With yet another Father's Day upon us, it is timely to consider obstacles faced by fathers experiencing marriage breakup. Many wish to be effective parents but are thwarted by the legal system. Major stumbling blocks are the Child Support Act and the Guardianship Act. We suffer from gender stereotypes of a male earner and a female 'caregiver'. Many men also do a significant amount of unpaid work and are caring partners and parents, but this is hardly recognised under current law.

The Child Support Agency considers Ron to be a non-custodial parent. The children stay at his home for less than 146 nights a year. In fact, they stay for over 130 nights a year, but he is still what politicians term an "absent" parent. His time with the children is considered to be "access". He pays child support to the children's mother to cover the costs of the children. The formula assessment for child support makes no allowance for the fact that a non-custodial parent spends time with the children. There is scope for consideration of costs of "enabling" access, but this is discretionary and only applies to a select set of outlays (such as some legal costs incurred when access is obstructed). The usual costs of time with children are considered costs of "enjoyment" of access and have to be paid for out of the parent's remaining income.

Kevin pays the maximum assessable child support. He is also an "absent parent" who has the children every weekend. In a normal school week he has about 32-34 waking contact hours with them, compared to the mother's (the "lone parent's") 16-18 hours maximum. About 40% of his take-home pay goes in child support. In other words, he spends about as much time in paid work earning money to pay child support as the mother does in contact with the children. According to the Jensen Income Equivalence Scale, as used by the D.S.W., this was the total amount that the intact family would have spent on the children, but now it is used only for the children's time with the mother. He has no control over the use of these funds.

Ron did not want his children to relocate when their mother decided to move away. The Family Court also recognised that his parenting input was important, but they still allowed a move of about 70 kilometres. With his work and the children's schools so far apart, Ron could not continue to "enjoy" his access and work full time. He established a second home near their schools and changed his job to part-time. Meanwhile he was still assessed for child support based on a higher income and found himself in the position where he could either feed himself or travel to work, but not both. The tax cuts were a godsend as they staved of bankruptcy for a bit longer, but he is still perplexed at his treatment by the Family Court. He now has to represent himself as he can no longer afford a lawyer.

Simon is also puzzled as to why his daughter was allowed to be taken over 500 kilometres away against his will when he was making application for custody. He was concerned when the mother obtained interim custody from another court without his involvement in the proceedings. He is angered at having to pay his ex wife's costs of travel in connection with his one week a month access, the alternative being access restricted to a weekend each month at a remote location. He is further frustrated at the possibility that access will virtually end once the child starts school.

Mike wonders what the Domestic Violence Act means when he is not granted custody of his child although the court has set in place a non-molestation order because of risks of violence by the mother.

New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. By the terms of paragraph 18(1) of that Convention, the Government has undertaken to use its "best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child." Nevertheless, many fathers in New Zealand are growing increasingly frustrated at the apparent inability or unwillingness of the Family Court to support them in their efforts to parent their children. As Tom says, "Why must I lose my family just because my marriage ended?" His children may well be asking, "What did we do to lose a father?"

Prepared by Gary Buurman and Stuart Birks, Senior Lecturers in Economics at Massey University with a special interest in social policy issues and members of the FamilyRights Group.