Home > Issues
> Child-Support > Child-Support,
Abortion and the Family Court
and the Family Court
© Peter Zohrab 2012
(Submission to the Social Services Committee on the Child Support Amendment
1. I recognise that both parents have financial
obligations towards their children. However, child support is part and parcel
of the post-separation or post-divorce scenario, and should come under the
jurisdiction of the same organisation which handles the other aspects of the
scenario -- i.e. the Family Court.
Just because this issue involves the Government`s money, and the payers
are mainly men, this does not mean that it should be placed in Inland Revenue`s
hands, so as to enforce maximum compliance. Fathers, at the same time, are
often having problems enforcing access to their children through the Family
Court. Why should everything that benefits the Government be a priority to
enforce, and everything that benefits fathers be of low priority to enforce?
This makes it look as if men just exist to provide cannon-fodder in times
of war, and sperm and money at all other times.
2. Child-Support payments should be proportionately linked to the amount
of the liable parent's access to his children. The Family Court makes decisions
on the basis of low standards of evidence and a low burden of proof -- despite
the fact that the outcomes of Family Court cases can be just as bad for the
non-custodial parent as a Criminal Court sentence.
After all, one of the main detriments suffered by a prisoner is reduced
access to family and friends. If a man is going to be sentenced to isolation
from his children plus having his pay docked, then custody and access decisions
should be based on the standards of evidence and proof that are required in
the Criminal Court.
3. There was recently a
case in the United States, where an under-age boy had sex with an adult
female, and he was forced to pay child-support for the resultant child. This
shows the link between the rest of family law and child-support. The criminal
mother was given custody, and -- as a result -- the boy was forced to pay
child support. This should be outlawed in New Zealand.
The criminal mother should not have been given custody, and the boy should
not have been forced to pay child-support. If the Family Court decided child-support,
it could take liability for child-support into account when considering custody
-- in this case, it might well have made a different decision as to custody.
The criminal mother caused the problem by seducing an under-age boy, and then
she got the benefit of custody of the child and (presumably) social welfare
payments -- while the victim of under-age sex was forced to pay child-support!
4. Another, linked issue, which should also be under the jurisdiction of
the Family Court is abortion. Under the current sexist laws in New Zealand
and the USA, only the mother has he right to decide on an abortion. If she
does not decide to have an abortion, the father is saddled with a child --
and possibly with child-support payments, as in the under-age sex case. In
that case, the father should have been able to force the mother to have an
abortion, and fathers in general should have equal rights with mothers as
to abortion decisions. After all, as soon as the baby
is born, it is the father's joint responsibility with the mother.
3 July 2015