Newstalk ZB
A man living in a different town from his teenage children has been trying to get his child support payments reduced because he claimed his former wife was financially better off. But Carl Eddowes* has failed in his latest attempt because he couldn’t come up with the evidence to prove his claims. The dad saw his children one day short each year of the threshold by which he was legally recognised as their “carer”. Eddowes was therefore liable for a level of child support payments he had disputed for some time. Meanwhile, his former wife who had since re-married, had an interest in various companies and trusts owned by her father, from which Eddowes alleged she benefited financially. In declining the application for a departure order, the Family Court noted the woman's household and therefore the children’s overall financial position was likely to be enhanced by her involvement with the various trusts and companies, but the man had failed to provide evidence of such. Photo / 123rf Carmen Baker* said while their children were afforded many benefits from having a supportive stepfather, a generous grandfather and a mother who could prioritise supporting them, she did not receive direct financial benefit from her involvement in family business. Decade of dispute The couple separated about a decade ago. The Family Court noted about 11 child support reviews had been sought between them in that time. Eddowes then took his grievance to court, but now that too has declined his application for Inland Revenue to re-assess his liability. In a recently released Family Court decision, Associate Judge Claire Mullord said she was not satisfied the evidence established that IRD’s assessment was unjust and unfair, based on Eddowes’ claims around the income, earning capacity and financial resources of his former wife. Neither had he provided evidence of hardship arising from the IRD assessment, the judge said in the decision. Parents miles apart The parents lived in South Island towns several hundred kilometres apart. The teens saw their dad fortnightly at weekends and during school holidays, in an arrangement set out in a final parenting order made last year. It meant that Eddowes’ time with his children, for IRD assessment purposes, averaged out at 100–101 nights per year. The threshold for 28% of the care time was 102 nights per year. It meant Eddowes was not a recognised carer of the children under the Child Support Act, which was reflected in the assessment of child support payable, Judge Mullord said. She noted Eddowes had been successful in gaining a departure order from the court in May 2021, because of the high costs associated with the father maintaining contact with his children. “Judge [Richard] Russell in determining that application noted the parties’ significant history of difficulty over child support arrangements stretching back to 2017-2018,” Judge Mullord said. Proving claims ‘up to applicant’ Eddowes’ last attempt for an IRD review of child support payments was in September 2024, but it failed due to a lack of specific relevant information and supporting material to establish that Baker earned, or was capable of earning, more than her adjusted income. Judge Mullord said the review officer concluded it was up to Eddowes to establish his claims. Eddowes then applied to the Family Court for a departure from IRD’s formula assessment on the basis of special circumstances, and sought to vary the annual amount for which he was liable. He argued that while his former wife had been made redundant, she had previously earned a good salary. While she had elected not to regain employment, she was involved with a number of companies in a directorship role and as a shareholder, and was a trustee and beneficiary of trusts. Judge Mullord said Eddowes inferred that Baker was capable of earning income through the asset pool held by the companies and trusts in excess of $250,000 per year. He referred to the estimated rental income of $170...
Go to News Site