- 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.

Mon 31st July 2006


Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:41 pm

Will someone pleeeease provide the goss for what happened on Sunday. I heard on the news today that the hose-lady was to be charged with assault with a weapon of Mass Watering.:–)) I have to assume that you guys are way above pressing charges.

Surely, in doing so, you all just join the ranks of the rabid PC brigade.


Sun 30th July 2006

Says It All 2

Filed under: General — dpex @ 7:38 am

Why Labour despises the family
Daily Mail, 27 July 2006

When New Labour came to power in 1997, a battle royal took place within its ranks over the issue of the family.

In one camp was Tony Blair, who understood that family breakdown was the hole at the heart of British society and who wanted to strengthen the two-parent family. Ranged against him was just about everyone else, all of whom thought that every form of relationship should be afforded equal status. The Prime Minister lost this argument hands-down.

The result was the lame formula subsequently adopted by his Government that it supported marriage and every other type of ‘family’, too – a transparently verbal camouflage for a relationship free-for-all.

Thu 27th July 2006

Honey I Drowned Our 5 Kids Mrs. Yates Found Not Guilty!!!

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 1:24 pm

Dateline: US
Author: Pit Bull
From: The Honor Network

Houston Mother Who Systematically Drowned her Five Children in the Family Bathtub Found not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Well here we have another example for two justice systems (one for men and one for women). “Equality” where are you now! Mrs. Yates benefit from the old ways for women yet again in our modern times, and you won’t hear anyone crying out for equality in the mainstream press.

“If this were a man” kinda seems tiring to shout out, for it has gotten so common with no one seeming to care about how unjust it all is. Yet stick it in your cap and use it to modivate yourself is your activsim.

Mrs. Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released on th public. She could have lived a life in prison if convicted, but I guess she is only a woman.

Her lawyers never disputed that Mrs. Yates killed her five children – 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah – by drowning them over serveral hours in a bathtub of their suburban Houston home in June 2001.

The shear terror of the children awaiting their turn in the tub, must have been set aside out of the women’s superior motherly love trumping any brutal male backward form of revenge justice. How’s that slogan for the feminists!

In 2002 another jury found Yates guilty of murder in the deaths of three of her children. Due to erroneous testimony she will be out and about before long, and count on someone blaming a man or the church for her badness.

The old ways or the new ways seem to be used whenever a woman need them, while men get a mix of their own old and new, but always to their lose.

Looking at possible remedies for the Family Court

Filed under: Law & Courts — New Zeal @ 8:57 am

The current focus of the Family Court is on ‘best interest of the child’. This, I would say, is something that is very difficult to determine. Also it ignores the presence of the parents, both mother and father and since the mother invariably ends up with the child, this makes the Family Court appear to be anti-father.

One possible remedy for this is to have the Family Court focus on the parent-child relationship. For every child in question there would be two parent-child relationships, one with the mother and one with the father. At the start of family court proceedings, if mediation fails, and it looks like the court will have to make a decision, these relationships would be assessed by a psychologist. The aim of the family court then would be to preserve parent-child relationships, while at the same time attempt to resolve disputes. Lawyers would be instructed to remove all references in affidavits that attack the spouses parent-child relationship. Parents would be given firmer instructions than at present about denigrating the other parent in front of the children. It is inevitable in most family court disputes that there are feelings surrounding marital separation to deal with and these often overflow into the area of parent-child relationships. The family court should emphasize and educate about the need to keep these separate, maybe providing parents with workshops run by organizations such as ParentLine.

Benefits of the parent-child focus:

The court would be required to recognize the importance of the parent. This is especially beneficial to fathers, who, with the current focus on the child, tend to miss out, and feel that the court is anti-father. Getting on side with the father means that, the chances of material and emotional support from both parents and not just the ‘custodial’ parent is more likely. It also makes the chances of shared parenting work better. Ultimately it has got to be better for the child if both parent-child relationships are preserved, not to mention being better for the father and mother.


The parent-child focus would require the parents to work on having the (negative) marital issues that separate them be countered by the (positive) parent-child relationships that draw them together (or at least draw them to their children). Parents have to learn to separate their relationship with the ex-spouse from that which they have with their children. The family court is a large enough institution to create the culture for this to happen.

The parent-child focus would require some complex assessments and psychological involvement in order to guide the court. It would be hoped that time currently spent on time-wasting adversarial contests could instead be used for this task and that parents would learn to be better parents as a result of the process.

Tue 25th July 2006

Dear Joe: An Example of Female Loyalty & Honor In the 21st Century

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 3:57 pm

DATELINE: US (Grand Ledge) & IRAQ
Author: Scott Rees
From : F4J (US)
Via: The Honor Network

By SCOTT REES Staff Writer

GRAND LEDGE – For the past week, Joe McNeilly’s phone has been ringing off the hook. He’s been contacted by newspapers, radio shows, and even the major television networks.

That’s the way he wants it.

McNeilly, a Grand Ledge resident and specialist with the Army National Guard, said he believes he lost custody of his 10-year-old son, Joey, because he was in Iraq for 15 months.

“This is the awareness we’ve needed. It’s great,” he said. He said he’s already been approached by other soldiers in the similar predicament.

However, the boy’s mother and his ex-girlfriend – Holly Erb, of Mason, her lawyer, and the Friend of the Court, say McNeilly lost custody because of his parenting skills.

The court referee’s report found that Erb had established a custodial environment for the child while McNeilly was deployed.

A hearing set for Wednesday, Aug. 24, before Ingham County Family Judge Janelle Lawless was postponed. A new date has not been set.

The custody battle has spurred a media blitz locally and nationally and attracted the attention of local politicians. State Rep. Rick Jones, introduced legislation this past week barring courts from using soldiers’ absence for active duty against them in custody hearings.

Jones said t 15 to 20 similar custody issues state-wide have arisen in the past three years.

“Do I expect this legislation to help me? No … but somebody needs to do this. This will help our fellow soldiers who are coming back,” McNeilly said.

Before his deployment in January, 2004, McNeilly and Erb shared joint custody. The child spent one week with his dad and one week with his mother, who also lived in Grand Ledge at the time.

Erb had petitioned for full custody of the child seven months after McNeilly joined the National Guard in 2003.

McNeilly said he agreed to temporarily give the mother full custody of their son and was told the issue would be revisited upon his return. Instead, the court referee recommended against restoring the original agreement and instead gave McNeilly visitation rights for every other weekend and on holidays.

In a recommendation, court referee Louis Belzer expressed concern over e-mail correspondences between the McNeilly and his son during his time in Iraq.

Belzer said the e-mails display a much different relationship than a typical parent-child relationship, and more as a “counterpart to share his military adventure.”

Belzer wrote, “I also question the nature of some of the correspondence relating to how to kill people in multiple ways and then indicating that ‘next time someone touches you and leaves bruises on you, I’ll be ready.’ ”

Belzer said McNeilly seemed more of the disposition to be a friend and buddy rather than a parent.

McNeilly said his statements were taken out of context and he was merely telling his son that if anyone hurt him, he should come to his father.

As for sharing his life in the military, what young boy hasn’t played with G.I. Joes, he asked.

Belzer’s report stated McNeilly was married in January, 2004, while in the military and on active status, residing with his wife and three step-children in Grand Ledge.

The referee’s report said McNeilly made a general reference to spending part of the time with his wife, and also time at his parents house and his sister’s house. He denied marital difficulties.

The referee, in his recommendation to the judge, determined that Erb would provide Joey with a more stable environment as she now resides with her husband, a step-child, and a new child by her husband.

“Them pulling him out of a consistent environment (in Grand Ledge) of six years. That doesn’t make sense,” McNeilly said.

McNeilly filed an objection to the recommendations claiming incorrect procedural information regarding the temporary order, the referee stated information incorrectly, and biased direction of the friend of the court against men.

McNeilly also stated the referee failed to mention and take into account Erb’s negative actions. She was the defendant in the case.

He claims Erb intentionally made it difficult for him to keep in consistent contact with his son, not responding to e-mails and phone calls inquiring about grades and his son’s well-being.

“Why do I have to go through this? Why does anybody have to go through this? I mean, we’re parents,” McNeilly said.

“Give me time with my son, I’ve earned it,” he added.

21st Century Dear Joe Letter Might go like this:

Dear Joe,
I’ve found another bloke and I’m taking your kid. Dad stepping on an IUD isn’t good for a child. I’m really concerned about the child.

Brave new world of paternity testing

Filed under: General — New Zeal @ 1:01 pm

You can now get a paternity test at 5 weeks into a pregnancy:


The best way to secure yourself against paternity fraud is to either get the test done or to get a written statement from the mother that she has absolutely no doubts about the paternity of the child. In other words only she knows for certain whether or not she has slept around, been raped or visited a sperm bank during the possible conception time. Those who rile at what Meredith did to Liam may find it worthwhile putting energy into getting this test made available to men free of charge. That would be a good and positive cause.

You cannot change the past. DNA testing is new technology and what we know today we didn’t know ten years ago. All historical cases of so called paternity fraud are likely to be treated with caution and probably a certain amount of clumsiness and with mixed results by the courts. Only when DNA testing is a day to day reality will the issue ever be clarified.

The Magill case failed partly because it opened up a Pandora’s box of endless possibility with regards to litigation against private deceit. The tort of deceit is supposed to apply to commercial relationships. Because a marriage certificate is a legal document it could be used to bring a tort of deceit against a man who commits adultery and this is far more frequent than misattributed paternity. That is the kind of precedent that the original decision would have set. The only winners here are the lawyers. What is needed is new legislation to apply to private matters such as paternity fraud and the latter can only apply when it is beyond doubt that paternity has been misattributed and the only surefire way of achieving that is through a DNA test. Again, championing such a cause would be a positive step to take.

The existence of the DPB means that women have the choice of keeping a child if it was not fathered by their partner and he chooses not to formally adopt the child as his own. Until all men stop committing adultery, women cannot be expected to stop having children out of wedlock (which is not likely to happen anyway).

All in all, this focus on paternity fraud and biological fatherhood is only going help to reduce birth rates further below the less than replacement level that they are now.

Mon 24th July 2006

What you didn’t know didn’t hurt you

Filed under: General — New Zeal @ 3:57 pm

Prior to DNA testing there was no way of knowing for sure that you weren’t the biological father of your children.? DNA testing has opened up a whole can of worms that society has yet to learn how to deal with.?

The term paternity fraud is? incorrect since 9 times out of 10 the woman cannot know for sure that a child is not the supposed father.? This reflects the judgment made? in the Australian High Court when Meredith Magill made her successful appeal against the previous $70,000 litigation.? To assume that all cases of misappropriated fatherhood are fraud? and that the mother is at fault completely lets off the hook the male who is invariably involved in all these cases.?

Actual statistics of misappropriated paternity are hard to quantify.? The link at http://www.australianpaternityfraud.org/statistics.htm? might give some idea.? Basically for most of humankind men have been bringing up children for whom they are not the biological father.? They have not been experiencing any devastation or stress because they haven’t known.? What they didn’t know didn’t hurt them.? Now that we have DNA testing we suddenly have this male insistence that the only true father is a biological one.

The existence of DNA testing changes everything.

We have to approach child birth from a completely new angle.? Some ideas can be found here


What all this should make clear is that the current child-support payment system, which assigns payment obligations on the basis of biological paternity, not parenting commitment, is tragically flawed. Regardless of whether the father suspected, knew or had no idea that the child he was parenting was genetically unrelated, and notwithstanding however culpable his female partner’s behaviour was in creating that situation, the law needs to recognise and affirm men’s value to children as parents – and people – not sperm donors. Playing the biological card not only undercuts research findings that affirm the importance to children of having an active male parent in their lives, but lends support to the insulting claim made by a sperm donor interviewed on Four Corners last month that he, not the man who invested 20 years of time and love, was his daughter’s “real” father.

After the Magill case, this is where the law is quite likely to go.

And this too:

Of course, rejecting mandatory paternity testing at birth does not mean that men should not be assisted to accept the obligations of fatherhood in a more informed way. Upon the birth of a child, men ought to be given the opportunity to give one-time-only non-rescindable consent to their acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. If they feel unable to sign on the dotted line without conclusive proof that they are the biological progenitor, they should be offered a DNA test free of charge.

However, once a man does formally accept social and legal responsibility for a child – either with knowledge of their genetic paternity or in the face of a fully informed waiver of that knowledge – their status as the child’s legal father should rightly be set in stone. No DNA skeletons rattling out of the cupboards at a later date should affect what they legally owe their child or, hopefully, how they feel about the kid who calls him dad.

This site is supposed to be supportive of the need for? children to have a father? present in their lives.? I would expect nothing less than a positive response to these ideas from fellow posters.



Mr. Liam Is Now Under Arson Attack!!!

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 1:40 pm


THE first man in Australia to successfully sue for paternity fraud is living in fear after arsonists attacked his car.

Liam Magill’s Mitsubishi Magna was burnt and vandalised outside a Box Hill home last weekend in an act of vandalism that has baffled police and frightened his loved ones.

“We don’t get much sleep any more — I’m up after every little bump I hear,” he said.
Mr Magill, 54, sued his former wife, Meredith, for $70,000 after DNA tests proved that he was not the father of two of their three children.

The decision was hailed as an Australian legal precedent but his former wife has lodged an appeal which is due to be heard in the Supreme Court this year. Mr Magill claimed the damage to his car, which happened late last Saturday, was the latest in a string of attacks designed to intimidate him.

“It’s probably a scare tactic — someone trying to scare me out of defending the appeal,” he said.

I guess they will now emotionally rationalize this into the Mr. Liam’s fault with some mental gymanstics of some sort! Oppressed minorites are always blamed for those who abuse them. If you get angry your an angry white male, if you take it on the chin again and again you deserve it. This is a no win game preached by those who want us to fail. We need to ignore them and unite the moderates and radicals and call out the pretenders (Kent).

Sat 22nd July 2006

Paternity Fraud – Are you a victim

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 10:02 am

Are a New Zealand dad and a victim of misattributed paternity?

Would you be prepared to share your story, this can be done anonymously, with a reporter from a major New Zealand daily news paper?

Email jnicolle@slingshot.co.nz with a brief summary and your contact details.



Down Under Takes On Whole New Meaning

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 2:03 am

Dateline: Australia
Author: Soli
From: Dads On Air
Via: Honor Network

Down Under Takes On Whole New Meaning

The High Court is confronting that issue right now. Liam and Meredith Magill were married in April 1988. A son was born in April 1989. Unknown to her husband, a few months later Meredith began an affair with a man, having unprotected sex until early 1995. In July 1990 a second son was born. Then, the next year, a daughter. After separating, Meredith admitted to Liam her concerns over paternity. A few years later she agreed to DNA tests. Liam learned that the two younger children were not his.

He was left devastated, suffered chronic depression and was unable to work. He sued Meredith for the tort of deceit, claiming financial compensation for his pain and suffering, but not for money spent on the upbringing and maintenance of the children.

While the Victorian County Court found that Meredith had deceived Liam when she nominated him as the father on birth registration notices, that was overturned last year by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The High Court will now decide whether the tort of deceit will hold Meredith accountable for her actions.

Fri 21st July 2006

Where is the balance?

Filed under: General — Julie @ 10:56 am

A shared parenting bill was presented to parliament in year 2000. Many people supported the bill yet it did not get the chance to go through all channels to make a new important law.
Many people took to public areas to support the change. In fact alot of people got together to express concerns for the rights of children regarding fathers, meetings were being held everywhere to gain support and the journalists spread the word through media.

Today and back then alot of people in parliament and those who work behind the scenes in law, research departments, etc agree that the Guardianship Act and Custody Act are old and out of date to today’s society.
Fathers are not just finance earners, not to their women that want time with them nor to their chidren that rely on good loving and caring parenting from them.

Wed 19th July 2006


Filed under: General — dpex @ 11:17 pm

This process of appeals to the High Court fascinates me.

It seems to me a judge becomes a judge having demonstrated a slightly greater degree of legal understanding than a mere lawyer.

Then said judge (with the aid of a lawyer to assist the court) comes out with a judgement which the mere lawyer finds (on several points) wrong in fact and law.

The mere lawyer then has to ask the judge who made the erroneous judgement for permission to appeal the judgement.

The mere lawyer sets out the grounds for the appeal.

The judge, having seen the ‘possible’ error of his ways allows the lawyers application to appeal against his own judgement.

Surely, this process is a farce? In fact a grande farce!


Filed under: General — dpex @ 10:46 pm

I really wish we could all stop swapping spits about the minor details when the bigger picture needs so much energy.

But there’s another issue which kind’ve interests me. I see on the board tonight there have been 810 visitors to this site, yet the comments are coming from about four folk. Does that mean you four have each visited the site 202.25 times each, or are there a whole bunch of visitors who, for one reason or another are looking but not commenting.

Question: why visit and not comment?

Tue 18th July 2006

Family Court statistics 2004

Filed under: General — Julie @ 10:51 pm

Thanks to the community groups being shown on the right hand side of this screen, we have so much more information.

Here is something interesting to look at thanks to ‘NZ Father & Child Society’ webiste. And ‘www.scoop.co.nz’


Families Commission has also done some research into One child, Two homes. by Paul Callister and Stuart Birk

Gee, Stuart Birk does a few statistics and research.

stats and research can be found here www.stats.govt.nz

Missed The Point?

Filed under: General — dpex @ 7:07 pm

People, causing the current internecene arguments for and against the DPB was not the point of my mailing ‘Says It All’.

The whole point was to bring attention to three seperate but vitally connected issues.

Issue 1. DPB offers a solution to the often morally moribund who simmply cannot be bothered getting out of bed to earn their daily bread.

Issue 2. The only way (mostly female recipients) can get it is to gain custody of the children involved.

Issue 3. The prospector of DPB (mostly female) are able to tell almost any lie and have such accepted by the Family Court to then gain DPB.

I believe, for better or worse, that in many cases the fleeing woman would be quite happy if the departing male was allowed complete and free access to the kids and to help manage them. But unless the prospector can demosntrate ‘she’ ‘must’ be the main guardian of the kids, not 50/50, then she won’t get DPB.

And so, in order to get DPB ‘she’ must demonstatrate that ‘she’ is the only fitting guardian. And to do that she ‘must’ throw the father under the bus.

There is a fourth point…and is probably the most iniquitous in Jane’s dialogue.

That was the advice she received from her lawyer that she must ‘not’ make a federal case out of her claims because, in doing so such would go to the District Court (at the very least) and in that environment, real proof is required. Whereas, as she says, in the Family Court, anything goes.

Further, Jane’s income of a grand a week was made up of sundry benefits, I gather totalling about $450 pw, plus accommodation benefit of $200, plus all of her little sidelines plus the income she got from her new live-in.

But this seemlessly immoral woman made the point which I find the most insufferable. She said she didn’t realy care about the kids, she just wanted her life-style and that the kids were just a part of the building blocks for that life-style.

And so we come full circle to my mail from The Shower. We have to find a way to make the Family Court require real evidence, not hearsay, opinion, feelings, crap, etc.

I ask you. How could legislators water down common principles of law (Innocent till PROVEN guilty) in the Family Court, then stand in the light of day and assert the new rules are fair and just?

The answer is, they cannot.

Surely, it is this issue, not the afore mentioned internecene arguments about DBP which MUST be our focus.

All I ask is that the FC be required to require proof positive before acepting any allegation. Simple as that.

And lastly, I say again. There are some genuine cases of serious need for DPB. I don’t have a problem with being a part of the funding for them (as a tax-payer). My problem is, I want the recipients to ‘prove’ beyond reasonable doubt that they are so entitled. And surely, if the partner is a genuine bad-arse, proof must be readily available.


Men’s issue’s meeting for August

Filed under: General — Julie @ 4:00 pm

This meeting is being postponed. I don’t know how to say this but I am finding that women in high positions and men are aware of the problems men are having. And I am also finding that they agree that men have to be part of the solution. And that they are aware men have feelings, etc and that men are different today from men that used to treat women as second to them.

Mon 17th July 2006

Wayne’s walk, continued

Filed under: General — PaulM @ 10:35 pm

Without any permission whatsoever, I am going to cut and paste Wayne’s recent commentary on his walk and post it here. Because it should be widely read. Wayne posted this under Wayne’s walk to Wellington tonight.

My apologies Wayne if I’ve stepped on your toes ..

Hi all,
I am now at Wayne Furguson’s house in Sanson. I have tears welling in my eyes as your read your comments.
I cannot beleive the support I have recieved. I have been given fruit, water, beds for the night, sums of money, and even a large bible.
My 44 year old engine is running sweetly. My chassis and body work is also fine, but my running gear needs an overhaul. Basically, my feet are killing me. The first 3-4 ks in the morning and the last 5 or so ks at the end of the day are excruciating. Uphill walking is great becuase I can put some weight on the pushchair, but the downhill sections are very painful. It’s a good thing I am alone; my groans of pain remain private.

The Slap

Filed under: Domestic Violence — JohnPotter @ 8:12 pm

Hi, Rory MacKinnon here from In Unison, Unitec’s student magazine. Our next issue is themed “the Men’s Issue” where we will, not suprisingly, address men’s issues.

At present I’m working on an article about the cultural phenomenon of The Slap- specifically when a woman slaps a man: whether there is any justification for it, how a man responds psychologically etc.

If you or anyone you know have anything interesting to contribute, please do so below as soon as possible – our deadline is 9am Wednesday of next week.

Says It All

Filed under: General — dpex @ 7:30 pm

The following is a letter the ‘apparent’ writer could have written.

Jane laid this out for me just last week when I met her at a scuba diving course and over numerous intervening coffees. Remember, when you read this, she was at a scuba-diving course.

The word ‘brazen’ is just too mild a word to describe the transparency with which she related her story. The substance is correct to her words. The format is mine.

I cannot remember feeling so angry when I heard this diatribe.

Dear New Zealand,

My name is Jane. I’m now 34 years old.

I left school in 1995 with modest marks in NCEA. I couldn’t get a job after I left school so I went on the dole for a couple of years. Then I couldn’t get a job I wanted to do so I stayed on the dole for a couple more years.

So the dole, trading a few drugs, and screwing a few older guys for the stuff they bought me and the money they gave, got me money enough to party on and have a good time.

Then at 22 I met Jeff. He was full of life, had a fab job, seemed to be all energy and plans. He was soooo positive about everything, and he fell in love with me. I liked him a lot but I didn’t love him.


Filed under: General — dpex @ 7:22 am

Monday July 17, 2006
By Sophie Goodchild and Jonathan Owen

Teenage girls who get pregnant deliberately plan to become mothers in the belief that a baby will improve the quality of their lives, a study has found.

The research reveals that girls as young as 13 are making a “career choice” by deciding to have children, since they see parenting as preferable to working in a dead-end job.

The findings from the Trust for the Study of Adolescence challenges the assumption that schoolgirl mothers are all irresponsible adolescents who are ignorant about using contraception.

Sun 16th July 2006

Sunday Program video

Filed under: General — triassic @ 9:44 pm

The Sunday’ item “the F Word” that screened last week on the men’s protests outside lawyers homes is on the tvnz.co.nz site and can be viewed @

the f word

you may have to press ‘flash player’ good luck.


Filed under: General — triassic @ 2:17 pm

Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, or information gathering.

Ask any prisoner of war and he will tell you that the worst torture of all is psychological. Physical pain can be endured by a strong person but psychological pain has broken almost every person who has endured it.

Why is it that the DV bill doesn’t include the word torture? Could it be that the word violence best describes what men do? To use the word torture might give weight to the reality that most men endure torture when their partner wishes to hurt them.

I have endured torture over the last three and a half years. It has nearly broken my spirit and that of my extended family. If I had a choice of passing through a gangs initiation line up and my ex wifes anger I would happily spend a week of getting “the bash”. I am living proof that the system allows a female to persue a course of torture. Although I have had 4 judges from the family court find in my favour she still carries on. If I was of a weak mind and to kill her in order to end my misery I would become another statistic to illustrate that men are violent.

Sat 15th July 2006

The Truth Will Out

Filed under: General — Mike @ 10:20 pm

The Truth Will Out….an old adage,which, like so many of its ilk, contains more than a grain of truth.

The Weekend Herald today had a front page article,as I am sure most of you are aware,titled “Tea Break Justice” and contained the following excerpts:

One judge admitted that reading documents on protection order applications and making decisions on them “often occurred during a 15-minute tea break”.

A lawyer who participated in the study said the adversarial system was a “ton of fun for lawyers” but “no fun at all for participants”.

I personally find these comments abhorrent and totally reprehensible and am at a loss as to why professional liars are, for once,being truthful. Reasons aside,I feel that such attitudes give credence to protests held kerbside outside their homes and that those who have felt otherwise, will now see the validity of such action.

From The Shower…Again.

Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:10 pm

I also read the article in the Herald today. Once again I was distressed by the distortions which keep rising and rising.

For example, the graph does not demonstrate the numbers of female violent acts against men.

But most importantly, the data does not even attempt to address the issue of women making false allegations of ‘violence’ for the sole purposes of gaining custody of the children.

How about the man’s story?

Filed under: General — triassic @ 2:29 pm

Nicola Boyes article on “The human cost of domestic violence” appeared to be lacking good research. How about the juxtaposition of the cost of false claims of violence that leads to men being evicted from their homes and separated from their children. Are these men and their children not ‘human’? I don’t want to diminish the seriousness of legitimate claims, however, false claims represent a large amount of ex parte orders due to the incredible power they bring to the applicant in a custody case or an attack on a prenuptial agreement. By all means tell the stories of innocent beaten women but innocent men have a story as well and it needs to be heard.

Men become depressed and suicidal when the state smashes their life by unjustly depriving them of defence and treats them as a pariah for three months or more. The premise of justice, innocent till proven guilty, is overridden by proxy. Surely the herald has the recourses to investigate the hundreds of men who kill themselves each year and perhaps discover a link between recent alleged DV allegations and suicide.

It is an indictment on NZ’s justice system that a man’s human and civil rights can depend entirely on the integrity of the woman he chooses as a partner. There must be a better way to protect a minority of genuine female victims and leave the majority of innocent accused men and their children with justice.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar