MENZ ISSUES

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

Do you want to know what a REAL MAN is?

Filed under: General — goose @ 12:57 pm Tue 10th March 2015

Do you want to know what a REAL MAN is?

A real man does not get into a situation where he has to pay tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers just to see his own flesh and blood on a regular basis. A real man does not subscribe to the mentality that the mother gets custody of the kids post break up or divorce and resign himself to the fact that he will see his kids only every other weekend.

A real man assumes from the beginning that no one has to pay child support or alimony because both parents share equally if the relationship ends. Shared custody is the only way to begin the post-relationship parenting process. A real man files for divorce FIRST when he finds out his partner broke the marriage contract and cheated. A real man does not play defense”¦he plays offense”¦because he loves his children more than a woman who cheated, lied, stole, was abusive or was in the partnership for reasons other than a long-term equal partnership.

THAT is a real man.

A real man is responsible. A real man is honorable and loyal. A real man loves his children unconditionally. A real man chooses a woman after a long courting process and quickly eliminates any woman who has not had a good relationship with her father-he does not need a woman with daddy issues, he needs a wife. A real man does his due diligence to find out a potential mate’s past dating history and spot patterns before he falls head over heels in love; therefore not allowing sex to cloud his judgement. A real man kicks a woman out of the house when she is violent or emotionally abusive and is not afraid to call the police at a moment’s notice. A real man works hard on his own life to make it better for himself and his children. A real man does not cower in fear when some women tell him he is being “misogynistic” when he points out inconsistencies in extreme radical feminist ideology. A real man loves his female children, his female sisters, his female girlfriend and even still cares about the well-being of his female ex-wife”¦..therefore making the “misogynistic” rubbish spewed at him look silly.

THAT is a real man.

The assumption that real men pay child support is as outdated as a woman at home in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant; bringing her husband his slippers and newspaper after work every day. It’s 2015, not 1953!

Child support has NOTHING to do with children. NOTHING!!!!!! It’s all about supporting and subsidizing mothers. It is all about the transfer or wealth from fathers to mothers. It is a system that does not take into consideration the accountability for how the money is spent to care for the children. It’s also a massive game between the Federal government and the states that is only getting more and more convoluted. It is a subsidy for single motherhood.

46 Responses to “Do you want to know what a REAL MAN is?”

  1. NZ MEN says:

    🙂 Nice very well written and spot on.

  2. Adrian says:

    Amen to that ..my thoughts exactely

  3. John Brett says:

    Well written- as for Adrian, my thoughts exactly.
    When I was single, every woman I met had ‘a family’. Men with families were regarded as ‘having issues’.
    CYPS (may they rot in hades) did not recognise fathers as a part of a family- could hold a ‘family group conferance’ without even asking if there was ‘a father’.
    A statement like this is a ‘stake in the ground’. A statement like this is astounding and even upsetting for the many people who want to categorize a man according to THEIR values.
    Well done goose.

  4. goose says:

    Hi all – I can’t take all the credit as it was a snip from a website, but its very much the way I see things and how most men see things when they want contact with their children, I would rather spend time with my son then being held to ransom, (which I have been literally).

    Traveled 165kms to see my son, then when I turned up she demanded formula and nappies (tea-pot style) before I was allowed to spend time with my son. I went away and got what she demanded but I was only allowed there for an hour until his nap time.

  5. Ashish says:

    Of course the current system and child support is a subsidy for single motherhood.

    This was told to me. In detail on the 31st of March, 2006 sometimes around 3 or 4 in the afternoon, at the front of the living room, standing towards the left beside the maroon curtains.

    This was explained to me in detail by the elder sister, and 2 years later the younger does a runner as soon as pregnancy is confirmed.

    But what to do in this country where even the lawmakers slip on the curves?

  6. Andrew McCarthy says:

    Agree totally although in my situation I was left with the children with not a thing for support. BUT looking back over the many years I would not have missed the experience for anything, ye Gods dealing with bras periods boy friends and even death [Cave Creek] was something I am more or less proud of.

  7. Joseph says:

    This was a so sad to read. Like a 19 century slave saying a real man would not have chains, he would not be in the cotton fields,he would not be branded if he escaped. The reality was they were slaves. The reality for modern men is that they are an exploited group of humans, and that 50 % will get dumped; that 85 % will lose custody; that these non custodial fathers will pay most of their disposable income on child support; that the system of courts, cyf, social workers, counsellors are all working for the mothers. An angry letter will not change this. The only thing which freed the slaves was collectively working together to gain equal rights. The only thing which will free men is to work together to oppose the exploitation. This is so hard, because the humans who collectively exploit us are our mothers and lovers, we are biologically wired to trust. I personally see very few signs of men, as a group, fighting for their rights. I think it is simply too hard for indvidual men to do so, and I think we have to accept that there is now a permanent 2 caste system, with men being a low caste group. I think it will get a lot worse, because in a few more decades all professions will be run by the upper caste.

  8. tracey says:

    A real man wouldn’t write this.

  9. tracey says:

    Men Who think Child Support is theft probably never took their responsibility seriously Ever.

  10. too tired says:

    It is legalised theft, never signed any papers while getting married and having kids that this could happen post divorce, wish there was more advertising to young people. Still telling them wont stop teenage pregnancies. It’s not until you are paying that you realise there is a crime being committed on every paying parent in this country. Most of us don’t mind paying for our children it is the way it is forced on us, and given to someone to spend at will on anything (Not nessasarily the kids or related living costs) like booze or cigs or worse. Case and point was the guy that was paying for over a year and his child was dead the whole time!

  11. John Brett says:

    Tracey-
    a real woman would realize that ‘Child Support” is what my father did, what I tried to do, what my children tell me I achieved:-
    Child Support is to:
    To nurture and love your children
    To make sure that they grew up healthy and happy
    To make sure that they learn their value in society
    To enable them to fulfill their potential, fulfil their dreams,
    To know that their father loves and respects them, and expect that of other men in their lives.
    So called Child Support is theft of children’s lives because it involves separation from their loving father.

    A REAL MAN does not need some random female to give him permission to be real. Sorry Tracey

  12. Ashish says:

    The vocabulary is wrong. $550 a week according to a latest article, with 3 living with him and supposedly not receiving any from the three(s) father(s).

    Sounds more like mummy support than child support.

  13. Rooster says:

    Too anyone reading this who has just begun dealing with a partner who has decided to up and leave with the kids……….
    Don’t get angry. Get even.
    About six years ago, my (now ex-wife) decided to leave and take the children, with no warning. She cleared out half the house and took my two young kids 500 kms away.
    It took a couple of months but I got a court order to force her to move back to my city. I also got a court order for shared care of more than 40% of the time (40% being the threshold for reduced child support).
    She spat tacks, and is still spitting tacks.
    Like everyone else I am still paying child support, even though I now have the kids 50/50 and she is working and not on the DPB (Now that is criminal).
    Over the last six years she kept trying to cut back my contact, and I fought her (without getting angry – not very often at least) and I won every time.
    You don’t have to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers, you can submit the papers to court yourself. I paid a really good child custody lawyer about $5k all up, and I have saved that back 10 times over since, just by being able to pay reduced child support because of having the kids over 40% of the time.
    Here are a couple of applications I made to the court when she took the kids without my permission:
    “Without notice application for Court’s direction as to exercise of Guardianship”,
    “Application without notice for reduction of time for filing Notice of Defence to Application for Parenting Order”,
    “Application on notice for parenting order”,
    plus a couple of “Affidavit in support of application…..”.
    If anyone needs more detailed information about these, either speak to a lawyer or make a post here, and I’ll do my best to make the full documents available.
    Like I said, you can submit the applications yourself, without a lawyer, but you would probably need a copy of completed applications, like mine, to copy from in order to get your applications completed correctly.
    The courts would probably not accept a poorly drawn up application.
    Remember – Get Even – Don’t get angry.
    If you come across as angry in court or even to the IRD, it will work against you.
    No matter what anyone tells you, the courts are no longer in favour of the mother, they are in favour of the children, and what’s best for the children is that they have a caring, loving father equally in their lives.

  14. tracey says:

    John Brett
    All you have said is what real men do.But money is still required.That’s just the world we all live in.

  15. tracey says:

    To Rooster
    You are to be commended for your patience,perseverance and being real man.

  16. John Brett says:

    Yes Tracey, money is required, I know that. I raised and supported a family of 4 children and my wife, built a nice home, worked, did most of the housework for 23 years. At the end of it I was burnt out, not able to earn money, and owned nothing.
    I also had to defend myself and my family against CYPS, NZ Police, and Family Court, but without any money to do it. I did win however, and never lost “Custody” of my children.
    One Christmas I planned to take two children to my mother’s for Christmas, relying on my unemployment benefit to get there. The Child Support people swooped in and took their money out of my bank account leaving me nothing. The Bank lent me $200!

    Do you think that so-called “Child Support” goes to supporting children? No it simply goes to the Government. The mother and children get their standard DPB benefit, as far as I know.

    I was fortunate that I had no assets to divide, and my youngest child was only a few years away from the point where so-called child support was no longer payable.

    If a woman wants to kick out her husband, or the father of her children, let her consider how she is going to pay for it.
    Remove the right to demand support from the state based on her choice to end her relationship.
    Remove the right for the woman to cry “Abuse!” “Violence!” for financial gain.

    Is it a surprise that the current generation of men (including my sons) are not raising families?

  17. MurrayBacon says:

    Please remember that child [and spousal] support isn’t just about transfer of money. Probably the largest long term impact is the effects on the quality of the children’s life and upbringing.

    “child support” forces the short term transfer of cash, without any form of short or long term accountability between the parents.

    In a healthy marriage or de facto relationship with children, there is active accountability occurring between the parents, with respect to hos the children are cared for and all of the other parenting issues. Debate and open discussion about options usually leads to the best long term outcomes.

    Most relationship breakdowns contain a large element of refusal to be accountable. When this refusal impacts onto the quality of care that is being given to the children, perhaps made even worse by using the children as pawns in a battle, then the most important protection for the quality of the children’s upbringing has been lost.

    In legislation, the familycaught$ is expected to require accountability from both parents. Rooster above has managed to eventually get some degree of accountability enforced, but I have also heard many long and destructive stories where judges refused to require any form of accountability about the quality of care that children were being given.

    The long term outcomes are foreseeable and unnecessary……

    There is a need for a working Family Court, to protect children from these situations. I hope that one day reforms may be effective for protecting all vulnerable parties.

    A working Family Court would also deter some separations from occurring, as it would not be possible to take improper short term advantage from separating. Big long term advantages for all parties….

  18. tracey says:

    John Brett
    I believe that people need support to get out of bad situations.It would be really sad unfortunate if someone had to have to worry more than necessary about how they are going to manage as well as end a relationship tbat may be abusive or otherwise dysfunctional.People are sometimes in desperate situations where their and their children physical,emotional and mental well-being is in jeopardy.
    Your belief would make it very difficult for anyone to escape this kind of situation.That’s very worrying and is condoning a hostage like way of living.

  19. Mits says:

    Don’t feed the trolls

  20. MurrayBacon says:

    Tracey has a good point.

    However, in my opinion the high degree of subsidy for separation leads to many relationships being torn apart by well funded (in the short term) dreams of escape from marital accountability.

    Our Government is very hands off in supporting young parents, after such stresses as the birth of children, economic stresses resulting from high house prices and unreasonably high house expectations, or medical problems or death of a child.

    These stresses add to unaddressed mental health problems, so that escape appears to be the only option that can be seen. This is the outcome from underfunding mental health services and parenting skills training courses for a long time, well forever I guess.

    When we look at various Government benefits, maybe it would be wiser to give much more support for together parents and somewhat less for immediate separation. Also, some of that support needs to go towards fathers as well as mothers. There seems to be a view that if the father can still get to work, that everything is ok and any help is denied. When obvious stressors are present, more proactive offering of help would save many marriages and give many children much better lives.(Smaller families make it much more difficult for families to pass on parenting skills, resulting in inexperienced parents being easily overstressed.)

    The postnatal parenting leave provisions, recently made available by the SkyCity/National Party, don’t go far enough to promote the welfare of children. In particular, they allow fathers to be easily excluded from their baby’s life. It appears that the stage is being set for later separation?

    Many counsellors seem to be prejudiced towards driving breakups, rather than helping parents, so that all options are available and the parents can make the best choices.

    I am suggesting that a longer term view would pay well socially and protect children’s lives much better than encouraging separations. (Sorry, I enjoy trolling and cannot resist the temptations…)

    If there does have to be a separation, then make it a good one, but only if it will actually be better!

  21. Man X Norton says:

    Making the DPB or similar available as it currently is simply encourages unjustified wrecking of children’s families. Only a small proportion of separations occur because of abuse or ‘jeopardy to people’s well-being’, at least if well-being is defined as something other than selfish preference. Most separations are based on unrealistic expectations that we should always be feeling ‘true love’ and ‘in love’, beliefs that we have a right to be ‘happy’ and completely fulfilled, and partners seeing themselves as still in the market for better offers and/or allowing themselves to toy with the powerful forces of lust and romance rather than being clear about their commitment to the family they have created. In addition, feminist ideology convinces many women to interpret their male partner’s behaviour in judgmental and labeling ways rather than trying to understand and show tolerance, and this creates unnecessary discontent.

    A 3 or 6 month stand-down for the DPB, except in circumstances where a partner has been convicted beyond reasonable doubt of relatively recent domestic violence (and perhaps a few other strictly defined circumstances), would discourage a good proportion of the separations that currently proceed on spurious grounds. Further, a presumption of equal shared care and therefore equal opportunity to earn one’s own living (therefore no, or very limited, child support) would reduce the delusional allure of separation. More investment in relationship healing and problem-solving services would be a much better use of taxpayer money than most of the DPB, for the welfare of our society and our children.

    Child support would still be payable on a proportional basis by any parent who chooses not to care for the children at least 50% of the time. Children are the product of their parents and may be thought to have the right to be raised and influenced by both of those parents across the whole range of socioeconomic and personality variations, as long as this is within the law. The idea that judges, lawyers and psychologists in our Family Courts can determine which parent is ‘best’ for the child is based on little more than their foolish arrogance.

  22. John Brett says:

    Tracey- Read Manx Norton’s and Murray Bacon’s pieces well. What they say is absolutely correct. The treatment of fathers is entirely different from the treatment of women. A great many women realize this, after helping, e.g. sons, brothers, friends through this process.
    I am not taking part in a men vs women competition, as the present anti-men anti-father coalition harms women as much as it harms men.
    When NZ (and the western world) is full of unwanted women, fatherless sons and daughters, grandparent-less children, and billions in unrecoverable ‘Child Support’ debt, the system has failed everyone.

  23. tracey says:

    John Brett
    I
    agree with some points you have made.Note that I didn’t say only women leave or initiate separation.Waiting for a conviction to be processed to get financial support obviously would not work.Some things that people would not necessarily get a conviction for as follows:-
    Verbal abuse
    Threatening behavior
    Being a raging alcoholic
    Gambling Money for food and other necessities .

    These are not actual crimes in a domestic context.However they could really affect your ability to provide for an protect your family.Also they could very seriously impact on your health and abilities to cope.
    And lastly it could be a woman who has these problems

  24. goose says:

    wow 23 replies, I feel for all the paying parents out there, the increase in CS in my case has made me extremely nervous, especially when my new partner wishes for us to have a baby together, its an 18 year risk of potential financial liability, I never thought of that with my other kids, which I have 2 other boys, one of which I pay CS, the other we have shared care and choose not to pay CS or involve the IRD.

    looks like there is no hope for any IRD changes, so I will have to re-budget everything so I can pay double CS for the next 6 years.

    Question for those out there:, why is the paying parent in the spot light about their income when the receiving parent just gets given the money no questions or justification that the money they get is spent on the children and not on smokes or energy drinks.

  25. John Brett says:

    Tracey- a conviction is not required, either to separate a parent (usually father) or initiate DPD.
    My case was in 1990, before the ‘Domestic Violence’ legislation, so the normal procedure was to accuse the father of sexual abuse. Remember this was 3 yrs after the failed Telethon that said “most girls are sexually abused by their fathers” and at the same time as the Ch Ch Civic Creche hysteria.
    CYPS prompted my ex to make allegations, and I was forbidden to contact my children. I went along to the Police Station and asked them when would be convenient to arrest me. I was eventually asked to come in and be arrested, given bail, and later appeared to enter a plea (not guilty) My understanding was that you were ‘guilty until proven innocent’.
    The alleged victim, my daughter, tipped it all off the rails by stating very clearly that I did not and would not abuse her. The Police ‘dropped’ the case
    Then, after about 3 years, the Family Court heard the custody application, and declined to give my ex custody.
    I have not seen or spoken to my ex since, and refuse to have any contact with my grandchildren, for my own protection.

    So Tracey, presumptions are made, sole custody is presumed, DPD processed without any annoying delays waiting for the Courts.

    And so – we all lived our reperated lives happily ever after.

  26. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear goose, good to hear that you “look before you leap”. This is responsible parenting, in my ancient opinion.
    It is how the world actually works that matters, not how we want it to work. The second woman, who wanted to be a mother, unwittingly led the man to his death. In the end, reality made its presence felt, not beautiful desires. Why do we put safety railings around clifftops, they only get in the way?

    A couple of unfortunate examples of people who proceeded by intuition, optimism and love:

    Taxman drove loving dad to death
    By Celeste Gorrell Anstiss
    5:30 AM Sunday May 6, 2012

    The family of a man who died under a mountain of debt are outraged at the way he was pursued for child support payments.
    Paul Anthony Jenkins, 39, killed himself in Geelong last Tuesday, shortly after receiving a bill for more than A$41,000 ($53,300). The money was to help support his daughter, 17, who lives in Wellington with his former partner.
    ………..
    His father, Tony Jenkins, said Paul maintained contact with his daughter despite a tense relationship with her mother. The teen watched her father’s funeral on the internet this week.
    …………
    Supporting a new baby and his current partner’s three children on just $630 a week, Paul had fallen behind in his payments.
    Heavy fees and interest had been added before deductions from his bank account were forced – $98 was taken every couple of days.
    “He could not afford it. They keep on adding interest all the time and he wasn’t getting anywhere. It was going to take all his life to pay off,” Tony said. “On top of that, he was trying to look after his new baby and the three other kids. He could never, ever get his head above water. Paul didn’t know which way to turn. He was at the end of his tether.”
    The last bill Paul received said he owed A$41,264.47 and A$635 was due immediately. It also showed seven instalments of A$98.32 had been deducted from his wages during two weeks in March, including four on one day.
    The letter did not explain why so many deductions were taken.
    “He had called me that day, upset and saying he needed money for his car.
    “I gave him $1000. I wish I had known about this previously. I would have talked to these people [at Child Support Services] myself.”
    The coroner was yet to determine the cause of Paul’s death.
    The death has raised concerns among community advocates, who told the Herald on Sunday there had been similar cases.
    Mangere Budgeting Services chief executive Darryl Evans said the language used in IRD letters and bills made people feel threatened and hopeless. He said one client thought she would go to jail when she opened an overdue bill.
    “I’ve always thought the language the IRD use is extremely strong. They bombard you with letters, two or three a week. It’s frightening for people.”
    A spokeswoman for Australian Child Support Services said there were payment options for those who asked.
    “It’s important parents are aware of the support services available and seek help as early as possible.
    “If a customer is clearly distressed or needs urgent assistance, our staff are trained to recognise this and connect them with an appropriate counselling or support service.
    “I express my sympathy towards the family, circumstances such as these are a tragedy for all concerned.”
    …………..
    – Celeste Gorrell Anstiss

    IRD needs reining in
    Rodney Hide: “The IRD’s sole job is to gather money for the Government. It does so by threatening and bullying people.
    “Our Parliament backs IRD through the law and turns a deaf ear to complaints that tax collectors are too aggressive.
    “There are no proper checks and balances on IRD’s treatment of people who, for whatever reason, have fallen behind in payments or, indeed, who dispute that they have been fairly and properly assessed.
    “In 1996, air conditioning technician Ian Mutton committed suicide after being pursued by the IRD over debt that started from a missed $84 tax payment. Mutton’s 13-year-old son killed himself a year later.
    “Our Parliament found a ‘culture of fear and punishment’ at IRD and ordered a clean-up. IRD seems to have slipped back to its old ways.
    “We have had another tragedy. And behind this tragedy are thousands of cases of injustice and poor treatment.
    “It’s time again for our elected representatives to inquire into IRD’s heavy-handedness.”
    Support services
    * Mental Health Services: 0508 625 662
    * Youthline: 0800 376 633, text 234, email talk@youthline.org.nz
    * Lifeline: 0800 543 354 [0800 number doesn’t work in Hell.]
    * The Lowdown: text 5626, email team@thelowdown.co.nz
    * Depression helpline: 0800 111 75

    IRD demand the final straw for her unemployed exhusband David Sharp widow Josephine believes

    IRD demand ‘the final straw’
    5:00 AM Sunday Aug 31, 2014
    “¢
    “¢
    Horrendous charges led to ex-husband’s death, widow believes.
    Widow Josephine Sharp believes an IRD demand for $161,000 led to her estranged husband killing himself. ….
    A woman is stunned to discover her husband killed himself the day he received a massive tax demand.
    Businessman David Sharp, 46, was found dead in his Wellington apartment in January 2009.
    His wife, Josephine – who was separated from her former IT consultant husband – believes he took his own life after income tax and child support arrears ballooned to $161,000.
    ……..
    “I had no idea David was being pursued for so much money as he kept it to himself,” Josephine said.
    “The late payment and interest charges were horrendous and I believe the demand for so much money was the final straw.”
    The mum of two said her late husband had earned about $250,000 a year from his IT business, which was contracted by Government bodies such as the Ministry of Education.
    But he hit trouble following an economic downturn and was unemployed for seven months before his death.
    A coroner’s report concluded there was no alcohol in his body when he died.
    Josephine, who moved to Auckland with her children Matthew and Imogen after her marriage broke up, said the IRD decided not to pursue her for the debt because her husband had no money or assets and left no will. She had contacted the IRD to ask why so much debt had amassed.
    ……..
    “It was only after five years that I was able to relook at the demand for $161,000 and decided I wanted some answers,” she said.
    “Although we were separated, he was a lovely man and a very good father. He went downhill very quickly after being pursued for money he could not afford to repay at the time.”
    A senior IRD manager confirmed Sharp had been contacted but a spokeswoman said it could discuss cases only with authorised people.
    In May 2012, Paul Jenkins, 39, killed himself after being aggressively chased for child support which with penalties had risen to $53,000.
    …….
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________
    Accountants, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing?
    I guess the graveyards are full of them…..
    MurrayBacon – loving axe murderer who sheds not a single tear.

  27. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Tracey,

    I agree with some points you have made!!

    You have listed a few illustrations of relationship tension, each of which may be the cause of tension between parents, as you have stated.

    The items in that list are also serious warnings for the welfare of children being brought up by those parents. Although gambling money does not directly impinge on the children, it takes away cash needed to buy food, pay rent and household expenses, so that in the end the children are usually seriously impacted.
    Depression is often considered a quiet and non-dangerous affliction, but it takes away parents energy for responding constructively to the children, as is necessary for their proper development and happiness. Depression often underlies most of the list of afflictions that you provided, so I will add it to your list.

    If a mother unilaterally removes the children from the marital home, perhaps for a good reason, but often for poor reasons as well, then the children are denied their relationship with the father. They are then much more at risk from any limitations in the mother’s parenting skills. This is a particular problem for young children and babies, whose development will likely be severely compromised if the children are left in the ongoing sole care of a depressed parent.

    So although you have suggested that it is important that a mother is legally free to unilaterally remove the children from the marital home, I am suggesting that the resulting damage done by the mother, to the children’s welfare, is more often more serious than damage averted by unilateral removal.

    If you don’t see this argument for limiting damage to children, then look up the epidemiological data for prevalence of mental health disorders among young men and young women, tie that in with research on the degree of harm that may result from children being left alone with a depressed sole parent (father or mother) and you may see what I am drawing attention to.

    Depression

    Verbal abuse
    Threatening behavior
    Being a raging alcoholic
    Gambling Money for food and other necessities .

    And lastly it could be a woman who has these problems.

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but depression and gambling afflict women slightly more than men, especially in the young adult age group, who parent young children.

    Allowing unilateral removal of children from the family home is significantly dangerous for children (whether father or mother. However, it opens up parents wallets to legal workers, so it isn’t all bad?????

    Lets keep the impacts onto the children in mind, not too much and not too little.
    MurrayBacon.

  28. Man X Norton says:

    Tracey (#23): If a parent finds relationship problems to be serious enough to break up the children’s family for, presumably they are also serious enough for that parent to find support from family and friends for, say, 3 months. There is no perfect system. Threatening behaviour, verbal abuse, alcohol or gambling problems from a partner are not likely to require immediate rescue and financial catering by taxpayers for a new lifestyle. The commitment to a relationship that will start a family surely includes a commitment to work on problems and find solutions. A stand-down period before the DPB (or modern equivalent) begins will encourage partners to put in that effort.

    I agree that if a partner claims to have escaped from significant violence an urgent benefit would be justified to enable that partner and children to live safely while the matter is before the Court. Financial abandonment of a primary caregiver by the main income earner would also justify financial support. As I said previously, some limited and strictly defined circumstances may justify putting aside the normal stand-down period.

  29. MurrayBacon says:

    Just to add one detail explicitly to Man X Norton’s post: – move from evidence-free to evidence based legal procedures.

    Please note that unilateral action while waiting for a familycaught$ hearing, which is not backed up with real evidence – is then just abusive unilateral action.

    This is NOT good parenting and should not go by without appropriate action to protect the interests of all of the parties negatively affected by the wrongful unilateral action.

    Oh for a working, competent Family Court.
    MurrayBacon

  30. tracey says:

    Man x Norton
    The state has made it so either many families can’t or don’t feel obliged / able to help another family member/ members in need.Statistics tell us that most people in nz live virtually hand to mouth.Then there are religious band cultural reasons why leaving a relationship even for sound reasons
    is not supported.That is one reason why the DPB was introduced.To help people make decisions that need to be made to protect themselves and their children.
    Gambling and alcoholism has serious effects on partners and children.To almost dismiss this is ignorant.Making a decision to seperate when children are involved or even when children are not involved is huge for anyone.By the time someone makes the decision and acts on it I would guess they would be pretty stressed,at their wits end,exhausted,worried,vulnerable,….That’s not the best time to expose themselves to any other negativity that might tip them over while minimizing impact on their children.

  31. Mits says:

    What if the gambling and alcoholism isnt down to the person who is being left but instead is where one parent (Im trying hard here to be gender neutral) who has these issues leaving and then uses the state to screw the other parent?
    While the DPB might have been introduced to help people make decisions that need to be made to protect them and their children and I have no doubt that in some cases this is actually the case and then I would back this course of action to the max. Then again wake up and smell the coffee I would say that we all know someone if not multiple cases where the availability of the DPB and all the other assistance given to women, (can’t be gender neutral here as there isnt a fraction of the support available to women available to men)has destroyed familes not due to some defect in one parent but rather a wish from the other for a different lifestyle.
    Good parents and partners can get totally shafted by the state supporting one parent to leave but take the kids with them and the only recourse for the other parent is to try and get their kids back through expensive legal means at the very time they are financially kneecapped by child tax and the cost of seperating.
    To try and justify the current situation with a blanket “it’s for the good of the children” shows a head in the sand attitude to whats actually happening that is at best, naieve, or at worse criminal.

  32. tracey says:

    Mits
    I am sure people leave relationships for lifestyle reasons.I personally am not aware of anyone doing this that has the children to care for.Sometimes people form a relationship ,have Children and then decide it’s not for them.That is most likely a lifestyle choice.Choosing to raise children alone is a pretty hard road to choose for most people.

  33. Ashish says:

    I am the ex-husband of a solo mum by choice. I am prepared to sign a full disclosure consent which you can take to any department to research and verify my claims. I am also prepared to bet my life that you wouldn’t find any incident of the social evils that people talk about where women get victimised and forced to leave a relationship. And I personally know other such cases of opportunistic women also, who have calculated that it’s cheaper to be a solo mum than be a married wife.

  34. Ashish says:

    As luck would have it, today’s herald features an article on a woman proudly claiming to be aa solo mum by choice…

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/mums-life/67439445/I-m-a-single-mother-by-choice

  35. tracey says:

    Ashish
    The article about the woman choosing to have a baby on her own said she works to support herself and her child.
    For the people who think money should not be a issue when it comes to support of your children.It is important.Like it or not without money it would be hard to feed yourself and your dependents .No food …no s..t …we die.That’s how important it is.Money is important.Saying it isn’t is just cheap words.

  36. Ashish says:

    Yes, money is important. But hooking up with an unwary male so that the male can act as an ATM for your dream of becoming a solo mum by choice? Isn’t this fraud?

  37. joseph says:

    What I cant believe is Child Support dont do refunds.

    I mean if a Mother decides to name a Father as the childs Father it is not fully investigated its simply acted on as Truth after all the Mother knows who she shagged so shes looked at as been honest by Child support.
    The number of bitter men who find out after a failed relationship that the child was never theres is growing. Some cases have been going on for well over a decade of paying child support.

    Yet when they find out the truth either way they dont get a refund for supporting another child based on lies by the mother.On top of that they have to deal with letting go concerning the child specially if the real Father is named or now involved.

    Currently Men have to pay for DNA testing for proof which cost thousands. WHY.

    Shouldnt the onus be on the Mother to pay to name .After all who knows how many could be on that list. Just pointing a finger is so wrong. Thing is most Men if they are engaged in a sexual relationship will accept been name as the Father unconditionally.Only to find out its a lie.

    Then theres the bond the Father figure has for the child to perhaps having to let go despite a healthy relationship.

    Fact is there should be testing done well before its been accepted as truth, which never comes to light until the relationship breaks down or has ended.

    Could you image as a Man at any point saying to a women your in love with or have feelings for’ whos just announced they are having your baby “is it mine” ok lets get a test going….
    from that point on you may as well run..lol.

  38. DJ Ward says:

    What I cant believe is Child Support dont do refunds.
    – This is because the law is writen in a way that they are not ‘they think’ required to do so. In fact the law exempts females who falsify the details of birth certificates from the charge of pergury. They can however recieve a $1000 fine but a registrar must give consent for this. The police have no powers under the law to administer this crime.

    Currently Men have to pay for DNA testing for proof which cost thousands. WHY.
    -Because of a culture of corruption within all goverment entities regarding this female sex offence. The crime and its various versions are so common that statisticaly in the average male liftime, each male has a 1 in 3 chance that they will be the father of a child were they are not named on a birth certificate as the father of the child. A male sex abuse victim will be, or, not be named on the birth certificate depending on which version of victim he is. This depends on the motive of the female sex offender. The price is kept extortionaly high in an atempt by the goverment to obstuct justice in regard to this female sex offence.

    The crown ‘long list of goverment entities’ is commiting the crime of conspiring to defeat justice in regard to the motive of the offending. This includes enabling females to commit incest, forced marriages, deception for money, and sex with children.

    To the person responsible for these crimes.
    Have a good day, Prime Minister.

  39. Allan Harvey says:

    Cost of DNA testing has fallen.
    Cheapest in NZ is currently about $360 but that is not useful in Court proceedings.
    Costs for Court proceeding useful tests from about $700 to $1125.

  40. Allan Harvey says:

    IRD do provide refunds if you can prove non-paternity.
    Last case I was involved with they refunded about $20,000.
    In these situations it ends up being we taxpayers who stand the loss.

  41. goose says:

    I know of a case of a mistaken identity, no phone calls or letters from the IRD to this guy directly, just a letter to his employer to start taking child support payments.

    He had to prove it wasn’t him with a DNA test, they lived in separate islands and he didn’t even know her. the IRD refused to stop taking CS payments until the matter was sorted.

    my question is, if the IRD can find his employer, why can’t they find his home address or phone number? they all tell us that the IRD system is linked like a spider web with family links, employers, siblings and children.

  42. MurrayBacon says:

    I believe that IRD cs do pay interest on refunds that result from their wrongful actions, at about 3% pa.

    Unfortunately, typically legal costs are not awarded against IRD in these situations, so the effective interest rate has dropped to say -25%.

    If you take into account opportunities lost, due to not having the money available, when it should have been in your pocket, then the effective interest rate has dropped to about -40% or higher still if Auckland house market might have been involved.

    If you add in wasted time, energy and being happy/alive on this earth and caring properly for children, we are down to -55% interest.

    If IRD followed their Act, then these types of costs would very rarely occur and payment of full damages would be viable.

    Fairness and equity of caught hearings is impacted more by the equity of applying costs “rules”, than by the iniquity in weighing “evidence”.

    Moral is, you have to protect yourself, not rely on the caught$.
    Forewarned is farearmed. Look before you leap.

  43. DJ Ward says:

    Thanks Allan and Murray for the correction. I was aware that some money was being paid back but this is not the full picture of this financial crime.

    Despite DNA testing IRD still manages to steal around $45 million per year due to the fact that so few tests are conducted, influenced by the cost. Also men who are the father but do the DNA test are subject to the judge saying “you were just trying to get out of your responsibilities for the child” and are punished with reduced contact etc.

    Also for eg.

    A female gets pregnant and says you are the father. She then says you should do the right thing and marry her, ‘accompanied by the aparthiet clause of COCA’ which you do because you actualy want to do the right thing and have a relationship with your child. You slave in the workplace and she demands to be a stay ‘stray’ at home mum. 5 years later the relationship breaks down and you are striped of your assets, become a second class citizen in the childs life and are made to pay CS. You take the risk and do a DNA test. Oh no your not the father. CS pays back the small sum they have conspired to steal from you. Did you notice the huge sum of money that was stolen from you during the 5 years plus 9 months ‘deception for money’,’forced marriage’. Nobody makes that money be returned to you, or sends her to prison for her crime. Worse still who is the father. Was she a school teacher? Does she have a special relationship with her sisters 14 year old son? Did your own brother try and get into her panties before you did? What was the real reason she lied about who the father was.

    Meanwhile the police with joy, and freely, and systematicaly conduct DNA testing for male sex offending. Sometimes just to catch 1 offender they conduct thousands of tests. Bigotry reigns suppreme. Human rights violations are endemic.

    Keeping it relavant to the post, and who is relavant to the offending.

    Do you want to know what a REAL MAN is?

    Not the Prime Minister.

    A real man would not let these crimes take place.

  44. joseph says:

    Great to see trolls writing under my name here. WOW why did i think anything different had changed in New Zealand.
    Thank you for those that corrected me regarding refunds and changed court rules etc its been over 20 years
    After all i left my country to get away from this kind of B/S been a parent that has daughters with PAS.This site is no different to people who take exception to anothers opinion.
    Im glad I found that out.

    Hey Joseph…your a real brick ..onya.

  45. joseph says:

    p.s when I came to Australia I found AA and recovery shocking in Australia so different from home, the most important person I was told was the new member..lol Not in OZ, they were all sitting in AA with their little knitting group sharing their stories while never asking me to share. I realised I was been educated..WOW.lol Many weeks later I was acknowledge and asked to share.I said it was amazing sitting in these meeting listening to dry drunks because the only thing missing was grog.Keeps me sane and sober.

    thank you All 🙂

  46. joseph says:

    P.Ss Tracy
    Your comment after another person posting as Joseph was
    A real man wouldnt write this?
    The definition of a REAL MAN…Tracey..can only be described by a REAL WOMAN
    hope that helps.:)

Leave a Reply

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