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

Hike in Child Support upsets a female

Filed under: Child Support,Gender Politics,General — ashish @ 8:33 pm Mon 9th March 2015


However hard I try not to appear sexist, the mainstream media gives me no options.

The article is an epic proof of the fact that if you want to make something happen, make a female upset.

Hundreds of complaints by males are just ignored by media. One woman gets upset, and the same issue makes headlines.

I barely managed to get one into readers report last year – but that too after disguising it with the famous sorry-to-be-a-man Labour leader David Cunliffes compulsory Kiwisaver policy.

Looks like we are going to have some interesting times ahead.


  1. *like*

    I have just requested a new reassessment declaring my circumstances, I have 2 other children which one of them lives with me full time and the other is 50/50 shared, neither have any CS liability to either parents but these are not factored in, IRD have told me that they can recalculate my liability if I make CS claims with the other parents, in which I turned around and said that it will make my relationship volatile with the other parents of my children.

    The IRD representative said that she is unable to help me further.

    Comment by goose — Tue 10th March 2015 @ 12:08 pm

  2. OK but child support is bad for “liable parents” regardless of their gender, and plenty of partners of liable men are badly affected too.
    Personally if this is what it takes to get the issue into the news then so be it, she’s on our side from my point of view. I notice they didn’t open the topic up for comments though!

    Comment by Doug — Tue 10th March 2015 @ 12:27 pm

  3. On the topic of comments in online forums, most people don’t seem to realise what a nasty vindictive crock child support actually is. Adding comments based on personal experience and keeping them as calm as possible is a GOOD thing, there are still some out there who recognise an injustice when they see one and those who have some facts are less likely to go along with the feminist inspired image of moaning deadbeat dads.
    And my guess is that Dunne has lost a lot of votes after men in Ohariu-Belmont opened their latest IRD demands. Good riddance.

    Comment by Doug — Tue 10th March 2015 @ 12:33 pm

  4. I have made contact with Campbell Live, NZ Herald, TV one news and Stuff but no reply, I have copied them links to the website a quick personal experience statement. lets just see what happens. The more noise we make, the more we are heard.

    Comment by goose — Tue 10th March 2015 @ 12:39 pm

  5. The fairness for children to grow up in a family with enough food, enough clothing, enough activities, enough schooling, enough love, enough health and enough belief to not be afraid of what might happen tomorrow is so important to the wellbeing of this country.

    OK so you want to buy something shiny for yourself? Or you want to sit around while your Ex pays for everything. Take a grip, forget about your own future and start think of your child’s. Your relationship has ended but your responsibilities have not. You both brought into this world a defenceless baby therefore you both need to work and pay for that child.

    I think the law needs a complete overhaul. Making it way to hard for one party is not right. It should be the responsibility of both parties to pay equal shares, equal shares in custody, equal shares in work. No more free rides for anyone that chooses to live of the others income without working themselves. And no more over burden for the other party that can’t afford to live. Now that’s the most fairest system of all.

    Comment by Lukenz — Tue 10th March 2015 @ 9:48 pm

  6. I don’t mind an increase in child support but a 500% increase that’s fair don’t think so. And when the ex has not declared all her earning. been down this track before changing my address to hers and I pick up the penalties for none payment. when I told the IRD of this was any thing done to her about the false information NO plus the fact that I had already was paying her in a private agreement in which she failed to tell them. now that I’m on a pension most of that will be on child support.

    Comment by Kenny — Wed 11th March 2015 @ 4:56 am

  7. I was told by the child support office in Manukau not to make any private payments to the ex and to keep a check on how much I earn.

    I can fully sympathise with Kenny.

    Comment by Ashish — Wed 11th March 2015 @ 12:32 pm

  8. news on radio today, complaining that she was about to lose $600 / month (less money from the father of her two children). This got me thinking.

    (1) the sense of victimology. She was a victim of the change in CS rules. This was a sudden shock to her; she’s just found out – nobody forewarned her. This of course is bullcrap, as anyone with 1/2 a brain has been aware of the pending changes for 1 1/2 years, since the first lot of letters went out (before it was shelved a year). Anyone with 1/2 a brain could have jumped onto ird website and worked out the impact. Go figure – its news coz the impact has just hit home. She is therefore a victim.

    (2) her sense of entitlement. She was quote as saying that there should be a process in place that provides money for low income mothers (ie her), from family benefits etc. (bull crap of course, because there is. Its called DPB, Living for Families etc etc.) She is somehow entitled to $$$ and somebody else better provide it, if not her ex.

    (3) The blatant sexism of the media. This is the second woman’s CS plight in the last week. No mention of 000’s of men paying more in CS; oh no, they don’t count. But a woman who’s partner has to pay more, leaving them with little to live on (no focus on his situation, it’s all about hers); a woman who will receive $600 / month less – now that’s new because they’re women!

    (4) this woman’s apparent lying to media. So she is to lose $600 / month in income (for two kids). Either he has a significant level of overnight contact (over 28%) that was not previously accounted for; or else she has a significant income to have to share the overall cost of raising the children. These are the only two factors affecting how CS liability is changing.
    – He’d have to be on $52000 + to be liable for $600 / month CS (two children = 21%?); And she on nothing. For this to be totally eliminated, she would have to be on $52K as well, with complete 50/50 care. So why would she complain about her plight.
    – Of course, he could be closer to $100K, and she on maybe $50K, in which case he could still be paying maybe $10K a year to her – she moves up to $60K – still not a low income.
    See how it goes? If she was on DPB she wouldn’t lose anything, because his CS basically covers the cost of DPB, even if he was on $120K, paying close to $30K in CS, she’d be getting close to that on DPB with Family allowances, and IRD wouldn’t pass much, if anything on.

    I can probably think of other things; but I’ve gotta go earn another $1000 so I can pass another $180 on to my ex.

    Comment by Arthur — Thu 12th March 2015 @ 4:31 pm

  9. somehow I lost the first sentence: Another woman was on the radio news today ….

    Comment by Arthur — Thu 12th March 2015 @ 4:31 pm

  10. So if this woman was losing $600 per month her long suffering ex must have been getting f***ed up the a*** for years so I bet he doesn’t share her outrage.
    Anyway Stuff is running a series of user written articles on the child support changes – everyone should get in there and comment or share their stories. It’s amazing how many out there don’t know what a nasty one sided system we have so give them a few real life examples and change a few minds please.
    It’s amazing but a fair few receiving parents seem upset to have found themselves on the wrong side of the IRD’s eye of Sauron. Welcome to our world, ladies, hope you have as much fun as we do.

    Comment by Doug — Fri 13th March 2015 @ 4:42 pm

  11. So I had a wierd thing happen to me and I hope it can help some more guys out there.
    My Ex asked me for a vol agreement because with the increase in child support payments she will lose money in other areas, lots of money!
    So you may wish to check if this is happening, with a vol agreement I can work overtime again and or get a secondary job as my ex wont change her circumstances for the next two years.

    Comment by too tired — Mon 16th March 2015 @ 4:21 am

  12. @too tired, in all fairness the question you should be asking yourself is: “can I trust my ex-wife”? Once you get the answer, you’ll be able to apply the same logic to your question as well.

    Comment by Ashish — Mon 16th March 2015 @ 7:22 pm

  13. I added my submission to the Stuff assignment.

    Comment by broke dad — Tue 17th March 2015 @ 7:01 am

  14. Beautifully written, Matt. The system is indeed stacked up against dads. Once you become a NCP, your life has effectively ended.

    Comment by Ashish — Tue 17th March 2015 @ 9:40 am

  15. #13. In your submission you say the following, “her birth father has never contributed to her upbringing”. That’s the crux of the issue. The IRD has no desire to chase the Father for money for the Mother (and you), their ONLY interest is the penalties and interest that accrues. The money he would be paying to you as a couple is not the IRD’s. However the penalties and interest are and they have no problem watching that grow. The fact that he’s not paying you is your problem. The IRD is far more mercenary than people think ….

    Comment by golfa — Wed 18th March 2015 @ 9:41 am

  16. I have written in objection to my Notice of Assessment 2016/1 totalling $1,490.20 per month. But as expected have heard not a thing from the Incredibly Ridiculous Department.
    This assessment is an enormous increase to the already ridiculous amount of $782.60 I now pay. Despite the fact that I can barely survive currently, this new assessment will actually have the effect of reducing my financial situation to breaking point.
    This assessment also states that it represents 100% of the combined Child Support Income, which, I feel is completely unrealistic as the custodial parent works and derives an income from her partner.
    When the Idiotic Reply Department was questioned on this they stated, ” well if she has an IRD number we would know” yeah right!!! I bet if I was dishonest and earning cash just to survive they would know before I did.
    I am more than happy to pay my fair share of which I would imagine would be 50% of the realistic cost of raising children. Even though as the IRD so lovingly put it, less than 28% time equals zero. Should I not be paying 28% (or less) in Child Support?, no not really fair but my point is on holidays when I have them for a month, I actually pay twice, to my ex and for the care of my children who are with me.
    That qualifies me to be a dead beat non caring dad in their eyes, even though the hideous cost of Child Support prevents me from seeing them more often than I do.
    I am on a fair salary, but work very hard for it and I see none of it.
    My proportion of care is all I can afford under this current and worsening Child Support System as I am forced to live 227 km from my Children as this is where my employment is. The distance between me and my children was of my ex wife’s decision. She refuses to meet halfway as I apparently “don’t contribute enough to the cost of raising my children”. She travels a mere 83km to my 227km. This equates 908km to spend under two days with my kids every third weekend.
    Child Support and travelling costs, which given the distance also involves time off work, absorb most of it. Leaving a mere amount to cover debt incurred to survive and god forbid actually eat, keep warm, see in the dark etc.
    My taxable income is also stated at above what I actually get as $400.00 per fortnight is added to my salary as rent value for my accommodation which is part of my job, this figure is then deducted again for tax purposes. I don’t get this money I am just taxed on it, but it adds a large amount to my taxable income.
    I am lucky to not have to pay rent at the current costs, but this is easily offset by distance to town and the fact I am on call pretty much 24/7.
    I intend a full administration review before I am forced out of my employment situation and can afford no contact with my children ever again, due to the looming bankruptcy situation this assessment is creating. But nothing is ever timely with this department and I see a mounting debt being created by the time it is addressed, then with probably no change. Because as I said before I cannot pay it. But I think that’s the idea actually, a countries debt is an asset that can be borrowed against, so why not grow that debt, that’s the only logical conclusion I can see in this crazy scheme.

    Comment by J Silcock — Wed 18th March 2015 @ 1:12 pm

  17. Silock. Why are you assessed on the accommodation allowance? My ex has use of a free company car and is not assessed on this.
    As far as the travel costs are concerned, my view is that you have grounds under admin review to get some relief on that , given her non-cooperation. At worst she may meet you half way.
    Good luck and i, like you have similar problems

    Comment by shafted — Fri 20th March 2015 @ 1:59 pm

  18. Many non custodial parents have been Getting away with paying a very minimal contribution for years.In many cases less than $80 per month.This is just not right.Many hide their income or choose to live where there is no work.They need to be thoroughly investigated or enforced to move to gain employment.

    Comment by tracey — Sat 21st March 2015 @ 6:51 am

  19. Tracy I could not agree with you more, those that do this give the rest of us committed fathers a bad name. But in some cases I can see why some non custodial parents are forced into hiding just remain in existence when their ex works the system to ensure they ruin the fathers life fuelled by resentment. If we breed offspring they are our responsible until the offspring no longer need it, this is not just financial support but emotional as well, why some mothers think that they should just grind their ex partners to non existence and deny them the opportunity to support in other natural ways baffles me. Human beings dissapoint me

    Comment by James Silcock — Sat 21st March 2015 @ 7:04 am

  20. Shafted… The accomodation tax is a result of all the chaos in Canterbury following the influx of workers for the rebuild. Work related accomodation used to be taxed at a nominal rate, which made the cost negligible. Now it is taxed at market rental value and we all know how nuts this has gone. I am under the impression that company cars do fall under this as a fringe benefit.
    I am doing an admin review but never hold much hope that it will grant me much reprieve, it hasn’t in the past

    Comment by James Silcock — Sat 21st March 2015 @ 7:11 am

  21. I have driven thousands of Ks over the 12 yaer period of access, the last five with shared care. The mother doesnt and won’t drive at all to collect the children or drop them off. The mother has not gone to our child’s orthodontist to assess her progress in over 2 years and has not taken the children to any activities except for my son’s rugby and daughters netball. She has paid for nothing, not had any interest in homework or education.

    Her honor judge odwyer put in directions to enable the children to go to their activities irrespective of which parent has the care of the children ( good directions) Her honor judge Ulrich ( a judge regarded as conspicuous by her directions) simply removed judge odwyer’s directions 15 months later after asking her honor judge Ulrich to recuse in an as yet unanswered memorandum to the court. Her honor judge Ulrich popped up again, put in place a without notice interim parenting order stopping access with me after 6 years of shared care. Counsel for the children put in a report stating that the children have not seen their father for 5 weeks and they are sad and angry as a result.

    Her honor judge Ulrich then made directions which seemed to focus on her original directions as being appropraite, and went on to explain who I was represented by, a male, yet the person representing me was actually a woman – its incredible that this type of thing is alive and well in the so called New Look NZ Family Court.

    The upshot is ; don’t hold your breath for a fair outcome in this Court would be my suggestion. It looks like some of these judges do what they like and to heck with the evidence and outcomes for the children.

    Comment by Brad — Tue 31st March 2015 @ 11:38 pm

  22. Brad, feel for you mate. It’s all so overwhelming, it’s like being trapped in an ever increasing irrational nightmare. And whoever you tell doesn’t give it credence because it seems so irrational. The amount of times I have heard… “Oh that’s not fair, talk to someone, fight it, stand up for yourself,”
    but with who and how!!!!!

    Comment by James Silcock — Wed 1st April 2015 @ 8:41 am

  23. The process is difficult to describe to people as their view is so often as you have described James. Unless some one has actually experienced it, the suggestions that they so often produce, focus on rapid and improved outcomes for the child/children. They are often well though through logical and obvious.

    Comment by Brad — Thu 2nd April 2015 @ 2:15 am

  24. Tracey
    Fact no Father benefits been unemployed .
    Fact consider all the allowances provided to Women
    (ie) Home,health Rent assistance, clothing allowance for Child and Mother.Food allowance Electricity, emergency grants,the list is endless.All for the sake of the children if they need it or not.
    Add to which Social Services provide relocation while still recieving a benefit.
    Dont see Fathers payed to move away from their work they have to relocate and do it without any assistance or a job just for access..
    Non custodial Parents are almost ALWAYS the Fathers, The systerm is built this way
    Recognising that fact first would be a good start. Its nowhere near a balanced sheet.

    Fact unconditional costs with Legal assistance. Its not reading pay as you go like Fathers endure.If they are employed they dont get assistance sometimes ending up bankrupt.

    Where as Woman without the children can apply and get granted legal assistance working or otherwise

    Fact Woman enter into a new relationship almost everytime that income is not declared until caught.
    Now Im been general like you it still looks bad for men dont it and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

    Comment by joseph — Wed 10th June 2015 @ 9:31 am

  25. #16 Can i suggest that you go and read your post and try to imagine that someone else has written it?
    To point out just a couple of things 1:it does not matter what her current partner earns as YOU ARE THE FATHER.
    2:Having to travel sounds like your choice as you were the one that moved and having kids for 2 days every few weeks does not sound like anywhere near 28% of child care in fact it would fall around 9% if i was generous.
    I am not trying to bag you i just think you should stop looking at your position through rose coloured glasses because expecting to pay 50% when you put in 9% time is not JUST.
    Sorry if this sounds harsh but i think many men need to stop with the poor me and look at what we are doing in REALITY>

    Comment by Jase — Fri 23rd June 2017 @ 2:17 pm

  26. This comment appears to have fallen victim to a spam filter so I repost it here:

    From ‘Jase’:

    #16 Can i suggest that you go and read your post and try to imagine that someone else has written it?
    To point out just a couple of things 1:it does not matter what her current partner earns as YOU ARE THE FATHER.
    2:Having to travel sounds like your choice as you were the one that moved and having kids for 2 days every few weeks does not sound like anywhere near 28% of child care in fact it would fall around 9% if i was generous.
    I am not trying to bag you i just think you should stop looking at your position through rose coloured glasses because expecting to pay 50% when you put in 9% time is not JUST.
    Sorry if this sounds harsh but i think many men need to stop with the poor me and look at what we are doing in REALITY>

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 26th June 2017 @ 2:31 pm

  27. to Jase, this is going back in time. However in between times I moved back closer to my children but through good management of the recipients situation I actually saw my children less, not by my choice either I might add. Cant have me getting over that magic 28% = 0% threshold could we now? I am prepared to have them 50:50 but am not “allowed” and financial means are exhausted to challenge this.
    I’m sorry but this didn’t sound harsh but it does sound a little ignorant and full of assumption, given the site we are on is meant for supporting each other on. Every one is entitled to their opinion but I’m so broke I can’t even afford to have an opinion any more.
    I’m giving up the fight

    Comment by J Silcock — Mon 26th June 2017 @ 9:33 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

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

Skip to toolbar