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 $170,000 for the properties held, and directorship or management fees.

Discovery sought; initially opposed

Eddowes sought discovery of financial statements to establish his claims but Baker opposed on privacy grounds related to others involved.

Following a procedural hearing late last year, she agreed to provide evidence from each of the trusts and companies queried by Eddowes but only if any information not directly related to her or the children was removed.

An affidavit prepared by an accountancy firm which acted for a number of the named entities led to further questions from Eddowes.

Baker then filed further affidavit evidence, including her income assessments by IRD for the past two years and reiterated that the evidence provided by the accountant showed she received no income, drawings or distributions from the entities named.

Judge Mullord said Baker’s response to Eddowes’ question about how school fees were paid directly to the school raised questions about whether payments were also being made directly to third parties and therefore towards her day-to-day costs.

However, she said there was no evidence which established this.

Judge Mullord said because the matter proceeded on a submissions-only basis, with the consent of each party, the accountant’s evidence had not been tested.

The Family Court said the children having opportunities afforded to them by their grandfather’s funds did not mean the day-to-day costs of food, clothing, housing and transport were any less. Photo / 123RF

She said each had raised concerns that the other was hiding their true financial situation.

“The onus is on [Mr Eddowes] to establish that the grounds for departure are made out,” the judge said.

She accepted Baker did not earn greater income during the assessed year, but had other financial resources available to her and the children, namely the support of her father through his trusts, but her earning capacity and property were “squarely addressed” by the evidence filed.

Minimal impact on children ‘important’

In declining the application for a departure order, Judge Mullord noted Baker’s household and, therefore, the children’s overall financial position was likely to be enhanced by her involvement with the various trusts and companies.

She also noted Baker’s reference to savings and to support received from her husband and her father.

Judge Mullord said based on the evidence, the teens were involved in sports and other activities which incurred additional costs, and it was appropriate the parents met those costs.

“That [they] have opportunities afforded to them by their grandfather’s funds, does not mean the day-to-day costs of food, clothing, housing and transport are any less,” she said.

Judge Mullord said it was important there was minimal impact on the children.

“The greater the capacity to provide, the greater may be the proper needs of the children,” she said.

*Names have been changed in keeping with statutory rules around reporting on the Family Court.

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.