Too many people here are misunderstanding child support. Where did it come from? Why are Governments so invested in it? Why are they so determined to get it and what is it used for?

Child support was designed to get back tax for welfare payments made to single mothers raising their children on state care.

It was designed as a tax for the father to pay towards the social welfare money being paid out from the Government.

The formula was made and the actual designer of the formula had stated that this would not work on families outside of the welfare system. But the Governments didn’t care about that. They just wanted money to be coming in more than going out.

Why do countries operate child support systems?

This is a matter that needs to be deduced from the history. But time after time the answer always appears to be for one or both (ultimately both) of the following objectives. Everything else is just detail.

1. To reduce child poverty.
2. To reduce welfare spending.

Perceptions depend on the order in which things are done. For example, suppose that the social security (welfare) programme makes the first move (eg. Income Support) in order to relieve child poverty, and child support is added later. (This is the typical sequence – in the USA AFDC came before the latest child support reforms).

Sequence Perception

First: Income Support tops up a lone parent’s income to poverty relief levels. “Social security reduces child poverty.”

Later: Child support dictates how much the other parent pays. It enforces this payment. The child support goes to the lone parent, but the Income Support is reduced by exactly the same amount. “Child support is a Treasury-driven exercise to reduce social security expenditure (hence taxes), even though this keeps children at poverty-relief levels.”

But suppose things happened in a different order, and child support came first. (This does not normally happen. Child support tends to be an after-thought when nations realise they can’t afford the full implications of social security / welfare without help from the other parents).
(more…)

One of the best ways to get change to come about is to use the media, and change needs to come about.  It seems to me that those that are leading our country are a long way off solving the problems that hound us with Child Support.  No matter if you are a liable parent or the spouse of a liable parent there is no question that to some extent you have experienced unfairness through this antiquated system.

 

I am putting together a documentary to outline these problems and expose the often financially cripling heartache with in the IRD.  I would like to get stories and interviews from both those that are affected and the powers that be. 

 

If anybody would like to contribute to this documentary please let me know by leaving a comment or contacting me on [email protected]

 

I’d love to hear from you.

Peace to all,

Tigerseye

Fathers aren’t needed say MPs: Commons decides IVF babies can do without a male role model
Evening Standard 21 May 08

Fathers were last night effectively declared an irrelevance in modern Britain. The requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment was scrapped by MPs. In a free vote, they swept away the rule despite impassioned pleas that the Government plan would “drive another nail into the coffin of the traditional family”. Labour rebels said it would send entirely the wrong signal to society as Britain faces a crisis in responsible parenting.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, had warned it would remove the father from the heart of the family. He accused the Government of putting the interests of “consumers” who want to become parents before the welfare of children. But in the Commons, ministers won support for the legislation.
thisislondon

MPs reject need for father in IVF (UK)
BBC News 20 May 2008

MPs have voted to scrap laws forcing clinics to consider the need for a “father and mother” before allowing women to seek IVF treatment. Iain Duncan Smith led the cross-party bid, saying the absence of a father had a “detrimental effect” on a child. His plan was defeated by 292 votes to 217. Currently, IVF clinics have to consider the “welfare” of any child created, including the need for a father. But the government wants the focus instead on “supportive parenting”. MPs also opposed a further bid to ensure there is a “father or a male role model” before fertility treatment, by 290 votes to 222. The issue of the role of fathers in IVF comes in the second day of committee stage debate of the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, aimed at updating laws from 1990.

…On Monday, MPs voted down a cross-party attempt to ban hybrid human animal embryos. Roman Catholic cabinet ministers Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy voted for a ban, while Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron both opposed it. A bid to ban “saviour siblings” – babies selected to provide genetic material for seriously ill relatives -was also voted down.
bbcnews

‘Father’ to go from birth certificates (Aust)
Sydney Morning Herald May 18, 2008
(more…)

In recent hours two extremely high profile court cases have ended.

A man charged with the murder and sexual violation of a 10 year old. Not Guilty.

A man charged with murdering two babies. Not Guilty. (In about 10 minutes)

A wise Man once said:

Confirmation Bias

“There is a phenomenon known to psychologists as Confirmation Bias.

Make up your mind on an issue before you have all the facts.

Thereafter look only for the evidence to support your hunch.

Ignore contradictory evidence or dismiss it as irrelevant or untrue.

This is a phenomenon to which some New Zealand Police and Prosecutors seem susceptible”.

Gender-political corruption accompanies the favouritism, financial and employment corruption recently uncovered in the Immigration Service. On National Radio today Immigration lawyer Ms Olinda Woodroffe exposed a case in which the NZ Immigration Service in Samoa assisted a woman to remove her two young children to NZ without the father’s agreement. (Hear it here or if the link has expired request it from me.) This apparently was based on the woman’s claims of domestic violence for which no evidence existed such as previous police complaints, medical evidence or corroborative accounts. Once in NZ the Immigration Service here assisted the woman in applying for residency for herself and the two children, and obstructed the lawyer’s efforts to obtain information needed to represent the father in legal action to have his children returned.

The Immigration Service joins the many other government departments and indeed most political parties in parliament that operate as extensions of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

Does anybody know what percentage of protection orders issued are for the protection of men?

Also, of the protection orders issued to women, what percentage is for women without any children?

I suspect that not many women from a childless relationship apply for protection orders. Am I right on this?

I also suspect that it is women who are getting the vast majority of protection orders.

I am still finding the Family Court is very much tilted in favour of the woman. Consider protection orders. In Australia they expire after a year or two depending on type. Here they last forever unless you can persuade a judge to discharge it. I am making my third attempt in 5 years to get mine discharged. I don’t even see my ex or my kids. Whether the lunatics running the Family Court asylum consider this to be sufficient reason for a discharge remains to be seen.

Perhaps the best approach would be to try to get a men’s boycott of the Family Court going. Comments please.

Pastors, Don’t Use Mother’s Day to Bash Dads
By Paul Coughlin, Crosswalk Contributor

A learning season is upon us, and it’s worth our time to heed its teaching.

This lesson is the difference between how we handle Mother’s Day compared with Father’s Day in church. If it’s like in years past, it won’t be pretty.

This Sunday we will extol the value and benefit of motherhood, which is great. But in some churches, this will be done by degrading Christian husbands, which is not great. “Our pastor makes us husbands get on our knees on Mother’s Day and beg for forgiveness. I don’t want to do it again this year,” one reader tells me. Another writes, “Our minister makes husbands write on paper all the things we’ve done wrong. Then we’re suppose to give it to our wives and pledge that we won’t do them any more.”

Most preachers will not be this heavy-handed. They will wait till Father’s Day (Sunday, June 18) to tell men how to be better fathers. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this message when taken as an isolated event. But when compared with Mother’s Day, we’ll discover that for some reason many ministers believe that fathers need correction on Father’s Day (and Mother’s Day) but women don’t. Why this double-standard?

Because much of the church sees men as a problem to be fixed when compared to women, not a gender to be appreciated. There’s prejudice and bigotry against a man’s nature in too many churches, Christian publishing, and on Christian radio (I was a program director of a Christian radio station – I
was part of the problem too), all of which have been beating men up for decades.

For example,
(more…)

What follows is a verbatim copy of a letter sent by Toran’s mother to Polly Gillespie at the ZM radio station. I feel it deserves as much attention as it can possibly receive, so please read on and consider going along if you are able to do so.

From: Maria Bradshaw
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:50 AM
To: Polly Gillespie
Subject: Toran Henry

Hi Polly

I’m Maria Bradshaw, the mother of the 17 year old boy Toran Henry who committed suicide nearly 4 weeks ago.

You may have seen in the news that I found my baby hanging in our garage after he had been let down by his school and told by mental health services that he should take prozac and could drink alcohol in the weekends. (more…)

Hello Heroes of the ‘JUSTICE SYSTEM’

Hello Fathers (Jews) of the Holocaust

300,000 of Your children are in mini orphanages called Solo parent homes (IRD Stats)

If you can document false allegations, lies and perjury that have happened to you and your children in this ‘Court system’ and you would be willing to appear on TV please email me, including only your name and telephone number and a brief description of the allegations and documentation.

Keep in simple!! PLEASE!!

To [email protected]

Thanking you in advance

Sincerely
Jim Bagnall (Coalition of Fathers)

Its not often that I am surprised by the next attack on Dads who are in debt for child support. I guess it never occurred to me that Fox TV would create a Child Support Reality TV show.

‘Bad Dads’ Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy
May 02, 2008 03:54 PM ET | Adam Voiland | Permanent Link

This week, I received an intriguing E-mail from Glenn Sacks, a men’s advocate and journalist, crying foul about the possibility that a reality show called Bad Dads might air on Fox. The show’s producers and officials from the National Child Support Center plan to hunt down deadbeat dads and humiliate them into paying child support with the cameras running, according to an article first published in the Hollywood Reporter and then by Reuters, which calls the concept “ambush reality TV–but for a noble cause.”

No doubt Judith Collins is negotiating for the New Zealand Rights for the show. Don’t worry, Peter , I’ll get into bed with any political party, Dunne will probably fund IRD to run a reality TV Child Tax show here.

Squads of Child Tax Police (aka IRD Officials) hunting down Parents (mostly Dads) who owe Child Tax. The loonies (officials and Families Commission) are already running the asylum, designing policy with a model is seriously flawed. The lunatics are indoctrinated with an organisational culture that focuses on collecting money not supporting children. Watch the research results and what they suggest and get ready for Reality Child Support TV

Regards
Scrap

Union of Fathers is a support group for parents having issues in the Family Court. We can help advise you about parenting plans, domestic violence accusations, child support and self-representation.
Our next meeting is 7:30pm Tuesday evening at Johnsonville Community Centre. You can get more information at www.uof.org.nz or by phoning 0508 CallDad (0508 2255323).
Allan Harvey (027 2420112)

Hello Team,

Our third Auckland Father and Child Trust Meeting is on this Monday night, 7pm at the Onehunga Community Center, 83 Church Street, by the library.

Plus, we are helping to host a ‘Jingle and Jive’ session each Monday, starting at 11.30 am, low cost and very ‘Dad Friendly’, we will be there, stay for a coffee and catchup with other ‘at home’ dads of toddlers!

At our meeting we hope to see a few new members, discuss a proposed Auckland Committee Member Guideline and Auckland Trust Strategy.

We also hope to organise a ‘launch’ for the New Babies Edition, due for around 15th May, we look forward to any ideas members bring along!

We hope to see you there, or feel free to pass this on to anyone keen! 

Best regards,
Brendon Smith
09 525 1690
021 892 980

I drove half way to work this morning when I heard a talk back issue on the National Radio Station about rape and the new laws where when a woman drinks she is raped. There will be no consideration for the man. None what so ever. Not one thing he says will be relevant. It is the new law. And very specific.

I did a U turn and came home. Phoned the National radio station and now they will be phoning me back after the 11am news because I will be speaking for some time. Layton is passionate about this.

I was shaking holding the phone. This is the first time I have been on radio and I am collecting my thoughts. I hope my voice comes over calm and not nervous.

I know so much about this because of men’s sites like this and from finding out how NZ works as was recommended by an overseas man. I have already had my arguments with the new National Rape collective. Not one man on the board. Not one men’s group is having a say.

Australian Law Society kicked up a stink over this last year.

Wish me luck or add something I should say or try and be a part of the talk back. Our country is a sleep to what is going on.

I am a week away from what will hopefully be the conclusion of a 5 year process for shared care of my children. Due to the time it has taken to get this far two of my four children are now over 16 and have lost the extra time they could have spent with me if the Family Court had been more attentive to me case. I am representing myself and have made numerous complaints about the time it has taken from two bouts of counselling to two bouts of mediation to two psychologists reports to the delay of the final hearing due to the unavailability of the lawyer for child and the psychologist. Apparently according to various people the delays are unavoidable and due in part to my refusals to certain requests i.e. psychologist reports. I have tried every avenue to try and amicably come to an agreement but have been knocked back at every stage. I currently have the two children under 16, 5 days a fortnight and I was willing prior to a full hearing to accept one extra day but in her wisdom my ex decided she wants what she has and is not willing to accept anything less. So my original application at the full hearing will be for 50/50 shared care. I have had a protection order against me strongly dismissed for wasting the courts time and there are no reasons as to why I should be denied 50/50 except that my ex maintains that this is what my children want. However they are telling me something completely different and have told the psychologist and their lawyer the same thing. Why then do a have this knot in my stomach like I know the result will not go my way. From what I have read on this site and others the Family Court remains heavily in favour of the mother and I am afraid the same will apply to me despite the fact that I offer my children so much more than their mother can. I do not wish to have more time than 50/50 nor discourage the children’s relationship with their mother but I am fully aware that I will somehow be portrayed in a bad light by my ex’s lawyer who by the way is being paid for by legal aid. I am trying to put everything together to make my case as strong as I can. I do feel a little underprepared in relation to precedents for shared care and non-removal (ex has discussed with the children about moving) as well as not knowing how to make submissions at the end of the hearing. Any advice, contributions, references to material I can use would be very helpful at this stage. Also does anyone know what my chances of having my current wife approved as a Lay Assistant. Up until now I have felt reasonably confident of success but as I get closer nervousness prevails. What are my chances of actually getting a judgement at the hearing or will my case drag on for longer and put in jeopardy the extra time I could be spending with my youngest children? I am disgusted about how long it has taken to get this far and just want it to end.

As a mother and as a woman who has had the privilege to live in the great time of feminist rulership I thought that since feminism was about equality my concerns for our sons would have been accepted, which they have been; and work would be done to give our sons fair treatment, which unfortunately is a whole other matter.

Never did I realise that being for equal rights as a female was to be non equal rights for my sons. I had no idea that I had signed up for an opposite rulership that I had been opposed of.

I find in the women’s groups that there is an attitude that men must fight as hard as women if not harder to gain equality to women. I find that in the funding sector male is not even an option. You don’t have a box to ask for funding that says male. But you have one that says female. Or disability or gay/lesbian or elderly or even child which is up to the age of 12 for a male.

You see, a male child is not considered a child after the age of 12. He is then considered a man because he has testosterone. Testosterone is the enemy of feminism. Gosh, throw that by me again. hehehe. But seriously, I am not joking you.

I was shocked to learn that under the human Rights Commission, men do not have rights. So every male child over 12 does not have rights. You see, men never did have rights. Only responsibilities. Us females started rights. But our own female leaders do not want to give rights to men nor our sons.

Girls risk falling behind in the classroom’
21/04/2008

Girls risk falling behind in the classroom because government policies focus on the education standards of boys, a report claims. A “significant proportion” of girls are struggling to read but many are not getting enough help, it is claimed.

About a quarter define themselves as “non-readers” because they find books boring and fear being labelled a “geek”. They are also less likely to get encouragement from family members to pick up a novel at home.

A study by the National Literacy Trust, a reading charity, says many young girls were “in danger of being overlooked by current policy drives”.

At the moment, girls continue to out-perform boys at every age in the classroom. They pull ahead in tests taken at the age of seven and extend their lead at 11, 14 and 16. More young women now go to university and are more likely to get a good degree.

A series of reforms have been aimed at boys to address the imbalance. This includes additional cash to buy books for boys. But the National Literacy Trust warns that the achievements of girls may suffer as millions of pounds of government funding focuses on gender-specific initiatives.

link

This is what we are up against to give our sons a fair go in education. It is a mountain that few of us even realised. But it exists because women gained power and through women studies at University level and millions of dollars in funding, we grew a movement of hate for our own sons without even knowing it.

Worthwhile link to read

I wanted the local newspaper to publish the following letter. I was hoping that some of the public in the small town we live in would come forward for the sake of X (child), but unfortunately the newspaper would not publish; their excuse, the public would have trouble understanding the letter.

Open Letter to the Public
I would like to commend a member of our valued community.

She deserves an Oscar for a most outstanding seven year performance. One I have been privileged to view and experience for six years. (more…)

Daily Telegraph (Australia) April 17, 2008
Teachers are being urged to stop using terms such as husband and wife when addressing students or families under a major anti-homophobia push in schools. The terms boyfriend, girlfriend and spouse are also on the banned list – to be replaced by the generic “partner” – in changes sought by the gay lobby aimed at reducing discrimination in classrooms. (more…)

Family First NZ says that the announcement of the death of three-year-old Auckland toddler Dylan Rimoni being treated as a homicide means that the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the flawed anti-smacking law.

“While good families are being investigated and thrown under suspicion because of the extremist anti-smacking law pushed by the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford, child abuse has continued at the same rate and the same old underlying issues of drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown and dysfunction continue to be ignored,”? says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. (more…)

I am 35yrs old ive seen alot in my time booze,drugs,gangs etc. I’d crossed paths with some of the most notorious gang members and the most hardened criminals done some things im ashamed to admit but i faced those demons and turned my life around i met my husband 6yrs ago had 2 more children and continued to raise my 4 we have 6 kiddies living with us my husband has contact with his two, 9yrs and 12yrs. When my husband and i met, his partner had left him for the third time, taking their children, alcohol was a contributing factor to the breakdown in their relationship on both parts, from that day she has taunted him, power tripping in knowing she had something he wanted but could not have, she stated in numerous emails “you will never see these children unless i say so”. (more…)

Judge Boshier stated in his presentation in Washington DC at the Capitol Hilton on June 1 2007:

…. It is a criminal offence to take a child from New Zealand knowing that there is an order giving day-to-day care or contact to another person, or knowing proceedings are pending or about to be commenced in respect of the child. There is a maximum fine of $2500 or a term of imprisonment of up to three months.[18] It is also a criminal offence to breach a parenting order.[19] Because these offences carry the possibility of imprisonment, Police can arrest any person committing such as offence without a warrant.[20] A person can thus be physically stopped from boarding a plane, for example, where there is no order preventing removal but leaving the country would breach a parenting order.

It is no defence that the person removing the child has rights of day-to-day care or contact, for parental responsibility is to be jointly exercised, and one parent cannot deprive the other parent their parental rights and responsibilities. This section applies to any person who takes a child. It is not specific to parents.

Apparently this only applies to men, fathers. Women can take their child out of the country, even if they state it is for a holiday, while court proceedings are pending, while their absence stops the person, i.e. the father, having contact with the child. Women are allowed to breach a parenting order. So what is the point of a parenting order in the first place and why aren’t the courts following what the Family Court Judge is stating. Are women above the Family Court? (more…)

Divorced from wealth – The Sydney Morning Herald – 19 April 2008.

The attack on the Australian Child Support changes continues:

“For the next generation of single women, it is about to get worse. Lawyers and social researchers believe changes to the child support scheme which come into force midyear will leave about 60 per cent of single mothers worse off than before. Fathers, in particular wealthy fathers, they say, will pocket the windfall.”

This is another example of a coordinated and orchestrated attack on the Australian changes to the Child Support Act.

“Dr Baldry also points to regime changes under the Howard government that are now starting to bite: welfare-to-work policies that penalised single mothers, and changes to child custody laws that introduced a presumption of shared care – even where there had been a history of violence.

She says it is not surprising that more middle-class women are relying on charities to supplement their weekly food bill.”

Peter Rabbit (Dunne) is living in a fairytale land. He has not delivered and that failure to deliver shows how much United Future cares about separated families!

Peter needs to ensure that stake holders are engaged as he promised. Relying on focus groups to create a child support position is inherently likely to produce a worse result for kiwi kids and parents .

Peter Rabbit has let loose officials to create a child support position and proposed methodology. I call it letting the loonies run the asylum

This approach to child tax collection , let the officials (Inland Revenue and Families Commission ) decide does not adress the fundemental flaws found in % of income model.

The child support Act 1991 is fundamentally flawed and no amount of tinkering is going to fix it.

RegardsScrap

Just looking on Google news, searching for “Family Court” and all I can find, is regarding the parental tests that was announced last month, and a thing on a family of 15 living in the bush.

Has anyone tried to invite the media to their Family Court hearing? 

What would be the process of doing this?

The Family Court definitely needs more media attention in the smaller cases, that don’t particularity mean anything to anyone, but without this attention there will continue to be a gender bias and secrecy in court.

I issue a general warning to avoid Relationship Services. I had an unpleasant experience with a fat feminasty counsellor there who would or could not answer clearly my questions about the circumstances in which she would breach confidentiality. She then accused me of being a controlling male abuser (although no assessment or information about me had even taken place) and refused to work further with me and my ex. This was in counselling funded by the Family Court.

Since then I have had several clients who approached Relationship Services in good faith but had confidentiality breached even though there was no imminent danger to anyone. The Tauranga branch seems more interested in being social police aiming to prosecute men for anything they might ever have done wrong, than in helping their clients.

Auckland’s domestic violence victim support agency wants a national register of the most violent offenders to be set up so new partners can be warned about dangerous men.

Preventing Violence in the Home director Jane Drumm told a child abuse conference in Manukau yesterday that the safety of women and children should override the privacy of offenders.