Thoughts from a divorced man

Welcome to “Divorced-Man” Dot Com.

Posted on August 8, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

This site is built for men, and men only. Why is that?

Well – if you are divorced for a while already, then you know the answer: this is because no matter WHY you have divorced and what were the circumstances, you probably found yourself to be guilty. You are most likely to be accused for the failure marriage and butchered by everyone around you: friends, family, maybe even your children – and of course family court and the lawyers – they all attack you and consider you as guilty even if you haven’t done anything, even if you haven’t said anything.

Why is that? this is because there is a core conflict between our original design as humans and the way our society and culture developed: in our genes and basic instincts, men and women are significantly different creatures, however our society and culture are trying to treat us as “equal” and “identical”…. but this is not the truth: MEN and WOMEN are different, and everyone around is accepting it in our primitive senses: that the man is usually the responsible, the active, the leader, and that the woman is passive, defenseless, and needs more help. In order to “fix” this inequality, our society has designed a system – laws, regulations and procedures. From one hand – the system is giving full rights and all the opportunities to both sides – to the woman and to the man (which in theory is good). But unfortunately the people that combine our society and WORK for that system have in their instincts a DNA that tells them “the woman is helpless…. help her”…. even that in reality the system already did that – by giving her the property rights, the custody rights, the child support payments…..

This website is then designed as a support hub for men, and for men only. Please stay in touch!

Posted in My Story | Leave a comment

The court system is abusive (part 1)

Posted on February 6, 2013 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

One thing I noticed, and you should be mentally prepared for it, how abusive the court system in New Zealand is, and I believe it is abusive in other countries as well.

In this post I will relate to a specific abusive way in which the court functions – their way to ignore their own commitments.

The judicial system is always looking for “evidences” – i.e. for pieces of papers in which you have taken obligations. If you sent an email, or sent a letter, or compiled an agreement and signed it with your name and address – the court will see it as “an agreement” or as “evidence”.

This is really funny, because two weeks ago I attended the dispute tribunal court in Wellington.
Previously the court has sent me a signed letter that said – “if you have any comments or documents, please email it to us within 10 days”. I have done so – I emailed the court and waited for the hearing.
Two weeks ago when I attended the hearing, the judge said “oh, I’m very sorry. Have you sent any documents? Because I haven’t recived them on time. Unfortunately the responsible person was on leave, and we don’t have access to staff emails. I haven’t read anything and so can’t take it into account”.

Excuse me!?!?! The letter that the court has sent me was signed, and explicitly described the time limit and the way that I should send documents to court. This is like an agreement, or like any other paper that the court has used against me. Why can’t I just “apologize” when I change my mind or want to back-off from a commitment that I had made, explain the circumstances and get away from hard consequences that have resulted? The court however can do whatever they like, twist the system on their behalf and abuse innocent people that look for justice.

Yours,

Divorced – Man.

Posted in Family Court, My Story | Leave a comment

Your well-being is for the kids

Posted on November 14, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

Just after I had this dodgy administrative review, I obviously started to collect debt, which grew to a huge sum of money. This has happened since my income was lower than the total payments that I had to make, and as I described before, my Ex has also refused to pay me back sums of money that I lent her when she was unemployed.

But in this post I don’t want to talk about financial issues, but about your worst enemy: health.
After a long period that I felt physically bad (I didn’t connect it to the bad IRD / Ex experiences) I went to the doctor. He examined me and told me that I’m as healthy as a lion. But I did have pain! Every two weeks I had waves of pain in my stomach. I felt dizzy, weak, some days I couldn’t go to the office at all. My Boss started to be worried and allowed me to work from home, but still – I was quiet diss-functional. I started to forget things (in court I couldn’t tell the date of my separation agreement), I started to confuse names and places…. I had waves of headaches, fever, shivering… And as a result of all those symptoms I was sure that I was dying, but the blood tests showed that I’m ok, and every visit to the doctor he couldn’t find what is wrong.

One day I decided to try and run my own investigation: I entered in Google all my symptoms, and tried to look for the disease that I may have. The answer was there, on my Google results page: STRESS!
Stress can cause pain, can cause dizziness, can escalate your heart pulse… and could create many other physiological changes. Believe it or not, Wikipedia claimed that the most common causes of stress are… divorce, and financial stress.

I went back to the doctor and told him what I have found out. He agreed – and wanted to give me some drugs. I strongly refused – this is a door that you can easily open, but it is very hard to close. So he sent me to… counselling. Apparently the ministry of health in New Zealand is funding 6 counselling sessions of one hour to people that the doctors think it could help them become better.
I needed only ONE session. I told the young lady what I was experiencing, and she asked me some questions about my life. After about 30 minutes she told me – “Listen, you don’t really see what is going on! It is all about IRD and you Ex – she is trying to destroy you! You must fight back; you must give her nothing of what she is asking for!”

I told her that I was sure my Ex is caring about the kids, and that’s why she is pursuing the money, the custody, etc… “Nonsense!” the counselor was quiet firm, “she wants to destroy you! She is jealous at you! You are a nice, caring man, successful it what you are doing – it is all about jealousy, and until you are down – she will not give up”.

Well… this time I heard it from an objective person – not from a friend, and not from a family member. I must admit that my eyes have opened that day.

I think that this story is covering all what I wanted to write for this time…. And my advices would be:

(1) Use the counselling services of the ministry of health – it is always good to hear the opinion of someone independent,
(2) Be aware of what stress can cause you,
(3) NEVER give up – even if your Ex seems to behave “normal” and “caring for the kids”, always remember that the well being of kids is highly connected to how well you are. If you Ex is fighting you – she DOES NOT really care about the kids… or else she would want them to have a father that feels well and have enough resources – spiritual and financial – to take care of them.
Yours – Divorced Man

Posted in Children as a weapon, IRD Child Support, My Story | Leave a comment

Dodgy IRD New Zealand Administrative Review Commissioner “Harrison”

Posted on November 4, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

This was administrative review held for one of our readers in the end of 2010.

We will try to stick to the letters and facts, so you could judge for yourself.

The chain of events:

1. 21-Oct-2010 – the application filed by my Ex. I had 14 days to respond.

2. The application didn’t have ANY documents attached to it (you will see a proof later on). The papers said that I should be careful disclosing documents because all documents will be transferred to the Ex. I have received nothing – so provided nothing.

3. 9-Nov-2010: On date of the hearing, I called Mr. Harrison (I doubt if it is his real name, or else – why won’t they say his full name??). I gave him all the information he asked for but reminded him that he can’t make any decision because I didn’t receive any documents.

4. As a consequence, IRD has sent me the documents. Please note the date, and note that according to the law I had 14 days to respond.

5. I faxed them the documents immediately. I also sent it to them. they have replied – please look at the dates – they confirm that they have received the documents within the 14 days time window:

IRD letter from 25th Nov showing that the commissioner "Harrison" has made a decision prior to sending me the documents

IRD administrative review

6. And then, supposedly after, I have received their decision. PLEASE NOTE THE DATES – THEY HAVE MADE THE DECISION BEFORE THEY HAVE EVEN SENT ME THE DOCUMENTS!

IRD administrative review

Please also note that:
- they have received my documents
- the date of the hearing is PRIOR to the date they even sent me their documents (obviously prior to the date they have received mine)!
- the commissioner, that has powers more than a judge, has tricked me ans the system: he made a decision without relating to my reply, and without allowing me the time in the law to reply.

Also note that ALL NAMES of IRD commssioner and review officers are omitted from the documents. The meaning of it that if you want to apply to court or to a civil right organization, you don’t really have the names of the people involved.

This is a dodgy and anti-democratic way to manage things. The child support act is giving the commissioner powers as strong (if not stronger) than the power of a judge: some decisions of an IRD commsssioner can’t be changed even not by court!!!

As a consequence of that I tried to complain to IRD – they ignored my complain. I contacted the minister in his Facebook account, he ignored my complain.

We are now in a state of appealing to the united nations: it seems like the New Zealand government has adopted ways that fit with dark dictatorships and do not fit with international standards of democracy… could you imagine a country in which the judge’s name sentencing you to death yet the judge’s name is not exposed? and without the ability to appeal??

Yours — Divorced Man, New Zealand

Posted in IRD Child Support, My Story | 2 Comments

Submission to court, in response

Posted on October 20, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WELLINGTON
FAM ((application number))
FAM ((application number))

((my name)) – APPLICANT ,
((my Ex name)) – RESPONDENT

Submission in response to respondent’s submission from 2nd/October/2012

Dated: 9th of October 2012

1. I contacted IRD over the phone after the 30/3/2011. They have told me over the 0800 line that if I make payments to the respondent, even without a signed agreement, they (the commissioner) see this as we are having “a voluntary agreement” – and that only court can intervene with it.
2. I’m not a commissioner and never worked for IRD – if IRD tell me over the phone that they consider us to have a voluntary agreement, than I take it as true. The respondent saw it in the same eyes as long as she didn’t employ a lawyer in the process.
3. The agreement was signed by both sides without any legal consultation, meaning that both sides saw it at the time as a voluntary agreement, even if legally we were not aware of the definition of it in the act.
4. Section 48 does not set the requirements for a voluntary agreement. Voluntary agreements are signed and facilitated in NZ without the assistance of court or the commissioner; still they are obviously considered “voluntary”. Section 48 sets the requirements for a voluntary agreement to qualify for acceptance by the Commissioner, which is not our case and not related to my application.
5. Either of the sides approached the commissioner to administer the agreement, so the respondent’s line of logic has never been examined in practice for the purpose that she is describing in her response.
6. As the court can see, the voluntary agreement was signed on 29/3/2011 while the respondent’s application to IRD to cancel the debt was done on 30/3/2011 – just a day after it. This shows that the respondent was conditioning the cancellation of the debt by reaching a voluntary agreement according to her terms and conditions. It was an outcome of the Administrative Review which suggested the respondent, but didn’t force her, that even with the assessment of IRD, I still was overpaying her at least $4,000. This was quoted in my affidavit.
7. This shows that the respondent was tying between the agreement and the IRD assessments. If that is the case, and IRD assessments changed, then the agreement should be changed as well.
8. Besides that, our agreement did have a part of periodical payments, which were more than the minimum required by IRD, and in case we asked the commissioner to administer it (which we haven’t), it would be qualified as voluntary agreement.
9. In contrast to what the respondent is claiming, I couldn’t apply for an administrative review after my tax returns were filed. This is because of the following reasons:
9.1. I filed an administrative review prior to it.
9.2. IRD refused to consider my grounds for application – the commissioner wrote in her decision that because the respondent applied before me, she can’t change a previous decision if filed on the same grounds, even if there is new information to consider. She directed me to apply to court, which is exactly what I am doing.
9.3. IRD is considering an application for administrative review only within a certain amount of time since their previous administrative review. When my tax returns were filed in 2012, it was too late for the period of the agreement, and anyway they wouldn’t consider the application because the grounds for the application are the same as were in previous applications.
10. It is the in the power of the court to set aside agreements which were reached by fraud or undue influence.
11. As I mentioned in my affidavit, the respondent:
11.1. Prevented me at the time, and she is still doing so in contrast to court’s orders, from accessing important children document.
11.2. Prevented me from seeing the children and conditioned my time with the children “only if you don’t inform IRD of the excess time”
11.3. Was threatening to remove the kids from New Zealand “if I don’t pay her” – I have provided the court with proofs for that threat.
11.4. Was threatening to send “violent strong big men to my house to collect money from me” if I don’t agree to meet such payments
11.5. Was using the children as a weapon (“father can’t buy you anything because he doesn’t have money…. Ask daddy why he is not paying me more…. Etc”) to push me to sign such documents in order to take from me money that I couldn’t pay
11.6. Was lying and saying that she didn’t have enough money to take care of the kids, while in fact she was transferring the child support payments to her own personal saving account
11.7. Each one of those separately and of course all those reasons together definitely stand within the definition of “fraud” and “undue influence”
12. In fact, my income at the time was dramatically lower than the income that IRD assessed. At some point I was unemployed and couldn’t recover from the financial crisis that the respondent happily played a role in.
13. I provided with IRD, and with the respondent, proofs that my main source of income has stopped due to the Christchurch earthquake. Both IRD and the respondent ignored the proofs that I have provided, and waited for my tax returns to be filed.
14. The respondent heard those facts in counseling, and she knew that if she wait for the next IRD assessment, she will “loose the opportunity” to make more money.
15. The fact that the respondent acknowledge that my true income was lower than the one assessed by IRD at the time, but still she is insisting on sticking to that voluntary agreement – even that it was a wrong agreement – shows her real face and her real intentions why she is trying to excuse the court in setting aside this agreement: to gain money that she does not deserve and that would never serve the benefit of the children.
16. My application to court was made in order to gain the court’s protection in those circumstances. I ask the court to consider my original application.
17. Court’s decision in the matter is crucial for the stability of my family and my children as I can’t afford the payments described in that agreement, and the respondent does not agree to any sensible compromise. If the agreement is still valid, it may prevent the financial ability to support my family and children in dignity.
18. I ask the court to set aside the private agreement and to set the child support payments for that time as should have been set by IRD, and according to my real income.
19. I also ask the court to delete the respondent’s clause 15 from her submission as the counseling process was assumed to be confidential, yet the respondent is throwing false assumptions which no one could prove or disprove in the process, just in order to affect the court’s decision: in fact, her remark is not true – maybe HER approach in counseling was competent to reach agreement, unfortunately my approach was different and I tried to minimize the pain from the children: I ask the court to refer to the family court file of the time and find out that (1) I was the applicant, and (2) Court has referred us to counseling, and – (3) I canceled my application after the respondent’s asked me to “prevent the pain from the children” because the court appointed a lawyer for the children. Basically she was using the children to prevent me from reaching a satisfying agreement.

((my name)), applicant

Posted in Family Court, IRD Child Support, My Story | Leave a comment

Affidavit filed to family court yesterday

Posted on October 13, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

This is an affidavit that I filed to Wellington family court yesterday. I want to encourage you:
- to do it without a lawyer (that would empty your pocket)
- not to fear from the court’s language: there is nothing in the law forcing you to write it in their language.

As you can see in the photos, I wrote it late at night. I didn’t fix the grammar and spelling mistakes that I found while disclosing the private information: you read it AS IS!

——————————————————————————————–
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WELLINGTON

FAM 2011-
FAM 2011-

{{my_name}} – APPLICANT ,
{{my_ex_name}} – RESPONDENT

Further affidavit in support of my response to respondent’s defense

I, {{my_name}} of Wellington, {{my_occupation}}, affirm:

1. I’m the applicant in these proceedings.

2. This affidavit is in response to the respondent’s proposal for shared care arrangements.

3. The respondent sworn that the travel arrangements of {{my lovely boy}} to attend air cadets are being shared with “other families”. This is not true as I will show below

4. {{my lovely boy}} is attending {{a specific after school activity}} ({{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}}) every Thursday night.

5. The travel arrangements are between me and a mother of another boy that attends {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}} ({{his friend name}}), and sometimes a third mother ({{mother name}}). As natural in such arrangements, we share the pick-ups or drop downs to and from {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}}.

6. The “other family” doesn’t actually have space for {{my lovely boy}} in their car, as reference (1) shows. Unfortunately the respondent has never (even not one time in two years of activity) contributed to the arrangement, even that every second week she is free from custodial responsibility and should have the time to contribute. As a consequence of that, sometimes I had to take responsibility on {{my lovely boy}}’s {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}} activity even in weeks in which the respondent is the custodial parent and not me.

7. This has been raised in mediation and the respondent agreed that under her custody, she will take responsibility on {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}} activities.

8. I refer the court to reference (1) which shows that even after the mediation, the circumstances haven’t changed and I’m been asked to travel to {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}} to take (or drop) {{my lovely boy}} and his friends.

9. The respondent also sworn that “the children have asked her to change the week about arrangement”. The lawyer of the kids quoted {{my 6.5 years old boy}} asking to “change from 7:7 to 8:6”. Both are lies.

10. {{my 6.5 years old boy}} is in an age in which the analytic development of his brain does not allow him to understand fractions and percentages: he is hardly adding numbers to 100. To understand the difference between “7:7” and “8:6” is impossible for him.

11. I asked {{my 6.5 years old boy}} what is the difference between the arrangements, and he couldn’t tell me. He just told me “I want 8:6, or maybe 9:6 or maybe 10:6”, what shows he couldn’t really ask for such an arrangement.

12. My explanation is that {{my 6.5 years old boy}}, and the other kids, were guided by the respondent to tell their lawyer that this is what they want. The respondent is acting so in order to gain child support payments, and not because “the kids want it”

13. The lawyer of the children could not give me any satisfying explanation how come a 7 years old boy is using analytic tools of a 15 years old boy. He also couldn’t explain to me how {{my lovely boy}} will get to the {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}} activity if the kids’ “request” to shift to 8:6 will be ordered by the court. He answered to me that “he is getting there already, so I don’t see any issue with it”. But obviously if I lose custody of the kids on all Thursday night (an outcome of a 8:6 arrangements) I won’t participate in the travel arrangements to {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}} and {{my lovely boy}} will stop attending that activity. This is a conflict between the lawyers’ report that {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}} is important for {{my lovely boy}}, and his recommendation to shift to “8:6” arrangement. As for that I see that the recommendations of the lawyer of the children are unfortunately biased toward the respondent, being a woman and a mother.

14. I also ask the court to read with attention my previous affidavit and the circumstances that lead me to apply to court. The respondent is highly motivated by anything that could produce her child support payments, and not motivated by real children’s needs. The court has also so far ignored the choice of {{my eldest boy}} (16 years old years) to “choose to live with his mum”. This is also not true – I live 5 minutes drive from his mum but its not only that he chose to live with her: he didn’t stay here even not one night in the last 6 months – which shows that there is a deeper issue here: the respondent is poisoning the kids against me.

15. Fact is that the respondent acted indecently to separate between me and {{my eldest boy}}. Changing to 8:6 is only one step in a bigger plan of hers to separate between me and all the kids.

16. Psychologists have proven already that poisoning children against a parent after a divorce process is mentally abusing them. Mental abuse is not leaving the physical marks that rape or physical abuse do, but they hurt and damage the child in a severe and irreversible way. The court should take this into account and relate to it as a very serious matter.

17. I also want the court to carefully examine both the children lawyer’s report and the respondent’s affidavit. Both mention that “the weeks with dad are too long in comparison to the weeks with mum”. On the other hand they both suggest a change of the current 7:7 arrangement with a “8:6” arrangement.

18. If 7 days with dad are too long for the kids, I don’t understand how 6 days with dad won’t be long: it is only one day difference.

19. It is also very surprising to me since even that we have a “7:7” arrangement, I’m very flexible with the kids and their requests: whenever the children are asking to see their mum I don’t stop them from texting her, and allowing her to pick them up to have extra time with her. This has happened at least 4 nights in the last 4 months while when the kids asked the respondent to have extra time with me, she never agreed. Taking into account that whenever the kids ask so, I allow them to go to their mum, I believe that her application to court is only in order to gain child support benefits.

20. The solution that the respondent suggests is also not taking into account the possible reasons why “the weeks with dad are longer than the weeks with mum”. It is not surprising me that the kids miss their mum because I am aware of her style of parenting: she is using lots of babysitting services, after school care and other arrangements, instead of personally have full time care of them. She is always late to pick them up (please refer to reference 2). She is quiet often spending the weekend doing her own things while they are dropped to stay with friends, and not with her. No wonder that the kids are missing their mum – but it doesn’t mean that I need to be the one paying and compensating for the respondent’s lifestyle.

21. It also surprised me that both the lawyer of the kids and the respondent didn’t suggest any other arrangement: if the reason for changing the arrangement is because “7 days are too long with dad”, then a genuine suggestion would be to change the arrangement to “4:3:3:4” (i.e. – 4 nights with dad, 3 with mum, 3 with dad, 4 with mum). If the weeks with dad are longer than the weeks with mum, then this is definitely better for the kids than a 8:6 arrangement, but unfortunate for the respondent – such genuine arrangements do not include any child support payments which are her real target.

22. Another option would be to break the long week with a dinner with mum, but the night will remain with dad. Again I’m surprised (actually I’m not) how come the only solution for the kids “missing mum” that we heard from all the people involved: from the kids, from the lawyer of the kids and of course from the respondent – is the one which gets IRD involved in the picture.

23. I ask the court: Leave the current arrangement as they are. Missing mum is not bad for their development or for their well being. I miss my mum too because she lives is in the other side of the planet, unlucky me I can’t see her in every second week and I can’t see my father as well since he died when I was young. Yet I have normal and creative life with healthy and happy family. I also ask the court to consider examining seriously what the kids are really saying, as I showed here that they were manipulated by the respondent.

24. In case the court decides to change the care arrangements, I ask the court:

a. Take into account I will not function as a taxi driver – i.e. {{HIS AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY NAME}} for {{my lovely boy}} will be cancelled if Thursday night is not under my care.

b. I agree to break the week with the kids for an evening with their mum – every Tuesday from 3PM to 8PM – the respondent will pick up the kids from school and drop them at my house.

Sworn this day of _____________________________

Before: _____________________________________

Reference 1: please refer to dates.

Reference 2: requests in the travel arrangements, during her weeks with {{my lovely boy}}.

Posted in Family Court, My Story | 1 Comment

Divorce is a zero-sum game

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

In game theory and economic theory, a zero–sum game is a mathematical concept of circumstances in which a participant’s gain (or loss) of value is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the value of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Take for example – cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others, is a zero–sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally. In contrast, non-zero–sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties’ aggregate gains and losses are either less than or more than zero.

I want to help you understand that your divorce process is a zero-sum game, and if you are aware of this fact – it will ease your pain and save you the experience of a negative-sum game, i.e. a game in which you could find yourself bankrupt and or in a risk of damaging your mental health. And after you are convinced that you entered a zero-sum game zone, I will describe you in my next article what is the right strategy to play such a game, i.e. how to run through the divorce as a zero-sum game and not as a game in which you could ever gain any win.

Why divorce is a zero sum game?

First thing you MUST understand is that the state law is symmetric, i.e. it is not giving any major advantage to any of the sides. It means that no matter what you say or what you do, if you are “normative” (i.e. – not violent, not using drugs, not addictive to any substances, not sick and you are mentally stable) –

Thumb Rule 1: you will never gain more than your Ex wife.

Bad news that shatter your dreams to empty her pockets? The good news is that she will not be able to achieve more than you, unless YOU give her or unless YOU make mistakes. We will get back to this point later, when we post a strategy of playin a zero-sum game.

Family court can’t change the law. In fact, there is a mutual silent understanding between the family court judges and the lawyers, that the family court proceedings ARE a zero-sum game for the parents, while it is a positive-sum game for the lawyers: the longer it takes, the lawyers will earn more money (as simple as that) – this is a simple fact of life. The other news are that Judges are not saints and trust me, I doubt if you can find one family court judge that after work is going home, praying to Budha and donating all his/her income to poor people. Judges are actually human beings that enjoy a good salary: even the most honest judge knows in the back of the mind that if your family court proceedings ended after 20min, then the ministry of justice will have to get rid of judges, which means that additional people will join the circle of unemployment. And besides, if two adults want to spend $50,000 each gambling on the low chance of winning something – the family court is not the entity to prevent you from doing it. So this is the second thing you must be aware of: the court is the WORK place for judges and lawyers:

Thumb Rule 2 (light version): the family court proceedings will continue until one of the sides, or both, spend all their money or if both sides agree that the only way to manage parenting in divorce is not to bash one another.

Now look at this sentence and tell me – when was the last time that BOTH you and your Ex agreed on something? Isn’t this the reason why you are divorced? So most likely that the above rule will actually be:
Thumb Rule 2 (the most sensible version): the family court proceedings will continue until one of the sides, or both, spend all their money.

Until now I was “PC”, and have been writing in the philosophical level. Do you know the joke about the difference between theory and practice? Well, as we said, the lawyers, and the court, don’t have any motivation to solve your issues (even that the nice family court DVD is promising it), actually their motivation is opposite. Unfortunately your Ex is a woman and women, by nature, are financially dependent more than men – this is because no matter what politicians say – they didn’t manage to invent a man with a womb: do we see all the people around?? They were all babies at some point of time of their life, and babies are born from wombs. Biologically women have abilities that men don’t have: they give birth and breast feed the babies. The outcome is that they need to have “time-outs” in their life to take care of babies. This is true even for New Zealander women – and even for those NZ women that live in the “strong independent Zea-Lala land” fantasy that Helen Clark established in New Zealand – such women believe that a woman is independent financially, but reality is that the number of women that earn child support payments from men is greatly higher than the number of men earning child support from women. The meaning of it is that the lawyers, and the surrounding society, will push your Ex to claim child support and to apply to family court to gain as much as she could – child support and/or better shared care arrangements. Or in other words – even that you understand “thumb rule number 1 – no side can earn more than the other”, still it is most likely that your Ex WON’T UNDERSTAND it, what means that you will find yourself in court or in IRD Administrative Reviews, or both, lacking money and collecting debt, chasing your own tail to survive.

What about the kids? As a man you need to know that naturally the YOUNG kids will be more connected to the mother – i.e.. to your Ex. You need to be mentally prepared to the fact that the young kids will ask to have more of her, and you need not to blame them (or yourself) for that: for me it was a shocking experience just to hear that they wish to have more time with her…. I was giving them everything and took care of their needs and their life and I also think that she is an hysteric mother. But after a discussion with my own mother I understood that it is NATURAL, and no court in the world could change this fact. Yet it DOES NOT mean that you have to GIVE UP your time with the kids – DON’T confuse theory with practice. We are now in the theory part of things, but it does not mean that you necessary have to give up your 50% custody with them just because they want it.

And what happened if you don’t collaborate, let us imagine a case in which you don’t play the game: you do not represent yourself in the administrative review but just pay your IRD child support? Or you don’t attend the family court proceedings? Or you don’t answer the letters from her lawyer?

Well, in such a case, the system will assume that you are not right, and will charge you accordingly. Your Ex will presume that “if you pay XX and do not complain, you could probably pay more”, it will play in her mind – “maybe he is earning money under the table? Maybe he sold the family property for 400% profit? Or maybe his girlfriend is Bill Gates’ daughter? (In my case, I worked for the government but my Ex managed to convince IRD that I make money under the table!) No matter how ridiculous the application of your Ex is, in a case you don’t play the game – you will dramatically lose and be very sorry for it: you will lose what is on the discussion – you will lose your time with the kids, and you will have to pay higher child support payments. This leads me to the third thumb rule which is closing the circle of this section:

Thumb Rule #3: No matter WHAT you do, you MUST play the game

So… to conclude – we have a game here, that you must play. The nature of that game is to push you to lose your money, while no matter what you do – you can’t really earn from it… Divorce is a zero-sum game!

How to play this game? The strategy and tactics of this zero-sum game – will be published in my next post.

Yours – (Divorced Man)

Posted in Family Court, IRD Child Support, My Story | Leave a comment

The place of the father & child support: the bible’s perspective

Posted on September 16, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

Payments of child support are not directly mentioned in the bible, although the financial responsibility of the father to the children, even under situations of separation or divorce, is straightforward when you read the bible. Continue reading →

Posted in IRD Child Support | Leave a comment

A lawyer for the children = just another lawyer for the mum?!?!

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

(and – an idea how to break long weeks with dad, without getting IRD involved)

This is hard – a controversy subject. I don’t know even where to start: appointing a lawyer for the children is against my faith. It is against the way I was raised, and against the way I was educated. It is against my common sense. It is against the way I understand parenting. But let’s say that you are different to me – and you do think that appointing a lawyer to the kids is good for them (and not just another source of income to just another lawyer, ex-colleague of the judge) – still – would you agree that the lawyer for the kids should not be biased, and should represent the pure interest of the children??

I would. But I have found out that the reality is different.

There is a known experimental fact that frogs did not attempt to escape gradually heated water. And this is exactly what the lawyer of the kids, with the assistance of the mediating lawyer and the lawyer of my Ex, try to do to me: to destroy my case, gradually, and step by step.

Like the boiled frog, in the beginning I didn’t notice: the lawyer interviewed the kids, and because it was my Ex’s week with them, she (obviously) guided them what to say to him: they all “suddenly” missed mum very much, the weeks with dad were too long, and they all asked to change the arrangement to “6:8” instead of “7:7”.

As I said, I didn’t notice this in the beginning: I, like you reading me now, thought that this is a genuine request of the kids. But then I started to think – and I noticed several things that happened:

Firstly, the application to court was MINE – I asked for a small change in the care arrangement since one of my boys asked to attend an after school activity that my Ex didn’t collaborate with. The court sent us to mediation, and in the mediation I realized that my request was NOT part of the discussion – that was weird! Instead of trying to resolve the issue which led me to apply, they all created a new problem – that the kids asked for “6:8” arrangement, because the weeks with me are longer for them than the weeks with mum.

Second, my youngest boy is 7, and in practice he doesn’t know the difference between “6 divided by 14” and “7 divided by 14”. I suddenly realised that this “idea” was definitely not his idea. Only two people could have taught him math so quick – quicker than the math teacher at school: after all he managed to “understand” fractions after only 1.5 hours interview with the… lawyer. Maybe the school should employ the lawyer as a math teacher???

And last, the lawyer of the kids said that “the weeks with me are too long for the young kids”. He wrote in his report that “the kids say the weeks with dad are longer than the weeks with mum, and they miss her”. He has advised in the mediation that “a 6:8 arrangement is better for them”. But…. How exactly a “6:8” arrangement is solving the “long week” issue? And is it really the only solution? It will make the “looooong” week to be of 6 days instead of 7 days…. If the problem is that they miss mum, shouldn’t a “3:4:4:3” arrangement solve it?

Of course not…. Because a “3:4:4:3” arrangement is not getting IRD involved, no Child support payments, which is the real interest of the “loving” mum.

Kids will not confuse between “the feeling” and “the solution”. Maybe they feel that the weeks with me are longer for them (natural feeling for young kids), I say maybe – because I’m married and my wife is giving them the appropriate feminine attention. But one thing is sure – kids will NEVER think from their own accord to suggest such a solution: “I want to see daddy 6 nights a week, and mummy 8 nights a week”. Kids don’t think to the future and don’t do the analysis that adults do – they see the present.

As a father, you should remember that there are also many other solutions that can solve the issue of “kids missing mum” but IRD will be kept out of the picture: Mum can take the kids for dinner during the week, to break the long week with dad, and drop them back to dad so they can continue the family life with dad. This can be done once or a couple of nights during the week – if she is genuinely interested in having the kids, and not having the kids as an excuse for additional child support payments. And as I mentioned before, other solutions exist which could break long weeks with either parent: “4:3:3:4” is one example.

If a lawyer of the children is offering any other solution than that, he is biased. Plain and simple.

Until next time – Yours, (Divorced Man).

Posted in Children as a weapon, Family Court, IRD Child Support, My Story | 1 Comment

Mum is punishing my daughter, for leaving cloths behind

Posted on September 9, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

Every day there is a new shocking experience with my Ex.

I have just called my daughter – to ask her how the birthday of her (second best) friend L. went. My daughter was under my custody until Friday, but I knew that she is invited to L.’s birthday that took place on Sunday (today), in a town 1.5 hours drive from our house. My daughter said that she didn’t go to the birthday, because L. changed the venue to celebrate the birthday in the swimming pool, but unfortunately she left her togs in my place. Her mum told her that she can’t go. I asked her why they didn’t come to pick the togs on their way to the birthday – I live 6 minutes drive from her mum – she said they didn’t have the time. I did the math with her over the phone – 6 minutes to here, one minute to go to her bedroom to take the togs, 6 minutes back – it will add 15 min to her journey of 1.5hours to her friend L…. the birthday is planned for a long time during the day – so to the most (I explained her) you will be 15min late. My daughter answered – that she does not know why they have decided not to come.

For you, my reader, it may look like a naive case of dis-communication between my daughter and my Ex, or between me and my Ex. But for me, as I experienced many such incidents with my Ex, I know it as fact : she is punishing the kids all the way through since the divorce when they left things, or even brought things, to my house… she didn’t allow them to bring cloths or books to my place (this is also in my affidavit to court, unfortunately both court and the lawyer of the kids have completely ignored it) and was very aggressive one day (i.e. shouting and physically threatening the kids) when my daughter came to my place with a…. book that her family bought her. I talked to my Ex’s sister about it, and she told me “she was always a bit crazy,… you know it”.

Yes, I know. Basically what is happening here is that my kids are punished in order not to have normal relationship with me. If they keep things in their dad’s place – they are punished. If they want to bring things to dad’s place – they can’t. If they want to bring things from dad’s place to her place – like the computer that I bought them – such things are banned. Plain and simple – it is like an “Italian strike” – if my Ex can’t say directly that she is not happy if my kids have normal relationship with me (because it won’t sound nice in court), then she will let them understand in practice, in mental abuse.

Yes – this is mental abuse. She doesn’t care if it is freazing outside – she will not send them with a coat to school day in which I pick them up. She does not care about their events – if they need anything from here. She cares only about her self, motivated by greed, jealousy and revenge. One day my daughter told me – “Oh, this is so pity. I need to go to mum’s place, but I didn’t finish my book. I so much love this book!” (referring to a book that I gave her to read). At first, I didn’t understand what she is talking about. But then I saw it in her eyes, and told her – “my love…..the moment I gave you this book it is YOURS. You can do with it whatever you want – take it to mum’s place, bring it back to here… it is yours as it was given to you. And you know that no gift should be asked back”. She smiled, and packed the book in her bag.

Until the next time….

Posted in Children as a weapon, My Story | Leave a comment

How (not) to be a good mum

Posted on August 23, 2012 by Divorced_Man_New_Zealand

So while all this mess is going on, and especially the lack of communication and lack of collaboration with my Ex, I have decided with my wife that each one of my children will receive one after school activity, as she or he chose. The main motivation was that no matter what we wanted to give to the children, she always dis-agreed. Not only that, I started to receive invoices from all sorts of vendors which claimed that “she said you will pay this”.

My Daughter chose violin lessons, so we bought her a violin and listed her to weekly violin lessons, my second son chose a specific club, so we paid his yearly membership and he is now attending this club every Thursday night.

Alas…. if you though the drama ended – you were wrong. One day my second son is telling me, that he is going to violin lessons as well. “This is most wonderful!” I said, but I wondered why I never saw him going to the lessons. “this is because”, the boy explained me, “mum is paying for those lesons only in her weeks”. And she was doing the same with my young boy.

So here is the agenda of the “good” mum: in order to fight me, she will emphasize the disagreement and won’t list her boy to full lessons, but distinguish between “my weeks” and “her weeks”: in her weeks she is also not collaborating with activities which I initiated, to show the children that “their dad is not a decision maker in the family”. Imagine what the lawyer of the children will say to me, or the club manager, if I was paying only half of his club membership, or placing a veto on him going to that club “in her weeks”: obviously the club will cancel his membership.

In our mediation session, we invested almost two hours to convince her to collaborate. In the end she agreed (there as of course a price to that: she conditioned that I fully pay for activities that she initiated). She signed the agreement, but…. just a week after I got a text from my boy, asking :” how can I get to the club activity tonight??”

I have only one explanation to this behavior: mental sickness, motivated by extreme jealousy. To my opinion, a mum that fights her Ex on the back of the children, is not a mum that loves her children, but a mum that loves herself.