The leftward and other blatherings of Span (now with Snaps!)

Sunday, March 20, 2005

naming daddy II

Further to my earlier post about the difficulty of meeting the IRD's strictures about naming the father when applying for the DPB, I have heard through the grapevine that the case I talked about is by no means a one-off and that community lawyers are often facing this situation.

Apparently the only course of action left to women with this problem is to seek a Paternity Order against the father and force a DNA test (which of course would be nigh impossible to enforce if the father is now overseas). And even then it is highly unlikely the $22 (soon to be $28) cut would be backdated.

I'm sure this will sooth Muriel Newman's discomfit slightly but frankly it disgusts me.


David Farrar said...

The current policy is not perfect but what is the alternative for the growing number of kids being born officially fatherless?

There are two explanations for the huge increases we have seen.

1) A huge number of women have become so promiscous that they have no idea who the father is

2) The women do know who the father is, and have agreed not to name him, in exchange for cash payments from the father, so he avoids paying child support through the IRD.

span said...

did you actually read my first post DPF? you have completely ignored one possible (and seeming increasingly likely) reason which is the case i outlined in my first post - women who name the father but IRD doesn't accept their naming as the father has not consented. i don't see how you can really blame the mother in that situation.

David Farrar said...

Yes I did, and as I said the current policy is not perfect. If the named father is in NZ then the issue can be resolved by paternity tests. If they have fled overseas, then for that very small fraction of cases, hopefully the IRD shows some discretion.

Anonymous said...

Isn't there another explanation for women not naming the father of their children - a well-founded fear that they'll get the shhit beaten out of them if they dare expose men to liability for child support?

span said...

good point Anon, but not one that i suspect Muriel et al will give much credence too. explanations that don't involve blaming the mother don't seem to get a look-in :-(