United Future

Whilst I wholeheartedly support a complete overall of the current assesment of child support, I would like to point out that under Ground 8 of an Admin Review there is the opportunity for these points to be considered and acted upon.

It would seem to me having witnessed 3 Admin Reviews in 2 years and next week about to be involved in a 4th that the income, financial resources and property (assets) of both parties can be taken into consideration under Ground 8. In terms of the CP earning more than the NC and them living in the family home while the NCP rents elsewhere, this ground should be used to the advantage of the NCP but it hardly ever is in my experience.

What I have also noticed is that if the child support is not paid by 20th month then 10% overdue fee is charged and 2% on that each following month until cleared. The CP does not get this overdue fee, it remains in the Crowns coffers. Also noted is that when overpayments are made or payments are made and not credited to the account, that the same 10% for use of money is not applied.

As for having the child support deducted directly from the NCP's wages, that would be fine if the staff that administer the child support were competent and the amount deducted one that had been agreed upon by both parties.

At present when you have an Admin Review you are basically at the mercy of the review officer who 9 times out of 10 is a female. In their reports they quote cases from Australian courts and apply them to NZ child support scenarios. In Australia the CP's income, assets and financial resources are all taken into consideration when determining the amount of child support to pay. A far fairer system there and hopefully one or similar that we can adopt.

Hi Peter
I'm at a loss as to how child support admin review officers can set a persons income at 50% more than what they actually earned from salary and wages.
Can you please explain to me how this is legally done?
When IRD records state that X earned for example $20,000 and payed income tax of .....dollars, how are his files altered to make it appear that X earned $40,000?
When your salary is only $150,000 a year, does that mean that you actually earned $300,000?

The current formula, in a shared care arrangement, would have a parent who does 4 nights care, but earns more than the other parent, pay the other parent 12% of their income. Why? That other parent has 4 days to earn their own income.

The current formula, with 50/50 care, where each parent remarries, and each new family has a new baby, and the fathers work, and the mothers both stay home, despite equal circumstances, family a will subsidize family b by 12%, creating 24% difference.

Take this latter case, and exaggerate it where family b has only 3 nights, the new husband is a millionaire, and no new baby, and the mother is working part time, and family a is average income with mother at home with new baby, then family a will still be subsidizing family b.

It is these exaggerated scenarios which explain why the formula needs to be changed. I prefer a formula which has no exchange of money on a 50/50 shared care, or the australian formula where the money follows the child. Each parent pay as they have ability, but received based on the nights the child stays... So if a parent does half the parenting, they keep half the contribution.

I also support calculations based on current years income, automatic payroll deductions, penalty interest being paid to receiving parents.
And most importantly, shared care should be the default arrangement for parents...
And when a court has set a shared parenting agreement in place, and the paying parent has been denied access, then the paying parent should only have to pay based on shared care. It is wrong that 1 parent can withhold access and be financially rewarded for doing it (as per current law).
In summary, Parents who want to care should be able to. Parents who shirk their responsibilities should pay..