I’m confused. Please explain again why when we have 50/50 custody we still have to pay CS?
As said i’m just a little confused on this matter. I have my two children on a 50/50 shared care basis, great i have no complaints on that fact. Where my mind becomes a little confused though is why i am still required to pay excessive amounts each month to their mother when she has a new partner, who earns a similar amount each year to myself, so as to provide for my children? Surely i am doing this anyway by having the kids 50% of the time. Is this actually shared assets and not shared custody? My ex wife has holidays, new clothes, cars houses whilst working in part time employment. Am i funding a lifestyle or the childrens wellbeing, i honestly wonder.
Don’t get me wrong, i have no problem with supporting my children but since going 50/50 my payment came down by less than a third, how can this be i ask myself.
If you pay via the IRD they will automatically calculate the CS you have to pay. You sheould first verify that they have the correct information on file ie -that you have a shared care arrangement. However you should also be claiming CS from the other parent. The IRD will not do this automatically – you will need to apply for it and then they will assess the other parents income and calculate CS to be paid to you.
Not something I would recommend unless you have to. The other parent (if a women) usually takes offense to this and you will suffer her wrath is she is that way inclined.
Comment by Cazz — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Great question I too would like the answer to…As much as I don’t want the child in my wife’s care to suffer or have less than the child in my care, the disparity in payments is near crippling. Help!!!
Comment by Garth L — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Oh i suffered that yes indeed. The IRD have said that it’s wrong but likewise i am constantly chasing them as to the reason why as i remain in the dark
Comment by Gravesie — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 4:46 pm
I would recommend that you do not chase them up by phone. It is a good idea to go into their office to discuss the issue. request a review if you have to. We have had a similar problem with the IRD where their calculations & assessments have been incorrect. I told them that I was not leaving until they could provide me with total tranparencey.. To be honest that can take a while so allow some time for the meeting. If all else fails, go and see your local MP armed with all the information. Tell them that the IRD have imposed financial hardship. It is worth a try. It is true to say that if you were a Women you would be offered much more help.
Comment by Cazz — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Exactly. I have no problem with anything i buy for the children going back and forth as i try to give a consistant life to the little sods, unfortunately this isn’t returned which is a shame but out of my hands. If i was a millionaire i would be pleased to help but i’m not and i’m afraid the funds going one way effects the kids. The one thing that does get to me is the fact that my ex wife will take my money instead of putting effort in to provide for her children by working full time. This may indeed be sour grapes but hey, i bend over backwards to help out when they’re sick or in the school hols whilst working full time as i believe the kids come first.
Comment by Gravesie — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Thankyou…i feel a plan coming together !!
Comment by Gravesie — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Just don’t give up on this, fight hard and do not accept what the IRD says to be true. Because often it is not. We are in the same situation with 60 us & 50 the mother share care, everything you you buy for the kids usually ends up in the Mothers home. It makes it damn hard to keep up financially. The Mother feels that we should not have a issue with that. We just shut up now and keep on going. Fighting her is harder than fighting the IRD. Frustration.
Comment by Cazz — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 5:01 pm
Yes unfortunately it has taken us a long time to realise there is no way forward with the ex. I was thinking i would have to go for custody so as to protect the children but having employed a barrister there seems no way forward apart from a heavy bill. I see the stress the animosity causes as do most peaople who have now realised that all that has been spread wasn’t actually true and that i’m not the nasty evil monster that they were told and my partner whom i met months after i left the marriage wasn’t actually the reason for the break up..now we leave her to it and ignore the slander whilst remembering the kids will make their own mind up when or if they want to.
Comment by Gravesie — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Garth, do you pay for school fees, uniforms, shoes, trips etc too? I pay 1/2 of these on top of the monthly money but actually wonder if this is right too or am i just paying again?
Comment by Gravesie — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 5:27 pm
Gravesie,
When you begin to see that so called Child Support has NOTHING to do with supporting Children you will gain some answers to your very important question.
So called Child support was designed years back with GLOBAL input to work some way forward to manage increasing debt caused Goverments by the massive cock-up they had designed to tear our FAMILIES appart.
Modern day so called Child Support attempts to poor millions of $Dollars into the consolidated fund to finance these cock-ups.
NZ is far from the only country doing this, but we are all to often the guinee pigs to try new ways to screw more from NON Custodial Parents – Child Support senior mangement meet several times each year in world conferences to figure the way forward
Hopefully this inspires you to DEMONSTRATE LOUD and CLEAR – Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 5:49 pm
Of course you pay, even if you have 50:50 care.
How else can your ex afford life’s little luxuries? Doesn’t matter that new partner is a mega millionaire it is good for mummy to have a few pennies (only $1200 a month or so) for pin money and to not feel totally dependant on new partner.
Child Support is often misunderstood. It is important for income smoothing, and being tied at the wallet till youngest is 19 years of age.
Ideas such as clean breaks and only half the property are foolish ideas that the sisterhood and our commissioner don’t permit.
Goodness, if it was that easy how could mummy afford to spend all day sipping cappuccino and taking her turn on the refuge phones?
Please remember Fathers responsibilities don’t end at conception there is 19 plus years where he needs to respect mummy, take his turn with the kids, support her lifestyle and keep out of her hair.
Failure to follow will mean Protection Order for daddy and the commissioner making sure I chase you and garnish your wages, or seize your car and auction it and arrest you (work or the club is always a good place for the cops to embarrass daddy) and throw you in the pen to await an examination of your means.
Comment by IRD Officer — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 5:56 pm
You have to pay CS as NZ legislation is written fot sole care , not shared care.
The entire set of legislation needs be updated i.e. 70B Social security act and CS Act 1991.
Regards
Nik
Comment by Nik — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 9:16 pm
You have to pay because one of the underlying flaws of the child tax act is income equalisation post seperation. In plain english your taxed to ensure that the pre seperation income of the intact family is maintained post seperation.
Many commentators call it spousal maintenance by deception. Research clearly shows when this situation occurs its inequitable to the parent who earns more but the Wankers at IRD under Peter (i’ve) Dunne (nothing)are tax collectors so,like Dunne nothing, they dont care.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Wed 16th September 2009 @ 9:25 pm
I’ve come to the same conclusion after 3 years of fighting. A small victory this time round so the system can work. Keep on hammering (at the IRD) people. Bury them with paper work and make loud noises.
Comment by Scott — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 9:38 am
Well done team, I’ve gleaned a fair bit from these comments, but I wonder…
Is there an expert/confidant/friend who can look at my friend’s situation, ie paying over a g per month for nearly 16 years, now facing increases he doesn’t understand and fobbed off when trying to get IRD to explain?
He is getting no contact and no respite for ex-partner’s new situation.
Is there anybody who can help make the IRD gerbers honest?
Comment by BG Smith — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 10:47 am
You still pay because women and men are not earning the same overall. If the children had piano lessons prior to mum and dad wanting out of the relationship, the child should not suffer. (that’s the idea behind this)
If you can be trusted to both share everything 50/50 then why not do it between yourselves. Discuss this with each other. Many wealthy NZ men and women don’t bother with the IRD. They seem to both respect each other. Why can’t middle income earners do the same? Are not both parties working? Do not both of you know how hard it is to have that career?
Call a truce and work it out without the Government. Remind each other how you will pay less taxes if you can get the government out of each other’s lives and remind each other how you once loved and thought so wonderfully about each other.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 1:53 pm
if the system works, .. you shouldn’t have had to fight for three years to get your due. still a long way from it.
Comment by karanjiharr — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Julie.
Your comments a suprising. It makes no difference if you are wealthy or poor. If the MOC is on a benefit the the IRD will set the amount that you are to pay, you can only make a private arrangement as long as you are paying the same or more than the IRD assessment. The IRD still has to have it paid to them so they cab divvy it up, to pay WINZ & balance to the MOC.
As far as making your own arrangement if both parties are working. Well, I have not come accross too many WOMEN that will do this. WHY? usually because they want things to be difficult for you.
Until the attitude of most women involved in shared care changes. The Father’s have no choice but to battle on – and beleive me ‘this will be the longest most frustrating experience that they will ever have to go through in their lives.
It is injustice plain and simple fueld by female jelously, rage, venegence, scheming, and nastiness and has nothing to do with providing a healthy, happy nurturing environment for their children.
Comment by Cazz — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Hi Cazz. Can we take a step back.
Do you want to solve your OWN situation or do you want to add fuel to an already crazy ‘let’s hate each other movement’?
Because I don’t have any more time to give to a gender war!!!!
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 2:24 pm
reckon CAZZ is saying whats real Jules.. ignoring it doesn’tr make it go away.. solve it.
Comment by karanjiharr — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Hi Julie.
I ma not trying to solve my OWN situation at all.
I am just stating the facts as they are in most cases. The road block to what you are touting which in a perfect world would work is the WOMEN.
This has nothing to do with a gender war.
I would suggest that istead of telling men what would work you should be preaching to the WOMEN to have a change of heart or indeed in some cases have a heart, to drop the nastiness and let their families move on from it.
Keep scrating the same wound before it heals and it will never heal – And because their wound won’t heal, who do they blame???
It is men and fathers who just want to move on and provide for their children and continue their relationship with their children. But that wounded party just keeps hurling stones and is relentless in their fight for what they believe to be pay back…
This is a fact.
Let me assure you it is not my fact – I have seen it time and time again.
Don’t turn a blind eye to it. Or offer airy fairy suggestions that sound great in theory but in reality just wont work unless BOTH parties are willing to try.
Your thoughts.
Comment by Cazz — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Hi karanjiharr, I reckon Cazz is NOT saying what’s real. I’m sorry to say that NZ really doesn’t want a gender war on top of it’s racial wars.
But men are easily lead into this sort of thing.
Oh, who am I kidding. I got sucked into this too.
Anyhow, if someone has a real life situation, NZ will fix it. If it is all in the name of turning each other against each other then al I can say is, “Carry on soldier”. I hope you get what you deserve. 😉
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 3:16 pm
My thoughts?
I guess a country is easily taken over when it is divided.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Your thoughts….
Division amongst the ranks always causes them to become vulnerable.
This applies to everything. You are right.
There is no quick fix to patch up the division between couples who seperate. Because it means that those who are making it difficult.. have to stop making it difficult and to do that they in effect have to repair and heal themselves and then move forward using healthy thinking. Until this happens seperated families are going to suffer and the kids lose a part of thier child hood that they can never get back.
But as you would know ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.
Comment by Cazz — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Julie, I see where you are coming from, but unfortunately the other party in this situation, after 18 months of trying, has no interest in a truce whatsoever. The IRD have suggested a private agreement, and agree in principal that the amount “Gravesie” pays is too much, but cannot enforce this due to the stupidity of the law. To let you all know, I took my case (6 yrs ago – different circumstances) to the complaints arena of IRD, writing direct to the Commissioner. My problem was solved within a month, and I could go back to them if it ever fell over again. Its not perfect, and legislation urgently needs updating, but we must keep on at the IRD to get action on SOME issues. Child Support is to provide for your proportion accomodation, food, clothing, and school. So no, if you are paying additionally on top of your CS payments, it is not correct – unless you choose to do so.
Comment by MrsGravesie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Alas i have tried this tact as i see have many others but not all people are as willing to be adults in the matter
Comment by Gravesie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Hi Julie,
Your comment ‘Hi karanjiharr, I reckon Cazz is NOT saying what’s real. I’m sorry to say that NZ really doesn’t want a gender war on top of it’s racial wars.
But men are easily lead into this sort of thing.
When will the message get through to you THIS IS NOT A GENDER WAR…
The message that Julie is giving you is ‘If a women does not give up serving her self righteous, self motivated injustice upon you which has a direct effect on both yourself and your children, then put up with it and don’t complain’ Or else you are fueling a “gender war”….
Thanks for your constructive messages – I guess gleaning over an issue which causes so much REAL pain and suffereing is easier then addressing it…
Comment by Cazz — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 4:00 pm
To be honest with you Gravesie, not many men and women are smart enough to try and solve the situation.
Me included 😀 We get carried away with our own side and get lost. And ideology encourages it.
That’s why our country is in the mess it is. MP Peter Dunne is a libertarian. He doesn’t want you on the CS list under IRD.
………
I see the mother of your children calls herself Mrs Gravesie. That tells me she hasn’t cut you out of her life because if she had, she would be introducing herself by her maiden name.
And if you can do better than most of us here, I am sure we will all want to see you do so. Sometimes all this online talk is made so much better if we can save one family.
Please take the time to check this out..
Splintered kids
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Hi Jules.. if CAZZ is not saying what is real.. why is the system doing exactly as he says.. NZ does not want a gender war.. why are the policies and legislations being processed as though it is.. why is it difficult to get equal treatment if what you say is REAL
Comment by karanjiharr — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 4:50 pm
nd who does the dividing Jules??
Comment by karanjiharr — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Hey mummy (sister). You might want to check out the link I gave to daddy.
You don’t have to involve IRD BTW. It is not meant for good parents.
Just know that you can be a healthy extended family and that your children want both of you to do well in life. They are not so kind to think money is more important than their parent’s welfare.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Gosh, I get the impression you might be the second wife? Yes/No? Sorry if I got this wrong.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 5:13 pm
@karanjiharr,
You ask important questions. I can only give my view.;)
The reason Cazz is not saying what is real is because the equal rights ideology missed a generation. In turn that generation had children also. In fact, if mothers had children young we are looking at 4 generations.
What Cazz sees is what he looks to see. That is what happens when you become educated. You learn to look at things through a certain window.
Women have not caught up on the whole and neither have many men who are unaware of the online men’s movement. You can’t say they are doing something wrong when they don’t know what they do is wrong. Most NZ young people don’t even know there is a gender war. I am 40 years old and I didn’t know there was such a thing until 3 years ago.
Feminists have not done too well in getting the girls on board to change while the men’s movement has advanced so much further online.
Policies and legislation are being processed as if there is a gender war because politicians cannot ever say they were wrong. They only have the choice to keep moving forward.
Equal treatment has been difficult because all this has happened in 50 years. Male judges don’t retire young so most male judges saw women as the traditional way. They considered women to be important as mothers and men as providers and protectors.
The 70’s feminists who became judges did so to break tradition so they were not going to be hard on women.
Now that we have a new generation of equal men and women becoming judges, we are seeing women held accountable as men.
This will continue on although there is a push from non white cultures to treat men and women kindly as criminals because throwing men and women into prison is an old English law that minority groups don’t think part of their culture.
…….
What is real? Nothing is real. Everything is an opinion or I should say a perspective.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Don’t forget that there is more that is contributed to the upbringing of a child than working full-time to give them material things. I prefer the model of working less and have less, but having more time to spend with children and doing unpaid economic work – things like shopping widely to save money, and buying in bulk and preserving things.
Also, your payments would go up, as you and she would have to pay for childcare, and her expenses may likely go up.
Comment by rad_dad — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 5:58 pm
this is real. your words not mine…. “Policies and legislation are being processed as if there is a gender war because politicians cannot ever say they were wrong”
no point glossing over things with theory.. accpet reality as it is and improve it.. no point making excuses for it
Comment by karanjiharr — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 6:05 pm
on the one hand you admit that “Policies and legislation are being processed as if there is a gender war ” then you try and gloss it woith your opinion.. that is not accpeting reality but making excuses for it.. what is real is what is happening out there not an opinion… no point giving an opinion as if it were
if it were an opinion.. we wouldn’t be
Comment by karanjiharr — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 6:13 pm
Hi again karanjiharr,
Do you know that I have written articles on this site? If not check it out. 😀
But enough of your questions. Tell me what YOU think.
Why do YOU think Cazz is saying what is real?
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Hi again, again karanjiharr,
Please don’t let me intimidate you if you didn’t know I have written some articles here.
I am not right. I just give MY opinion when I write just like everyone else online.
I like to hear what others think. Anyone can write an article here if they follow the rules.
Comment by julie — Thu 17th September 2009 @ 10:09 pm
You still pay because women and men are not earning the same overall.
Come on Julie get real. Show me a man or a woman doing the same job who get paid differently. If I cleaned toilets I would be paid the same as a woman doing the same job. If I drove a train with the same experience as a woman train driver we would be paid the same.
Reality is that what you are claiming is a myth.
The prime focus of the Child Tax Act is benifit recovery and income equalisation. If a mother is omn the benifit then private agreements are legislated against – this causes huge problems when a woman leaves work and goes on a benifit and a private agreement is in place as it is not worth the paper it is written on.
The main reason some wealthy people (less than 0.5% of the population!) dont get into the system is the structure of their finances for tax avoidance.
REgards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 9:16 am
Child Support is to provide for your proportion accomodation, food, clothing, and school.
We have a free education system why would you pay twice? Accomodation costs are in reality offset by both parents being required to maintain accomadation.
ChPlease stop calling it Child Support- its a tax on poarents that does nothing to support their children.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 9:20 am
Hi Julie,
Cazz (Me) is a female. Lets get that right, I never indicated to you in any of my posts that I was male. Once again your ASSUMPTION is way off. You see what you want to see and jump in way to quick with your opinions.
YOUR COMMENT BELOW.
Do you want to solve your OWN situation or do you want to add fuel to an already crazy ‘let’s hate each other movement’?
****Again your assumption is – that I have a situation to solve….
YOUR COMMENT BELOW
NZ really doesn’t want a gender war on top of it’s racial wars. But men are easily lead into this sort of thing.
****Now this is your opinion again, using a very broad brush….
YOUR COMMENT BELOW -to Mrs Gravsie
“Hey mummy (sister). You might want to check out the link I gave to daddy.
Gosh, I get the impression you might be the second wife? Yes/No? Sorry if I got this wrong.”
****How condesending of you – harsh and even bodering on BITCHY…
YOUR COMMENT BELOW – to kaernjiharr
“Do you know that I have written articles on this site? If not check it out”.
“Please don’t let me intimidate you if you didn’t know I have written some articles here”.
****You assume that a member would be intimidated.. (WHAT ARE YOU ON)
I could go on and on…
My message is, If you are going add massive assumptions and opinions which are not relevent to the issue at hand and preach your thoughts on why MEN and FATHERS are having a hard time coping with all the crap being handed out to them as though it will provide some kind of solice. Then I would suggest that you search your brain and your heat before posting any more comments.
We know WHY it is so hard. We cannot turn back the tide on the history that got us to where we are today..
What we want is for someone to take off their glasses of both denial and non accountability.. And start to make the changes that are long overdue..
REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE WOMEN WILL MOAN AND GROAN BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER HOLD THE UPPER HAND..
We all just want to provide for our families and have fun with our children providing them with a CHILDHOOD..Without having to deal with the inefficiencies of the IRD and Poor Government Legislation (and a whinging MOC)..encroaching ofn this time..
Carolyn (Cazz)
Comment by Cazz — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 9:45 am
If the 2 toilet cleaners marry each other then yes, they will both have the same wage and maybe throughout their marriage. There would be no need for them to pay each other CS for 50/50 care.
But if a full time working man marries a woman who works part-time and takes care of the children part time, they are not equal. She is not being paid for taking care of children and he might have a different kind of job that pays more or less. (if he also worked part-time)
These are things the wage gap is working on.
…….
There must be certain scenarios that are creating something unfair that the government needs to fix.
Is it a better solution that everyone be paid the same amount for all jobs across the board?
Do we need to work out what a job is? (for women)
BTW, the wealthy people I know don’t bother with CS because they both have high profile careers. They can’t work around a tight schedule because they need flexibility. So they just work together with their new families. I guess their careers are too important to put aside for CS. (that’s why I suggested middle income earners take a lesson from the high income earners)
I am unsure how CS would affect a wealthy person’s taxes. You would know more than I even though I study it this semester. Study and reality are not the same thing. IMO.
Comment by julie — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 9:50 am
Sorry Cazz. I should have known Cazz is a female name.;)
I have to go to work right now. But I have a hefty assignment to do this weekend and will be on and off the net. I hope you are around to discuss these matters with me.
I do think men and women are treated differently and I know this is not helpful. I am sure it can be solved without a war, that’s all I am saying.
Comment by julie — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 9:57 am
OMG Julie.
A man and a women decide to have a family together.. Dad works full time and Mum works part time, in their current situation this suits the family as a whole unit.
Now in the new situation of the seperated family:
– Dad works full time and has his children with him 50% of the time, he provides a home, meals, support with their schooling and sports ect..
– Mum, although having much more time on her hands and less to do CHOOSES to remain working part time.. and earn less.
Why is it now up to the Dad to make sure that mum stay stay on her ass by paying her enough money to cover the costs of the children whilst in her care.. Should this not be her responsibility now..She is after all an individual as well as a Mother just as Dad is an individual as well as a Father.
You lose me every time…
Comment by Cazz — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 10:03 am
I think the concept of one parent working full time and the other working part time, while a choice for some, is actually better for the child(ren). Before the split, if the couple had this arrangement in mind, it is only fair of that is how things carry on… it is a shame if the ‘at home’ parent does not work at all.
The gross unfairness kicks in when a parent pays maintenance but is denied access, or if one parent earns so much that their contribution to the other parent goes beyond supporting the child, supports the old partner’s lifestyle…
The combination of dpb, accomodation supplement and tax for in work make it possible to survive like this, but both parents probably pay so much it cripples them for life. Maybe one day some will understand that children deserve two parents.
Comment by BG Smith — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Maybe one day some will understand that children deserve two parents.
Heres hoping!
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 1:47 pm
I think this old chestnut that women dont get paid the same as men is a deliberate red herring.
Name for me what job doing the same work with the same experience level etc etc that a women would be paid less solely due to gender.
What a load of twaddle. If you want it, go and earn it, whatever your gender.
Comment by mits — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Yes, it suits them because they are together.
Exactly. Things only work out when it suits people. Now it doesn’t suit dad any more. (this could be mum if we have a stay at home father)
Sooo, what to do?
I think men need to support feminism. I think it was in their best interest all along.
Women need to be trained to have a career, they need support like ‘maternity leave’ and they need to return back to work. They need decent childcare while working.
All of this will make it easier for dad.
Comment by julie — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 5:30 pm
TBH Mit, there is also the problem that women are choosing jobs that pay less. Some women decide to work in childcare. Childcare is a really important job especially when there is a lot of pressure for childcare workers to have high training because they are taking most of the responsibility to rear the child with values, education and so on. (things that mothers did while stay at home mothers in the past)
What is the value of being a childcare worker? Is it just as important as someone who works as a lawyer or accountant?
I personally thought this was silly stuff women were doing through the wage gap but now I am starting to understand it is in the best interest of men also.
Men don’t need nor want the responsibility to provide. In fact, I reckon there would be a whole lot of men who would want to just walk away and leave the responsibility of child rearing to mothers if they didn’t have to pay CS. (I am just stating a fact regardless of women’s choice in men)
Comment by julie — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 5:42 pm
I feel like the last three posts I’ve made have been somewhat related..
Anyway, you missed the point: you are describing gender equity – not only is it impossible in a capitalist system (just look at Tony Ryall’s admission as to why he dropped the pay equity act to see why), but it is also not the same thing as equality.
Right now our female-dominated industries are paid less because their work is not valued on traditional remuneration scales which are androcentric, and women are more often than men put in positions where part-time work is more apt to their familial circumstances. By the way, that being a smarter economic decision in most cases as the pay-off for working the extra hours is only marginally better (sometimes worse) than not spending money on travel, extra clothing, extra food, and childcare, and it also means your children spend less time with family, and that more money is spent preparing foods that are more convenient because of having less time.
Also, women are less likely to be taken on as employees in their mid-late 20’s and 30’s as they are seen to require more sick time to take care of children, and are likely to get pregnant. Furthermore, women are less likely to get promoted into senior and more well remunerated positions because they are not seen to be ‘managerial’ or ‘business-minded’ enough.
The point being: equity ? equality. And moreover, the pursuit of equity is a paradox in orthodox economics. So yes, Julie is right. Liable parents (usually men) are actually better off under a feminist economic model. Although I won’t assimilate Julie’s argument to my own, I don’t think she’d appreciate that =P
Comment by rad_dad — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 5:47 pm
It always amazes me how often you hear “I gave up my career to look after the kids” I know in my case the ex had no “career” to speak of and was quite transient in her employment. But this hasnt stopped her from using the lament “I gave it all up for the kids.”
Comment by mits — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Perhaps, in your last comment you didn’t realize that there is more to a “career” than corporate success. For most of us it is the source of our social lives, and an exploration of our talents and goals. So it’s hardly fair of you to say that your ex never gave anything up.
Again, this shows how the construct of ‘work’ is biased towards men, for no ones’ benefit.
Comment by rad_dad — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 6:00 pm
No I realised there can be more to it. But honestly, in this case, there wasnt.
Comment by mits — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 6:09 pm
“Name for me what job doing the same work with the same experience level etc etc that a women would be paid less solely due to gender.”
I am still waiting for someone to answer this simple question of mits.
It is a simple question that goes to the heart of this issue. He is only asking for one single example. He isn’t even asking for a trend.
Comment by Dave — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 6:44 pm
rad_dad the vast majority of women don’t want their men to give up work and care for the kids while the mother goes out to work. It is grossly misleading to say “I gave up my career…” in this context. This was a life style choice she made. No one made her do it. He certainly doesn’t have any reproductive rights. She made all of the choices after conception. Many more fathers would elect to be stay at home Dads if this was an option for them.
Comment by Dave — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 6:50 pm
You’re enjoyable to read Rad_dad because you are saying things I don’t understand yet.
Can you explain this in more detail.
Who is Tony Ryall and why did he drop the equity act? Was it because he is a capitalist?
Comment by julie — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 6:58 pm
What a load of twaddle. If you want it, go and earn it, whatever your gender.
This was true about tertiary education as well, long before the Germaine Greers and Betty Friedans made careers out of moaning. There was nothing stopping women going to get law degrees in the 1950s, and trying their luck peddling law like any man.
The only thing in their way was other women. Other women weren’t doing it that much, so your average women was frozen to the spot – you know how they wouldn’t dare do something frowned upon by their peers.
That gents, is what feminism was all about. It wasn’t us standing in their way, but other women not applauding them for doing something different. Nothing’s changed either. If an intelligent young woman were to declare that higher education was a waste of money and time, and that she’d much rather be a plumber, no man would try and stop her. But the treatment from her peers, and her perceived drop in standing in relation to them would be enough to silence her. The only way you could get women into the trades is if you made them think that that’s what all women want, and what’s more, they’d be better than men at it.
Once that started, the entire industry would soon become unbearable for any man, and all sorts of laws would accumulate that would drive men out.
And soon it would become common knowledge that men conspired to keep women out of the trades until brave women fought their way into a male-dominated stronghold and beat them at their own game.
Comment by rc — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Hi jules
i have told you what is out there.
i do not gloss it with opinions.. piuty you missed it.
Comment by karan jiahrr — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 8:56 pm
There is also the small matter of the nature of jobs men and women are prepared to take on. Most years in NZ men in their jobs make up 100% of workplace deaths and the vast majority of workplace accidents. Men wreck their bodies in the jobs they do, and those men who take on senior management roles often pay the price of early death due to stress-related illnesses.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 9:05 pm
@BG,
Jim Bagnall can direct you to someone who can help.
Comment by julie — Fri 18th September 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Union of Fathers can provide advice and assistance with Child Support matters.
Comment by [email protected] — Sat 19th September 2009 @ 9:41 am
Right now our female-dominated industries are paid less because their work is not valued on traditional remuneration scales which are androcentric, and women are more often than men put in positions where part-time work is more apt to their familial circumstances
What a load of neo-marxist twadle.
Pay scales are based on scarity of skills in an employment market – not set by some view that masculine view is the centre of the universe. MOH pay equity study actually shows that the Ministry is gynocentric in the payment of staff this no doubt reflects in the rest of the public service.
Also, women are less likely to be taken on as employees in their mid-late 20’s and 30’s as they are seen to require more sick time to take care of children, and are likely to get pregnant. Furthermore, women are less likely to get promoted into senior and more well remunerated positions because they are not seen to be ‘managerial’ or ‘business-minded’ enough.
Yeah right. AnotherTui ad. This may have been true mid last century but the world has moved on – except the tutors for womens studies 101. Its about the right fit not gender. Your reasoning is seriously flawed by the ideology that is apparent in your writing.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Sat 19th September 2009 @ 1:21 pm
“I think men need to support feminism. I think it was in their best interest all along.”
Believe it or not Julie, nearly every man here does support feminism, even if they have come to throughly distrust the word for being so duplicitous.
Every man who says women should get off their arses and stop mooching off the labour of ex-husbands is supporting feminism. Every one of us that believes women should be held as accountable as men in courts and on the job is supporting feminism. When we say we want our rights as parents respected as much as women’s, and we want our word to carry as much as a women’s, and we want the same legal protections, the same level of health funding, the same participation in education and the same respect paid in the media (how about a quota of 50% women in all TV dramas for the following: criminals, dead body count, subjects of beatings, torture and humiliation, guilty convictions in courtrooms, executions).
The only problem is that it is Feminists that are most opposed to this real-world equality. They only want 50% board representation and 50% seats in parliament. Or goodies like long well-paid maternity leave.
No thinking man can take such arrant self-serving hypocrisy seriously – and what’s more, you’re already thoroughly familiar with this argument and how central it is to the advancement of justice for men. But still you make such idiotic comments as if you hadn’t heard a word of it in all these years.
Start agitating for greater accountability for women crooks and incompetents, and stop advising men on what they should be doing, and you would do far more to better the welfare and respect of women and men everywhere.
Comment by rc — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 12:16 am
I was happy with your comment until it got the “do this, Julie” stage and the idiotic comments.
Firstly, you don’t know what I do and don’t do that doesn’t reach a men’s site.
And you have no idea how hard it is going to be to get immigrants involved especially while they are coming in through arranged marriages so they can be taken care of by men and you have no idea how frustrated even WINZ is with Muslim women. African women are much the same as the Muslims when it comes to expectations.
Don’t worry, NZ is well aware of what is going on.
Feminism is good all round by the looks of things but when it comes to treating women like men it is not the men who have to change; it is the women. Men can sit back and complain how women are not living up the standard of some men. I say some because there is still quite a number of men not living up to a certain standard either.
But I will do my best to help women attain equality.
Yet, I won’t be asking for women to be treated as male criminals. I have a preference to want men treated more like women. Mind you, I know more of the criminal court than the family court.
Each to their own, eh?
Comment by julie — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 3:25 am
Yet, I won’t be asking for women to be treated as male criminals. I have a preference to want men treated more like women.
Porirua Police could do with some of your advice Julie.
My daughter reported her cousin for belting the hell out of her partner after she woke up from an adulterous dream and attacked him. He already has his two front teeth missing after having them knocked out during a previous assault from her. She has a Protection Order against him. His family has disowned him while he remains involved with her. He has NO ONE to help him except the Police.
Apparently he was thrown in to the wall and punched in the face multiple times. He pleaded for her to stop and she eventually did.
Porirua Police advised the witness (my daughter)that the male victim would need to make a complaint before they could proceed with an investigation. I rang the Secretary for the Minister of Police and complained to him.
Minister’s secretary rang Porirua Police. Porirua Police rang me. My daughter was invited to try to report this crime once more.
Unfortunately the first Police Officer who attempted to take my daughters statement needed to be replaced after having too much difficulty understanding that the male was the victim. He was replaced by a female Police Officer who continued taking evidence from my daughter. My daughter informs me that this female Police Officer chuckled at the thought of a female beating up a male. It made me wonder how many male Police Officers are amused when women are beaten by men. It’s disgusting.
The offenders three young children witnessed the entire assault against their Dad. I bet they’ve seen a lot more too.
Getting action from Porirua Police is too difficult unless you’re a woman victim. They clearly don’t give a fuck about abused men.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 4:46 am
I just wanted to add that I shouldn’t have generalised about women from overseas. They are individuals just like NZ women.
@SickofNZ,
Tis a very sad and bad story you have told. Hard to believe sometimes that the police force is still behind the times.
I hope you have reported her. She sounds like a corrupt cop.
Anyhooo, I know all the things men want for equality. I looked over a list someone made the other day on another site and basically ticked them all off because each item is being worked on. I think it was also good that the families commission has started bringing in all the main groups under the government to deal with men’s issues. And I think it is wonderful seeing women’s anger management groups being funded as men’s.
All is working towards equality as best as it can at present. It WILL come right one day.
Comment by julie — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 11:29 am
Julie,
I think this is the legislation you are referring to:
“Yet, I won’t be asking for women to be treated as male criminals. I have a preference to want men treated more like women.”
Interpretation Act 1999
31 Use of masculine gender in enactments passed or made before commencement of this Act
In an enactment passed or made before the commencement of this Act, words denoting the masculine gender include females.
Crimes Act 1961
194 Assault on a child, or by a male on a female
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who–
(b) being a male, assaults any female.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 11:58 am
I have been meaning to get onto the Families Commission for some time. Not least because I have just filed proceedings against the Human Rights Commission and the FC gave specific instructions after both protests against the FC that the discriminatory arguments raised against it belonged with the HRC.
Below, reading the recent paper on Child Support it does not take long to qualify the frustration of fathers and how that frustration remains perpetuated through the common and modern language used by bureaucrats.
My point on this matter is two fold: 1, by protecting every ‘family type’ the FC refuses to engage the history of damage against men and fathers; and 2, how is it that we will ever repair men and fathers if that damage will not be admitted?
http://www.familiescommission.govt.nz/files/issues-paper-01.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Families Commission has an important role in advocating for the interests
of families generally. A key strategic goal for the Commission is to promote the
positive functioning of all types of families.
Needs of fathers
Early findings from the Commission’s survey on fathers indicate that most do not have significant support needs.
However, some separated fathers need support through the separation process. It may be worth investigating whether targeted services for those who have a difficult relationship with their former partner may need to be developed to help fathers deal with the process of separation.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 12:16 pm
I suggest that while the Families Commission and the Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Children’s Commission do not pay a full and reasonable regard exercising fiduciary responsibility to fatherhood, there will be no active change in society to its collective betterment. What we have instead is a mass of authority refusing to believe that women do not hold an equal status with men, as men do not hold an equal status with women. We have different life tasks and responsibilities. The word to be used as the alternative is equity against equality. While there are still vicious mind set women vying for political and social domination then we collectively share in serious trouble.
For example below, this method must be challeged as a primary institution of damage against men and fathers. If the FC or the HRC or the MWA or the CC want to fix the negative affect (of bad laws) against dads then responsibly get to the family before you protect its separation by cuddling with those who may or might not be hurt.
Domestic Violence Act 1995
Meaning of domestic violence
(1) In this Act, domestic violence, in relation to any person, means violence against that person by any other person with whom that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship
3) Without limiting subsection (2)(c) of this section, a person psychologically abuses a child if that person–
(a) Causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual, or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship; or
(b) Puts the child, or allows the child to be put, at real risk of seeing or hearing that abuse occurring;–
but the person who suffers that abuse is not regarded, for the purposes of this subsection, as having caused or allowed the child to see or hear the abuse, or, as the case may be, as having put the child, or allowed the child to be put, at risk of seeing or hearing the abuse.
16 Protection of persons other than applicant
Where the Court makes a protection order, that order applies for the benefit of any child of the applicant’s family.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 12:40 pm
Thanks Benjamin.
Comment by julie — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 2:58 pm
@Benjamin
You might be interested in this report from the families commission.
http://www.familiescommission.govt.nz/files/family-violence-statistics-report.pdf
Also I hope you are on Peter Zohrab’s e-mail list and that he is on yours. He is doing something pretty special just like yourself.
Comment by julie — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Broadly speaking there are two approaches to the justice system — arbitration and inquisitorial. I don’t have to read the report to know which system is used in family violence and where the difficulties of that system are manifest. Those difficulties can be identified where the text appealing to the common sense of a perpetrator is without consideration that the author’s primary functions may too be off reasonable mark.
My appeal given the context of the present thread is that the balance is sought between gender differences to identify a problem rather than a conflict. The arbitration will assume responsibility for the conflict where the inquisitorial is (or should be) bound to the problem.
This argument is perpetuated for constant banter and economies on responsibility and those arguments become so raucous that arbitraries are logically the default. This condition in itself should lead to the bridging of the two systems and span family violence yet because we have adopted a Duluth wheel method, there is no look into any alternative system — ‘the victim is a victim is a victim’ and is only ever going to protect women. Women and children is a natural condition; the Duluth is a tool of this.
The immediate method of conditioning a society to compete against the manifestation of gender discrimination that disaffects (and has) fatherhood is to implement an economy around its status. The logical area for this is on maturity of the child and relative to fitting into society. This is to say that if the child matures from domestic foundations with a relative skill that skill is open to financial incentives and reward. Those are payable to the family.
This condition does not exclude women or mean exclusivity for the domain of male, it simply means that we give our dads something to do while they are learning to be dad.
The other and fully inquisitorial system is to get to ‘problems’ earlier and identify them for their severity with a capacity of well though out and resourced state intervention. By this I mean if we have children in danger then domestic safe-houses are implemented and those problems are worked through. Lower tier resources such as the Commission are advocating still need to be put into place and resourced equally but there should be no neglect in developing a system where all of the family are placed under a ‘domestic violence protection order’ if the allegations are serious. At this stage without seeing anything to counter my view that would include a mandatory non removal order.
I apologise that this has gone off string — but to bring it back — child support is not the first and fundamental problem. The first and fundamental problem is that the state does not recognise that the first value is the people — he tangata he tangata he tangata.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 20th September 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Broadly speaking there are two approaches to the justice system — arbitration and inquisitorial.
The two types of Western systems adverserial (UK,Commonwealth) and inqusitorial (France and number of European countries)
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Mon 21st September 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Well let me know what the plan entails… I am currently unemployed and the IRD has recently reviewed my situation and has decided that I need to pay my ex 90% of my unemployment benefit. She’s marrying a rather wealtthy guy and she works part time…
Oh, and we have shared custody.
I have a plan… leave NZ… When my children grow up and wonder why their father left who should they point the finger at ?
I’m the father who looked after them when they were born due to rejection from their mother, the same father who has spent $20,000 in legal fees just to ensure their right to see their father is maintained. NZ is a racist, sexiest country. I’m very sad to say that but it’s true. Julie; I understand your concerns about a gender war but the war has already started.. Men are only realizing that war was declared on them.. and since NZ law does not protect us, instead discriminates against us.. we can either fight or run… I’ll be running.. Perhaps I’ll be back when the child tax is disbanded…
bye all
John doe…..
Comment by John Doe ;) — Thu 24th September 2009 @ 1:04 am
Your friend could charm a woman, move into her place with his kids and refuse to give her any money to offset their expenses, thereby making it possible to pay the child tax. She as a ‘step-parent’ has little power in the F.C to claim any support from either parent, I think?
WARNING: This will probably only last a short time but can be repeated over and over.
Comment by Lindy-lu — Thu 1st October 2009 @ 12:55 am
Hi Julie. What you are proposing is ideal and I’m sure works for a lot of couples but I believe we have in our society ‘Personality Disordered’ people with agendas like ‘having to have one over the other’,’winning at all costs’. If you don’t understand what you are dealing with then you are lost because they are devious & manipulative. I encourage all the men here to study “personality disorders’ to get a handle on what they are dealing with. If you don’t know your enemy or yourself you will lose every battle. If you know yourself and your enemy you will win every battle’
Comment by Lindy-lu — Thu 1st October 2009 @ 1:26 am
I should have put speechmarks ” If you don’t know..” not an original quote. Was a wise man from old chinese dynasty, Sun Tzu.
Comment by Lindy-lu — Thu 1st October 2009 @ 1:47 am
#76 does have, a wise quote.
As for the subject, of the post 50:50 with Child Support.
It looks like supporting, a lifestyle to me.
If providing for a child, is a responsibility.
Then it certainly is, while in your care.
How then is he responsible, for her inability to provide.
He must provide all the costs, of the child’s needs in his care.
Statistically with small numbers, males must be able to do this to females.
In that they limit work, and get supplements and Child Support.
You are in effect, not free of the other person.
If one is successful, and the other is not.
The successful must reward, the unsuccessful.
Limiting the ability to care for the child, so they can actually afford 50:50.
It is hard to grasp, how one human is responsible for another’s actions.
The child certainly has no responsibility, it’s all the parents fault.
So what if one parent struggles, while one is wealthy.
Are we not warned, to make the best of our education and opportunity.
It is a choice to be a stay at home parent, just as it’s a choice to work.
If one will not get high incomes, why not sit back being supported.
So again we find the culprit, government.
Look what a promise of entitlement, and voting has made.
Decisions were once made, on who can provide for the child.
In making promises, something had to pay tax’s.
As a not working family, is expensive.
I once asked what do you do, the answer being Auntie Cindy.
What then of the child going 50:50 from the poor, to wealthy house.
It sounds better, than only being in a poor house.
What did the poor parent do, and what did the wealthy parent do.
The child educated by observation, learning hard lessons on choices.
A healthy human, would voluntarily help the struggling parent.
Covering costs like clothes and shoes, and fees to do things.
They would be flexible with times, and ignore the petty stuff.
A healthy human, would know it’s hard work to raise children.
What happens then if it’s 50:50, and neither works.
Is a lot of this, down to that.
That the government, can inherently only afford to support one.
And forces the other, into helping.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 10th February 2022 @ 4:51 pm
I have always thought, workplace reform is required.
As the 5 day week, makes 50:50 difficult.
Childcare needed, at great cost.
So what if the work week, was 4 days on 3 off.
With business, able to operate 7 days.
Where possible, with fully flexible hours.
This makes, only one day of childcare needed.
With both parents, getting 3 days full parenting.
Childcare is important, for social development.
And the child gets 6 days, full parenting.
That’s a good balance, for young children.
If the week was abandoned, you get other options.
A 6 day week, may be 3 on 3 off.
And 4 on 4 off, for an eight day week.
In both cases, childcare is not required.
Closest to the 5 on 2 off week, is a 5 on 3 off week.
But you need more childcare, vs 4 on 3 off.
So to me 50:50, is difficult when it can be easy.
And a big flaw for men’s equality, is the work week.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 31st July 2022 @ 4:40 pm
Well after reading the above and re-viewing the last 5 year struggle to get where i am.
I have 2 kids (5 and 8 years old)to my ex and she doesn’t work and has had another two since us separating . she lives in a housing NZ house next to the school they attend. We currently do the 5-5-2-2 parenting plan . i have them mon, tue nights , she has them wed and thu nights and we alternate fri, sat and Sunday. this is a 14 day cycle.changeovers at school. 50/50 straight down the middle.
I work full time and pay for clothes, food , schooling, upkeep, doctors bills , sports and more.
I still have to pay child support as i earn more then her as she is on the benefit with her partner living with her most of the time unless he is away with work . so id say he is chipping in on the very low rent bill housing NZ are charging her .
this is not fair as having children is a choice and to be completely honest once the female knows she is pregnant it is completely her choice to proceed or not.
as it is a choice for her not to have a job .
Q. why should fathers or mothers have to pay child support if it is 50/50 care? if both partys are paying for everything split down the middle ?
This is in no way fair as if i can work and still fill all the needs and more of my children then we should not be punished by having to pay child support.
IRD are a bunch ……
Comment by Chris — Fri 7th July 2023 @ 11:45 am
Good to hear, that you get 50/50.
That there is a plan, working for you.
Child support, is mostly paid by men.
It’s the matriarchy, it’s privilege.
If the child is with you, you are responsible.
If the child is with them, they are responsible.
But somehow you are responsible, for them.
They can choose dependency, and you must pay.
If they provide like you, then you don’t pay.
Your life is decided, by there life choices not yours.
You can be punished financially, but did nothing wrong.
You provide, when you are responsible.
You provide, when they are not being responsible.
So it is wrong, for 50/50 to have child support.
If the crown supports dependency, why are you paying.
You pay already for the choice in taxes, then must pay again.
The crowns choice, you innocent found guilty and fined.
You are not responsible, for another person’s actions.
No court case happens to find guilt, but it is not you neglecting the child.
You the worst criminal, no criminal court has such large fines.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 7th July 2023 @ 6:28 pm
#80 Chris. The child support you pay to your ex covers your share of school fees, clothing and general living expenses of your children while they are with their mother. You are under ZERO obligation to pay for those over and above the child support you pay. The child support you pay covers all of that. It’s up to mother to budget accordingly. It’s generally accepted that you’d contribute extra if you and your ex decided to send the children to private school or if the kids needed braces for their teeth etc. Unforeseen expenses.
If you point this out to your ex and tell her you’re no longer going to contribute extra because the money you’re paying is supposed to be used for school, Drs visits etc, you will most likely cop some backlash. That usually takes the form of accusations like “You don’t care for the children”, “If you cared for the children, you’d pay”, “I’m going to tell the children that they can’t go on a school trip because Daddy won’t pay because he doesn’t love you” and any other guilt laden accusations you can think of.
In my experience, Mothers generally think that all the children’s expenses should be covered by Child Support. They shouldn’t have to contribute any of “their” money.
Comment by golfa — Sat 8th July 2023 @ 5:46 pm
Maybe we argue, because there are no rules.
Outcomes seem random, with extreme results.
Does the male know outcomes, even when consenting to pregnancy.
It can be not seeing the kids, to the mother abandoned the kids.
Yet with #80 Chris, we can also have the middle 50/50.
Even though we get 50/50, we still argue about money.
What were the rules at conception, what’s the deal.
Why is the outcome not defined, the outcome instead random.
You could pay maximum, or even get paid.
But even at 50/50, we still end up arguing about money.
The other person’s actions, decided your fate financially.
So for any man, the outcome is random.
When consenting to having a child, what’s the result.
It’s random for men, because of the mothers actions.
It can also be random for women, with men.
They consent thinking 50/50 will be the result, but the male fails.
They abandon the woman and child, even flee the country.
The mother can get, 100% of the obligations.
Society has no deal, conception is lawless.
…………..
I paid full child support, for my son.
I got visits with him from court, so we did had a relationship.
The reasons many, but that was my result.
I see him soon, as he plans to visit.
I wasn’t the best dad, as I failed in many ways.
But I did try, I did actually have to fight to be his dad.
I get a simple visit as my reward, and I will treasure it.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 8th July 2023 @ 11:41 pm
50/50. Yes why shld we still pay CS? We both have the children the same time same costs!
I pay lots every month and don’t get anything for it! No information regarding why she is not working or what she is doing to get back to full time work!
I find the govt and court system very much behind the times.
Comment by Ludwig — Tue 30th April 2024 @ 11:54 am