents on the other matter contact me.
    [email protected]

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 12th March 2014 @ 1:13 pm

  20. #18. Take a voice recorder with you. Place it on the table and if the Review Officer objects, tell him/her to find someone who doesn’t object, to do your review.

    Comment by golfa — Wed 12th March 2014 @ 2:30 pm

  21. Actually Alan – I disagree – we should all be expressing our complete DISGUST with these parasites in the Child Support Review system – heres the best advice I can give….

    1. .The system is DESIGNED to be deliberately Discriminatory and unfair.
    2. The law is so complex even tax law EXPERTS find it difficult to interpret – difficult by DESIGN so you can NEVER challenge it.
    3. No amount of money and or time will ever give you a just result – they will simply keep changing the rules to suit themselves.
    4. CHILD support is NOT calculated on INCOME alone – as per the online formula as we were all told during family court settlements and agreements – Child Support will be DEMANDED – EXTORTED and TAKEN FROM you – based on the most insane fantasy as to what you are capable of earning – and maximums will be demanded from you especially if your income declines but you have any assets and or property left which will also be used to ensure you pay the MAXIMUM they can get from you until the child is of age……
    5. Reviews are NOT Conducted in accordance with your rights to Due process – fairness – based on truth and facts – rather any fantasy your ex wants to present will be taken to build a case to support my comments in point 4.
    6. Children will be used to spy on you and record assets – this is an accepted practice …….harming kids but what do they care –
    7. Any asset and or property you own will be used to calculate your ability to pay – even if your income declines, you lose your job and or you have no other means to making payments to the level they demand – they care not….
    8. Human rights will be breached with impunity – you can not and will not be permitted to care full time for other children – this is disregarded and any evidence of this will be ignored. They care not about other kids, their welfare and or your ability to care for them.
    9. All the agencies you THINK you can complaint to – refuse to take complaint – Corruption at the highest level making them also complicit in the Fraud that is Child Support….
    10 Human rights commission will not or can not investigate these dogs.
    11. Ombudsmans office also refuses to investigate the very basis of their existence – the Right to FAIRNESS and Due process which you will be deprived of during Child Support Review…….you have NO RIGHTS as far as these little hitlers are concerned – and they are protected so there is no way to challenge how they carry on……..
    12. FACTS and TRUTH = Evidence of your actual income – your circumstances, your agreements with the Family court to pay as per the online formula are all ignored with impunity by these Review people – paid to do a job – to demand MAXIMUMS from you how ever they can…..

    The entire system is designed to ensure you are forced into DEBT – so that your assets and your life will be fully controlled and destroyed.

    We are disgusted by BULLIES at School – destroying our kids – but what we have here is a bigger concern – Govt BULLIES destroying good parents. Bullies attack the individual – and that is exactly what we have here –

    YOu will not ever get a fair hearing – these hearings are designed to be UNFAIR and UNJUST – if you want a form of Justice you will have to pay and head back to COURT – but who has the time or the money to do that ???? Again this is Deliberate – designed to completely fk you over at every turn…….

    And lastly – until Child Support is about the CHILD – and not about Revenue bulding for Govt = you will never see fairness and reasonable demands made of you – this Entire PENALTY driven Oppressive and excessive demands – is all about Creating MASSIVE DEBT for borrowing – we have over $2 BILLION in child Support PENALTY DEBT alone ( only 500 Million is actually owed in principal ) – this is Deliberate and by design – if govt were HONEST – we would see fairness and reasonable demands made of parents …….

    Shafted – you will never win – the deck is loaded – you are playing chess with no arms in a blindfold – they have snookered all us good parents at every level……………

    Comment by hornet — Wed 12th March 2014 @ 3:05 pm

  22. Lastly I have demanded on several occasions to see this Property / Asset value formula which is being used to calculate Child support = but no one will answer the question …..where is it, how much property value in personal assets or otherwise must a family and or parent own – to determine a value or child support that is demanded???

    We have an INCOME based formula – but as I have experienced – if your MAXIMUM income reduces , they seek to top it up with some ASSET, PROPERTY based formula which no one is permitted to see – against the Family court agreements which state INCOME is the basis for all payments – i see NOTHING in legislation about such a formula – the NZ public would be abhorrent if one was exposed…..

    If there had been some Property / Asset based formula presented to me at Family court and explained to me – honestly and fairly – I would have structured my settlements differently – but I was lied to, kept in the dark and never ever told I would have to sell family owned assets to supplement my Child Support payments when my INCOME declined……..that is simply bullshit – unjust and unfair at every level……

    I was deliberately deprived of time with one child by a system that refused to help me see her at any level – refused to enforce court orders that I obtained – refused to protect the child on any level from parental alienation – they are not going to deprive me of time with my other kids by demanding I pay more than I currently earn…….and they are certainly not going to take personal and or family property – conducting unreasonable searches of my family home – more breaches of privacy and rights which it seems are NOT PROTECTED in NZ – Read that Clearly PARENTS of NZ – you have NO RIGHTS when it comes to dealing with these people …….

    And what about this little group – transparency international who report we have no corruption in NZ – one of the members was just removed for Falsifying his credentials – the ombudsmans office which is supposed to investigate breaches of FAIRNESS – refuses to take complaints against another govt department – so no wonder they are happy reporting ( hand on heart ) we have no corruption in NZ – how would they know if they dont take complaints???? See how insane this is………

    This week it was revealed that another Transparency International New Zealand director Michael Vukcevic falsely claimed in his CV that he had a law degree and other qualifications in order to get an appointment in 2012 to promote New Zealand’s bid for a free trade agreement in the Middle East.

    Comment by hornet — Wed 12th March 2014 @ 3:27 pm

  23. Hornet I am more than happy to discuss the philosophy and mechanics of Child Support.
    What I will not discuss in public is individual situations.
    I openly work with the systems we have in place. That is my style of support.
    I am also active in seeking change but again from within existing structures.
    I have done significant lobbying and liaising with IRD and if you care to write to me several of your questions and concerns can be explained.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 12th March 2014 @ 4:16 pm

  24. Ive been paying child tax for 16 years now and have another 2 years to go until my sentence is up.
    In those 16 years things that have remained constant is the child tax and IRD stuff ups when trying to administer it. Oh and also the Peter Dunne Nothing attitude to politics where child tax is always going to be changed to make it “fairer” at some indeterminate date in the future.
    16 years and nothing changed, and have read from guys that were finishing their sentence when I started mine and nothing changed for them either.
    All that time and no meaningful change it makes me feel despondant.

    Comment by Mits — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 9:44 am

  25. Allan, Im not have a dig at you personally – just needed to vent as most of us do, given the frustration dealing with a system that is so unfair and corrupted……..

    if your giving advice – which I would like posted here – can you please explain to everyone – what is your experience and knowledge relating to the ASSET / PROPERTY OWNERSHIP formula currently being employed by Child Support to determine Child Support payments?

    I have never seen one, I see no reference to such a formula on their web site, or when I was deliberating Family Court agreements – but it appears they have a Property / Asset calculation formula that they are actively working with.

    You see my biggest gripe is simply this – Family court agreements and all that we are told at Separation is that Child Support is based on your INCOME – not what you own – but as I have seen when your INCOME reduces, they are then actively looking at what you own in property – and refusing to make reductions accordingly – forcing you to sell property and or assets to make up the balance that you no longer receive in INCOME – if there is such a formula, legislation and or set of rules as to how this works I would like to know.

    Currently IRD refuse to answer my questions on this matter – refuse to give me any indication as to how they are applying this property / asset formula –

    Hey if I had been made aware of one at Settlement no problem – agreements would have been structured accordingly at separation – but there has never been any disclosure that I would be subjected to this down the track……..

    To deceive parents – to not let them know about all consequences is corrupted – to overturn Family court agreements at Review is unethical and I am sure not legal – to force parents to sell personal property when their income declines cannot be justified that I can see – which is probably why no one will answer my direct questions on this matter………

    Any assistance you can give on this would be much appreciated – if you know of such a formula and how it works – levels of property ownership and liability requirements as they relate to Child Support I would like to know – and let every other parent out there know as well – so they are treated fairly and honestly…………so if you own a car and a home, does that then mean when your income declines you must maintain the maximums in child support until those assets have been sold off and you have nothing left – only then will you be permitted to have a reduction in your obligations??? You get the drift of what I am wanting to understand??????/ We have an INCOME formula, but seemingly this property, could earn more formula is secret………

    Comment by hornet — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 1:11 pm

  26. IRD can go and FUCK themselves

    Comment by IRD R fags — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 3:24 pm

  27. IRD will simply view any reduction in income – whatever the cause – even obvious permanent disability or retirement – as a life-style choice!
    In choosing a lesser-paying lifestyle, they will then deem you to be avoiding your CS responsibilities, and therefore assess your means from other sources – i.e. your home or tools etc.
    You’re (*&^)*%^

    Comment by OMG you're &*^(%$ — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 4:05 pm

  28. What OMG says has some validity and I have seen administrative review decisions along those lines.
    However as Hornet says the formula is income based and has nothing to do with assets other than assets may need to show a rate of return (depends on what they are).
    There is scope for Admin review Officers to have significant flexibility in what they decide but it also needs to follow precedents set by the Family Court.
    From what you say Hornet I think I would need to understand much more about your specific circumstances before I could comment sensibly. I am happy to do that and if you then wish to post that advice then that would be fine by me.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 5:26 pm

  29. #27 Move all your NZ assets overseas. Rent in NZ, live off the bare minimum. When your kids are old enough, move overseas.

    Comment by Fortitude — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 5:28 pm

  30. There was a recent tax case about renting in NZ that would apply to Child Support, I am sure it was mentioned here recently.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 5:31 pm

  31. Wasn’t it something to do with an army officer and his separated family?

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 5:33 pm

  32. #30 I don’t mean owning rental properties, if that’s what you mean.

    Comment by Fortitude — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 5:34 pm


    Possibly this.

    Comment by Fortitude — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 5:37 pm

  34. She said KPMG was not connected to the case but she felt sorry for the man who appeared to be trying to be a “good father”.

    I think the same applies here, that you need to move to a country that doesn’t have a reciprocal agreement.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 6:15 pm

  35. Fortitude, sadly, if you do that ‘after the event’, it won’t count. They’ll get you.
    Do it ‘before the event’, you ex will know, and tell IRD, and they’ll get you.

    Boys: The best prezzie you can give your male children, is a family trust! Teach them to lock their assets away long before they end up with a girl, and teach them how to keep those assets outside the definition of marital assets. That is your best bet. Cover their arses long long long before a separation.
    “Once burnt, twice shy”.
    My home will NEVER be part of marital property, and is not in my name. It will NEVER be part of a pre-nup. My next partner will NEVER contribute to its upkeep, repayment or asset-growth. She will NEVER get a cent of it (over my dead body].

    Comment by OMG you're &*^(%$ — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 6:24 pm

  36. #29
    That is highly unlikely to work.
    If you liquidate resources here, send them elsewhere at an admin review they will set a rate of return for the exported resources and base child support on that. If you return better than their rate then great but most review officers will assume that do such an action will have a high rate of return for the risk involved and set a rate pretty steeply. There are many easier, and much more believable, ways to take assets out of the picture within NZ.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 7:26 pm

  37. And do you think for a minute Alan that anything you and I or anyone else discussed would remain private.

    I have no doubt that there is a warrant for interception on any email address you have and possibly on your phone.

    I say that simply because when I was doing what you are doing that is what happened to me.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 7:42 pm

  38. Alan, at 36 – so what you are implying again here is that ASSETS ( and their rate of return ) can be and will be assessed and included in any INCOME assessment – for child support – I understand that – and it makes sense – because obviously if an asset is making a return, then it will be part of your income – so if its moved offshore they the perception will be you have deliberately tried to reduce income by doing so… the avoidance concern I understand……..

    lets review this scenario – hypothetically……

    You divorce and make agreement in the family court – child support is agreed in those documents to be paid as per the Child Support INcome formula on their web site – easy to understand – simple insert income, dependents and living costs and out spits a number……

    But what happens as I have found – is if your INCOME reduces – and this includes INCOME from all sources – no attempts to Hide assets or income, no moving property offshore or trying to deliberately hide income – simply no longer earn the salary which justifies a MAXIMUM contribution…….

    What I have been arguing = is they are looking at ASSET values – assets I had at separation and forcing me to sell those to subsidize my reduced income – topping it up and making maximum support payment demands ……because of asset value ( not revenue they are making )

    My concern is, if this is permitted – and I see NO FORMULA or any reference to such a scheme – is what property rights will any parent have in the future, what personal and or family property is now up from seizure and or inclusion in such a formula?? And what is this formula – what values in personal property are you entitled to own before they start forcing you to sell property to meet the excessive demands? I just have major concerns for parents in the future if this tactic gains momentum – and it concerns me there is NO reference to such a formula on their web site, and you are not being told about this when family court agreements are made – as I said earlier, if parents were told, your assets will be up for sale as well, if your income declines – then this would change how those property agreements were made – entirely…….

    PArents should be permitted to end a relationship with some property-= and have those rights to own property protected into the future….otherwise NO parents property – personal or otherwise is safe if their INCOME deminishes – as I have said on this board before – they took my wifes car – her personal property – invaded her privacy, and unreasonably seized the family car – having to return it when it was identified to them they had no right to it – my experience is they are bullies, they attack the individual, and now seem intent on attacking parents, mums and dads in new relationships, with other kids, taking family property from those families is a step too far……that is my view and it will take a lot to change my mind……..if there is a formula as asset stripping plus income = then have the decency to let parents know the rules at the time they separate – rather than attacking them down the track with more oppressive demands…….be fair, honest and upfront with the expectations ……..

    Comment by hornet — Thu 13th March 2014 @ 8:58 pm

  39. Hornet what you describe above should not happen under the current formula.

    However the new formula (now delayed) to come in force from 1 April 2015 has a cost of raising children factor that does work a bit like you suggest. I expect that most people have no idea just how avaricious the new formula is for those on lower incomes. My fear is that most of this increased take goes straight to benefit recovery and has zero effect on support available for children.

    I have heard lots of stories of IRD staff being overzealous in seizing property but from what I read above you seem to have stepped through that minefield fairly successfully.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 6:01 am

  40. #35 and #36. IRD have no jurisdiction over assets overseas. They can’t ‘get you’. They can slap you with demands and you’ll end up in arrears but they can’t take what you don’t have here. Simply stick 2 fingers up to them and leave.
    A better solution is to get full custody.

    Comment by Fortitude — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 8:08 am

  41. Alternatively don’t have anything in the first place and live off the state.

    Comment by Fortitude — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 8:11 am

  42. thanks everyone -we need to fight this collectively for all parents – its a disgusting property and asset grab – disguised as benefitting children…..Alan you are right, I had seen these concerns before they were even became public – this new COST of living allowance ( $ value not defined ) simply opens the door so they can take more and more from BOTH PARENTS – wake up NZ parents – you are in for a total slaughtering of anything you have left…..

    I am concerned with why there were delays – they clearly did not cover off on a liability exposure – they clearly did not protect themselves against breaches of Human rights – your right to parent, to have freedoms, to own property, to travel in and out of Nz, to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure – they have to make these unsavory tactics – LEGAL – so im picking they need another year – because it takes a year for new law to come into effect – so what did they change ??? Our constitution behind closed doors?? removed those protections we thought we had – that can be the only rational reason they stalled the implementation of this disgusting and oppressive new system………

    Can any one your there start finding out exactly why they had to delay this??? Because once we know, we can then undestand their tactics and objectives for the future – destroying more good parents and taking all you own in the name of child support to prop up govt borrowing against DEBT – more DEBT creation ( penalties ) the more they can borrow…….thats what this penalty industry is – deliberately create debt and demands they know you cant pay from income – then come after anything you still own in property……….its unjust and totally abhorrent – but someone is making this legal………..

    What is this new Child Living Cost going to be??? Will it be the same for every child – I bet not – no they will be able to force you to pay ALL COSTS, for ANYTHING the other parent claims that child needs………….can you imagine how open to abuse this will become……..the kids NEEDS all these things – and you MUST pay……thats why the Value per child is NOT defined – it will just be open to more abuse and corruption of process – conflict of interest at the highest level – CONFLICT OF INTEREST – creating excessive debt to borrow – how much more corrupted can you get…….

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 8:58 am

  43. Hornet – have you seen your MP to discuss this?

    Comment by Fortitude — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:01 am

  44. As the stones said ” you cant always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need”…….. sadly parents of NZ, with the new Child Living allowance they can have EVERYTHING they want – because you are going to be FORCED To pay for it all ……..

    A new Lyric…..

    You cant always get what you want – but if you live in NZ, you just might find, with the help of the NZ Child Support system – you can demand everything your little heart desires, you wont get it of course but you will help the NZ govt borrow more against that inflated penalty debt they deliberately create while destroying everything your parents worked hard for……..forcing them to sell all assets and property to meet these draconian demands or face prison if they don’t comply………

    You cant always get what you want…………but you will get a shafting by greeding politicians who have borrowed, squandered and destroyed this great country as they work hard to make us all poor – so they can take more and more………

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:06 am

  45. I don’t really know what to suggest, Hornet. I feel for you and what you’ve been through but honestly, some of your posts are incomprehensible and aren’t exactly encouraging to men who have suddenly found themselves going through separation and subject to the system.
    I admire your energy and passion for the cause but I feel it’s important that energy is channeled into campaigning for change rather than floating negative energy around here. I think alot of men come to this site to seek solace and advice.

    Comment by Fortitude — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:18 am

  46. 43, did you notice how much improvement Dunn made on this? They are NOT interested – its too hard, when you have LAWYERS and the JUDICIARY in DIRECT CONFLICT Of INTEREST – stopping parents from seeing their kids for PROFIT is a direct conflict of interest – there is TOO Much money at stake here…….thats all this is about – they have turned parents and kids into a massive opportunity to make a lot of money……..

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:19 am

  47. 45. best they hear how it is, rather than be given false hope – the system is deliberately oppressive – for profit….I voice here to expose the corruption, the conflicts of interest currently thriving in this industry…….I was like many – never thought for one minute that a system protecting kids, would be so corrupted………if they had performed the service I went to them for, I would have seen my child – on a regular basis, and she would have been protected from harm – severe psychologial harm that the system refused to help prevent – parental alienation.

    To add insult to injury after that – being a very caring, compassionate and GENEROUS man ( a failing it seems ) to then have Child support taking assets from my new wife and family and imposing excessive demands in circumstances that breach every right to due process – is a step too far – but it demonstrates just how corrupted and conflicted this system has become………

    Many here are GOOD people, good parents – who are trying to get help from a system which offers false hope – I was one of them,, if I can prevent people from engaging and wasting many years trying to do the RIGHT THING – then I hope that helps PARENTS in some way……

    The best things is to stay away from the courts – work with your ex for the benefit of the child – that is paramount – but sadly when you have an ex who is narcassistic and unreasonable and engages in parental alienation – you have no chance of help in the family court……

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:26 am

  48. 46 – So I take it you haven’t spoken to your MP then?

    Comment by Fortitude — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:28 am

  49. 45 – I am not looking for sympathy – I have a lovely wife now of almost ten years – she is as disgusted in the system as I am, we have two additional children and we get on with it, but I am and never will be happy with what this corrupted and conflicted system put us through – totally unnecessary……

    There needs to be Public oversight of those working in the family court – to protect parents right to parent, to ensure they are protecting children from harm – because currently they are not, and to ensure that conflict is being RESOLVED not ENFLAMED – and lasty that they are offering the service they state – to HELP PARENTS – every other profession or trade has to ensure they offer the service they advertise – but NOT it seems the judicial system – as lawyers are renowned for doing – they simply change the law to suit themselves – because they can….and thats corruption and conflicted

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:30 am

  50. 48 if I actually thought it would make a difference I would – I have written to the justice minister, ombudsman, human rights commission – but as I have relayed here – they are NOT permitted to investigate and or take complaints……and the ministers reply – probably prepared by his intern – was the usual standard letter – go back to court and try your luck – they care not……..

    How do you hold a system to account that is protected from enquiry and investigation???? you cant….until the people get mad as hell in numbers and demand change…….

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:33 am

  51. 47 – “best they hear how it is, rather than be given false hope” It’s all very well you saying all this but remember it’s just your perception of events relating to what happened to you.
    Plenty of fathers have good outcomes in court and plenty are smart enough to play the system.
    You obviously feel aggrieved and I understand that. I’m with you on that. But you either engage the system smartly or you take every step to protect yourself and avoid/minimize the impact it has on you, or you let the bastards rule your life.

    Comment by Fortitude — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:45 am

  52. 50 – I’d be interested to see the letters you have written and the replies.
    Letters are too easy to throw in the bin or ignore.
    Have you made personal appointments with MPs?

    I do agree with you that people need to get ‘mad’ collectively.
    We in New Zealand don’t really do public protests very well.
    Family court secrecy needs to be addressed. Only then can it be opened up to public scrutiny.

    I’d like to see a database of court documents put together by fathers who have been through the system. What lessons can we learn from affidavits, court documents, judgements etc and how can we apply them to advise fathers in future cases? The injustices we hear about can then be verified and documented. Until then, all we have to go on is hearsay.

    Comment by Fortitude — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:56 am

  53. 51. yes wise words indeed and I agree……..they do rule your life, when you are made a permanent slave to them and their demands…….

    Ive been on here a while now and I dont see too many people writing in to say how great the system is – the problems while taking different forms, always seem to be the same for parents being hyjacked by this system for profit……

    I have many friends – male and female – all who have experienced the exact same concerns I relay here that affected me and my family – and I dont know a single person or parent who has anything good to say about family court of child support – fact – …….

    I take your point about getting on with life – Id love to, but im also not one to lie down, roll over to unjustice – a system MUST BE FAIR – if we dont have FAIRNESS, and the rights we are assured protected – then we don’t have JUSTICE……

    The entire justice system is based around FAIRNESS – the right to Due process, the right to natural justice – if you recall your history – the magna carta arose after King John was BEHEADED by the people = because he was UNJUST, NOT FAIR and not worthy to be king………

    that is why I am so disgusted by the Ombudsmans office – they are there entirely to ensure “FAIRNESS” FOR ALL – and they wont take a complaint……..about another govt department ……..they will take a complaint about the public – they are quick to jump in there……

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 9:59 am

  54. Secrecy is ABHORRENT and only protects corruption – refer Kennedys speech shortly before his assassination for speaking the truth to the people…

    There are some facts concerning abuse of process and corrupt practices that I only hope will soon be made public – by those effected – I have seen the evidence and its damning – lawyers working to protect family members, using their powers and influence to destroy a mother and her child – reports and complaints have been made to ministers – and all hushed up, no action, refusals all around to investigate the allegations – all to do with the family court – protected by SECRECY ……..

    if the general public heard just this one story I saw recently – they would be in revolt……….and I guess thats why the lady concerned will have – and already has had – her credibility destroyed and her complaints filed to ensure its never talked about……

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 10:05 am

  55. 51 – the problem is that everyone has a different perception of the definition of ‘fairness’.
    Speak to women’s refuge and they’ll be at the opposite end of the spectrum of what we perceive to be fair.

    “Ive been on here a while now and I dont see too many people writing in to say how great the system is”

    Again – there needs to be a database of court cases that we can refer to to expose these injustices. Better that than communicating in rants.

    Comment by Fortitude — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 10:10 am

  56. Fairness in Due Process is actually very easy to define….

    Right to see evidence against you so that you can respond.
    Right to respond to allegations.
    Right to a hearing and to personal attendance.
    Right to change dates and seek an adjournment.
    Right ensuring all your rights are protected – bill of rights, civil rights, treaty rights, human rights during determinations
    Rights to fairness are part of the right to due process – the right to natural justice and law.
    Right to have decisions made based on facts, truth – not as we currently see where anything said is taken on board to justify their demands….
    Right to see your child.
    Right to be a parent
    Right to have your child protected from harm.
    Right to own property.
    Right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. ( you and your family )
    Right to live in Privacy – this is currently totally ignored – kids used to spy on you, ex partners permitted to see all you have and what you are doing for the rest of your days……there are currently NO privacy protections for parents after they separate – the system demands you open your life to others for as long as you are liable to a child.
    Right to be protected from persecution, attacks on credibility and character and provocation…..
    Right to be protected from parental alienation – currently this is ruining many parents – because its allowed to flourish….

    Right to see GRANDPARENTS – currently there is NO requirement for a child to see them – what a travesty…….

    sadly as I have seen first hand, Child support and family court do not follow these guidelines = they receive no training in these requirements and that explains why they care not about adherence to these rules of law……when making determinations…..facts and truth are not relevant – protecting kids is far down he list of priorities …….

    Comment by hornet — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 10:24 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar