- 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.

Wed 28th June 2006

Foster Care System Disregards Fathers

Filed under: General — domviol @ 11:58 pm

Opinion Wed. June 28, 2006

Foster Care System Disregards Fathers
by Jeffery M. Leving & Glenn Sacks
Jun 15, 2006

When a mother and father are divorced or separated, and a child welfare agency removes the children from the mother’s home for abuse or neglect, an offer of placement to the father, barring unfitness, should be automatic. Yet according to a new report by the Urban Institute, few fathers are able to reunite with their children, who are instead pushed into the foster care system.

The new report “What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers” examines the foster care systems of Massachusetts and three other states. The report contains a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers in only 8% of cases.

Tue 27th June 2006

What’s in the best interest of a child?

Filed under: General — Julie @ 10:24 pm

Our law say’s we should look at what’s in the best interest of a child when parent’s seperate as the main focus. Then the law is handed over to the judicial system to implement the law. Who are these judges who decide and implement what is in the best interest of the child? Well, they are people that have passed a law degree, served as full-time lawyers for a sufficient length of time and get basically voted in because of thier good behaviours when they were barristers which they earn’t as a promotion from a lawyer. Do we all know how to get a promotion? Sure, we do. We keep the best interest of the system we work in as number 1. The difference between the law system and a system that makes a business profit is showing initiative or thinking outside the square.

In a business, risk is something a person will take to show their greatness. It has a chance of failure and reward which if it works has worthwhile reward. In fact, in contempory business, one could find big rewards. You don’t find this in Government departments as the judicairy system is. It is supposed to be seperate but is it? Initiative and thinking outside the square is often frowned upon. It has it’s own politics going on within over who is king pin and who are the wipper-snappers rocking the boat. There is no profit, no real cause to aim for. It is a day-in-day-out mundane J.O.B. (Journey of Boredom)

Now, who are the parents that these full-time lawyers who become full-time barristers and then full-time judges decide the fate of?

Italian Blogger Fined for Bad Language (Men’s Rights Next?)

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 2:41 pm

(PC Fines for Men’s Rights Site in Cards Next?)
From: Wired News, via the Honor Network

In Italy an sanctioned action taken by the only newly & slightly voted in Italian government (with close ties to the EU and UN leadership), that could have strong repercussion to the Men’s Rights Movement and their forums, has occurred.

Blogger Roberto Mancini was fined $16,000 for defamation. The action taken by at least two mainstream journalists against Mr. Mancini was over mere sarcastic and crude comments made by him, or those visiting and commenting in his forum, and not for the more traditional forums of defamation.

This is the type of issue which should bring anti-PC organizations and the men’s movement closer together to stave off the establishment’s desire to silence forms and forums of decent ( that are much less under their control in the larger branches of the media). Send that anti-PC bloke you might know an email and offer some cooperation sooner, rather than later!

Sun 25th June 2006

North & South Mag…Depression

Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:08 pm

This morning, on Woodhams magazine show, Robyn Langwell, editor of North & South Magazine said, ‘I think ‘all’ babies should be taken away even if CYFS ‘just’ think there is an issue with the parents.’

Langwell was back-commenting on the Kahui twins and, without any thought for the content of her words, bought straight into state-controlled families regime.

Nanny state knows best. You’re unfit to be a parent! So we will institutionalise your child because we know better.

I wonder how long it will be before parents of new-borns have a cage with a hungry rat in it, clamped to their faces, and asked questions about their fitness to be parents?

Langwell (not the sharpst tack in the box) but getting off on being ‘the editor’ of a sometimes, vaguely interesting tabloid, just helped the system to start aquiring the funds for the cages.

What will be next? Automatic but reversable sterilisation at birth? Then sit a test to have the sterilisation reversed? But gee, the cost will be but $$9,999 with a 100% discount if the woman can prove the rapist, pedophilic, violently aligned father was just a sperm donor and will have no contact with the child.

Langwell, you’re a clown. You are proof positive of a missive my old grandather told me years ago. He said, ‘Never worry what a woman thinks, they don’t do it very often.’

Yet I know so many credible women who do think, yet none have risen to your lofty heights. Maybe that’s the trick. Remain dumb, do loads of body-styling, tow the party line, get into the sexy group, then pretend you have a brain.

Grandad must have met you in a previous life. Maybe he was a colon and you happened to pass by.


Tue 20th June 2006

Off topic, but thanx.

Filed under: General — Julie @ 1:03 pm

I have gained so much information and insight from males on this site and I want to tell you as many other people may do or forget to do, “Thank-you.”

From having the opportunity to sit with the North Shore mens group, I can see you really help not just a father and child but a person to find a way to have a chance to be what is important, being thier own life.

I could tell each one individually how special you are but it is what you do together that makes such a difference. You guys don’t do what you do for money, for you do things in your own personal time which you have a right to be selfish with.

What was so impressional to me was the fact that you do not lay blame, for you ask others what their part was and challenge thier fathering role. Not only that, but you give reality to men that may want to deny their women are serious and willing to use the Domestic Violence as a weapon.

Oh my God, you have taught me that I have brought upon myself the reactions I received from my ex-husband. I never saw my actions as encouraging violence until now. I used to put things down to outside influence like alcohol and drugs thinking that you and I were from different worlds but I now see that having a male come home to a house where his woman says, “You can’t come in, because I don’t want you here” is so outrageous. How would I feel working hard and being told in an instance that I am not allowed to enter my home, that I should sleep in my car and somehow in an instant start a life all over again. And then on top of that a huge chunk of my money is taken away from me. You are better than the best for continuing on against all the odds. You put up with us women and I can’t believe that you even want to know us.

I know I am a woman that you guys would normally see as the enemy but I have changed my thinking and I intend to change other women’s thinking.

What was so outrageous last night is that I was under the impression that I had cancelled last night and a friend who has never been into religion said to me, “Maybe God has something in plan for you.” A higher power is neccessary in addiction problems but not God. And then a knock on the door. If that sounds out of it then you know how I feel. But I received more than I hoped for.

So I want to thank you Paul C, Jim Bagnell, Jim Bailey, Dave L, Kerry, Murray, John P, Bevan, Stephen, Intrepid, Starr, Leon, Paul M, Mark, James and the all of you that care for mens issues because without you 300,000 children are without their fathers today and my boys won’t have even the slightest chance.


Mon 19th June 2006

Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — domviol @ 9:06 pm

Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms

Saturday June 10, 2006
By Chris Barton

Graeme MacCormick retired as Family Court judge in December after serving 15 years on the bench. Here are his views on men’s groups’ protests.

Will judges be intimidated by the men’s groups’ protests?

I do not perceive the judges of the court will be in the least influenced in their decision-making by any protest outside their homes. They have a job to do on behalf of the community. The children whose lives are affected are the children of their birth parents and also children of the community.

What often seems to get overlooked in criticisms of the Family Court is that the originating problems brought to it are not of the court’s making. There are frequently power and control issues between the birth parents or between them and subsequent caregivers.

Many in the men’s groups vent a lot of anger. What’s behind this?

Anger is a natural emotion which shows other people our boundaries. It is precisely where our boundaries lie and the way we deal with our anger that counts. Anger that is not properly dealt with too often leads to physical outbursts and assaults and is, quite frequently, a feature of the more difficult Family Court cases.

Where I think men – as a broad generalisation – find themselves disadvantaged is when women have been the primary caregivers before separation and men have been the primary providers.

When the relationship breaks down and the woman tries to hold on to her role to the substantial exclusion of her former husband or partner, then the father is left with resort to the Family Court, which is not always resourced to be able to respond as quickly as the father – or indeed the court – would like. Nor might the outcome be exactly what either partner wants, depending on the circumstances and the perceived welfare and best interests – and views – of the child or children. Those are the determining factors with the law as it stands.

The protesters want equal parenting as the default position of the court in decisions about the care of children. What’s your view of that?

I question whether they are going about that in the right way. They need to convince a majority of members of parliament of the need for a law change and that it will be best for children. Men’s groups would need good research to back their position.

In the meantime, the judges of the court will try to apply the law, as it stands. It seems to me there is little point in attacking judges as a body for doing that.

I doubt that you are likely to achieve change by targeting the wrong people. Good, positive time with both birth parents, subject to issues of physical and emotional safety, is clearly the ideal. In an increasing number of cases that is equal time.

But sometimes extreme, ongoing conflict between birth parents, both locked in a battle over their children that they become ever more determined to win, makes this impossible to achieve.

Sometimes children have had so much conflict in their lives, without being able to see an end to it, that very occasionally and as a last resort a choice may need to be made for care by one birth parent to the exclusion of the other, hopefully temporary.

Men’s groups say the court grants protection orders against men too easily.

There have also been complaints, on behalf of women, that “without notice” applications for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act were not being granted readily enough and that too many were being placed “on notice”, with significant physical risk to women and children. This demonstrates the difficulty of satisfying everybody. When temporary protection orders are made without notice, in perceived situations of a threat to safety, and when children are involved, the court is increasingly scheduling a review of the temporary order within one or two weeks.

Men’s groups also complain about mothers making false testimony to the court.

For “false testimony” one can often substitute “a different perspective or perception”. If there is genuinely false testimony before the court and it is not acknowledged or corrected and it is material provided with intent to deceive the court, this can clearly ground a prosecution for perjury. On occasion, the Family Court will refer a matter of perceived perjury to the police for consideration of prosecution. Anything in the nature of deliberately false evidence or misleading testimony will almost inevitably be counter-productive to the position of the person on whose behalf it is provided.

The protesters say they are targeting lawyers because they lie to the court. Why would they make such claims?

This probably refers to the lawyer for the children, with whom dissatisfied litigants of both genders will frequently take issue. Their job is to represent the child or children independently of the parents or caregivers.

Their client is the child. But they are not meant to give evidence to the court – as opposed to making submissions based on the evidence.

It is, however, normal for the lawyer for the child to advise a child’s views and the child’s instructions, if the child is able to provide them. That may not be exactly what the child has said to his or her parents.

What do you think of the men’s groups’ tactics?

Men’s groups can frequently be helpful in providing a “McKenzie friend” or support person for a father acting on his own behalf. Likewise they fulfil a useful purpose in keeping before the public the importance of birth parents to children.

But Family Court judges are well aware of this and need no reminding. Men’s groups need to be carefully focused if they are not to be counter-productive.

I suspect that the protests may, in their targeting, say more about the protesters than about the operation of the court. If their intention is to embarrass, harass or intimidate might not similar traits and tactics have been factors in the breakdown of their marriage or relationship?

– More by Chris Barton
– Email Chris Barton

Sun 18th June 2006

The Kahui Twins

Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:53 pm

What level of inhumanity must a person descend to that enables him/her to in any way just upset or deprive a child?

But what level of disgusting inhuman descent must one reach before seriously hitting a child is acceptable?

What level of inhumanity could enable any person to hit, with such ferocity as to kill and seriously injure, a three month old infant?

Cru Kahui is dead after just three months of life. His brother Chris is critically injured…three months old.

The perpetrator of this vile crime deserves to die, very slowly and painfully. If not for Cru and Chris, then for me and the billions, world-wide, who need to know justice for these little boys.

I don’t care for their reasons or excuses. The perpetrator’s act in this case is well beyond even normal revulsion levels.

You can bet CYFS will get pilloried for this. In this instance I wish to extend my support to CYFS. When the rocks begin to be thrown. How could you possibly have known that such an animal as the killer of this child existed, or could even begin to predict he/she would kill and seriously injure.

No. CYFS make a lot of bad mistakes, but this time they deserve our support in the event they attract blame; which they most assuredly will.

We know this pig will end up in prison. Let us hope the other prisoners do that which our society, in such extreme cases, should be doing, lawfully.


Instant Dislocation

Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:23 pm

And now the Police want the power to issue ‘instant’ DVOs. It seems to me that this is yet another smoke-screen the police are using to ‘ease’ their work-load.

The concept being, Herbert The Violent (that’s the Herbert who has just beaten the tripes out his spouse or children) can be slung out on his ear and forced to stay away.

The concept appears, at first assessment, to have merit. But on second thoughts, the police already have a wide range of charges which they can use to contain a truly violent partner. For a proven assault, as opposed to, ‘My partner just said something man to me and I actually need him out of here before my ‘new’ partner arrives,’ the police can arrest and detain the perp…And so they should.

But now they want the job of judge and or jury by making instant assessments of a ‘situation’ and handing out instant DVOs. That is NOT their task. Their task is to enforce laws, take appropriate actions in the circumstances, then leave matters to the court to decide an appropriate solution.

We must not allow this initiative to progress beyond the media.


Fri 16th June 2006

I’ll say it again.

Filed under: General — Julie @ 3:18 pm

I have said it before and I will say it again. The government is pooling the funding. This means that for groups to receive funding they have to work together to get more funding.

Maybe Jim’s opinion on this, just maybe will back me up. (But then maybe he doesn’t see how I see things)

For example a group meeting of all interesested groups on youth was called to get the Waitakere Community together to deal with the youth problem. (Friday 16th June)

This is not the first for the doctors and dentists etc are doing the same. The government is finding a solution that is. “Instead of individually paying out funding, all work together and you will get more as a group.”

I reckon personally that a group like SKIP who got 10+ million dollars funding over the next 4 years will be the main provider and all the others will have to support and be a part else they are out of luck for money.

It makes sense for groups to get together, agree with issues and plan goals together. Not only will you make a bigger impact but you will get tax payers money. Where would men prefer to pay there taxes? For DV or mens issues?

I am still happy to find where our group belongs in all this. Shared parenting is the right thing to do but it is also a good business choice if one wants to get funding.

This is my opinion but I tell you, you will see it come to be.

Thu 15th June 2006

Eureka, I have solved the problem!

Filed under: General — Julie @ 7:33 am

Women have spent the last 20 years trying to solve this problem and it is only getting worse they say. Common sense needs to prevail.

OK, so we know that biologically males and females are different but we don’t want to listen to that or take it into account, do we?

So let’s combine the psychology and philisophy. Let’s look to what we are raising. I was asked the question myself last night, “Am I raising men or boys?” And I have seen the light.
This is my problem for I have been raising my boys to be men and not an equal to a female being raised into a woman.

We have been doing it wrong, I agree. So here is the solution.

From this day forth we will start from the birth of our children. Our boys we will dress in pretty dressess and pink ribbons. When they fall over as toddlers we will remind them how weak they are. We will pamper them in cotton wool and shower them in bracelets and jewels. We will make them emotional human beings and teach them to cry.

Our girls we will dress in pants, shirts and ties. We will teach them to harden up when they fall over as toddlers. We will work them so their hands are rough and continually explain it is their responsibility as females to protect the weak.

When they are teenagers we will send them off to the armed forces where they will learn strictness, discipline and combat.

Our teenage boys we will be patient with, forever encouraging them to keep themselves clean and pretty.

And for the males that exist today, for we have just raised them wrong, we will round them up and ……… (imagination please).

Tue 13th June 2006

Big News: Bradford & Kiro Disagree On Smacking

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General,Law & Courts — domviol @ 8:28 pm

Opinion: Dave Crampton

Big News with Dave Crampton

Bradford & Kiro Disagree On Smacking

Green MP Sue Bradford and Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro are in sharp disagreement over Bradfords bill which aims to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline from the Crimes Act. Such is the disagreement that Kiro refuses to comment on it and Bradford refuses to clarify her position.

It revolves around the term “violence”.

Both consider child abuse is domestic violence, both want to get rid of child abuse and both consider all forms of physical discipline as violence. Yet Bradford differs in that she considers some forms of physical discipline should not be a criminal offence. That is why she is suggesting an amendment in her bill to clarify that it is not her intention to ban physical discipline and time out. Therefore Bradford does not consider all smacking as physical abuse.

Kiro does, and often points to the Domestic Violence Act 1995.Violence is defined as physical abuse in the Domestic Violence Act, with regards to physical discipline of Children. The problem for Kiro is that the intention of Parliament when the Domestic Violence Act was passed in 1995 was that the term violence did not extend to light physical discipline. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner tried- and failed – to amend the Act so that physical discipline could legally be described as violence to set her up for a bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Case law has subsequently backed up Parliaments intent.

As all physical discipline is not legally abuse, it therefore cannot legally be classed as violence. Consequently, when Kiro says she wants to get rid of violence, she conflates that term with physical abuse, but fails to say why she refuses to define what she means by violence.

When I rang Kiro to discuss this with her she rudely stated she wasn’t going to comment, and hung up in my ear.

This is really a sore point, isn’t it.


Interesting Snippet

Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:01 pm

From an actual case…..BTW, not my particular case. This is CYFS-V-J.

CYFS apply for a S78 nd are intent on removing a boy with serious mental and physical issues which require specialist knowledge to manage and treat.

The s78 is stayed. Later CYFS assert to the Court that a s78 was the wrong mechanisim to use in the case of the boy. Why?

Well, it turns out that only guardians can authorise medical care for a child. A s78 does not give CYFS guardianship, only interim custody.

And so, despite knowing the child had serious issues, of which one in particular could see the child choking to death in under 30 minutes, (a point with which CYFS were made abundantly aware) CYFS were prepared to uplift him. And these are the women the Family Court entrusts with the care of children!

And so, when next you are faced with a s78 you might like to quickly file an application for a stay based upon your child’s medical needs and citing that only you, as guardian can approve any medical care for your child. Naturally, you will have to demonstrate an existing condition which ‘may’ require medical attention.

What I am not sure of (yet) is what the case would be if your child (while in care under a s78) breaks an arm and needs urgent medical care. Only you as guardian can authorise it. Maybe you would if the child was returned to you. I shall discover the answer in due course and report back.

For the record the relevant pleadings from CYFS are as follows.

1. The Chief Executive (CYFS) has obtained an order pursuant to s78 of the CYP Act 1989 (“the Act”) by which the CE hs been granted interim custody of the child.

2. The CE has no guardianship orders in respect of the child in its favour and is unable to obtain guardianship pursuant to s110 of the Act until a declaration is made.

3. A declaration pursuant to s67 of the Act cannot be made until a GFC has taken place and if the conference does not reach agreement, a defended hearing.

4. The s78 Order does not authorise the Cheif Executive to make make guardianship decisions about the child, which in include medical care and counselling.

One to four above are transcripts from court docs.

The question which is wandering around my mind, at the moment is, what ‘other’ guardianship decisions can CYFS not make?

For example, can CYFS ‘decide’ to not allow a child to attend various sports activities expressly authorised by the guardian? Can they? Surely, such would be a guardianship issue.

Can they dictate which school a child attends? Surely, such would be a guardianship decision.

Can they dictate what a child must eat or drink, tooth-brushing frequency, toiletry habits…the list goes on? Surely, a guardianship issue.

But if the real guardian is ill-prepared to cooperate with CYFS, then how can they act? And can the guardian have recourse in the event CYFS apply some measure, expressly reserved for the guardian?

Dunno yet. But I sure as hell intend to find out.


Ex-Husbands Still Not Good Enough, Even When the Wife is Declared Abusive

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 2:59 pm

Dateline: Boston Mass.US

In a new report of children removed from abusive mothers in the US (Mass.) finds that when ex-husbands ask for guardianship they are turned down in numbers that are astonishing, as reported in the Boston Globe shows so clearly. (6/8/06).

The report contains a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers in only 8% of cases.

Here is an example of this equal world from an ex-husband of just such a mother from Glenn Sacks:

The mother was abusive and the state (properly) took the girl away from the mother. After that, however, the state has refused to let this man’s daughter come home to him. The girl adores her dad and there’s been no finding of unfitness against the dad. However, the girl’s caseworker keeps coming up with vague reasons why it’s somehow not in the best interests of this child to be reunited with her father. These include gems like “she isn’t ready for overnight visits yet.”

Indirectness, indirectness and more indirectness! Instead these poor children get sent into foster care even though there is a fit father willing and able to take over. The fact that these mothers are so unfit, even in the states opinion, would suggest that the fathers might have been right to leave the relationship in the first place. Yet that is just me using common sense again. What the system that is so concerned with defending children sees seems to be natural fathers, with nothing on their records, are unfit to take over their motherly abused children because they are simply men. Like George and Peter pointed out it is more of a wonder why these men don’t go off the deep end, than not! When will we stop listening to the soft fox words and watch what they are doing? Stand up! Stand together and find a way to work together and not let little things stop us from gaining the justice that will only come with the unity of men. No man can do this by himself!

Mon 12th June 2006

Solve this problem

Filed under: General — Julie @ 7:45 pm

This was 2 different situations for 2 similar 15 year old boys. I cannot keep it as it was because it could have an impack on the boys. But I have kept the comments. I leave this decision up to webmaster.

Sun 11th June 2006

Anger over female violence claims

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General — domviol @ 1:11 am

New Zealand domestic violence experts are dismissing claims men are more likely to be the victims of violence among young couples as irresponsible and damaging.

The University of New Hampshire study shows women carry out more unreciprocated physical attacks on men while dating, than than men do on women.

But domestic violence experts in New Zealand are rubbishing the study.

The research is based on more than 13,000 university students in 32 countries, including New Zealand.

It found a third of students physically attacked a partner during the 12 month study, with assaults ranging from throwing things and shoving to kicking and punching.

While most of the violence involved both partners assaulting each other, the second-largest group was of women alone carrying out the attacks.

The study’s author says the findings call into question the belief that partner violence is predominantly a male crime.

But Women’s Refuge in New Zealand says that sends the wrong message. National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuge head Heather Henare says statistics show men in New Zealand are the main perpetrators of serious violence.

The National Network of Stopping Violence Services also describes the study as an anomaly. Manager Brian Gardner says there is no getting away from the fact that women suffer more harm at the hands of men, than the other way around.

He says such research allows violent men to justify their behaviour when they should be facing up to it.

Waikato University psychologist Neville Robertson, who specialises in domestic violence, says it would be more telling if fear had been measured in the study.

Auckland University associate professor of psychology Nicola Gavey says it is simply wrong to claim men are the victims of violence between couples.

She says the research draws attention away from the most important issue in the debate, which is the impact of family violence on women and children.

Alison Towns, a clinical psychologist specialising in domestic violence, says that three quarters of violence carried out by women against men is in self-defence.

Jury told to use common sense in domestic stabbing trial

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General,Law & Courts — domviol @ 1:00 am

An Auckland District Court jury in the trial of a woman charged with stabbing her husband heard closing arguments yesterday.

The 34-year-old woman has pleaded not guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Police said her injured husband, 49, called them on February 20 last year about 3.30am, saying his wife had stabbed him twice in the back and once in the back of the leg in their Queens Street apartment.

The accused said he inflicted the wounds on himself.

The couple’s names and nationality are suppressed.

Crown prosecutor Tiffany Robertson asked the jury to use its common sense when deciding its verdict today.

Fri 9th June 2006

Are we becoming equal?

Filed under: General — Julie @ 12:51 pm

It looks that there is a change happening in male and female relationships.

According to a Match.com poll, 48 percent of men (and an equal percentage of women) reported dating partners who drew the same income as they did. Twenty percent of men reported dating women who earned more.

There is a want and need for equality among people in their 20’s and 30’s. Men are wanting to share the responsibilites with women and do not want to be the sole breadwinner and decision-makers while women do not want to be stay at home mums wasting their years and talents to only raising children. Both sexes have watched their parents trying to cope alone with their personal responsibilities in the relationship. And I guess like many of us, promised themselves things will be different for them.

“It’s great that men are no longer the success object and women are no longer the sex object. But when people organize their lives differently from their cultures or families of origin, they have to make it work practically and emotionally. You have to negotiate before [marriage] how you’re going to deal with the core issues of sex, money and kids.”

Barry McCarthy, a psychologist in Washington, D.C.,

It makes complete sense to consider that the ultimate relationship would be between people that are best friends. And to become best friends each needs to click emotionally and mentally.

Women today want men that can and will share thier feelings because they don’t need the masks in their busy lives and it is tiresome trying to live so closely to someone you don’t understand. It seems also that men (and you will correct me if I am wrong) need more from their women than trophy wives.

We live in a world today that spins around our economy. Everything seems to evolve around money as to our worth. What house we have, what clothes we wear, what schools our kids can go to, medical care and the list just goes on and on. Many families cannot sufficiently live without 2 incomes in todays society and absolutely cannot survive without working together in partnership. But in any successful partnership, the individuals must be real to themselves first and then real to their partners second.

Once again equality is neccessary.


Wed 7th June 2006

Shared Care Challenge

Filed under: Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:08 am

Dear Dr Robertson

You were quoted in the Waikato Times on 3 June 2006 as saying
(i) that for parents effectively to take shared responsibility for children “you need a high degree of co-operation and goodwill between the parents” and
(ii) that “it is probably in the best interests of a child not to have their current arrangements upset”, then making clear that you are referring to arrangements in which the mother has sole custody.

Can you refer me to the research on which you base your claims in (i) and (ii)? My understanding of the research is that shared care arrangements work at least as well for all parties as do other child-care arrangements across various qualities of the separated parent relationship, this holding for all but the most highly-conflicted parents. This means that your claim that shared care requires a “high degree of co-operation and goodwill” is simply incorrect and unsupported by the research. My understanding of the research is that on various measures children have been shown to do better under shared care arrangements than under other arrangements including being mostly cared for by either parent. On the other had there appears to be no finding that children do more poorly under shared care than under alternative arrangements, except one study of questionable merit that suggested babies under 18 months old suffered ill effects from shared care. Given this research picture, it appears that your claim in (ii) above is not accurate nor is it supported by the research.

Power and Powerlessness

Filed under: General — Julie @ 9:47 am

I see, like others, the effect the mens coalition is making on our country at the moment. Even Good Morning NZ has shown a part of the media’s coverage. But the time Good Morning has spent is about a book and once again it is stated that most parents sort it out without having problems or going to court.

What people are not talking about is part of the core problem and is what our society needs to recognise. It is POWER and POWERLESSNESS.

Considering most of these parents that do not go to court but are part of the statistics that work it out amicably, one would find that parent (a) blackmails parent (b) who basically will almost do anything to see their children. In one moment parent (b) can lose shared parenting or even access.

Mon 5th June 2006

Arrested Mother, Suspected to have Killed 2 Kids, Blames Man

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 4:42 pm

Dateline: June 5th, 2006 Japan (Intrepid)

A mother, whose daughter drowned just over a month ago in a river, is now under arrested in the murder of a neighbour’s boy, while police are now reopening the investigation into the daughter death.

After the police shied away from arresting another very suspicious mother again for the strange death of her daughter over a month ago, the same women has gone on to be arrested today for the killing of a neighbour’s innocent boy.

Asked in an interview by journalist touring the neighbourhood for the mysterious daughter’s death earlier, before the second suspected murder, the suspect states on camera, there was a strange man in a van that may have been the one who killed my daughter (and then threw the boy’s lifeless body into a lonely ditch by a river).

Well for men in the men’s movement we have heard this before. In the US women murders often point to some black man and are later given a softer sentence, despite the usual outrage that surrounds bigoted racism. Yet generalizations, it would seem, about black men & men in general don’t lead to harsher sentences in this equal world. Who knows how many men where killed or lynched on the word of a pure women, or a mother of irrefutable kindness.

The Supervised Access Industry.

Filed under: General — Julian @ 12:49 pm

I am a parent who has been “forced” to do supervised access as this is the only way I can see my child at present.

The Interim custody order was granted under section 59 of the COCA.which relates back to section 29, which states “an order depriving a parent of a child must not be made unless the court is satisfied that the parent is for some grave reason unfit to be a Guardian and that the order will serve in the best interests of the child”
Admittedly I was unwell and was admitted to Hospital, I was not caring for my child at the time.
The “fictitious” affodavit by my ex was accepted by the court without any evidence or proof or investigation. Even on defence I was still not listened to, mainly because I got so emotional
( whatever you do don’t show emotion at the Family Court ! )

Supervised Access can also be ordered under sectio 60 and 61, which relate to violence.

I question as someone who has been ordered to do supervised access how often this is really necessary, I agree in some cases that may be necessary to protect a child from violence, but how many of you people reading this have been ordered to do this as a form of punishment imposed by the court because you dared to question or probe into their dysfunction ?

Mental Illness – glossary

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,Men's Health — Julie @ 8:24 am

Psychiatry: This word comes from two other words. Psyche (meaning mind/soul) and iatreia (meaning cure). Psychiatry is a branch of medicine and psychiatrists treat people, using drugs and other physical methods, to change the way people act and feel.

Psychology: This word is also derived from two other words. Psyche (meaning mind/soul) and logia (meaning study of). Psychology tries to explain why people act, think and feel the way they do.

Mental Illness: A sickness of the brain according to psychiatrists and psychologists, but for which there is no proof at all of its existence. This does not mean that problems don’t exist, or that a person can never feel bad, but there is no evidence that these are caused by a sickness of the brain.

Brain: A physical organ inside the head that sends and receives messages through the nervous system. It is a physical part of the body, just as an arm, leg or the heart is. It has little to do with thinking. It can physically tell the body that something is hot and warn against touching it, but it doesn’t make decisions for you or tell you how to act.

Mind: “A part of the person that knows and thinks and feels and wishes and chooses,” the World Book Dictionary says. It is a running record of a person’s past, almost like a movie.

Psychiatric Drugs: Mind- and brain-altering drugs. They are not like normal medicine. Some can be just as addictive as illegal drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. They cannot cure or heal a person. They may appear to relieve the person’s fears, upsets or depression, but they do not cure the underlying cause.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A list of behaviors that
psychiatrists declare are problems, such as: has too little attention, is too active, fidgets, squirms, and, therefore, is not “normal.” Note that there is no scientific or medical proof to support either the existence of the disorder or the validity of a diagnosis.

Learning Disorder: A list of symptoms that psychiatrists say shows a person will have difficulty being able to learn. Note that there is no scientific or medical proof to support either the existence of the disorder or the validity of a diagnosis.

Thanx to fightforkids.com

Our Kids and Stimulants

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education — Julie @ 7:53 am

Today, more than 17 million children worldwide have been prescribed psychiatric drugs so dangerous that medicine regulatory agencies in Europe, Australia and the United States have issued warnings that antidepressants, for example, can cause suicide and hostility in children and adolescents. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also issued a warning that stimulant drugs, such as Ritalin and Concerta can cause suicidal as well as violent, aggressive and psychotic behavior, and that these same drugs can cause heart attacks, stroke and sudden death.

· Of these 17 million, more than 10 million children are in the United States, being prescribed addictive stimulants, antidepressants and other psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs for educational and behavioral problems.

· Today, children 5 years old and younger are the fastest-growing segment of the non-adult population prescribed antidepressants in the U.S. Children as young as 4 have attempted suicide while influenced by such drugs and 5 year olds have committed suicide. Between 1995 and 1999, antidepressant use increased 580% in the under 6 population and 151% in the 7-12 age group. In 2004, the FDA ordered that a “black box” label be placed on antidepressants warning that they can cause suicide in children and adolescents.

The problem is international in scope. In Australia, the stimulant prescription rate for children increased 34-fold in the past two decades. In Mexico, sales of Ritalin increased 800% between 1993 and 2001. In Britain, the stimulant prescription rate for children increased 9,200% between 1992 and 2000. Spain reported a steady 8% annual increase in Ritalin consumption between 1992 and 2001.


Fathers and Children – website and refuge, Wellington

Filed under: General — vision @ 12:02 am

I have been in the FC system battling a co-op of Lawyer for Child, a Judge Wellington, an access supervisor and the system between CYFs and the family court law. Its been the most emotionally draining, un-reasonable, illogical and un-remitting series of events that I have faced. I have now seen my children taken out of New Zealand into a foreign country with jurisdiction remaining in New Zealand but enforceabiltiy now the issue for continued access.

I need help from the various organisations in New Zealand and have received some help from the foreign country – Fathers4Justice. But the new Care of Children Act 2005 now no longer includes the Hague Convention for International Abduction of Children.

I have established a domain for familycourt.co.nz.

I have yet to put up a home page etc, but the goal is to create awareness and expose the process so that fathers can perhaps take steps that will suit the FC system without causing too much damage from frustration. Its the number one emotion used by the lawyer for the ex that works against us – we all get frustrated, logical and reasonable arguments go unheard, contact and access to our kids are delayed and used to “bait” us into further frustration. Frustration leads us to make rash decisions that are then used by the lawyers ex to confirm the behaviours that the ex and the children should be protected from.

We all need to work the system and we all need to share how these tricks of the trade by the ex’s lawyer are being used. That is what this site is for, when we all get on the same playing field its going to be a bit more even.

Psychological Abuse on Protection Order applications are being used more often by the lawyers ex.

Fathers please read the thesis by Debbie Hager, on psychological abuse and the book:

The emotionally abusive relationship, by Beverley Engel.

If you are in a relationship, and your partner controls your income/finances, you are emotionally controlled or blackmailed- no sex etc, if you do this I will take the kids etc, you can’t do the things that you would like to do – then you need to get out of that relationship with your children and to a men’s refuge.

These are the very reasons women use to take your children away from you. But they say that you are using psychological abuse.

I ask this organisation and members for help in putting online the process steps so that fathers will not fall into the system, and get their children taken away from them.

I will be putting online the steps and the “tricks” used by the ex”s lawyer in taking my children away. We as fathers must be aware of how the system works so that we can at laest not be disadvantaged when we face the Family Court. More awareness and significant cases will help change in the system. Real change must come through Government, being a lawyer will help but changing the law would be the best result for fathers who want an equal parenting involvment in their child’s life. That is a committment we all make when we agree to have children with our partner, the family court doesn’t recognise that committment at the moment. The mother as we all know in most cases remains the primary day to day parent.

Our committment is measured by Child Support payments rather than being a comprehensive parent who is engaged in our children developing into adults.

I have my home and possibly another available for a fathers refuge, I have faced my children being taken into a refuge as a faint by my ex to convince the court that she should get custody, to hide the real truth that she psychologically abused me and I went into a deep depression – she threatened to take the children away from me, the FC agreed that this is psychological abuse of the father.

I sought help from a victim counsellor, but I have now heard a lot of fathers have faced controlling, manipulative, and emotional blackmail from their partners and ex’s. This is psychological abuse, not physical but its more damaging. I propose a refuge for fathers and their children in Wellington. I need help on this.


Sun 4th June 2006

Fathers v Family Court

Filed under: General — Julie @ 3:32 pm

Some dads say they’re not getting a fair go in the Family Court. Kate Monahan finds out why they are so disgruntled, and sits in on some cases being heard

We’ve had a gutsful of the Family Court, their discrimination against fathers,” says Jack Gielen, a spokesman for the Hamilton branch of the coalition, which has about 20 members.

“We want to replace it with mediation services and equal parenting focused on joint responsibility and joint decision-making.”

The group also wants a Ministry of Men’s Affairs established and more support services for men, including retreat facilities for fathers and children.

“If you had the Family Court out of the way tomorrow, the mother, father and child could sit down and will be able to do it,” says Gielen. “It’s God-given, innate common sense.”

The group doesn’t like women in power. He derides Prime Minister Helen Clark and her Labour colleagues —- “Helen and the funny girls”, he calls them.

Gielen also has a bee in his bonnet about the more moderate Union of Fathers, which has opposed the coalition’s aggressive tactics. “The head guy of Union of Fathers has his wife on the committee,” he says. When asked why they wouldn’t want support from women, Gielen says “it’s okay to join, but we don’t want a feminised takeover”.

Fraser Penny, the newly elected national chairperson of the Union of Fathers, based in Hamilton, says having women support their cause is essential. Penny, a Waikato man and foundation member of the union, says his wife (Maggie Revell-Penny, secretary of the union) “has stayed up on numerous occasion into the wee hours, helping guys with affidavits”.

He estimates the union has more than 1000 members nationwide, with about 40 in Hamilton, and works with community groups such as Parentline and the Citizens Advice Bureau. Much of their work with fathers is as a support system. “We can go from the point of pulling a guy up who is angry, to have him focusing on his children and pulling his head in,” Penny says. “They change, grow and carry on being awesome dads and role models.”

Parentline child and family therapist Audrey Hutcheson says it is important to differentiate between the coalition and the union. They get calls from some fathers from the union seeking advice, and some also attend parenting groups.

Penny says the union does not condone the coalition protests outside private homes. Although their starting point is also shared parenting, they prefer to support fathers (and occasionally mothers) and work through the system. “They’ve chosen their path, we have chosen our own.”

There is alot more to read on this article.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar