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

Child Support after 18 when child is doing correspondence school papers

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,Child Support,Gender Politics,Law & Courts — Had_Enough @ 10:21 pm Tue 27th December 2016

OK here’s an ambiguous one thanks to the shit legislation. My child will be 18 in a few months and has yet to graduate from high school. She’s a very bright kid but unfortunately her mother has deliberately held her back and she would have graduated by now if it wasn’t for her mother’s own agenda’s. From what I have heard she will be doing her units by correspondence ONLY, and on a part time basis next year. The legislation says that for a child aged between 18 and 19 to receive child support he/she must be enrolled at AND attending a registered school. If I were to take that literally I would say that correspondence school isn’t something you attend because all papers are done from home and submitted electronically. My thinking is that this would mean the mother doesn’t have to worry about things such as driving her to and from school because she doesn’t have to leave the house and is old enough to stay home alone. That means that her mum can pretty much get on with doing anything she wants to do such as work (not that she’s going to do that because bludging is a much nicer lifestyle). Anyway, I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Personally I think that attending school means 8.45 am – 3.00 PM days, transport, cut lunches, school uniforms etc, NOT staying at home and doing everything electronically. Your thoughts??



  1. Just apply for the Child Support to end as per usual, ask the IRD in advance what will happen as the child turns 18. Get the child to live with you? Pretty sure the paid parent needs to supply the IRD with a good reason (proof of school etc) for the CS to continue.

    Comment by too tired — Wed 28th December 2016 @ 1:21 am

  2. Seriously Too Tired!! “get the child to live with you?” If only life were that simple. I’ve fought more battles with IRD CS and the FC than I can remember but I was hoping someone out there may have had experience of this situation. It’s a relatively new situation because the legislation changed last year and now only kids who are enrolled at and attending a school are entitled to CS after 18 years of age. I thought it might make an interesting test case because the wording is highly ambiguous.

    Comment by Had_Enough — Wed 28th December 2016 @ 4:18 pm

  3. So is it an actual correspondence school or her current state school that is now allowing her to study part time by correspondence?
    Frank Hicks

    Comment by caughtincourt — Wed 28th December 2016 @ 10:34 pm

  4. Hey Frank, it’s a correspondence school and is a completely different entity to the secondary school she was attending. For the last 3 years she’s been doing some of her units at school and others by correspondence. Now she’s doing everything by correspondence and not attending classes at all. She’s really only a part time student and only takes on about one paper per term and most students would be doing about 4 papers at least. This is a deliberate ploy by her mother so my daughter can be studying until she’s at least 19. My daughter and her educators want her to do more but her mother keeps putting the brakes on.


    Comment by Had_Enough — Wed 28th December 2016 @ 10:52 pm

  5. I’m quite intrigued by this. I may not have a definitive answer but may have a couple of suggestions that might be helpful in finding the answer. If you’re comfortable with sending me an email then please do at [email protected] and I’ll send back what I can.

    Frank Hicks

    Comment by caughtincourt — Wed 28th December 2016 @ 11:29 pm

  6. I just said the child can live with you as people might not realise that at 16 or older the courts and the mum can’t prevent it. You could charge the ex with child support if they did live with you.

    I’m sure at 18 the IRD will mail your ex and tell her CS is ending and tell her how to keep it going (give her options). As you stated she is already one step ahead making sure the 18yo is studying. But I think the process isn’t automatic and the IRD need proof that the support is needed etc.

    Comment by too tired — Wed 28th December 2016 @ 11:49 pm

  7. Hi Too tired. Yes, you are right. The process isn’t automatic. Her entitlement will stop if she can’t prove that my daughter is still at school after she turns 18. The problem is that CS don’t seem to require much in the way of evidence and in the past have just taken her word for everything even when she’s been talking shit. I’m trying to get a few facts and figures together because if I think I am within my rights to cease payment when she turns 18 I will just do that and CS can go and F##k themselves.


    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 12:29 am

  8. Hey what about the other options for it to end?

    A child will stop qualifying for child support before their 18th birthday if they:
    •start living with another person in a marriage, civil union or de facto relationship
    •become financially independent (ie, work more than 30 hours average per week, receive a student allowance or benefit from Work and Income), or
    •are not a New Zealand citizen or no longer ordinarily reside in New Zealand.

    Also: A school is defined as:
    •a registered school, as defined in the Education Act 1989, or
    •an overseas school.

    Not sure if this helps but it will end automatically if they aren’t told to continue with collection.

    Comment by too tired — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 12:33 am

  9. I raised my kids. Theres no ‘lifestyle’ in child support unless your lifestyle is living on the bones of your arse. My high paying corporate job that I left was much more lucrative.

    If there are costs involved with your child both parents need to support a child and speaking as someone who lived it – child support never paid the difference on what I lost in my career to support kids in my time (which when I actually did sit down one day and worked it out i.e. child support versus my time I was actually being paid less than the minimum wage and if I was to pass my responsibilities on to someone else so I could work – that would have been three times the amount of child support I received)


    Comment by george — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 1:10 am

  10. Hey Too Tired, yes I have pondered over those criteria and in my daughter’s case she’s at a registered overseas school. She qualifies under all the other criteria but I think the definition of “attending” a school is very vague. One year I did a few Uni papers by correspondence but received no tertiary allowance because I didn’t qualify as a full time student. It seems logical to me that an 18 year old student should have to be full time and attending a school to receive Child Support. Otherwise we could have a scenario where a student was only doing a few credits per year by correspondence and still getting CS payments because he/she is regarded as a student. Surely even the dimmest of IRD CS people could spot that anomaly. Shit, what am I thinking ;}


    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 1:22 am

  11. Well good for you George. I had custody of my 2 boys and still managed to hold down a job. I had to because I was required to pay child support for the one child that the mother had in her custody. Both parents have never been required to pay for my children George, just one parent, namely me. Don’t make assumptions mate! I am constantly amazed at the amount of people who automatically assume that I have never had children in my custody just because I am paying child support for one child.


    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 1:28 am

  12. Dear Had_Enough

    I raised five kids. I never suggested you didn’t raise kids or didn’t pay child support what I said was child support doesn’t even come close to reimbursing the parent who takes time out of their career to look after kids.

    The concept of the other parent getting wealthy on someones child support is totally flawed, you can always do better by working outside the home.

    This is the way I see parenting whether you contribute in time or money or both. It is never about the other parent it is always about you. Thats true of life too. It is about who you are choosing to be for your child. That is what the child sees. People wouldn’t think twice about spending money on a hobby they love but they fight through a legal system, and tear apart any good co-parenting relationship to pay money (oftentimes more than they would have paid in child support) to a random stranger so they can buy a beachouse. Thats mad.

    Had_Enough this is what I know to e true. ‘your kids see what you are doing, That is worth more than any money can buy – if you are paying child support and looking after kids they see that you are making it about them. That is priceless.

    Your ex may win this on legalities but you win on morality. Kids don’t get the former they only understand the later.


    Comment by george — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 7:27 am

  13. Although I do (sort of) agree with george’s advice, it is wise to be realistic and pragmatic.

    In many case, the children are (totally) unaware of the child [and spousal support] story. Even worse than not knowing, often they are informed by incorrect, misleading and false information.

    Even if the other parent isn’t telling them incorrect information directly, the children often hear the other parent discussing with friends. There is no obligation to tell friends the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    So often friends get to hear the asking for sympathy story and the children get to hear that too. (In my opinion, there is a strong obligation not to lie to your children. This is what happens when they are overhearing adult discussions, where there is untruthing irrespective of the motivations and reasons.)

    Had_Enough this is what I know to e true. ‘your kids see what you are doing, That is worth more than any money can buy – if you are paying child support and looking after kids they see that you are making it about them. That is priceless.

    In my experience, it has taken 15+ years for the children to start to understand the real situation. I was hoping their understanding would be good within 5 years of the familycaught$ and child [and spousal support] not being involved.

    It isn’t just factual knowledge, but culture, degree of hardships, how it limited other things that couldn’t now be done…….

    Overall, it is very hard to allow this type of situation to unfold. It does a large amount of harm, to everyone involved. The familycaught$ takes practically no action to protect the children’s relationship with the non-custodial parent, certainly no action at all when it is required! Wisdom and common sense are the rarest things……

    Fast, hot lead seems to be the quicker solution, but maybe it would have some problems of its own?

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 8:46 am

  14. Well thanks for the sermon George but in this case the mother is defrauding the government of every benefit she’s not entitled to as well as being in receipt of a huge inheritance. I have actually been a custodial parent for much of the time but people like me (so called high income earners) receive stuff all from the govt in support. This means that my high income is whittled down to a subsistence lifestyle by the time I paid for education, food, rent and the $600 per month I had to pay her for one child. In the meantime she ended up with a net income that was double what I earned by the time you take into account her child support from me, her part time job, massive tax breaks and 3 separate benefits 2 of which she was receiving fraudulently. The thing to remember here is that the 2 boys in my care had to go without on many occasions thanks to the greed of their mother and a completely inequitable Child Support and taxation system. Not every custodial parent is like you George. Some actually make a pretty good lifestyle out of being a solo parent.


    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 10:23 am

  15. Hey Murray, I couldn’t agree with you more. As you’d know, from previous conversations, the mother of my kids has major mental health issues and bad mouths me in front of the children all the time. She tells my daughter that they are poor because I don’t pay child support whereas the truth of the matter is that I am poor because I do pay child support. It’s very difficult when you are dealing with a spiteful custodial parent who does not act within the best interests of the child and will defame her father in front of her. This is very bad for the child’s self esteem. It’s not really about money, it’s about a child being manipulated to benefit the mother no matter what the cost and in this case the cost could be losing a year of my daughters life that could have otherwise been spent as a university student. She’s a very bright girl and is being held back.


    Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 10:59 am

  16. Manipulation is very damaging to the child’s self esteem. The dishonesty damages the child’s ability to trust other people in their life.

    They may not know exactly what the truth is, but they do know that there is a big, fat lie of some sort. In their desperation, they grasp at all possible scenarios, trying to work out the truth. What a waste of childhood and being alive for the poor child, when the truth is so much safer.

    The whole familycaught$ story is one of opportunities wasted and destroyed, for very little gain by anyone else.

    Society would be better off if we just paid legal workers twice the dole to sit on their arses and shot every tenth one.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 3:37 pm

  17. My children’s mother didn’t bond with the children

    I did, they did with me – according to the family court appointed psycologist – eventually after knowing that the children’s teachers would give evidence, they were fumming. The family court appointed psycologist with was ( in my opinion) a.bullshitter, focused on predetermined outcomes. Eventually she had to contradict her previous report and evidence which contradicted her previous report and evidence.

    The mother was totally focused on herself, became a meth bikee Ho.

    Couldn’t have focused on the children even more so after that.
    Good old family court though, nothing to see here, but what about the dead body in her garage for the children to see,?
    Nothing to see here.
    But what about the. Bikees who frequent her house?
    Mummy needs to have a little socialising.
    Nothing to see here.
    but what about her opposing every minute of time I have had with the children?
    Its her right, she is mummy
    Nothing to see here
    But what about C4c fabricating evidence to ensure predetermined outcomes?
    He is here to help mummy so shut up
    Nothing to see here
    But what about judges making directions with out any evidence.
    Shut up lay litigant
    Nothing to see here

    So George, whAt lovely comments you make, perfect world stuff really. I can’t think why you are on this site, clearly you have experienced the love and joy of the family court, IRD, Cyps.

    Have you felt the warm glow of knowing the impartiallity of the Lwa Society standards comittie yet?

    How about the reassuring and transparent process of Judulail conduct commissioner?

    You must know the cuddly feeling of dealing with the Police when mummy calls them?

    These are the tools of the” Parental Allination Trade” for mummy and least we forget, fully supported and funded by the tax payer via “the process” mmmmmm.

    For mummy, well she can rest easy knowing that next time she doesn’t make the. Children available for access as per Directions from the NZ Family Court , nothing will happen, most likely not a mention, and the police -what a laugh, they don’t care if she breaches the parenting order do they George. They care when mummy rings them and says “I feel concerned for my safety”, this must have happened to you and the other member on this site “Julie”.

    If only more people were more like you two.


    Comment by Simon grant — Thu 29th December 2016 @ 4:56 pm

  18. Hi Simon, it looks like you and I have had similar experiences of the FC and the Police. What George doesn’t seem to understand is just how lucky he is to have custody of his 5 kids. At least he is in a position to protect them and be a positive influence on their lives. In my case I had to return my daughter to her mother despite the bruises on her arms, despite her mother locking her in a room for hours on end, despite her mother keeping her out of school for up to 18 months at a time, despite the fact that she hated going back to her each time. I tried to pick her up from her mothers house on my access visit days and she retaliated by having a non trespass order placed on me. The Police enforced that but they did nothing to help enforce the Parenting Order!! My daughter was too frightened to disagree with her mother on anything which is why she has always remained in her custody. What the man hating feminists and white knights don’t understand is that it’s not about money, it’s about a child’s right to have both parents in their lives, to be safe, and not to be used as pawns.


    Comment by Had_Enough — Fri 30th December 2016 @ 12:32 pm

  19. Had enough, how tragic for your daughter, I am sorry to hear of this treatment of your daughter.

    For you, what he’ll it must have been for you to have to take her back there.

    The Police, well what can we say?

    An interesting Law Society article/ address fro her honor Helen Winkelman is on the Law Society Webb site. From memory it’s called the Widening Gap, it’s an address her honor made in 2015. The subject is actually about delivering legal services and being profitable from a business perspective. Some key points:

    Many Lawyers do not have much work.
    Huge rise in lay litigants.
    A lack of cases in various courts.

    The address examines many reasons for this eg:
    Cost to the client seems to be the main one.

    The key consideration missing from the address is typical, it’s like the “elephant in the room”, it doesn’t seem to get a mention.
    It’s called a number of things, here are some:

    A lack of faith in the process.
    A crock of shit.
    Good money after bad.
    People have been reading web sites, main stream media is now known as feel good propaganda, spin.

    Lawyers are critiqued by their collegues
    Judges who were lawyers are critiqued by their collegues (other judges in a higher court) or the hand picked “juducial conduct commissioner”.

    People now are far better informed than they were 10 years ago.
    If a person Googles “NZ Court is there corruption” perhaps 20 web sites come up, many with detailed examples and case history.

    It would see logical that THEY CAN’T ALL BE WRONG.

    People are realising this and clearly voting with their feet and removing themselves from the court process, and certainly representation in the court process.

    If you go to Kiwisfirst and read the matters re her honor judge Winkelman, you can see the correlation between lack of faith, court process.

    Yet, her honor doesn’t appear to mention anything about a lack of faith in the court processes from the very people it is there to serve, perhaps they don’t realise that one person tells 13 and each of them tell 5. After enough people have had similar experiences, eventually every one knows.

    In the family court his honor Judge Ryan is quoted on raido nz as not knowing why so many matters are just not advancing, applicants have just gone. His honor may not have considered that perhaps people’s perception of the process is that they can’t have faith in it and are certainly not prepared to pay for proof that their lack of faith was justified

    Comment by Simon grant — Fri 30th December 2016 @ 10:44 pm

  20. Nice piece ‘Simon grant’!

    Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 31st December 2016 @ 11:38 am

  21. Thank you, Man x Norton.
    It’s a matter of time before they will be seeing each other to fill their time sheets but here is a dreadful thought.

    The Family Court Process is in a hell of a mess.
    85 percent of applications are now “with out notice” we know why but the Law Society is doing a review to find out why.
    There are rules for lawyers around the use/misuse of the “with out notice application” but their buddies on the standards committee appear to condone the misuse of the “with out notice application” (no surprises there)

    They are trying to push the onus of raising the concern of the misuse on to the presiding e judge.

    It is not the judges job to do anything to a lawyer for the misuse of the “with out notice application”

    Lawyers want the good old Legal Aid Gravey Train to leave the station yet again, just as it has for decades – they liked it better.

    The minister of justice should Crunch the Standards Committie, she won’t though because after they loose this election the minister may find herself back in legal land and her duty may be to her legal buddies.

    85 percent of applications with out notice
    Fathers don’t come to a hearing or attend mediation, judge Rayan seems to be saying we are loosing them and don’t know why and he may have a little concern for this.
    The law society may well be saying it’s because they can’t have good representation with out legal aid, that is why they are leaving so quick please, please in the interest of saving the poor fathers – turn on the legal aid tap again because clearly dads and the little ones need it, and that is our concern as we are so wonderful, it’s really our only concern because of our integrity.

    I say it may be that this is a played for strategy by the Law Society to help get that good old legal aid tap turned back on, where as if the Standards Committie simply did their job impartially (come on, get up off the floor, stop laughing) there would not be such a high percentage of “without notice applications” and they would be used correctly, for when there is imminent danger and concern for a child or perhaps another party but REAL CONCERN rather than the lawyer being concerned for their lack of fees and work. (some might say boo hoo underhanded parasite but others may not be so complimentary)

    Clearly there are lawyers with ethics and integrity but equally there are needles and haystacks.

    Comment by Simon grant — Mon 2nd January 2017 @ 7:33 am

  22. How did this resolve via CS with you? My son turns 18 nxt yr..same situation.

    Comment by Michael — Sat 28th April 2018 @ 10:20 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