IRD Child Support Proceedings
After finding out that Antonia and Shaun had been victim to Post Custodial Abduction, I wrote to the IRD Child Support on
I was being led on a wild goose chase with IRD and eventually on
I received a written reply from Ken dated
My concerns were ignored and the stance of IRD was pay up and shut up.
I then received an Affidavit from Anita for marriage dissolution in which it clearly states under the "Satisfactory arrangements for children, section - Maintenance - None paid to me directly.
I again called up IRD and accused them of theft as they were unwilling to provide me with proof of disbursement and surely Anita wouldn't commit perjury.
This reply was again uncooperative so I sent the following:
Inland Revenue – Child Support
Facsimile 03 3631 459.
Attn: Mr. K C Pope
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your correspondence of
Unfortunately, I regard the refusal to supply the information sought on the two quoted grounds of privacy (or secrecy) as inadequate in relation to the information sought. I therefore again request from Inland Revenue - Child Support a complete audit / reconciliation of both the gathering and subsequent disbursement of monies paid to date in regard to this account. I do not require nor expect you to divulge Anita Catton’s personal details.
Further to this request, I would also ask that you provide adequate details of the legislative provisions that provide for the collection and disbursement of funds and assistance to parents / guardians who have illegally abducted children overseas in breach of the Guardianship Act 1968 - “International abduction of children,” and the International “Hague Convention”. As I see it, this is aiding and abetting an illegal act, and I would like to know why this does not render the New Zealand Internal Revenue Department liable for prosecution in relation thereto. Perhaps the Department would like to explain to me why I should not seek damages from the Department in relation to obstructing the return of my children to their lawful home by providing their abductor with the means to remain overseas, and at my expense I might add.
Accordingly, I seek an immediate suspension of any future contributions by myself to this scheme until such time as my children are returned to
Finally, Department records will show an erroneous demand of approximately $16,000 that was subsequently negated in accordance with “Provisions of the Act.” I anticipate the same diligence will prevail.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Catton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My protestations were then passed on to the Manukau Area Office and then on to the Takapuna Area Office and back to the Manukau Area Office.
On 2nd November the Manukau Family Court reinforced the position of Abduction by issuing a declaration to the
I informed Manukau of this event by submitting the following:
Jaquelyn Lambert
IRD Child Support
Manukau Area Office
Dear Jaquelyn,
The Declaration and following legislation places IRD Child Support and its own interpretation of the Child Support legislation in a violative position.
I am in the preparation of initiating criminal proceedings against the Commissioner.
There is 7(seven) days pending before my next liable parent deduction is to be transacted.
With the arbitral and intervention powers held by the Office of the Commissioner it is envisioned that proceedings can be averted and a suspension or alternatively an arrangement by consent agreed upon.
Paragraph 1 & 2 of the Declaration of Wrongful Removal
[1] I extend greetings to my Swedish colleague who has requested through the Swedish Central Authority that I make a declaration pursuant to Article 15 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
[2] Pursuant to that request, and for the reasons set out below, I declare that Anita Larsson (formerly Catton) wrongfully removed Antonia (then aged ten) and Shaun (then aged four) from
CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004
12. Act binds the Crown—
This Act binds the Crown
80. Taking child from
Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to both, who, without the leave of the Court, takes or attempts to take any child out of
(a) knowing that proceedings are pending or are about to be commenced under this Act in respect of the child; or
(b) knowing that there is in force an order of a Court (including an order registered under section 81) giving any other person the role of providing day-to-day care for, or contact with, the child;
CRIMES ACT 1961
66. Parties to offences—
(1) Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who—
(a) Actually commits the offence; or
(b) Does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence; or
(c) Abets any person in the commission of the offence; or
(d) Incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence.
(Abet – To support wrongdoing or wrongdoer- Funk &Wagnall 1977)
71. Accessory after the fact—
(1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him, in order to enable him to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.
209. Kidnapping—
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who unlawfully takes away or detains a person without his or her consent or with his or her consent obtained by fraud or duress,—
(a) with intent to hold him or her for ransom or to service; or
(b) with intent to cause him or her to be confined or imprisoned; or
(c) with intent to cause him or her to be sent or taken out of
Young person under 16 cannot consent to being taken away or detained—
For the purposes of sections 208 and 209, a person under the age of 16 years cannot consent to being taken away or detained.
344. Accessories after the fact, and receivers—
(1) Every one charged with being an accessory after the fact to any crime, or with receiving property knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained, may be indicted, whether the principal offender or other party to the crime or the person by whom the property was so obtained has or has not been indicted or convicted, or is or is not amenable to justice; and the accessory may be indicted either alone, as for a substantive crime, or jointly with the principal or other offender or person by whom the property was dishonestly obtained.
CHILD SUPPORT ACT 1991
208. Offences—
Every person commits an offence against this Act who—
e) Fails to notify the Commissioner, as required by section 239(1) of this Act, of any change to that person's address;
221. Commissioner may appear in legal proceedings by employee of the Crown—
In any action, prosecution, or other proceeding under, or arising out of, this Act, the Commissioner may appear personally or, if the Commissioner thinks fit, appear by some employee of the Crown, and the statement of any person so appearing that the person is such an officer and is appearing for the Commissioner shall be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated and of the authority of the person in that regard.
239. Notification requirements—
(1) Any person who is a liable person or a payee under this Act shall, as soon as practicable, advise the Commissioner of any change to that person’s address.
(2) An event or change of circumstances must not be specified in a notice under subsection (2) of this section unless the happening of the event or change of circumstances might affect the payment of child support or the annual rate at which it is payable.
I am taking the liberty of extending the recipients of this and other correspondence to a broader platform as it is of a bona fide Professional or Technical nature.
Yours Faithfully
Paul Catton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two days after sending this letter to Jaquelyn, I received a letter from FORSAKRINGSKASSAN (Swedish Child Support Agency) dated
Maintenance support and payment of child support
Anita Marie Larsson has applied for maintenance support for the children. She says that you do not pay child support.
No child support is established for Antonia Sian or Shaun Harry at present
Parents are obligated to support their children according to their means, A parent who does not reside with the child shall therefore pay child support etc......................
Full maintenance support is 1,173 Swedish Kronor per month
Jan Zetterlund
OK, now we have doubling up with an International liability, so hey pass me the manila rope.
I then had to seek a Suspension Order under the grounds that there were ongoing proceedings in addition to a Departure Order citing grounds of being unjust etc...
Inland Revenue were named as co-respondent and that brought them completely up to the plate.
The Suspension Order was ratified with minimal opposition (Ostrich in sand syndrome) but the Departure Order was and still is more complex.
Anita with Shaun was ordered back to New Zealand under Hague Convention auspice,
To be continued......
bravenet.com