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

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.

Regards

Scrap

Taken from BBC. Not copywrited so feel free to pass on -

Scientists have developed an easy-to-use contraceptive pill and hormone patch for men.
A three-month course of the pill used in combination with the hormone patch reduces the number of active sperm to zero.

However, once men stop taking the pill patch their sperm counts return to normal.

The success of clinical trials using the method brings an easy-to-take male contraceptive pill one step closer, researchers have said.

Family planning specialists said the research was a significant advance.

They said a male pill would offer men more choice and provide a clear alternative to vasectomies.
(more…)

DNA paternity-type tests to catch rustlers
22 July 2006

Genetic tests originally developed so farmers could check the parentage of their calves have been adapted so they can prove the guilt of rustlers.

Livestock Improvement (LIC) DNA arm, Genemark, has developed a system that allows farmers to take tissue samples from their livestock and prove ownership of an animal, or even steaks sliced from it.

What the hell’s that got to do with men’s issues you’re probably wondering.

Well folks, it’s now official – men are less valued than farm animals.
Yes, that’s right.

For whereas a nz father can’t legally get a DNA paternity test without the mom’s consent, but has to sneak off material to Oz for testing (which still won’t be accepted in a nz court as evidence!) farmers can DNA test thier cattle, no problems.

I wonder how long before nzers are microchipping males at birth for 24/7 GPS surveillance from feminazzi HQ.
Oops silly me, I may have given them an idea they hadn’t thought of!
Nah, on second thoughts they probably dreamed up that one already.

Hey guys, how does it feel to be less valued than a slab of steak?

Food for thought eh?

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.
(more…)

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.
(more…)

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!
(more…)

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?
(more…)

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’

family-court-statistics-2004

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

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.

Cheers
David.

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.
(more…)