Dealing with Dead-Beat Dead-Beat Dads

ŠĒ• NZ Herald

Paula Bennett talks about the problem with dead-beat dead-beat Dads. Those who are on a benefit and still don’t contribute to their offspring other than an¬†occasional¬†bash.

Ms Bennett said there were men in the benefit system who had fathered numerous children, but they escaped much of the criticism. Some had up to eight children to different mothers – and even if they were employed they could not afford child support.

“We talk about teen mums a lot and yes, they are left with the babies. But you hear of older men with multiple children and they actually prey on young women as well,” Ms Bennett said. “I’m not sure we actually identify that as the problem that it is.”

People who don’t pay for their own children disgust me. We should run the same system as¬†Sheriff¬†joe in Arizona who publishes photos of dead-beat parents.

  • captain Kidd

    Yup.I have a young nephew who has 3 kids by 3 different woman,he has never had a job (hes 25)hes a dead beat and 2 of the women have gone on to have other kids by yet more dead beats,guess who pays?

    • AngryTory

      I pay.  And I bet he votes, and votes Labour every time.

    • Steve P

      If you don’t like it, repeal the fucking DPB laws.¬†

      • Boss Hogg

        And WFF, crunch any sickness bene frauds and bring in work for the dole – and call them all what they are – one bill could do the lot after the repeals.

        Also rename WINZ to what it is.  Work and Income РWTF. 

    • Grandstream

      What about the parents of dead-beats ? Are they accountable ?  My sister-in-law has 3 kids from 3 different guys (she is 19), her parents, (my in-laws) are raising two of them. The father of 1 of the kids pays and conitnues to pays for their upbringing. My in-laws have squandered that mony on overseas holidays, a new car and new TV. (the sperm donor received an inheritance after his father passed away).  The in-laws did a shit job of raising their daughters and most are a similatr boat except for teh two who escaped early (one being my wife).  Needless to say the old syaing monkey see, monkey do means that this cycle of bluddging and using childborth as a means of income will continue.

  • Guest

    Martyn. Bradbury.

    • Notrotsky

      What kind of organism would fuck that ?

  • tarkwin

    Take a percentage of their benefit and pay the rest in vouchers.

    • BJ

      No smokes, no alcohol, no gambling, no takeaways.  Long acting contraceptives for clowns like these need to be created fast.

  • johnbronkhorst

    well Paula…I have just one thing to say……………You go get em girl!!

    • Mr_Blobby

      I think someone already got her and her daughter.

      • johnbronkhorst

        quite a combination (in your personality) you have going there blobby…..sick and stupid.

    • Mr_Blobby

      It is my understanding that Paula (beneficiary) Bennett has risen to be one of the highest paid beneficiaries of the country. Her Daughter, going on news reports, is also a beneficiary shacked up with a, wannabe, gang banger when he is not in prison.
       
      You may be right. I might be sick and stupid, for not jumping on the welfare bandwagon and encouraging my Daughters to do the same.
       
      I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong.
       

  • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

    Great idea. Those who evade paying for their offspring are among the lowest of the low.

    After the break-up of my first marriage, I had my first introduction to Child Support. It was about three months after the separation before I got first assessed, so of course I got hit with an arrears bill as well. Even though I was trying to set up a new home etc, I made my monthly payments dutifully, because I didn’t want my kids to go without. I still provided for them over and above the Child Support.

    I’ve never done the sums, but I would guess that I paid out around $75k over 16 years until my youngest left home. I don’t begrudge that; my kids are everything to me. But it came at the cost of a second relationship when she couldn’t accept that my kids were just as needy of my dosh as her kids were. I’m far from unique in that regard; Child Support takes a huge toll on subsequent relationships/marriages.

    Fathering a child is a huge responsibility. But I make no apologies for having a very low tolerance for those who run away from that responsibility; especially when some who do that set themselves up as social commenters, and tell everyone else what to do.

    • Gazzaw

      “Those who evade paying for their offspring are amongst the lowest of the low”.

      Totally agree. They are down amongst those student loan repayment dodgers bludging off their fellow citizens.

    • Cadwallader

      If the ex is not on a benefit a voluntary arrangement can be made which allows for flexibility in contributions. For instance: A contribution to an investment to cate for tertiary study, boarding school fees, holidays, bikes/cars. The sum garnered by way of the IRD is generally untraceable.

      • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

        ¬†True Cadwallader, but my ex didn’t trust me enough to agree to a voluntary arrangement. So we did it the IRD way, and I made a point of paying on time every month just to spite her!

      • Steve P

        “So we did it the IRD way, and I made a point of paying on time every month just to spite her!”
        Ooh I bet that showed her! We got a badass here everybody!

    • Steve P

      “…I made my monthly payments dutifully, because I didn’t want my kids to go without. I still provided for them over and above the Child Support.”
      If they’re your kids, why are you paying someone else to raise them?

      • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

        ¬†I would have loved to be around for my kids all the time Steve, but their upbringing was probably far more peaceful with their mother and I living under different roofs. They’ve turned out OK though.

      • Steve P

        Do you think your kids will appreciate the example set by their parents – it’s better to walk away from a problem than to resolve it?

        Do you think your kids will one day say to you, “Well, you weren’t there for us every day, but you paid your child support and that’s the main thing!”

      • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

        ¬†That our marriage didn’t survive was not for the lack of trying; on my part at least Steve.

      • Steve P

        So you’re happy – proud, even – to support a system that allows the mother to walk away from the deal (“for better, for worse… till death do us part”) knowing that the system will enforce the father’s financial responsibilities, regardless of how much or how little effort she had put in to make it work.

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        Steve you really are trying my patience on this. You are being an obnoxious cunt and rude to a mate. I bet you wouldn’t say that to his face.

      • Steve P

        Hey, I’m not the one who brought his personal family life into this discussion.¬†

      • victoria

        No-one is happy in a marriage breakup Steve – but sometimes its unavoidable – give the guy a break

      • tspoon

        I believe what Steve may be trying to get at is the massive disparity between the enforcement of male responsibility and the upholding of the rights of males to be involved with their children.
        ¬†Such a system is disfunctional, not to mention disgenic. Meanwhile everybody stands around tut-tuting, telling us it ‘just happens’. And whoops! you’re on the hook for 1/4 of a mill+ over 19 years. (my personal situation). F*ck all of which¬†your children will actually see.¬†Totally unavoidable old fellow, but don’t fret. Everyone (else) is going to be okay. Oh, and if you don’t slave hard enough while we strip you bare, or if you walk away from this chance of a lifetime, you’re total scum. Coz we said.
         

    • Dave

      Jez Inventory ¬† ¬†We pay around 10K a year, as my wife’s ex has 2 of the 4 kids, and her ex hubbie WONT work (for over 12 years) so we have to pay. ¬† Of course, nothing gets spent on the kids in his household, so we end up supporting them as well. ¬†¬†

      The CS act is ludicrous. ¬† We even got a bill when my wife was made redundant, as they decided she could have been working sooner. ¬† No matter her lazy ex had not worked, we appealed and lost that too. ¬† IRD don’t give a shit, just pay. ¬† I only wish someone would try and get this all through Peter Dunne, he would have to be the thickest moron I have ever had the displeasure of meeting.

      A few months back, we found he hard managed to get a job, and we had overpaid as a result, now he owes us approx 3K, but the IRD WONT get it back as, it would affect the standard of living of the kids in his care.

      But, I agree, fathering a child is a huge responsibility.

    • victoria

      A woman who can’t accept that your kids need to be supported and expects you to support her kids from another relationship is a woman not worth having

      • Dave

        Victoria.   It is up to BOTH parents to support their children, and work together to show their children they are loved.     Its not up to one parent to support them in their house]hold and then have to pay.   If child thinks one household is POOR, then perhaps its a catalyst for that parent to get off their fat arse and do something about it.

  • BJ

    A real man – is brave enough to cross the bridge to his heart – and when he does that, he will take the responsibility of bringing children into this world seriously and with that, a high level of integrity will ensure he has self respect instead of self loathing.

    The repeat offenders should be educated that the likelihood of getting penile cancer exponentially increases each time they contribute a new sprog to a different mother.

    • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

      ¬†Couldn’t agree more BJ

  • AngryTory

    No benefit without the snip.

    .. on second thought, even cheaper no benefit

  • Phar Lap

    Then we have the good daddy’s.A friend of mine paid Ten Thousand dollars a year for his child,from age Four till¬† approx Twelve.The mother with her new partner between them earned up to $200K per year.She wasn’t happy with the $10,000,so she discovered the good daddy had a promotion,even though they had an agreed amount.His mistake he didn’t ratify it with the IRD.She complained and got the IRD to almost double the amount.Even though her earnings were the stated amount.I wonder what category Pauline would place the custodial parent in,the Mother.Would she be classed as a greedy conniving parent.

    • Phar Lap

      Also child support payments are Tax free in the custodial parent’s bank account.The payer pays the tax.

    • victoria

      why should the new partner have to bear the cost of your friends children? The IRD child support rate is a fraction of the real cost of raising children so I think you and your friend should stop whinging

  • 4play

    “EVERY TIME YOU MISTREAT A WOMAN….”¬†

    check out the headline on stuff – ‘child rapists dad barked like a dog’

  • Big Bruv

    I totally agree with Whale. Those men who refuse to pay child support for their kids are the lowest form of pond scum. I have even less time for those who do so becuase they are claim they are/were refused access to their kids.
    I do not care how bad the realtionship is with the ex, there is no excuse to not pay for your own children.

    • Steve P

      “I have even less time for those who do so becuase they are claim they are/were refused access to their kids.”
      Why don’t you cut your balls off and hand them on a plate to the first woman you see.

      • Big Bruv

        Your point being???

    • James Stephenson

      Why should a man, denied a proper connection to his children by the mother, hand dollars to her to spend as she wishes?

      Also, IMO, a Father owes both material and emotional support to his children. I don’t care how much money you contribute, if you fuck off and work a 14hr plane ride away and see your kids once a year, you’re a dead-beat too.

      • Big bruv

        James.

        “Why should a man, denied a proper connection to his children by the mother, hand dollars to her to spend as she wishes?”

        Because they are his bloody kids!. What part of that do you not get?
        Kids are not something you rent, they are yours through thick and thin and the one thing a man must do is provide for those kids.

        Or would you rather see the tax payer left with the bill?

  • Steve P

    We hear on and on (and on and on and on) about deadbeat dads (because, y’know, fatherhood is all about PAY THE FUCKING MONEY ASSHOLE), what about a woman who would deliberately have a child without a father… how come we never hear about deadbeat mums?

    • Big Bruv

      Biology was not your best subject at school then Steve?

  • Johnboy

    Just cut the cocks off the bastards when they don’t pay for their first sprog. Most will pay up real quick. Micro chipping at birth would help track them and one number for life say the IRD one (that we all already have) should enable easy tracking.

    By the way abolition of cash with all transactions via the paper trail would have a wondrous effect on both the tax take, the crims and the pricks who try to evade their responsibilities overseas.

    It’s not rocket science. We probably don’t want to employ tactics that work though because it would put far too many lawyers and other cunts that scrabble around the edges out of work. They would have to get a real job.

    • Steve P

      “We probably don’t want to employ tactics that work though because it would put far too many lawyers and other cunts that scrabble around the edges out of work.”
      You’re an idiot. The whole system is set up precisely for that purpose: to extract money by force to hand over to lawyers, judges, counselors, mediators etc etc, and not least the tax man: most of the money “owed” in child support is actually penalties and late fees.

      The whole thing is just one big fucking rort, and eventually society ¬†– future generations – is going to have to pay for it… and it wont be as simple as just writing out a cheque.

      • Johnboy

        You’re the fuckwit mate. If we applied what I just said above, that you are obviously too stupid to understand, the useless pieces of shit that jokingly regard themselves as “men” won’t have recourse to a legal merry go round.

        The pricks will pay their bloody dues or will spend the rest of their useless lives as eunuchs. All the shitbag lawyers that make their living by leaching from the rest of us will have to get gainful employment elsewhere.

      • Steve P

        “All the shitbag lawyers that make their living by leaching from the rest of us will have to get gainful employment elsewhere.”
        You really think that’s ever going to happen? You must be incredibly naive: lawyers are like bankers; they *never* lose.

  • Pukakidon

    Stick your dick in a slag without a condom and pay the price, simple really.   However I remember a guy who had to pay for a child for 14 years until he found out it was not his, that sucks, but he went there and played with fire so it was his own fault.

    • Steve P

      So you agree then that if a woman gets pregnant she absolutely must raise the child, and absolutely must not be permitted to have an abortion or to give up the child for adoption?

      And if you don’t think it’s right for a woman to be forced into parenthood just because she had sex, why is it ok for a man?

      • Boss Hogg

        How the hell did you read that into what Puka posted.  Sometimes you make sense, your abuse comments do you no favours and sometimes I think you need professional help.

        What medication you are on, change it, take less or take a heap more – but do something.

      • Pukakidon

         Steve sounds like you have been drinking pee or sniffing crack.  

        Whether or not a woman gives birth is up to her.   I said that if a guy has sex and a child results he must pay for this.   The same as if you crashed your can into mine and had no insurance, you would be paying for the accident.   It is called taking responsibility for your actions.

        Seek help for that drug addiction!

      • Steve P

        “Stick your dick in a slag without a condom and pay the price, simple really.”

        I dunno, that seems pretty clear to me – if a guy gets a woman pregnant there is no out for him, he must pay the price.

        I invite you to watch this video; perhaps the lovely young lady therein can explainify it better than me…

      • Pukakidon

         Well, that video has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.   You are trying to sway the thread away from guys taking responsibility for their actions in creating a child to something about abortion. I am not going to bite.

      • Steve P

        Pukakidon, your car crash analogy is… dubious, to say the least.¬†

        1: Traffic law says you must avoid an accident even if it’s not your fault

        2: When women have sex, they are not innocent victims of an “accident” they are active participants

        3: There is no “child support” insurance available

        4: Civil remedy for a car crash (as with civil remedies in general) is that the¬†tortfeasor is liable for damages to restore the status quo – if you hit someone’s car you must pay to restore it back to the condition it was before. It does not mean you are liable for its running costs for the next 19 years. The analogy to sex would be that if the woman inadvertently got pregnant the man would be liable for (at most) any costs associated with an abortion

      • Steve P

        That video has everything to do with what you said. Either you are not bright enough to grasp the concepts involved or you are simply burying your head in the sand.

      • Pukakidon

         Steve see you need to understand how and what law is about.

        Law is a rule of conduct, which is decreed by formal enactment. There are two main types of Law, Natural Law which is unwritten and universal, and Conventional Law which is created by society for society. 

        Having sex without using contraception is like driving dangerously, eventually you will have an accident.   If this occurs you are bound by determinative law to pay for this.  This is the law that society has agreed to.   You live in this society so it applies to you and all the other guys fathering a children.

        If the state or the mother have to fund the upbringing of this child, you are obliged by LAW to contribute as well.  There is no such thing as the government has to pay, because the government is representative of society and its law.

        The car accident analogy is good.   You believe that you can go around driving like and idiot, crash into anyone and then all the other drivers have to pay for you lack of common sense. No different than rooting around without a condom like an idiot having an accident (unplanned baby) and then expecting all the other people to pay for your stupidity.

        I stayed with my wife from my children’s birth until they left home, I worked and paid for everything, even though my first child was born when I was only 21 and my wife was 18.¬†¬† I did not expect anyone else to pay for it, but I took responsibility and worked my butt off.¬†¬† It was morally and ethically right to feed cloth and educate this child of my wife and I.¬†¬†¬† If I had of left my wife it would still be the same. It is what a man does!

        As I said if you want to have sex with a woman without controlling your own destiney by wearing a condom then you pay for this child, not me or the rest of society.    Once the baby is inside the woman you no longer have a choice.   That is the Law.

         

      • Steve P

        Pukakidon – That’s all well and good, however we are not talking about a situation where one party is clearly at fault and the other is not, as might be the case in a car crash.

        When it comes to sex, it, as they say, takes two to tango. Women reserve the right to have an abortion regardless of what the man wants – “My body, my choice”. Arguably that’s fair enough, however “my choice” also means “my responsibility” – and that’s the part that seems to get forgotten.

        Women have reproductive rights – the right to choose whether or not to become a parent; men don’t – wearing a condom is merely a precaution (and condoms do fail); not a right – it does not confer any reproductive rights upon men. Men only have reproductive responsibilities – the responsibility to pay should the woman choose to become a parent.

        So when do men get reproductive rights? Well, that’s easy – when men get married. I’ve commented previously on posts about gay marriage that the fundamental reason for marriage is to create paternity ¬†– that’s when men accept full paternal responsibility, along with full paternal rights, for any children from the marriage.That’s why historically it was considered really bad if a married woman slept around; because her husband was legally responsible for her children (indeed, that’s still the law today). However, the deal was for life – “till death do us part”, but if for whatever reason the marriage broke up then the children were *his* – because he paid for them. Compare with an unmarried woman having children – the children were hers alone, and no-one else’s responsibility, not even the putative father’s.¬†

        So in the absence of DNA testing to establish paternity, fatherhood and paternity were two different things: fatherhood in the biological sense Рno legal or financial consequence for the man (like a sperm donor today), and paternity Рa legal concept voluntarily entered into by the man and with legal and financial consequences for him. This was all because because biological fatherhood could not be determined with any accuracy.

        So what do we have today? If a man’s wife has a child he is *defined* as the father – legal paternity; as has always been the case. As far as I know, this is still so even if he can prove he is not the biological father.¬†

        If the marriage breaks down, the children are usually considered hers – she gets custody – but the man still generally has financial responsibility, even if he doesn’t have full paternal rights.. although this is changing somewhat. Because divorce is now “no fault” this will still apply even if it is the woman who walks out – and indeed, most divorces are initiated by the woman (and it has been suggested that in the majority of the remaining cases the man has been bullied or otherwise forced into seeking divorce).
        Paternal responsibility therefore extends beyond the terms of the original contract – marriage.

        And if the couple are not married, so the man is a father only in the biological sense and without having voluntarily agreed to parenthood, then the man *still* has paternal responsibility – financially, that is, and of course he doesn’t get any paternal rights. The woman can of course opt out of any such responsibility; she can abort or adopt out.

        Ok so if that all seems like whinge whinge for men let’s look at a slightly bigger picture.¬†

        Since the late ’60s births to unmarried mothers have gone up from around 13% to around 45% of all births. That is not necessarily bad in and of itself; personally I have no moral objections to single mothers.
        However, study after study shows that children raised in single mother homes without their biological father are much more likely to be socially dysfunctional: to be alcoholics, drug users, criminals, promiscuous, violent, suicidal and so on. This is very likely the reason why having “bastard children” historically was considered immoral. It is now known that there are biological consequences to raising children without the father in the household, so it seems likely to me that we are not dealing fairly fundamental biological forces – forces that helped separate man from the other apes.

        What many today call “progress”: freeing women from the “patriarchal oppression of marriage”, seems to me to be regress; undoing the last few thousand years of social development.

        So let’s cut all the white-knighting and shaming language and talk openly and honestly about the consequences to society as a whole. Or is that too much too ask?

      • Steve P

        Pukakidon: “Having sex without using contraception is like driving dangerously, eventually you will have an accident. ¬† If this occurs you are bound by determinative law to pay for this.¬† This is the law that society has agreed to. ¬† You live in this society so it applies to you and all the other guys fathering a children.”
        Dangerous driving is considered a criminal offence and is liable to punitive, criminal punishment such as imprisonment. I don’t know whether this is your intention but you are equating sex with a criminal offence – at least as far as the man is concerned. This is of course the radical feminist position; that all heterosexual (PIV – Penis In Vagina) sex is rape, even if the woman consents – it is taken as a given that she cannot give consent, just as in statutory rape.
        By your argument therefore child support is indeed criminal punishment for having sex with a woman while being a man.

    • Steve P

      Dammit, I meant “It seems to me we are dealing with¬†fairly fundamental biological forces”

      My kingdom for an edit button

  • Leata

    Biggest looser father was when I moved overseas for 3 years when I left my ex. I came back to NZ and received a letter from IRD saying I owed 18k for child support. He had gone into WINZ and claimed he had the kids. They paid him the DPB for 3 years, for 18mths of that time he was actually in jail. WTF. Easy sorted but man what a shock at the time. 

    • Pukakidon

       Leata sounds like the best thing you did was dump that sack of nothing.

      • Leata

        Yes Pukakidon it was¬†definitely¬†a “RUN FOREST RUN!” moment.¬†Ha ha. But seriously men are not made to take responsibility. It starts with the family that makes statements like, well if she wants it then she better look after it. If she is on the DPB you¬†shouldn’t¬†have to give her money as well. Oh and my¬†favorite¬†– The fucking government should help her, why should you pay some of your minimum wage its the govt’s job – (yep the govt¬†didn’t¬†wear the condom, they found the girl and promised her the world and got her pregnant). The mentality of the uneducated individuals who believe the world owes them something. Sad really.¬†

    • Boss Hogg

      Is it safe to assume that you have improved your selection criteria since then…………..?

      Also – did he go back to jail for Benefit Fraud?

      Many do not – that is really sad.

      • Leata

        Oh yes criteria has changed enormously it was 18 years ago now ¬† … and no he just got a slap on the hand and was made to pay it back at $5 a week.¬†

  • Whollyghost

    Contraceptive fluid secretly injected into McDonalds, KFC, takeaway pizzas, and cigarettes should do the trick.

  • Mark

    ¬†The CS Act incentivises ¬†(sp?) the custodial parent (mainly the mother, whether she left or not) to restrict contact (overnight) with the father (payer) to under 6 nights per fortnight. Under our current Family Court rules, there is no presumption of shared care (unlike Aust), you have to fight for it. Custodial parent needs give no reason or justification, indeed if you try to assert rights standard legal tactic is to assert drink, violence, or “I just don’t feel¬†safe”¬†
    When good fathers are¬†denied reasonable access to¬†their¬†much loved children, it’s a total head fuck. When insult is heaped upon injury, some people snap.
    If I earn $100k gross, I am liable to pay $24k (from net) to the mother earning $200k (or $500k) despite the fact that I need and love to care for,¬†accommodate, feed, clothe and entertain my daughters 5 nights per fortnight. Happily the CS Legislation changes next year, now it’s time for the Family Court to reflect modern life.
    So be careful with the deadbeat dad shit.

    • Steve P

      “So be careful with the deadbeat dad shit.”
      Exactly. The mother walks out of the marriage because, meh, she “no longer finds personal fulfillment” or some other BS, and it’s always the dad who is the “deadbeat”.

      Contrary to what lawyers might coach their female clients into saying in family court, there is only a small minority of marriages that break up because of husband violence or abuse. For her book “Women’s Infidelity” Michelle Langley interviewed 123 divorced women. Some of those women admitted¬†deliberately trying to provoke their husbands into striking¬†them because they calculated it would be to their advantage in the looming¬†
      child-custody dispute, and it didn’t work – they¬†couldn’t¬†believe the things their husbands were willing¬†to put up with.

    • Hollyfield

      Mark, if you don’t want to wait for the changes, you could look into having an Administrative Review.
      Ground 8: The child support assessment does not take into account the income,
      earning capacity, property or financial resources of either parent or
      the child.

      • Dave

        The Admin review is a complete waste of time. ¬† If parents incomes are unbalanced, the Admin review officer only cares about the poor hard done by parent on a lower income. ¬† They have a terrible loser mentality. ¬† THey have cost us tens of thousands of dollars, and won’t enforce recovery. ¬†¬†

        We have even gone to the Family court twice and had an Admin review overturned, and IRD received a spanking both times. ¬† Hollow victory, as IRD simply say, oh well, we can’t get the money back now. ¬†He is too poor, and it would effect the kids in his care. ¬†¬†

        The ACT is unworkable, and the IRD CS unit are gutless.

  • Big Bruv

    Steve P is starting to sound like another well known deadbeat dad who talks about ‘justice’ yet in the same breath¬†thinks it is the tax payers job to fund their kids.

    It is bloody simple really, if they are yours then you have a duty to provide for them.

    • Steve P

      Yes it is simple, so simple even someone like you should be able to understand.

      See my very first comment on this thread. If you don’t like paying for someone else’s kids then repeal the DPB laws; take them back to their original intention: to support mothers who had suffered the misfortune of being widowed or abandoned by their husbands.

      Do that and the number of children being supported by the state will plummet – that is absolutely guaranteed, it’s basic cause-and effect.

      If, however, you are happy with the laws as they are; you think that women have a right to force the state to pay for their kids regardless of how those kids came to be, then you have absolutely no grounds for complaint.

  • Brian Smaller

    Can someone please enlighten me as to what happens in this scenario.  IRD takes x-amount based on income off the liable parent and is that amount paid directly to the custodial parent? Or is it just an off-set against the dpb?  Does it count as income for the custodial parent and get taxed again? Which is it? 

    • Hollyfield

      The answer to your first two questions is yes to both Рeven if that seems a bit contradictory!   

      From IRD’s website (the section giving info to custodial parents)

      “If you’re on a benefit you’ll only receive child support where
      the amount collected from the paying parent is more than the benefit
      entitlement.

      “If you‚Äôre not on a benefit you‚Äôll get all the child support
      collected from the paying parent (not including penalties). Payments
      received from the paying parent by the due date are direct credited to
      your bank account on the 7th of the following month. You only receive
      the amount collected by us for a particular month. ”

      I can’t find any information on IRD’s website about this, but as far as I know it’s not taxed again.¬† Perhaps it is income, but¬† not “earnings”?¬†¬†¬† It is considered income when the custodial parent applies for WFF – they declare their income from working, their income from child support, their income from eg rent/business/shares and then WFF entitlement is based on all that income.

      • Dave

        Hollyfield. ¬† But there is NO compulsion the parent receiving the CS payments spends it on the betterment of the kids concerned. ¬† We have proved the father used it to buy a newer car, and the kids still came to us for clothes, school fees. LASt year, after paying EX over 10K, we did some calcs. ¬† He was about $15K better off than us, as he understated his income just enough to be under the 15% trigger rate, and pocketed over 10K AFTER TAX from us. ¬† Yet, we both have 2 kids from my Wife’s previous relationship. ¬†

        The systems unworkable, and the IRD’s enforcement of it is Woeful. ¬† See my above post, we have had the IRD CS told off twice by the family court. ¬† Total and utter bullshit. ¬† ¬†I even had a IRD CS officer tell me to pay the child support, and she said “If i was a decent human and cared about the kids, I should ¬†pay it myself” ¬† I already do support the kids more than their father does and that is not up to the IRD. ¬† ¬†If you work there, I acknowledge you have a completely unworkable ACT to enforce, and a minister, who struggles to find his wig every morning, let alone fix the ACT.

  • Mr_Blobby

    When the Government gets involved. They draw up rules witch are ineffective, inefficient and unworkable. That pretty much sums up the current situation.
     
    The Government shouldn’t be involved anybody’s private life. Except to tell them, to get their shit sorted.
     
    With an estimated 10% of Fathers, not the paternal Father, before a court makes any decision, a paternity test should be compulsory. It is to easy by far, for a woman to simply name who she thinks will be the best provider for her children.
     
    I have come across Women who have fucked around so much they have no idea who the Father is or even what color the baby will be.
     
    Is there compensation for wrongly accused Fathers, are there any penalties for Mothers who wrongly accuses a Man of being the Father.
     

  • roscohamm

    Okay then..here’s my two cents worth….had no trouble with paying for my children..that is until my youngest left school with her mothers blessing as soon as she was able to(her mothers reasoning was,as she was workin she would get extra money to help an older daughter that had got into trouble thru ripping other people of….nevermind the welfare of the child just left school)
    ¬†Tried to encourage youngest daughter to stop vegetating as over the years depression and lower and lower self confidance took a hold of her…..but mother was happy for her to sit at home doing nothing as she was able to keep most of the money meant for my daughter.
    ¬† Finally all hell broke lose after she turned eightien as i had it out with them one last time…..so hence no more contact with any of my children.
    ¬† The end result is thru the sacrifice of her daughter my ex wife was able to purchase a house for herself and within six months of turning ninteen my daughter is now pregnant and so able to carry on the lifestyle that has been encouraged by her fuckin mother…..oh joy joy….so wots that about deadbeat dads(MOTHERS)……

  • roscohamm

    One last point.how come mothers to be have the right and the means to abdicate the responsability of being a parent but at that time no means are given to the fathers to opt out of having a child….think this is a human rights issue here

92%