Child support
My experience with child support as a paying parent has been an utter nightmare. For one, my daughters are constantly being told by their mother that I do not pay enough. The Ird letters and assessments are shown to my kids, so they are fully involved in the financial battles. This has created conflict between my children and myself.
Then any money that goes to their mother is gobbled up by alcohol and smokes and my daughters do not get any child support anyway. If in fact school books and uniforms are bought, my children ask me for extra money, which I refuse because child support is meant to cover this. Again I look like the arse hole. Anything that is bought from the child support money never comes from from me in the eyes of my children and their mother takes all the credit of any purchases. There was a time when I was on the bones of my arse on the DPB, where I had to prove over a period of three months that the children were in shared care, for me not to pay child support. Whilst a telephone call from their mother to the ird was proof enough that they were not in shared care.
Whilst I was recording these times on spreadsheet the ird literally took money in a lump sum from my bank account over night without informing me.
I moved countries. Child support deducts contact time, so it is greatly reduced. However the mother of my children does not accept contact time being part of child support. So every year I have to go to a review to change it, having to keep receipts to prove what I have spent.
Annual income assessments are fictitiously created by the ird if the proof of income is not submitted. This means that they are telling me how much I have earned and how much child support I have to pay. Interest and penalties are added on top of the “made-up” earnings. The mother of my children is rubbing her hands to get hold of this money and when she gets notified that in fact I do not earn this, again I am the arsehole to my children.
Not only has child support created utter war between myself and my ex, it is part of the cause of my daughters not seeing me in five years.
And when a child refuses to see you with full support of the mother, should you pay any child support at all?
My answer is no. But the ird do not care if you have no contact, so it is ok for the mother to have all time and say with your children and take your money as well.
If there is in fact a satan on earth, it would be the ird. To use this system as a form of their own business ventures, charging interest an penalties, as if it were a loan that they are giving you is sick. I cannot wait until my daughter reaches the age over the limit and then I in capital letters… “I” can finally spoil her and her mother can go to hell and buy her own smokes and alcohol.
Same here my friend, it’s utterly disgusting
Comment by James Silcock — Sat 27th June 2015 @ 11:46 am
Nice piece of writing Mikey, accurately describing the experience of most ‘liable’ fathers under our male-enslaving so-called ‘child support’ system.
Although the IRD needs to be held responsible for any uneven-handedness it shows in dealing with males vs females, remember that the main responsibility lies with our government that maintains this child-abusing system. It is the law that allows IRD to charge its usury interest and vicious penalties. It is the law that allows IRD to make up ridiculous estimates of your earnings or of what you are deemed capable of earning. It is the law that requires IRD to disregard child contact matters in its ongoing theft from ‘liable’ parents, mostly fathers. It is the law that allows IRD to provide the mother with details about you while you get to know nothing about her circumstances. And the law is based on feminist principles that a man should continue to be financially responsible for any female he might ever mate with, and from feminist propaganda claiming that separated dads will be deadbeats unless forced to pay, and from feminist pressure for ‘no-fault’ divorce.
Question: What NZ political parties have any policies aimed at reducing sexism against men or assisting the rights and interests of men specifically at all? Answer: None.
When you find one that does, please support it. Unfortunately, that party should not assume that any of those who complain regularly here will show any support or loyalty.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 27th June 2015 @ 12:35 pm
Mickey – welcome to the club mate = this is NORMAL – this is DELIBERATE …..you will also note they conduct reviews against all the rights to DUE process and fairness – the very corner stone f the justice system…..I have a complaint with the ombudsman right now = detailing this very fact – its taken them two years after me refusing to accept their refusal to investigate – to finally officially notify my concerns and now we wait for them to INVESTIGATE the concerns…….
1. Parental Alienation is permitted – they care not the harm this does to parents and child alike.
2. Provocation is encouraged – so make you react – get into conflict and hopefully destroy your credibility and integrity – just how they want you….so no one believes a thing you say in the future….
3. Reviews are exactly as you describe – Child Support in my complaint tried to say my experience was a MISTAKE – your evidence and many others supports my concerns this is all DELIBERATE – they do this to every parent at REVIEW…..
Make up a number and force you to prove otherwise…..
I have the current review person under investigation…….and in the latest review they have hit with again with the MAXIMUM assessing me with an income of $200,000 per annum – when I do not earn this amount………
My complaint states clearly – you destroyed me and my ability to earn high incomes when you refused to help me see my own child – never enforcing court orders or doing anything positive to assist me to see my own child – which in turn led to my downfall as a good businessman providing many jobs and revenue for this country……..
Given the system destroyed my ability to earn – I refuse and never will accept any attempts to force me to pay contributions based on the high incomes they have prevented me from earning – never will I conform to this tyrranny – never ever will I ever accept a tax that is unjust and oppressive ……….
I was always a kind generous man – always did way more than I ever should have for my kids – until these dogs got involved……
Refuse to comply – refuse at every level.
When they used evidence garnered against all the rights to due process – to seek secret warrants to raid my home and take my wifes car – that was the final straw – unreasonable search and seizure……invasions of privacy, breaches of human rights, rights to due process – we MUST HOLD THESE PEOPLE TO ACCOUNT –
Comment by hornet — Sat 27th June 2015 @ 12:49 pm
Mikey – I read recently that in the USA “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is viewed as child abuse in the courts now. We so need to make New Zealand aware of this Parental Alienation that is happening all around us. The average person is not even aware of it let alone us being able to bring it to court. These, (mainly women), parents are getting away with this child abuse, hence so many children no longer wanting to have anything to do with their fathers. No child (minor or adult) has any business knowing what money is paid where. The child support is ONLY between the parents and unfortunately the IRD. Just be a good man and be the best father you can be and if you have ever discussed money with your children in a negative way, put a stop to it now. Sure, say comments like “I can’t afford that right now” but don’t even mention the mother and her money. That is the only way your children – when they become adults – might see past their mother’s poison and see the world for what it is. Your love and time is ALL they need right now. We have to believe “what goes around, comes around”.
Comment by Robyn — Sat 27th June 2015 @ 1:12 pm
Fictitious annual income.. Guilty to pay until proven innocent.. Who the hell has invented such inhumane anti-human rights procedures?
Way back when I was on the DPB for a short while, my ex told the ird that I worked cash under the table. I had an investigator knock on my door, so I had to prove that I was not working.. Nevertheless they then sent me a letter stating that they have reassessed my annual income, because I have chosen to be unemployed.
It is utterly insane..
Two of my daughters have been estranged for five years and these bastards have had a lot to do with it. Luckily the two are of age now, so no more child support. Yet the war continues with my last child.
Don’t let me see another woman on national tv question why men are leaving to Australia and avoiding child support.. It is no wonder.. Leaving the war zone and earning NO money seems the only option to peace and the ex can buy her own smokes and alcohol.
I have made it a point not to talk about their mother or financial affairs, after all we are the adults and they are the children.. Problem is that they talk to me about money on their mothers behalf.
Comment by Mikey — Sat 27th June 2015 @ 1:25 pm
Been there, done that… I am not making light, just pointing out that these rorts have been going on for a long time.
What it does in men’s heads is bad enough, but the long term damage to children’s lives is the much bigger issue.
Too many men shrug it off with she’ll b right. It is in a way, but needless damage and destruction should not be tolerated on any issue. The social costs are much larger than the financial costs and also much slower to become visible, or to sort out properly.
In a similar way, women do themselves a lot of damage, by using child [and spousal] support to try to harm ex-partners. The moment that they refuse to negotiate parenting issues, they start to harm the children and in the longer run themselves too.
If you cannot envisage the consequences, it has been happening long enough now, for the outcomes to be visible in the concrete. Many cases, there is new wealth present, but the lack of integrity does shine through. If they had negotiated in good faith, there would be healthy relationships, in all of the important directions and more wealth for all parties too. The old slagging off the ex-husband as deadbeat is starting to wear thin and many people just take it as a warning to stay a good distance away from the speaking woman.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 27th June 2015 @ 2:33 pm
Send a letter – email to the Ombudsman – attention LEO DONNELLY – he has my file for investigation – detail your concerns and add them to mine – they know who I am by now I am sure – id say they even read my comments here everytime I post….
State for record to DONNELLY – he appears to be a good man from my dealings with him on the phone -…
Identify PARENTAL ALIENATION concerns.
Provocations concerns .
Comment on the corruption of REviews – lies and injustice breaches of rights to due process and fairness – which is what the ombudsman is supposed to investigate – FAIRNESS FOR ALL – is their motto …..
The more complaints the better…….
I have two reports from NZ Family Court Psychologists detailing the SEVERE HARM Parental alienation has caused by daughter by the mother and to date NOTHING has been done about it – ive been complaining consistently for TEN years …..about the exact same thing – every affidavit I have filed, every report, I have noted the same concerns – and I have been deliberately ignored – and so it is welcome to see PAS is finally being recognised as CHILD ABUSE by the Courts in the USA – now lets get the NZ courts to start actually helping kids….instead of abusing them…….
Comment by hornet — Sat 27th June 2015 @ 7:14 pm
Why Imbedded Alimony in Child Support Causes Perverse Behaviors
The loss of benefit to the child is certainly one problem. However, perhaps the greater problem results from the benefit to the custodial parent because the custodial parent now has an incentive to act in a manner consistent with his or her own best interests at the expense of the child.
Since use of funds is at the mother’s discretion, she will allocate the funds in a manner to achieve maximum satisfaction. Standard economic theory suggests that she will expend some portion on the children and some portion on herself. Given a budget constraint (standard of living portion) and choice between two goods (goods for children versus other goods), a rational consumer will generally choose some of each good over all of one (because a consumer’s indifference curve is generally convex).
The ability of the custodial parent to do this is why approximately one-half of the standard of living portion that the noncustodial parent pays is, in reality, nontaxable imbedded (hidden) alimony, not child support. It is for this reason that the presumed goal of paying child support (increasing the standard of living of the child) has not materialized in the manner that was intended.
There are, however, other consequences to this problem. The existence of imbedded alimony generates perverse incentives that are harmful to children:
There is an economic incentive for one of the parents to have sole custody and exclude the other parent from the child’s upbringing. Parents are now more likely to fight for sole custody at the expense of the best interests of the children. For example, it is standard practice for an attorney to warn a sole custody parent to limit contact between the child and the other parent or risk a reduction in child support award.
If child support was set at a realistic level, a parent would be, at worst, economically indifferent as to whether the other parent saw the child. In fact, to the extent that the other parent taking care of the child decreases the custodial parent’s burden, the behavior of increased participation would be encouraged. This incentive is particularly disturbing in light of a significant body of research that show that the children of divorce who adjust best are those in which both parents are involved in rearing the children.
Nontaxable imbedded alimony increases the incentives to have out-of-wedlock births. Under the current child support system, having a child is an economic benefit regardless of marital status. Further, there is an proportionally greater incentive to have children from multiple fathers since child support schedules award the greatest percentage of child support award to gross income for one child. In other words, a custodial parent receives more money when she has two children with different fathers than if she has two children from the same father. This has a three-pronged effect- it discourages marriage, it marginalizes the father’s inherent value to a family, and it promotes a “fractured family” model as the norm.
……
It is worth reading the full article on the Delta Bravo SPARC website..
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Child Support Guidelines, Imbedded Alimony and Perverse Incentives
Sorry to bring up very old news, but it still seems to be relevant!!??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Child Support Act
or search for legislation, click on http://www.legislation.co.nz
4 Objects
The objects of this Act are-
(a)
to affirm the right of children to be maintained by their parents:
(b)
to affirm the obligation of parents to maintain their children:
(c)[Repealed]
(d)
to provide that the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children is to be determined according to their relative capacity to provide financial support and their relative levels of provision of care:
(e)
to ensure that parents with a like capacity to provide financial support for their children should provide like amounts of financial support:
(f)
to provide legislatively fixed standards in accordance with which the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children should be determined:
(fa)
to affirm the right of carers who provide significant care to children to receive financial support in respect of those children from a parent or parents of the children:
(g)
to enable carers of children to receive support in respect of those children from parents without the need to resort to court proceedings:
(h)
to ensure that equity exists between parents and, where applicable, carers, in respect of the costs of supporting children:
(i)
to ensure that obligations to birth and adopted children are not extinguished by obligations to stepchildren:
(j)
to ensure that the costs to the State of providing an adequate level of financial support for children and their carers is offset by the collection of a fair contribution from liable parents:
(k)
to provide a system whereby child support and domestic maintenance payments can be collected by the Crown, and paid by the Crown to those entitled to the money.
______________________________________
Although it mentions “equity”, it doesn’t give any method of ensuring that this might ever be achieved. In essence, high earners will end up paying large amounts of alimony, embedded in the “child support”. Most high earners consider this iniquitous, much the opposite of equity.
But this issue is small potatoes compared to the long term outcomes for the children.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 28th June 2015 @ 6:33 pm
IRD are indeed Satan. Your assessment is accurate.
I could see a battle looming i would never win and so decided to leave the country. A place where no reciprocal agreements exist. Canada. I remember a time riddled with cancer begging them to go easy on me at least until if i got better which i did. Out of work for obvious reasons they felt it necessary to repeatedly ignore my pleas and slam me with $600 a week child support payments for one child due to the fact i was a high wage earner. All this immediately went into arrears and snowballed to tens of thousands many times over, penalties and fees added. A year out of work you do the math through no fault of my own. Unfair and really quite evil are just some of my opinions toward them. I renounced citizenship to NZ and will never return. All this never had to turn out this way but when you’re backed into a corner this way then that’s the way it is. There are many more guys with other injustices forcing people to take drastic measures as i did. Not because they want to, but because their options are next to nothing.
Comment by johnnyt1 — Fri 26th February 2016 @ 5:41 pm
IRD is meant to be; The ‘Inland Revenue Department’ not the ‘In Person Revenue Department’.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 28th February 2016 @ 1:55 pm