- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -

MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Fri 25th February 2005

Adult words – from the mouth of a child

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 10:49 am

Lawyer Vivienne Crawshaw wrote recently about a case of parental alienation. She suggests that the NZ Family Court is well aware of this process and is equipped to deal with it.

[Hamish’s] mother Justine, was embroiled in a custody dispute with his father. Brian, his father, was not applying for full custody; his application was merely to share in Hamish’s life in a more day-to-day way, ideally week and week about.

However, Justine was adamantly opposed to Hamish spending any more time away from her. He was her only child, was already starting to want to spend more time with his friends than with her, and she was damned if she was going to allow Brian to enjoy him while she was left on her own.

As the lawyer [counsel for child] asked Hamish to come into his office Justine stepped forward. “I’d rather you not talk with Hamish on his own,” she implored. “He’s quite shy and I am concerned that he won’t remember all the important things.”

Much to Justine’s annoyance the lawyer insisted on seeing Hamish on his own, in his office, politely suggesting that Justine might want to pop out for a coffee while she was waiting, a suggestion she flatly ignored.

Almost verbatim Hamish quoted sections from his mother’s affidavit, commenting quite coldly that his Dad did not love him and had tried to bribe him by buying him a PlayStation for Christmas, adding that he was not going to be bought.

When the lawyer lightly tried to talk about how things might be for Hamish if he were to spend more time with his Dad, Hamish became more strident, and spoke strongly about how much his mother had done for him, the sacrifices she made and how little child support his father paid.

The lawyer had come across cases such as Hamish’s before. After interviewing Brian, he reported to the court that he was concerned that Hamish’s views were heavily influenced by Justine and suggested that the court direct a psychologist’s report, which might consider Hamish’s relationship with his parents, including any influencing of his wishes.

The court gives less weight to the wishes of a child where it has evidence of pressure by one parent being brought to bear over a child’s views. Over-involvement of a child in court proceedings is often a sign that they are not being permitted to truly express their wishes.

In this situation, a psychologist’s report that showed Justine was unduly influencing Hamish would ensure the court did not allow his views to determine the outcome of the parental dispute.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

If the veil of secrecy which the court operates behind was as effective as she no doubt believes it to be, most Herald readers would no doubt be reassured by Crawshaw’s article. Fortunately, repeated leaks of documentary evidence show that court appologists present a very distorted picture of what actually happens.

In August 1998, MENZ Issues published the story of “Jeremy Collins”.

Quoting (with names changed) from the ‘confidential’ 2002 section 29 Psychologist Report on Jeremy’s family:

In the last report, the writer noted the impact of Mrs Collins’s attitude on Sarah’s decision making…

Mrs Collins did not appear to appreciate that there were legal implications with respect to some of her actions (e.g., reducing the access frequency from that which was stated in the court order), nore did she appear to appreciate that Mr Collins remains a guardian and as such can request to be involved in decision making (e.g., with respect to health matters).

At the bottom line this is Mrs Collins’s position, she does not want Mr Collins to feature in her life or her daughter’s life. She has also stopped all contact with Mr Collins’s family and does not appear to be in contact with her own family.

[Mrs Collins] believes the abuse occurred and cannot understand why there is any uncertainty about this…The writer simply wishes to state that Mrs Collins is acting in a manner consistent with her beliefs.

There can be little doubt that when a parent holds attitudes as strong as those held by Mrs Collins, then any child living with them will be aware of these attitudes. At the last assesment it was clear that Sarah was well aware of her mother’s opinions and this had affected her decisions.

The influence of her mother upon her decision making is less overt at this time than it has been at previous assessments. The writer is well aware that it could be debated that this is because Sarah has now totally internalised her mother’s beliefs and is “alienated”.

The psychologist presented the court with three options:

  1. Enforce access. “This approach has not worked in the past and the writer is unclear as to why it would work now”.
  2. Provide counselling for Sarah. “It is this writer’s opinion that it is unlikely such counselling could be effective”.
  3. Cease access.

Jeremy has not seen his daughter Sarah since.

Thu 17th February 2005

Men’s Convoy 2005 Itinerary Released

Filed under: Child Support,General,Law & Courts,Men's Health — JohnPotter @ 10:32 am
  • Child Support Rip Offs
  • Family Court Fiasco
  • Prostate Posturing
  • Educational Bias
  • No Men’s Ministry…

Men Don’t Like This ! ! !

Join the second Men’s Convoy, and take the message about redressing the balance of family
dysfunction to the streets and Parliament.

Convoy starts Auckland Saturday 5th March 2005 at 1:00 pm and concludes at Parliament, 1:00 pm Friday 11th March.

Join the second Men’s Convoy and drive for change.

Itinerary of Men’s Convoy 2005

Saturday 5 March – Child Support Reform Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo Dress up as your favourite “super hero” and join in the Convoy kick Off – Albany Mega Centre

6:00 pm – 7:00 pm BBQ Public Meeting – Child Support Reform – Northcross Intermediate

Sunday 6 March – Family Court Reform Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo. Father Xmas, Judge Dread, Wonder Woman, Homer Simpson etc – Manukau City Mall

7:00 pm Public Meeting – Men’s Convoy Issues (venue TBA)

Monday 7 March – Men’s Health Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – Red Square, Tauranga

7:00 pm Public Meeting – Men’s Convoy Issues (venue TBA)

Tuesday 8 March – Education reform Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – Hamilton Garden Square

7:00 pm Public Meeting – Men’s Convoy Issues

Wednesday 9 March – Men’s Ministry Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – The Square, Palmerston North

7:00 pm Public Meeting — Men’s Convoy Issues (venue TBA)

Thursday 10 March – Child Support Reform
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – Queensgate, Lower Hutt

7:00 pm Public Meeting — Men’s Convoy Issues (venue TBA)

Friday 11 March – Men Don’t Like This!!!
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – Parliament Grounds

4:00 pm Convoy Wrap — up Trax Bar, Railway Station

Saturday 12 March – Convoy Social
1:00 pm Fireman’s Arms, Petone

Men’s Convoy 2005 co-ordinators contact details

Jim Nicolle – Spokesperson NZCS Reform Network
(04)586-0880 jnicolle [at] slingshot.co.nz

Mark Shipman – Auckland Co-Coordinator NZCS Reform Network
021 982 222 mark [at] shipman.co.nz

Kerry Bevin – Auckland
025 613 2806 magnz [at] xtra.co.nz

Wayne Hawkins – Auckland
025 604 2218 magnz [at] xtra.co.nz

Jim Bagnall – Auckland
021 170 7375

Kobus Abrie – Tauranga
kobusabrie [at] xtra.co.nz

Rob Murray – Wellington
murray [at] clear.net.nz

Photos of the 2004 Men’s Convoy leaving Auckland

Mon 14th February 2005

Custody case father calls for Family Court transparency

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 4:25 pm

Stephen Jelicich, speaking publicly for the first time since coming out of hiding with baby Caitlin, said the role of the Family Court in determining parental custody was too important to be shrouded in secrecy.

“I have absolutely no doubt the Family Court needs transparency because they do seem to be a law unto themselves. They disregard laws, they rush things, they don’t actually take into account the child’s welfare.

“I have documented proof as to what was done wrong (in my case).”

Speaking with Caitlin in his arms, Mr Jelicich said that despite losing confidence in the Family Court, he was confident of keeping his six-month-old daughter in New Zealand.

The couple now have a month to prepare their cases for the Hague Convention proceedings. Mr Jelicich said he had not spoken to his estranged wife since before Christmas, when they had an argument that resulted in Mrs Jelicich being charged with assault.

Police withdrew the charge after she left New Zealand for Wales but Mr Jelicich said he did not consent and was seeking to have the charge laid again.

Muriel Newman on motherhood

Filed under: General — JohnPotter @ 4:20 pm

from Neman Online

Helen Clark’s call to get mothers out of the kitchen and back into the workplace failed to strike an empathetic note. As commentators were quick to point out, it had the ring of a communist clarion call. Socialists, of course, firmly believe that a woman’s place is at work and not in the home. They regard women as child-bearers, not child-rearers, and believe that the all-important role of raising children should be carried out by the state in government-controlled child-care centres.

Underpinning this socialist worldview is a realisation that once children are released from the protective embrace of nurturing parents into the arms of state institutions, there is nothing to save them from the brainwashing necessary to keep the socialist flame alive.

This strategy was highly successful in Communist Russia last century. By 1920, in some cities upwards of 90 percent of families were living in state hostels, eating in communal kitchens, and sleeping in segregated quarters. The role of parents was to bear the children, and the role of the state, to raise them.

Rough Justice

Filed under: Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — JohnPotter @ 4:09 pm

A High Court judgment has exposed a bitter custody battle in which a woman’s false allegations of sex abuse took two years to disprove because of incompetence on the part of social services. The injustice suffered by the father was compounded when a costs award in his favour was reduced by the High Court following an omission in a Family Court judge’s ruling. The woman – who accused her ex-husband of sexually abusing their daughter and a son from a previous relationship – concealed from specialists details of child abuse by a previous partner and the fact that her own children had told her that her present partner was abusing them.

She had been ordered to pay 75 percent of her ex-husband’s legal expenses, though she still has custody of their daughter. The court took the view that, after the two years it took to unravel the false abuse allegations against him, the father needed to be gradually reintroduced to his daughter’s life. But the High Court slashed the costs award by more than two-thirds to a mere $5000 after Family Court Judge Patrick Grace inadvertently omitted to specify what he would have awarded had the mother not been legally aided.

Family law specialist Stuart Cummings said the errors described by Justice John Wild’s judgment were “massively important” and the two-year delay was the primary cause of the injustice. “You can take this all the way back to the Magna Carta,” he says. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

The High Court judgment sends a clear warning to Family Court litigants about abuse allegations, says Gumming, and is an indictment of the system charged with protecting children. Long delays and their disastrous consequences constitute a miscarriage of justice: “The children and the father have been victimised.”

excerpt from an article by by Nick Smith
NZ Listener
Page 19
February 19-25th, 2005

Proposed Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other

Filed under: Child Support — Scrap_The_CSA @ 4:09 pm

The document below was released under the OIA.

Please note that the lack of consultation with stakeholders as seen in the document.

Inland Revenue National Office
Freyberg BuildingAitken Street
PO Box 2198 Wellington
New Zealand
Telephone 04-472 1032
Facsimile 04-474 7217

18 August 2004

Associate Minister of Revenue (Hon David Cunliffe)
cc: Minister of Revenue

Proposed Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance

Executive summary

This report provides an update on the Special Commission held in June this year at The Hague to progress a new international agreement for co-operation in the collection of child support and other forms of family maintenance.

The focus of the meeting was the draft convention which had been prepared prior to the Special Commission. During the course of the Commission the draft convention was modified to reflect changes that were discussed. However, significant areas still need to be resolved. These are set out in paragraph 7. A further draft of the convention is expected to be forwarded to government for their consideration early next year, with another Special Commission scheduled for May next year which will aim to finalise the convention.

Recommended action
It is recommended that you note the contents of this report.


Mon 7th February 2005

Success using the precedents you provided

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 3:36 pm

Kia ora Folks

I had a notable success in the Dunedin Family Court [recently] with the help of the precedents provided on your website. I am a self representing litigant.

Three years ago after my children and I sought help from the “domestic” violence we were enduring from their mother I was taken from our home by her exparte application for a Protection Order. After 2 years of expensive and ineffective lawyers ($25,000)I went back to University (after 25 years away)and am now starting my third year of Law this year.

Thanks for the help, I am committed to service now and although i don’t want to be a lawyer I see myself with a task to do. Ironically, given the bizzare allegations we have endured, I trained as a child therapist 25 years ago and my children, aged from 30 to 7 years have steadfastly denied the legitimatcy of this process throughout.

We have been assisted by a new Family Court Judge here called Emma Smith, amazingly, despite her gender, an honest person with a confidant and sparky manner. A change in C$C has also helped as the previous one called Rachel Cardosa has damaged many children and men through her dishonest and sick ignorance of childre’s needs.

Another item that may be of interest.

Last year the Dunedin Family Court commissioned a 29A report in response to further allegations by the children’s mother. Happily the report completely vindicated our stance and the Court instantly doubled our family times (access. Court staff initially declined to give me a copy of the report (saying I could only read a copy there.

As it was 10,000 words I felt this a significant disadvantage) I must stress that the staff here are very fair and helpful. They phoned several other Courts, who all said they also only gave copies to lawyers, then at my firm insistence they contacted a Judge in ChCh who was available to give a ruling. The Judge agree with my point which I had thought was quite clear,(see Section 29A 3 A) and issued a direction that I was to be given a copy.

Enough of the rant, I just wanted to share my great news and pass on my appreciation,
Heart Song Express
P.O.Box 6057 Dunedin North
theedge [at] xtra.co.nz

Family Friend – Supervised Access

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General,Law & Courts — vision @ 2:21 pm

I am currently in Family Court proceedings, Wellington for Protection Oder and Custody proceedings. I have had some supervised access to the Family Friend, Johnsonville last year. During Court proceedings the Access Supervisor stated that no one in 18 years has had supervised access at the Family Friend suspended.

Has anyone experienced suspension of access from the Family Friend, if so can you advise me urgently, I am back in Court this Friday ( the fourth day so far).

Secondly, during my initial interview I was told the rules of access, being be on time, leave on time, don’t drink or take drugs before or during a session ( I don’t do this stuff anyway) and don’t raise adult issues. That was it no other rules, during Court the access supervisor raised a series of rules that she never told me about, has anyone been to Family Friend and had a detailed list of rules given or discused with them, or did you get what I got?

Lastly, I am fighting back against the system, I think we all agree it is biased, and you are up against it. I have committed myself to establish a Law Practice to fight the system from the inside for Fathers and for their Children. The Law Practice will require support to establish accredited access services, a father/children’s refuge/centre and an education website for the legal side. Your comments welcome.

My first goal is to establish a how do booklet to de-mystify the whole Family Court and legal process, show what you can do and can’t do, show you the tricks being used by the other side, and open up the process to establish awareness and fairness. When the playing field gets a bit more even we can win more often and change the current results. Who wants to help.?

Disattachment Syndrome

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 10:26 am

It seem that New Zealand is following UK in this new syndrome. CYFS has already win a landmark decision concerning this from Judge Ellis in the Family Court in July 2004 in Wellington.

The new syndrome was started by Dr Danya Glaser from the UK. She has stated in her reports that over 50% of the population of New Zealanders suffer from this.

CYFS now has the power to remove any child they believe suffers from this syndrome whether the facts are right or not.

The Syndrome is that the parents are disattached from their children and can not recognise or take their clues from the child. They put their own interests first.

I am defending against this in the High Court next month.

Anyone got any new points that could be helpful in the defense.


More information:

Quoted in Judgments From the Family Court

Judge Ellis noted he was troubled by the use of terminology such as “abuse” and “neglect” throughout the case. He acknowledged that Tina and Michael in fact loved their children very much and had done their best for them, given their own personal history and experience.

“It is abhorrent to suggest they have deliberately set out to deprive or abuse the child in any way.”

“There is no evidence here of physical beating, but there is compelling evidence of serious and long-term damage being done to children in this family,” said Judge Ellis.

Dr Danya Glaser

Shelley Stevenson, Associate of Rainey Collins recently attended the New Zealand Law Society Family Law Conference called “Raising the Standard” held in Auckland.

Dr Danya Glaser, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist from the prestigious Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital in London gave an address on the definition, recognition and treatment of emotional abuse and neglect in children. A day long workshop run by Dr Glaser in Wellington immediately after the conference was also attended by Shelley. Shelley, paediatricians, family lawyers and other professionals from around New Zealand gathered in Wellington for the workshop.

Visiting expert Dr Danya Glaser told an international family law conference in Melbourne in October 2002 that Parents who use children “as footballs” in acrimonious separations are guilty of a form of emotional abuse.

Dr Glaser, a consultant to London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, whose work has been cited by the courts, said that emotional abuse often overlapped with physical, but could also occur on its own.

Some of the major categories of abuse were:

  • Unresponsive, emotionally neglectful behaviour, the most important example being mothers suffering from post-natal depression.
  • Perceiving one’s child as worthy of punishment, describing them as “a bad apple, bad gene or a chip off the old block”.
  • Acting inconsistently with children (for instance, making threats but never acting on them) or exposing them to inappropriate concepts.
  • Failing to recognise a child’s individuality or boundaries, as in the family law example.

Sat 5th February 2005

Dictatorship of Feminism

Filed under: General — JohnPotter @ 12:09 pm

My name is Gérard Cassina and I’m a retired French schoolteacher with a degree in English, which I took long ago so please excuse any awkward sentences I could have written. I’ve been delighted reading [the articles at MENZ.org.nz] and I write to you hoping to be useful.

My proposition can be shortened in a formula:
Democracy + Feminism = Dictatorship of Feminism


  1. Women outlive men by years (7 years in France) . The political consequence is they’ve got an overwhelming majority. In France women are 54% of voters !
  2. An organised group (Feminism) has convinced women they’re “class-victims” (something like the “working poor” of Marxist ideology).
  3. Thus women have got a class-consciousness as a gender along with an overwhelming majority that can’t be outvoted by men: we are facing a dictatorship.

Thus, no wonder if political men are so eager to pass legislation along feminist’s rules.

What can be done?

Men’s health is a capital issue for a gender well balanced democracy. But we’re well aware that Feminism is plotting to widen the gap: breast- cancer campaign / nothing for prostate. And it’ll take decades!

But, given a full awareness of the situation, there should be political ways to achieve a gender-balanced democracy. For instance, women would get a red ballot paper and men a blue one, then a 50/50 gender law would be applied so that 54% of women would be 50% and 46% of men would be 50% too.

I’m dreaming! Right now, we are immerged in a feminist propaganda, which pervades all society. First of all, we have to enlighten everybody: Feminism isn’t a benevolent movement whishing to improve women’s lives but an organised group using an oversimplified ideology as a tool to get power for their own sake, in a hidden way.

What is Feminism?

A communist ideology applied to genders: victims are women; extortioners are men, ideal aim: an abstract equality between genders.

As in Russia the struggle will last endlessly, no matter any improvements! Feminism needs an enemy as a justification and since it is organised as a Nomenclature: a small secretive group using ideology to improve their own position in society whatever any “collateral damages” they inflict to others in the process. Once you get a good place , you hold it fast like termites eating up the structure of a building until it crumbles to ruin .To recognise equality is achieved would be the end for feminist women and men alike

Feminists policies based on oversimplified views of relations between genders will lead to chaos just like communism in Russia. More than 30 years of Feminism have already produced some results!

  1. Loneliness for all :more and more unmarried, divorced people, widows (breast cancer campaign / nothing for men can only lead to more widows. Is it good news for women?)
  2. Family breakdown: more and more young people adrift, a tenfold increase in medications for depressive people since 1980, more and more drug addicts, suicides and attempts of suicide (140 000 in France last year).
  3. A more and more violent society: a steep increase in all offences, family violence, prisons exploding with prisoners (96% of men in French prisons – a 2 fold increase in 20 years).
  4. A decrease in school efficiency measured by PISA. In France where 85% of schoolteachers are female one boy out of 4 can’t properly read (compare with 1/9 girls) at 15. One can consider education as a feminist administration. In prison a large number of prisoners has no degree. In the USA it’s not much better, I’ve got figures!

Most people are unaware of these facts and feminist propaganda is busy finding fake explanations for them.

Masculist / Masculinist

Filed under: General — JohnPotter @ 12:02 pm

Waiting in my inbox when I returned from summer holidays was a letter from Martin Lewis, founding editor of MENZ Issues.

“Hi John
I was googling my name to see if something I had written had a reference on the net when the MENZ Issues archives came up. Interesting to revisit them. Also good to see that someone is still keeping up the ‘good fight’!

One thought that struck me though was that the MENZ term was originally “Masculist” not “Masculinist” … ever heard the term “Femininist”? I haven’t. More importantly a masculist would be to the Men’s Movement what a feminist is to the Women’s Movement whereas as I understand it, in feminist parlance, a masculinist is one who fights against feminism … for the macho male tradition. Which do we wish to promote and align ourselves with? Personally I support the former.”

Now I would have sworn that I’d seen an early draft of the then Men’s Centre North Shore newsletter using the word “Masculinist”, but I can’t find anything so I must have imagined it. I’ve always personally thought the term “masculist” to be uncomfortably close in sound to the word “emasculate”. I also have trouble with the idea that elements of male culture can be appropriately defined by feminists. In addition, the reality is that much of the driving force behind the current men’s movement is a fight against feminism – or more accurately, against that strain of feminism which actively works to disadvantage males.

In regard to my mystery source, Martin notes:

“Definitely not one of mine as it was an issue I debated before joining MCNS 🙂 The reason I was debating it was that I was told (by a feminist) that a masculinist was someone who wanted to maintain the status quo … men in control of women (her perspective) and I was arguing that I, and men like me, wanted to achieve equity or equivalence for men and women, (which was why I supported feminism in the ’70’s) not so much equality as ‘viva la difference’ I say. Equality suggests androgyny to me. Equivalence means ‘different but of equal value’ and equity, fairness.”

Characterisation of the men’s movement as a bunch of conservative, reactionary, patriarchal oppressors has been a regular theme in feminist publications over recent years. In my experience of over 10 years attending support meetings I would say that only a tiny minority bear any resemblance to this description. Most of us actually like women very much, and we fully support their right to be treated fairly with men in society. I’m sure the majority of us would go along with Martin’s attitude of ‘viva la difference’ .

In the end, labels are not as important as collective action by the people actively involved. Perhaps more relevantly, I’m not about to edit hundreds of ancient web pages, so it looks like we’ll have to remain “Masculinist Evolution New Zealand” and define the term for ourselves.

What do you readers think about this?

Thu 3rd February 2005

High Court hearing about baby Catlin today

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 1:50 pm

Well, I headed off up North for a couple of weeks disconected fron the internet just as the biggest mainstream media news story about fathers and the Family Court in months was breaking, and returned to find our most active discussion to date.

The UK based group Parents For Protest have a comprehensive collection of links to news stories about the Jelicich case on their website, howevewr, here are a few extracts from reports made over the past fortnight.

Supporters of an Auckland father in hiding with his 5-month-old daughter want an investigation into the Family Court handling of the custody case that sparked his actions.

Jim Bagnall, national president of the parental support group Union of Fathers, said important evidence was not considered before the Family Court gave custody of Caitlin to Mrs Jelicich and ruled that the case should be heard in Britain.

Mr Bagnall, who supported Mr Jelicich during the Family Court process, believes the hearings were rushed because it was Christmas.

“I think people were loath to get themselves embroiled in something … and they rushed it through.

“Why should Caitlin not receive better treatment? Why did they bulldoze the whole thing through?”

He said the judge who remanded Mrs Jelicich on the assault charge was the same judge who had awarded her custody of Caitlin the previous day. Mr Bagnall has written to Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier about his concerns.


Paternity / DNA Testing Advice

Filed under: Child Support,General,Law & Courts — Scrap_The_CSA @ 12:29 pm

Am I the Father?
Paternity Testing Advice in New Zealand
— This is potentially very important to you!

It is the right of every child to know for sure who its true father is. It is just as important for fathers to know who their true children are.

Yet there is a very high likelihood that as a NZ male you are not the true father of a child that you think is yours. The possibility you are not the father is high, about 10% to 20%.

You can easily do a paternity test yourself to prove if you are the father, using an overseas laboratory. It will give you peace of mind, and if you are not the father you could save yourself thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support payments.

If you have any doubts, get the overseas test done. Its better odds than any lottery ticket you will ever buy. And do the test quickly — we explain why below.

Read on; there are a lot of things you need to know about this issue.

This paper is dated February 2005

Overview — the two classes of paternity test.
Our Advice
The Paternity Problem is Massive
Do It! Find an Offshore Laboratory
It’s Your Secret — don’t tell anyone
Social Fatherhood – The Myth
The Financial Side — the best lottery ticket you will ever buy
Summary of Actions You Must Take
More Paternity Issues
What The Government Must Do To Fix The Paternity Problem. — dreams are free


Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar