United Future

Chils support shared care differences
I have been trying to shared care from working for families (122 days) and child support (146 nights)
The letter from child support stated that I only have my son 126 nights so I do not qualify,working for
families came back (using the same information and said I only have my son 112 days. I pay $200
a week in child support for my 2 year old son and have him 3 weekends a month plus half of all school holidays.
I do not receive any thing when I get my son except for the nappy he is wearing so on top of the childsupport
I am forced to provide my son with everything he needs.
On top of this my income is less that last year but because the difference is less than %15 they will not even look at changing my payments.
It should be noted that my ex partner has a child to another man, he pays around $15 a week and has no contact at all .
It has gotten to the point where I can not afford to have any contact with my son as I just don't have enough left over at the end of the week
to pay bills.................................

Peter

It is great to see that 'care for children by both parents' is top in your list of priorities.

If our country could focus on supporting the child first - and support was given to ensure fair access to children by parents (and extended family) this must surely be best for children.

At the moment focus seems to be on chasing money from the non-custodial parent - with no investigation at all to why they are in this situation.

Unfortunately we are familiar with too many cases where overly controlling custodial parents not only have the opportunity to influence the children negatively against the non-custodial parent, but where the non-custodial parent also has to pay thousands of dollars to try to gain access to children through the lengthy family court process... while paying child support. No wonder there are so many unpaid child support payments!!

Separating is painful especially where children are involved. All parties involved need support to make good decisons. If the country invested money at this time to ensure equality of care for children, then non-custodial parents with financial problems, overworked family court lawyers, and abused IRD staff - may all have easier lives! (and we may have more happy children).

I understand how you are feeling. I know of a guy who was paying support and he was doing most the caring of his son at nights (he worked in the day) while the mother of his son partied hard. She would turn up in the wee hours drunk to pick him up. This I know because she did to me as well. He was paying through the welfare dept, then when IRD took over in addition was paying through them as well. When he stopped the double payments by going to the welfare department she stopped him from seeing his son also because he refused to be blackmailed any more by her demands that he pay for things like the car, and other HP's on top. She was having an affair with a married man before this being the reason why their relationship broke up. Their son was just under 3 yrs old when they broke up. When he stopped paying double lot of child support as she was also receiving the DPB, working as a barmaid and living with another man as well. It left him a broken man. He couldn't even afford his mortage any longer and gave up and moved to Aus. he wrote to IRD telling them he was moving to Aus but got no response. Then aprox 18 years later she has gone him for child support. Their son is 21 yrs old next month and the father is now paying $250 Aus $ per wk. He is told he owes something like $80,000 and has to pay it. (NZ IRD wanted a lot more.) This he will be now doing for the rest of his life. He has a new partner and a 2 year old daughter but that does not mean anything. They are not concerned if they have to struggle. So I understand it is not always the fathers to blame, in fact some if not most draw the short straw. Unfair I know. I wish you all the best.

Gee it all sounds soooo familiar! But what will be done about it - a big fat nothing - Dunne don't care, we're all being ripped off, paying parents especially, but as a receiving parent and being owed over $40,000 nothing is being done there either! Can't win .... its all lies, i'll believe it when I see it! As you can see ... I'm very bitter about the whole CS system!

"The state’s Child Support scheme should be the back-up for when these arrangements fail, not the automatic default position"

So Peter you will be abaonding the doctrine of Benifit Recovery that stops non conflicting parents having a volubtary agreement.?

"I think there are problems with the way our current Child Support scheme works – it is too inflexible, fails to take sufficient account of today’s social circumstances, and does not do enough to encourage shared care between parents."

So Peter you will be advocating scrapping the current child tax based on a percentage of income?

"As Minister of Revenue (responsible for collecting child support payments) I have been working on a review of the scheme since 2008"

Peter you where one of the advocates of the original Child Tax Act - there have been numerous amendments promoted by your officials which have made the legislation worse how do you expect any affected parent to have any faith in the review your officials have conducted when the thinking that created the mess has not changed?

"My focus is simple – the wellbeing of the children, for they are the most vulnerable ones when relationships break up. But sadly, too often, child support is more often about the tug-of-war between embittered parents, than the wellbeing of their children. I want to change that."

With respect Peter you’re a Revenue Minister relying on your advice from the revenue collectors whose speciality is taxation collection and compliance not the well being of children. While these are fine words it remains to be seen what your tax officials have concocted and if you actually do anything because to date your nickname in the child support reform movement is Dunne Nothing.

You have asked before why reform advocates see you as a barrier to change when you are trying to achieve change - Probably the main reason is that your review is a review conducted by those who created the problem and consultation with affected parties has been minimal. Hence parents have no faith when you say you will deliver change that benefits children.

Regards

James Nicolle

debmuzz,

The child Tax system fails everyone, reciving or paying parent.

Regards

James Nicolle

I think Child Support system fails everyone as well.
It is a confrontational percentage based system that produces winners and losers. Disputes develop among parents who should be working together for the sake of their children. What is needed is a system that encourages families to work together not against each other. Encourage and reward parties that come to voluntary agreements and stay out of their hair. Allow enforcement via IRD if paying parents get behind but don’t have a system where the penalties regime is so inflexible that it drives non-compliance.
Child Support needs to be primarily for the benefit of children and to meet their needs. What we have at the moment is a benefit recovery system which serves to encourage one parent to be a care parent and the other a cash parent.
The current 146 night test for shared care is bizarre and causes difficulty for moving towards shared parenting. When Child Support interferes with what is best for children we have the cart before the horse.
The first overhaul of the Child Support Act needs to recognise it is about parenting and what is best for children and it is not primarily a revenue act. That is about the purpose and objectives of the act which must first and foremost be for the welfare of children.
Secondly it should be based on household incomes for the receiving and paying parents. Both parents need to care and both parents need to contribute to the raising of children.
Thirdly it needs to encourage private arrangements that are enforceable if necessary and determined by mediation. If a few dollars were spent on assisting mediation a lot less money would be saved on endless administrative reviews. Encourage dialogue between parents rather than driving disputes.
Much of what Mr Dunne says is fine rhetoric and his position statement is a great start. It would give me more confidence if Mr Dune and his staff were more welcoming to input from groups like Union of Fathers, Parents for Children, Grandparents Raising Grandchildren etc.
Allan Harvey
National President
Union of Fathers
027 242 0112

Your comments are so sensible Allan.

Couples who organise a voluntary arrangement is ideal.

However if couples need guidance, there is already a system in place that offers couples who separate six hours of free counselling. At times this seems to achieve little more than give upset adults a chance to 'slam' each other in front of an audience. This existing system could be used to solely focus on arranging child care. The Family Court has some very good templates to work from. Arrangements need to be flexible (because life doesn't always run to time!) and include nominated, responsible family and friends who can support the adults.

Ideally the above would occur before any child support payment was determined. Commitment to preparing the care arrangements, and following through with child care, must be taken into account when calculating child support. Arrangements would also need to be reviewed regularly to ensure adults were 'pulling their weight' and to take into account children's ages and stages.

Family Court counselling is useful for many people. However when it comes to Child Support the Child Support Act with it's formula approach sets up winner and looser situations.
The taxpayer ends up paying for an infrastructure that just fuels disharmony and ongoing disputes.
What is neded is for couples to negotiate what works for their children and themselves. That needs to be the first step and Child Support acts as a backstop if couples cannot agree with assistance of mediation or counselling.

Allan, generally agree with your comments. However I think there is a big problem with expecting the the Child Support Act can be a backstop. This also seems to be something that Mr Dunne wants/expects/assumes.

The problem with that is that I think for most people, the Child Support Act is the default position. And when two parents have just split, in the vast majority of cases there is considerable acrimony and each parent wishes to get the best financial outcome they can and let the other cope as best they can. Its not always like this of course, but often.

So it is critical that the Child Support Act is as fair and balanced as it can be.

Minster of Child Support
Its all very well to expect shared parenting when the the custodial parent takes up with another partner and then moves their children around the country while causing alienation of children towards their Non custodial Parent knowing the non Custodial Parent would not have access to the children or the finances to travel for visitations as well as changing their Children's surname to that of her new partner without consultation and against the wish's of the Non Custodial parent as well the Children being told their Non Custodial Parent is Not their Parent by their Custodial Parent's partner.

Then on top of that the Non Custodial Parent and Partner moves overseas with the children 3 Days after the Non custodial parent to Australia and does not get Data matched like that of the non custodial parent leaving the non custodial parent to receive a huge bill from Child support NZ to the sum of $21,000.00

When lies and deciet favour the Custodial Parent there is a lot wrong with the system when no one will listen or do proper checks and the inhumane face of NZ Child support is instead relentless in pursuit of getting money out of a stone that it does not matter what the Truth is, regardless they will put the already struggling non custodial parent in dire financial distress putting non custodial parent and partner on the edge of bankruptcy and practically on the street.

It Does not matter that the non custodial parent has no say and is driven to acrimony when the Custodial parent lies to the Australian and NZ child support that they weren't living in NZ or Data matched and technically defrauding the NZ child support agency but gets away with it anyway.
The Custodial Parent did not inform the NZ child support that 3 of the children were no longer living in NZ therefor weren't eligible for child support in Australia or NZ but rang Child Support NZ 2 yrs after and led Child Support to believe she was still in NZ although the Custodial Parent and her partner had been and are still Factually living in Australia.
And the fact that the children are not going without as both the Custodial parent and her partner earn double the amount than the Non Custodial Parent.

So Minister For Collecting Child Support where is the protection and funds for lawyers and such to help Children and Non custodial Parents to overcome such acrimony and lack of financial balance. ?
Where is the human face and understanding of the Child Support Agency. ?
Why isn't child support officers getting out in the field and learning the truth of situations instead of sitting behind desks and sending out paper work and being high n mighty and judge-mental.

How will you right and address the inbalance of decietful Custodial Parents?
How does the Minister expect children alienated against their Non custodial parent who want nothing to do with their Non Custodial parent to Heal?

When we see change for the better we might
have more faith.

I’d like to bring the inequitable rights of the Father to topic. Let’s be honest, the only true and absolute solution to the issue of single parent families is prevention, but given the vast dynamics of human situations out there, it stands to reason that this conclusion is only truly understood after the fact; after one is personally implicated in the situation. Using the existing Child support (CS) legislation to enforce financial collection from the Non-custodial parent is crude/coarse and paints everybody with the same brushstroke, paying little consideration to the particulars of each situation. Today, it gives as little regard to Fathers reproductive rights as out-dated laws of the past gave to womens right to choose to be a parent or not. Post feminist movement, womens reproductive rights are better understood; mens have not caught up. 40-50 years ago, the inequalities in reproductive rights were prejudiced against the female, now they are prejudiced against the male; the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
Current CS laws favor the custodial parent and provide reward in the form of CS payments for ‘going it alone’, having the effect of promoting single parent families in our society. You only have to compare the statistics of the 60’s (3% Single parent families) with today (20% SPF (Satistics NZ)) to see this trend is not sustainable for society. Furthermore, I pay over $1100 a month in CS for my 6yo daughter; I’m an adult and it doesn’t cost me that much a month to live!, and that is before the mother has made any contribution; crazy! The assessment needs to be based on the fair and realistic cost of raising a child, and also take into account the earning capacity on both sides.
It goes without saying that a legislative safety net should exist for situations where males have consented to having a family then later chose to desert the relationship or have an affair or where rape is involved etc. My argument surrounds the imbalance of power/rights post conception; a woman can choose to become a parent or not; men cannot.
Continued on next post…

The system won't allow me to make another post. I will try again later.

Continued…
Here are the raw realities:
-S3x will always happen, full stop; that is a given of the human race
-nature & science dictates that females hold the balance of contraceptive methods
-post conception, ONLY females have the right to choose to be a parent or not
-cond-oms help give the male a choice, but we all know they are not foolproof and not always used
-young males could be protected by choosing to never have s3x, they could also not drive a car or not enter into relationships or not do anything else worthwhile that carries risk
I don’t advocate restricting womens rights to become a parent (they need to retain that freedom of choice that their forebears fought so hard for), but if you make the choice alone, then own that choice without obligating others or the tax payer.
Parting thoughts:
1. The Government can’t do anything to prevent human reproduction; it can do something to bring equality to the treatment of both parties after the fact, both in bolstering males reproductive & equal parenting rights and adjusting revenue collecting to account for the earning capacity of both parents and rationalizing it to reflect fair costs in raising a child (not supporting the Mothers lifestyle). Also removing a ridiculous/inflexible penalties scheme that only fills the Government coffers, has no financial benefit to the child and ruins futures.
2. It’s a tragedy for every child out there who does not have their Father living with them. The laws of this country are biased and financially promote/reward irresponsible life choices; this needs to be recognized & rectified before more damage is done. Single parent families weren’t commonplace 2 generations ago; why are they now!

Ex partner has my daughter. She gets or should I say got everything due to the out come of the Family court hearings.
We should look at the Family court hearings also for the out come of these proceedings determine a lot.
The bias in the courts carries on to the Child Support.
A greedy ex that makes up stories in the courts and gets to say how long I'm allowed to spend with my daughter stands for everything towards the payments.
Take from my 40hours a week a percentage, leave my overtime hours so I can get my life back on track.
Child Support lost my house my job my daughter.
Chlid Support at the moment are criminals and making criminals.
To us perants that left for overseas. Keep doing it until there is change.
There are ways to beat the system. Legally.

"The state's child support scheme should be the back-up for when these arrangements fail, not the automatic default position"

Peter isn't it time you told IRD that so they can put into practice what you preach instead of allowing them to break a perfectly good and workable private child support agreement where the paying parent was paying more in CS for 3 out of 4 years, plus buying extras for his children, than what he would have been paying through IRD's scheme.
This greedy, vindictive and manipulative ex should have been told by IRD staff to go away and sort out her private agreement first. But unfortunately IRD staff are so ill-trained. Most of them (in ML's words) are incapable of even answering the phone

Can still see myself heading overseas after the outcome. I see many more doing the same thing.
Its a joke. Will always be made to struggle and my child will lose out. Shame on IRD Child Support and the Family Court system.
Big companies will pay living away allowances. None tax and can't be touched by IRD