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

NZ best place to raise kids? Not any more, says top judge

There was nearly one incident of family violence every eight minutes during December and January. About 6000 children, more than half under 5, witnessed those incidents

If you are a female thats been beaten, or a relative of a female murdered by her partner then the above article may be of some comfort to you. However, if you are a falsely accused male of domestic violence and have struggled with the ramifications of this action then you may be justifiably disturbed by this article.

Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier mentions caution in the granting of these protection orders but the article fails to point out the destructive nature of false accusations. I know from experience how a false claim starts a ’steam roller’ that’s hard to stop. Every profession climbs on board to support the accuser, from doctors keen to assist by writing out certificates for damage that is not evident by anyone but the accuser, to lawyers who are keen to use the accusation to gain the upper hand in related matters. I don’t want men who beat their partners to get away with it either.

I don’t believe that the think tank on these matters is balanced. The article mentions that half the women murdered had protection orders in place.

Here is my input Mr Boshier….

1. All accused, with a conviction of violence of any nature, to automatically be issued with Ex Parte protection order when requested.
2. Those issued with protection orders to immediately be placed into counselling. This is imperative as they will experience stress levels likely to set off the very thing you are attempting to arrest. This immediate counselling needs to be set up specifically for this event.
3. When women are found to be playing with this law and laying false or misleading accusations they should be punished far more severely than they are at the moment.
4. The Law Society needs to be more involved in shaming Lawyers who clearly encourage women to lay charges of abuse as a tactic in their case. The integrity of family law is being devalued by the adoption of feminist ideology that women just don’t lie about these matters.

I notice that Judge Boshier made these remarks at a Hui. If that has relevance then it should be taken into consideration when issuing protection orders.

Women carp at men-only fishing club

It is sad (indeed, pathetic) that an unnamed woman believes men should not be entitled to men-only quarters when it comes to fishing clubs. I wonder if this same woman believes men should be allowed unfettered access to women-only ‘clubs’ such as Ministry of Woman’s Affairs; Women’s Refuge centres? A woman’s Prison? Palmerston North Girl’s High School? The National Women’s Synchronised Swimming Team? Girl Guides etc?

The club rules dictate that the cabin in question is men-only. Families (that is, women and children), can book a separate family cabin; in which men can stay only if accompanied by a woman. This rule, politically correctly, according to Club Secretary (who happens to be a woman), is to ensure men don’t sleep in the same cabin as young girls!

And there you have it. Girls must be protected from all men. Men are sexually depraved predators, sexual perverts, pedophiles , who must be kept separate from young girls.

Now I don’t mind a spot of fishing. I am even happy to get away from my partner and all things women for a few days, put my feet up and, amid the clamour of manly squalor, spend a few days fishing with my mates – free from the domestic influence of she who controls my purse strings and rules my normal suburban domesticity.
(more…)

INSIDE NEW ZEALAND: GIVE MY CHILDREN BACK

International tug-of-love stories that will break your heart

Thursday, April 6th at 8:30pm TV3

Inside New Zealand: Give My Children Back looks at two dramatic international custody disputes and how they are resolved under the Hague Convention.

In an age of cheap travel and the “global village”, international relationships are on the rise. But hooking up with a partner from another country comes with some serious risks when children are involved.

When relationships break down, the result is often an international ‘tug-of-love’.

This documentary discovers serious discrepancies in the way that such cases are handled by different countries.

In January 2005, New Zealander Stephen Jelicich went on the run with his daughter Caitlin creating headlines around the world.

Stephen’s Welsh wife Diane and the British Government applied for an order for the return of Caitlin to Wales under the Hague Convention.

Stephen argued that Diane was a “grave risk” to Caitlin based on a history of depression, self-harm and violence.

The Jelicich saga became a media sensation. This documentary is the only production to film the story of what happened to the family after the Hague Convention decision, with never-before-seen footage.
(more…)

The call has gone out to continue the pressure on the New Zealand government by emailing Attorney-General Dr. Michael Cullen of New Zealand. kim.mackenzie@parliament.govt.nz

(Show those in government that fathers & men won’t stand for politics over law email: kim.mackenzie@parliament.govt.nz )

In a landmark case that will affect the Father’s right worldwide the New Zealand government will be faced with dismissing a properly certified lawyer applicant after being turned down by the Wellington District Law Society for his activist work on the behalf of the father’s & men’s right work. Get supporters from any source. Past email form letter emails OK!

A political agenda to which child support is such a critical element will ruthlessly enforce compliance until it is overwhelmed by death.

The issue that is central to feminist control in respect of the child, is the manner of its upbringing. Parenting in this context is not something that Mothers and Fathers do, but is a legally enforceable, state managed regime. In order to maintain control of parenting the state uses the family court to control, firstly - possession of the child, and secondly - financing of the child’s upbringing.

In terms of possession it is the last resort of the court to place the child with the biological father, and until the recent protestations of fathers even to allow contact.

The second issue, that of funding is critical to maintaining this agenda. Here’s the child, here’s the money, now go to school during the day and go home to your caregiver at night.

The collection of child support is justified only by the existence of the child. Any other considerations are removed to the arena of parenting issues, which must be resolved in an adversarial court under the watchful eye of “The Family Law Section”, who have turned the robes of justice into a monkey suit, by pretending to be a court, rather than acknowledging their role as a state institution.

For the purposes of collecting child support it is more convenient to blame fathers for their absence rather than encouraging participation - that was simply never in the agenda.

It is not the brave new world of women, simply retrodictive ignorance, and a sad indictment of our society that as mothers and fathers, we allow our children to be used as the political fodder of egalitarian tyrants.

I find it hard to comprehend what Rosemary McLeod’s views actually are sometimes.

Leave aside the fact that Ms McLoud is simply anti fathers (compare her four most recent opinions:)

Her continual anti father drivel is enough to get her elected as a senior Family Court judge, but that’s another story.

The man referenced in her article on 24 March had loveless sex with a women, who by all counts was a willing partner. She became pregnant, and chose to keep the baby. He was not prepared to accept fatherhood, a right Rosemary believes he should be denied.
[In other words, he should however pay child support even though he has no involvement in the child's life].

However on 20 March, Rosemary wrote an article regarding a woman’s right to discern which man’s sperm she is inseminated with.

“The donors are men who don’t like having sex with women. The babies that may result - with medical intervention - are designed to have no fathers in the usual sense, because their fathers are merely donors and strangers to their mothers. “

In other words, these men quite rightly are free of their fathering responsibilities (i.e. paying child support).

So on the one hand, a man inseminated his sperm into a woman, and Rosemary concludes he should be liable for fatherhood (that is, paying child support), because he chose to inseminate her.
On the other hand, a man’s sperm is inseminated into a woman, and Rosemary concludes he is not liable for fatherhood (i.e. child support), even though he chose it.

I am confused.
(more…)

I can understand that many parents (male or female) paying child support are struggling. The saying goes that you will become financially better off if the two of you (parents) can work things out together. So the perfect resolution would be for both parents to sit down togehter and decide together how the children’s basic needs of food, clothing, bedding will be paid as well as school fees. Then of course the needs for children to play sports, music leasons, dance lessons and the rest.

Encouraging males to put their assets and money into trusts is all good if the trust benefits the children in the long run. Because at the end of the day the children are the reason why child support is paid. Is this what you (been there done that) men are doing?

Even though the system or Child Support Act is flawed we should not disregard the children. ( I have e-mailed johncampbelllive.tv3.co.nz to ask him to produce the facts so that ordinary New Zealanders can get an understanding of what is going on. (I hope my request is honoured).

The problem that I acknowledge is that men and women are not working together. I see women that want to destroy men, put them in prison and totally destroy their life and then I hear men that want to destroy the women.

I understand both sides. (Thanks to this website) So where do we draw the line?

Lawyers May Not Be Involved in the Father’s Right Movement and be allowed to be a Lawyer in New Zealand)

In a land mark case the High Court of New Zealand will be faced with dismissing a properly certified lawyer applicant after being turned down by the Wellington District Law Society for his activist work on the behalf of the father’s & men’s right work. The call on supporters worldwide to contact the New Zealand government and demand Peter Zohrab be accepted with no prejudice or political bias immediately when his appeal to the law societies decision comes before her government.

The Crown Law email address to contact and voice your complaint: library@crownlaw.govt.nz

Peter Zohrab:
[update]

It might be better to email the political boss of Crown Law (the Attorney-General) because the Library at Crown Law might just ditch political emails.

So I suggest you ask everyone to email kim.mackenzie@parliament.govt.nz , which is the current Attorney-General (Dr. Michael Cullen)’s email address. Unfortunately, there is going to be a cabinet reshuffle, apparently, but hopefully emails would be forwarded to the new one.

Her organization has been virtually accused of denying me a certificate for political reasons, and all she can say in response is to spell out some legal technicalities of the admission process!

In a free society, there is no legal basis for denying someone entry to the legal profession on the basis of their political views. The fact alone that a female Council member laughed when I told the Council about being assaulted by feminist law students casts doubt on the judgment of the Council.

It is relevant to raise the issue of the broader context, which is the apparent inability of many men and fathers to find lawyers who take a sufficiently pro-men stance.

For those wishing to express more anger as well, contact the Wellington District Law Society who have already turned down Peter Zohrab due to a disregard to Law for the sake of dishonourable poltical agendas : wellaw@wellaw.co.nz

‘Leading family law expert’ Raylee Harley and Mark Shipman from Parents for Children were interviewed for TV1 Breakfast News today by Paul Henry. Mark did an excellent job and presented the most important messages effectively. Well done mate!

Watch the video Child Support laws in spotlight (04:57min streaming .wmv)

Raylee Harley has told the Select Committee 0n the Child Support Amendment Bill that Inland Revenue should have the power to take money directly from a liable parent’s bank account. As Shipman revealed, that already happens.

Henry asked Shipman:

“Are you happy with that? Because one of your biggest concerns were that there are always outstanding payments that are under dispute.

Mark replied:

“Yes there are and the Commissioner does have the power and he does exercise it. We know of several people who have had money taken from their account recently. He can do that without needing to know what bank account can be accessed. I don’t see a purpose in this other than increasing the government’s ability to recover benefits.”

“There is nothing that I am aware of being sought that is not available to the powers that be now.”

(more…)

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188688,00.html