Family Income Sharing Arrangements – FISA – NZ Divorce
Currently under consideration by the Law Commission, (FISA) may become a permanent part of our Divorce Settlement legislation.
Following the leading Herald article in their media feed authored as described;
(Jeremy Sutton is a senior family lawyer, specialising in divorce cases where there are significant assets including family trusts and complex business structures)
We find this;
These are to replace spousal support maintenance and economic disparity claims. Under Section 15 of the PRA, these awards have become increasingly unpredictable and conservative, and the cost of applying for one is high.
Because of this, a s15 application is only worthwhile when there is a significant relationship property pool.
What is proposed is that couples with children, who have been together for 10 years or more, or who have built or sacrificed careers because of the relationship, should be eligible for Family Income Sharing Arrangements or “Fisas”.
Under a Fisa, partners would be required to share their combined incomes for a defined time period after they separate, to ensure both financial advantages and disadvantages from their being together are shared more fairly.
There will be a statutory formula that equalises their incomes (for approximately half the relationship’s duration) up to a maximum of five years.
This change would be welcomed by everyone, as you can imagine – especially not by the higher-earning partner; but it is a simple solution to what is often a sad and complicated situation.
What I see at risk here is the clean break mechanism that allows separating couples to carry on with their individual lives.
Based on the concept that the best interests of the child needs to be considered one can’t help suggesting that the only point of view lawyers are able to consider this from is a financial one. We’ve seen this financial duty used in the Child Support Act previously by imposing an assessed income on a Father based on his potential to produce income rather than his actual income.
What we are also seeing in society is a dramatic decrease in home ownership. The home has been the primary target in middle class Family Court cases – that’s generally been the residual value of the relationship.
Follow the money is always a good start and the ‘in person’ potential looks to be exactly what is being targeted.
Don’t see this ending well for the blokes or in many cases the children as ‘spending power’ as is being targeted here, will be directed into the hands of the mother.
Law Commission…- FISA!!.. more like fissure.
Herald article…- Babyishly written by someone who seems is not used to addressing the public, in fact never leaves his job behind, and lives in a world of his own.
Overall it will serve to make all things so more complicated with the overwhelming potential to create further tension, sadness, etc,, etc,,bloody etc.
Yep a good reason not to get married or enter into a partnership with anyone and specially not to have kids as they are the biggest liability ever..
Specially the state – encroaching on more private matters using kids as template
First divorcees then anyone over ten year relationship then we reduce length of relationship from 10 to 3 and before you know it, there is no relationship that will not get exploited. IF trust can’t be broken, it seems everything else can.
Then even after an abortion, a claim will be made that had that child been born….
Dammit no adoption either…
Where is the kids voice?
Yes this is serous. Good post Downunder.
So the plan is the guy gets the child support bill plus FISA payments.
There time argument makes it an arbitrary 5 years.
What if the kids leave home within the 5 years.
What if the kids then live with the parent that is the FISA payer.
Plus 50% asset shares for being the custodial parent as well.
Plus 50% asset shares for stay at home parents as well.
What if the father tells the mother to work and not be a stay at home mum but she refuses? This will be ignored as they intend to use a formulae.
What if she was just cared for, for many years then right at the end gets pregnant without his consent. The formulae will ignore this too.
“This change would be welcomed by everyone, as you can imagine – especially not by the higher-earning partner; but it is a simple solution to what is often a sad and complicated situation.”
Confusing statement but you can tell who everyone is. You can see the man is considered a nobody. Excluded as human if your a working man. Just a slave for money.
This will encourage getting custody by any method.
This law will encourage pregnancy without consent.
This will incentivise stay at home mums forcing males to work.
Backed up by “best interests of the child” mantra.
Betting on increased suicides as men are financially raped.
Not only suicides but homicides too. Imagine how it will be for men having to ‘share’ their income with some disloyal bitch who had an affair, wrecked his children’s family and is shacked up with her new beau.
And the paper trail and compliance – plane ticket, one way, would probably be the easiest answer to that.
Though the example more likely to be listened to would be that of a damsel having to share her income ongoing with a male who had been violent to her. We wouldn’t put it past the Labia-led government to write in an exception for ‘people’ who had been subjected to partner violence. Such violence of course defined as stuff men do. Breaching marital commitments, lying, plotting, plundering and subjecting children to the fear and suffering of having their family unit trashed are all ok, not violent at all, and our esteemed Family Courts will protect women’s rights to do those things while quickly punishing their husbands for daring to object.
Other arguments against post-separation income sharing include:
– It’s not in the best interests of children to have both parents equally economically disadvantaged. It’s more in children’s best interests if at least one parent has a chance to end up able to pay towards the children’s music lessons, team trips, school leavers’ ball, tertiary education, help with a deposit on a house, maintain a comfortable home as a grandparent where grandchildren can stay, etc.
– So-called ‘child support’ already causes a large proportion of liable parents to reduce their productivity and limit or stagnate their careers. That problem will increase greatly with this proposed alimony system.
– Providing even more incentive for ‘unhappy’ parents to trash their children’s family units rather than work on keeping the family together is completely the wrong direction when the research is so clear that children are safest and do best when raised in a family with both biological parents.
I’m assuming this ‘formula’ would be administered in a similar way to a child support assessment, by an Officer.
This was the means of removing laborious work from a previously overloaded court, and the legislation wouldn’t want to overload the even more overloaded than previously overloaded court.
Looking at that simply as a financial formula often reflects badly on men.
Men do other things, rearrange their time, create in different ways, often for the benefit of the children and in the face of ‘the impoverished parents’ but under the child support regime this has been regarded as delinquent behaviour because it is non-compliant with monetary assessments and demands. (And penalties for non-compliance?)
The DV clauses are being proposed as well. I did read them, so there proposing that as well.
A technicality for those interacting with the Human Rights Commision.
Obviously their men are excluded from who everybody is comment.
If you look at their sources of information a clear absence exists.
A men’s perspective. A perspective of information looking at effects on the payer.
They sourced information from the Ministry for Women.
Proof they consulted in some way the Ministry.
This proposal was likely audited by the Ministry for Women as well.
They did not consult a crown funded watch dog for men.
They did not include “male” perspective in their research.
It’s loaded with women’s studies, social science based research.
Neither has the proposal examined harm or unjust outcomes for the males affected.
So the Human Rights Violation fits into services of the crown, no effort, gender, real harm to the effected group.
@9 So, reading between the lines, this is looking a lot like another benefit recovery scheme?
Up until very recently, all through history and in every part of the world there have only ever been two classes comprising an ignorant poor class and an elite who rule by birthright. Only 200 years ago Europeans had the impudence to create a middle class. The middle class is natural. They are the ones brave enough and smart enough to shake off their shackles. People easily move between middle class and lower class depending on how they live their life and their talents (as well as by changes in fortune). The middle class are far smarter than the degenerate elite ruling class who feel threatened and only need to arrange wars to knock everyone back in their ‘place’. There is a war on the middle class. Go to any university and see it is plain as day.
@11 I wouldn’t disagree that this appears to be what we are seeing however I would suggest the cause is the growing Feminist State.
DJ Ward @9: Thanks for informing us about the DV exception. As expected.
What is the DV exception??
Domestic Violence will be taken into account in deciding on 50% plus asset decisions.
Large incentive to get custody.
Claim DV guarantees custody.
Plus 50% assets for having custody.
Plus extra for being a DV victim.
Plus child support by formulae.
Plus FISA by formulae, probably at a bonus rate for having custody.
Plus extra for “best interests of child”
The father is asset striped and future income striped.
Doesn’t get to see his kids due to the DV allegation.
The separation as stated by others is likely to not be his fault as well.
@4 Man X Norton says:
“Not only suicides but homicides too. Imagine how it will be for men having to ‘share’ their income with some disloyal bitch who had an affair, wrecked his children’s family and is shacked up with her new beau.”
Or as a feminist might say”
‘Not only suicides but homicides too. Imagine how it will be for women having to ‘share’ their income with some disloyal dickhead who had an affair, wrecked her children’s family and is shacked up with his new ho.’
No offence Man, but it strikes me that many of the comments on this site are just the same as the lame feminist crap I hear in the media everyday… but with the genders reversed.
Come on guys! Surely we can do better than that?
@16. Yeah, I can do a lot better than that and probably will; you can look forward to it. It’s a good thing that a men’s site is here to provide a voice for NZ men and to give perspectives from the men’s side.
There’s nothing lame about the example I gave; it’s as serious as hell and happens a lot. Nothing in my comment denied that this situation can happen in the opposite gender direction, but there’s no need to present that here. Aside from that, the issue will more often disadvantage men because men are still more often the main breadwinners.
There are plenty of feminist sites giving the other side. We don’t need to do it here too and we don’t need you here doing that. This is called MENZ Issues, not Gender Studies. Who the fuck do you think you are patronizing others here?
@17 Hey Man!
I’ll tell you “Who the fuck” I think I am! I’m someone who is working my arse off to try to save men from the horrific harms being dished out to them by the appalling excesses of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. I’m working my arse off to save men’s lives. That’s who the fuck I am!
And I happen to know from bitter experience that talking shit not only doesn’t help men it makes things worse. Talking shit kills men! So don’t you fucking tell me that I’m not welcome here on this site just because my opinion is different to yours! Since when did you become the moderator of this site?
I’m not patronising anybody. I’m challenging people when they talk the sort of shit that kills men. If you want to argue the issue then knock yourself out. But if you want to attack me personally just because you disagree with what I say – then you are not worth arguing with!
With the OVERWHELMINGLY MASSIVE VOICE WOMEN HAVE THE NOW, how is it then that we are not hearing stories FROM THE OTHER SIDE,,stories of women paying through the nose and with their lives after dealing with the caught system for instance, and etc, etc, bloody ETC<<<ETC!!!!
@18: You most certainly are patronizing others. You have criticized the work of one contributor after another as if you are much wiser and can tell others how to suck eggs. You don’t do much in the way of actual debate of opinions. For example, you haven’t acknowledged or debated the real points I made in comment #17 about the importance of this as a men’s site giving the men’s side of things without any requirement to convey feminist viewpoints as well. Instead, you call others’ contributions the stupidist thing you’ve ever read etc etc and now you’re telling others that they are talking shit. That’s just destructive and with friends like that men don’t need enemies. Whatever you’re working your arse off on go and do it. But don’t claim to represent me; I will publicly distance myself from you. You seem more interested in pushing the same femicentric viewpoints that we are assailed with day after day than actually supporting or respecting men or understanding men’s need to talk from their own perspective.
@20 Thanks for your feedback Man.
You are right that I have (at times quite harshly) criticised many people on this site. I have also listened to many people and agreed with many people. I have very strong views on men’s rights and I apologise if this comes across as patronising or arrogant. I do not think that my views are necessarily any better than anyone else’s but that doesn’t mean I should back down when I believe that what others are saying is actually causing harm to men.
You are correct again in saying that I did not debate the fair points you raised @17. I responded angrily to your swearing at me and swore back at you. I’m sorry for that. By way of engaging in debate, I need to explain that I see things differently than many on this site see things. I don’t see a war between feminists and men. I see a war between those that deny human rights and those that support human rights. The definition of feminism is seeking equal rights for women with men. I, along with I think most people, don’t have a problem with that. The actual problem is that for the very most part contemporary feminism is no longer about equality, it is about female chauvinism and misandry. With those things I have a very big problem!
The problem manifests itself in many ways but particularly in the Family Court. There you have judges, lawyers, police, counsellors and advisers, who are for the very most part, deeply prejudiced against men. Individual men then get a very raw deal and that hurts them and their families considerably, up to and including the suicide of many of those men.
The question where I butt heads with many on this site is what to do about that problem. You could completely repeal the Domestic Violence Act, but that wouldn’t take away the prejudice and the man-haters would just find another way to get at men. What needs to change is the prejudice. Die-hard feminists won’t change easily, but New Zealand is a nation of moderates. Labour and National need to chase the centre to win because the centre is where most New Zealanders are. Men’s rights activists need to win the minds and hearts of middle New Zealand. A moderate and well-informed middle won’t allow the female chauvinists and misandrists to prosper. Currently the radical feminists are winning the propaganda war for the centre by a landslide.
To win that propaganda war we can’t afford to be dismissed as crazy woman-hating crackpots. To win the middle we need to be fair, reasonable and just.
When we lash out at women, or feminism (which it still seen by the mainstream as being about equality) the feminists simply become ever more afraid of men. [I suggest that behind anger often lies fear, and it’s no different with feminists.] That increased fear drives them to treat more and more men like scum (just because they’re men) and some of those men kill themselves.
So when you see men on this site calling women “bitches” etc. you may see that as men telling their story. I just see that as men reacting to their real story which is about how much they have been hurt. Men telling their story will (I believe) help men. Publicly venting a woman-hating reaction to how much they have been hurt will just enrage ever more feminist to be ever more prejudiced against ever more men who will either vent even more or crawl off and kill themselves.
I suggest that it is time to break the cycle – not keep it spinning out of control.
# 15… Thanks DJ
“Come on guys! Surely we can do better than that?”
“So when you see men on this site calling women “bitches” etc. you may see that as men telling their story. I just see that as men reacting to their real story which is about how much they have been hurt. Men telling their story will (I believe) help men. Publicly venting a woman-hating reaction to how much they have been hurt will just enrage ever more feminist to be ever more prejudiced against ever more men who will either vent even more or crawl off and kill themselves.”
Actually, I’ve never seen anyone on this site call women “bitches”. It’s something I’ve experienced overseas were a man’s female is referred to as his bitch.
Calling some of New Zealand’s silly bitches, “silly bitches” is not a woman-hating reaction, any more than calling a man a dumb smuck or variations of.
If it enrages a few of the silly, sulky, whining whinging, lame duck, loose units that apparently represent women in this country and they knock themselves out, all the better.
Men telling their story here is encouraged, has been encouraged, and as far as I am aware is still encouraged.
This is difficult, because experience has taught us, that most of these stories are told in the smoko rooms of the work places, and need to be found.
I’m sorry if you find the above suggested approach more appealing or more appropriate – I did once, but I’m better now.
Individual and overt intimidation as unpleasant as that may be is not what I’ve found to be a major driver in the ‘men crawling off and killing themselves’.
A. Legal oppression.
B. Financial deprivation.
Feel free to disagree, but I’m not prepared to leave this post here after someone’s had their fair troll of the website on just about every post since they arrived without authoring a single post for debate.
The clean break “principle” was one principle that applied alongside others.
The other principles negated the clean break principle in all situations where there was ongoing care for children.
To be useful, it is necessary to identify all of these principles that actually happened in caughtrooms.
Some are documented in legislation, but most don’t even show up in published judgements. You have to listen in caught to understand what goes.
This protection from observation and proof has delayed the public understanding, discussion and response.
@24 to put that another way men have not only been denied a direct voice in the laws that govern them but also the indirect voice the might protect him.
We’ve lost sight of the meaning of democracy and called it a vote or a submission.
@23 Good evening Downunder. Lovely to be chatting with you again… just jokes 🙂
Funnily enough I do feel free to disagree with you… All too frequently!
As I understand it you are intending to remove my comment on the basis of my alleged trolling and because I have not authored a single post for debate. I think your logic needs a bit of work there, because the punishment of censorship does not fit (by any logical extension) the alleged crime.
Strange! I had you figured as a free speech kind of guy?
Besides which, I’m not a troll. I’m a person with some differing opinions to yours. Get over it!
And, I have authored a couple of posts! One entitled “Concerned About Men Meeting – Saturday 3rd November” generated 271 comments… and a meeting of people concerned about men.
Your anecdotally based conclusions about the causes of male suicide (legal oppression and financial deprivation) are just… well… anecdotal. No doubt those are some of the causes but causation I suspect is wider than that. I would suggest that many men kill themselves when they reach out for help after years of abuse from their female partners and become hopeless when they can’t find any support. Feminist inspired women (which up make the vast majority in the so-called ‘caring’ industries) won’t support them because feminism demands that women only ever abuse men in self defence. Then arseholes (just like you Downunder) call those male victims “pathetic little bitches”. That’s when those men lose all hope and top themselves.
You owe me (and all male victims of female perpetrated abuse) an apology for calling me (us) “pathetic little bitches”. But I suspect that you are not man enough to apologise. Are you? Are you Downunder? Are you man enough to be able to apologise?
If you haven’t seen anyone on this site calling women “silly bitches” then clearly your are not following Evan’s frequent posts.
“Bitches” is in common parlance nothing other than a derogatory term for women. I have no truck with calling out the abject silliness of many women (and almost all feminists) but I suggest that sticking to the issue at foot rather than resorting to puerile name-calling would be best in furthering the cause of men’s rights.
#26 I am glad you have finally met Downunder and can get along ok.
I am drawn back to thinking you are as one, as I did in the first place…
Getting together is the only way to get worthwhile communication and teamwork working.
Cheers to you both.
“Then arseholes (just like you Downunder)” … but I suggest that sticking to the issue at foot rather than resorting to puerile name-calling would be best in furthering the cause of men’s rights.”
Your usual contradictory, inflammatory and self-serving dialogue.
It may seem so. But, unlike calling random women “bitches” for no reason, I’m calling you an “arsehole” with the weight of considerable justification. You deem male victims of female perpetrated abuse “pathetic little bitches”. Male victims of female perpetrated abuse suffer enormously up to and including suicide. For you, on a site supporting men’s perspectives, to so viciously attack such men in ways that may drive them to suicide, makes you a complete and utter arsehole.
Absolutely! I’m attempting to inflame your dormant conscience.
Not even! Nothing I have ever posted on this site is for the purpose of serving myself. Everything I have ever said is for the true and honest purpose of saving men from harm.
Be a real man Downunder! Brave up and apologise!
#29 A mild serve, Audi, to which I was expecting a more constructive response.
Apologies indeed, I appear to have underestimated your continuing fragility.
having bib boobs does not make any wommn a better mother and nor does having balls make a man a better mother.
My first wife used to hit me and assault me.
I thought a man should no hit a woman
I took it with a smile until one day I realized I could not help her.
Iwas going mad.
I just walked away.
I do not think as a victim. I was an enabler