Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

United Future
Since: Aug 2007
Posts: 314

Feed for this Topic

BLOG:

Prime Minister David Cameron wants to make Britain the most family friendly country in Europe. It is a laudable goal – which is not too far distant from UnitedFuture’s ambition to make New Zealand the best country in the world to live and raise a family.

In both cases, the challenge is how to achieve these noble sentiments. One approach which caught my eye recently, and which could be applied in New Zealand, is the production of an annual report card to show how we measure up in this regard. Britain’s Family and Parenting Institute, a non-government agency, produces the annual score card, rating the government A to D on ten key indicators, and then producing an over all Family Friendly rating. For 2010, the ratings ranged B and D, with an overall Family Friendly rating of C-.

The ten key indicators the Institute adopts are:
• Cost of raising a child
• Maternity and paternity leave
• Elderly care
• Work/life balance
• Affordable transport
• Affordable housing
• Commercialisation of childhood
• Neighbourhoods and green spaces
• Child and pensioner poverty
• Our most vulnerable children
... Read the full text of this blog post.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

IH D
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 1

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the actual Legislation regulating the ‘Child Support’. Not only that it’s unfair, in my opinion, but also unjust. The system, as it is today, is outdated and has a few flaws that are frustrating for the NCP parents.
Many fathers after paying rather large amounts of money for child support they can see that their money isn’t entirely spent for the children benefit. This often causes frustration. As the system is now mothers aren’t held accountable for the money received from the fathers and they can discretionary do whatever they want with the money. Instead of using the money for the children they often use the money for any other purpose.
Also the actual system doesn’t take in to account the time the children spend with his father on his expense. Single mothers sometimes receive an additional allocation that is not taken in to consideration either.
Another flaw in the Law is that the real needs of children aren’t proportional with the parent income (as the actual system is set up). Children financial needs shall be capped to a maximum weekly or monthly set amount. The father (NCP) should be required to pay a percentage of the child support calculated per child as well as the mother (CP) shall be expected to do the same. The percentages of contribution to the child support for the 2 parents shall be calculated in accordance and proportional with their income (logically during the marriage / partnership they both shared the expenses proportionally and the new law shall allow the same to be applied afterwards).
As the system is right now the money are paid in to the mother account and is no control over how the money are spent. Also is not clear how much the mother CP contribution to the child support is and what are the children real expenses. Instead, my opinion is that, the contribution of both parents shall be paid in to a trust account in the children name and all the expenses for the children will be withdrawn from that account. This way the children can benefit more of the money designated for their care and also later he/she can have the benefit of any money not spent that will accumulate in the account over the years (which can be used for further education or other needs). The idea of a trust account resolves all the problems listed above and not only provides clarity but also ensures that the children’s are the ones who will benefit.


Hoping that my opinions are worth for consideration,

Please login to post a reply. Go to Login page »