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

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.

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).

Sunday saw the intrepid Fathers Coalition meet at the home of Jim B Warrior at 12.30pm.
Rumour had it the North Shore had some contenders that needed to be reminded of the need for children to associate with both biological parents and for the State abuse of the children to be abated.
Convoy departed a little after 1.00pm along with representatives of the NZ Herald (Fathers group pickets at North Shore MPs’ houses) with the first prospect residing in Prospect Tce. Katherine Hayman.
The few Prospect Tce. motorists were rather supportive of the demonstration being carried out, an anti-demo neighbour called the Police, she also emerged from her home to consult with another neighbour who had popped out and was supportive of the cause.
The anti-demo nighbour had recently utilised the services of the Family Court.
We were travelling to our next Target Nat.MP Wayne (anti-PC) Mapp when the red and blue strobes pulled the War Wagon over which was heading the Convoy.
No less than the weekend relieving Area Commander got out.
He segregated Jim B and licence was inspected etc…
Next came a little remonstration by the Officer, the Officer however was holding up the convoy and some extra dialogue was imparted to the Officer by another member regarding our activity and its lawful nature.
The Officer looked quite sympathetic (Police are supposed to have the highest divorce rate of any profession - perhaps inwardly he would have liked to have led the convoy with lights and siren).
We were advised to show further courtesy on the road and stagger the convoy so that traffic could flow freely unimpeded.
This advice was implemented and off we went to put Mapp on the map.
Big B and I got lost and arrived a little late, the placards were already out and the cameraman was snapping away.
The Republican representatives informed Wayne that there was a new kid on the block and reminded him of years earlier comments by himself regarding the solving the issues within the Family Court, which of course had fallen completely by the wayside.
Target number 3 proved to be a logistical error, it will keep for our next North Shore Bothering.
Target number 4 was also missed off as time was rapidly waning, also on the back burner.
That saw us then finally congregating outside the home of Lab. MP Ann Hartley who apparently also had made the same murmurings as Wayne in previous years.
The message to Ann was similar to Wayne,in that they had seriously let down the Nations children, fathers (and mums too).
After we felt that we had provided Ann with sufficient notice we then headed back to Jim B Warriors for the post demo wined down and BBQ that would have made Jamie Oliver proud.
It is great to see so many enthusiastic friends in this group therapy and look forward to the next round of Protest.

Kind Regards
Paul

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.

ENDS

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.

Cheers
David.

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!

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.

It’s interesting and enlightening to see some of our bros in the USA are thinking about there lot. This lifted from mensnewsdaily :

See the parralels in NZ ? -

I would very much like to see men everywhere demanding equal treatment under law but I don’t know how to make it happen. Until they personally face a guilt based on gender stereotype tribulation of their own of one sort or another they rely heavily on the assumption that only the guilty-of-something are prosecuted or get screwed out of fundamental justice under color of law. The feminists, judges, lawyers, legislators, and prosecutors carrying out feminist jurisprudence know this, and heavily rely upon it. In fact, that’s how things got so bad, such that a man railroaded through the gender-based justice system is dumbfounded by the astonishing corruption when he knows the truth of a given situation.
(more…)

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.

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.
(more…)