A mother of two young children who tried to have her “unaffordable” monthly $1200 child support payment reduced has been told by a judge there were other ways to reduce her costs, including a re-think on the car she chose to drive. 

The woman, who moved back to her hometown with the children when her marriage ended, later became liable for child support when the Family Court directed, after a contested hearing, that the children return to where their father lived. 

The social worker who earned $90,000 a year sought the court’s help in seeking a departure from the child support liability assessment, initially $763 a month, and then $1229 a month after a new assessment. 

The woman claimed that as a result she was unable to support herself, and the high cost involved in maintaining contact with her children, but that she would “rather starve” than not see them. 

She also doubted that the children’s father was earning as little as he claimed but produced no persuasive evidence in support of that and did not seek to cross-examine, Judge Anthony Greig said in his reserved decision, which was released to the public this week. 

He said in dismissing her application for a departure from the order that the woman had ways to reduce her outgoings but she had chosen to live in a different location than her children when she did not have to. 

She was given the option at the hearing that if she chose to move back to where the children’s father lived, the children’s care would be shared equally. 

Judge Greig also noted that she drove a four-wheel drive vehicle when there were cheaper cars to run and that she could take in a boarder to help with living costs. 

“One of the children might be upset at losing a spare bedroom but I suspect that [she] has already upset the children enough by choosing to live a long distance away from them.” 

Judge Greig also noted she hired someone to mow the lawns at her house when that was something she could do herself. 

During the hearing, the children’s father said he would be willing to accept a payment of $1000 per month, rather than the assessed $1229. 

Judge Greig said that overall he accepted the woman was hard-pressed financially, which was “the lot of many people”, particularly in the relatively early period post-separation while re-establishing themselves. 

He said the tenor of the case suggested where the woman chose to live and the vehicle she chose to drive mitigated against finding that there were special circumstances. 

Judge Greig added that evidence from the children’s father showed his outgoings were equivalent if not greater than that of the mother, and that he had a lower income because he was in the process of trying to establish businesses that were badly affected by Covid-19. 

Judge Greig said in dismissing the application that the woman had failed to satisfy the court, by quite some margin, of any facts peculiar to her situation that made her assessed rate of child support unjust and inequitable. 

“The tests are stringent; she must pass through a narrow gate,” he said. 

Judge Greig said that based on the offer made by the children’s father at the hearing to accept a reduced child support payment, the mother’s obligation to pay the assessed amount was suspended by a court order. She was therefore liable to pay the arrears accrued in the meantime, which the children’s father then also agreed to waive. 

The outcome was that the mother was liable for child support payments of $1000 per month for three years with all arrears waived but concessions could be revoked in the event of an appeal. 

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.