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

There is a dad in Rotorua who applied for a departure order via an administrative review.�

The Review Officer decided that the case was too complex and declined to make a decision telling the dad he would have to go to the Family Court.�

The dad lodged all the applications and 12 Hours before the case was due to be heard was severed with documents from the Crown Law Office who are acting for IRD in this case. (Note IRD has an extensive legal division but have chosen to use Crown Law!)�

The dad went to Court where the judge told him:�

1) He could not have a McKenzie friend.�

2) Struck out his application.�

3) Refused him the opportunity to seek a barrister to represent him.�

This case is being set up by IRD and Crown law as an attempt to overturn the current restriction that departure orders cannot be retrospective (I.E can only currently get a departure for the current year)�

If IRD are successful this will open the floodgates for departure oders to be made for any past Child Support year.�

The changes in amendment bill (No 4) mean that IRD can initiate admin reviews (prior to the change only a “liable” or “custodial” parent could seek a review)�

If, and I suspect they will be, Crown Law are successful in their attempt to have the law limiting departures to the current year reinterpreted by the Courts combined with the changes just passed will mean that tens of thousands of parents will be subject to reassessment and placed in debt with IRD acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner.�

Be afraid; be very afraid, this is the start of the new face of child tax recovery.�

�

Tuesday September 26, 2006
By Paula Oliver

National remains neck-and-neck with Labour in the battle for the female vote, with the latest Herald Digi-Poll survey hinting that there has been little fallout yet for Don Brash from his reported affair.

The poll shows National has 42.3 per cent support among females and Labour has 42.7 per cent.

The battle for the female vote is crucial to National’s hopes of getting into Government.

The party enjoys strong support among males, and this is reflected in the latest poll, with National on 49.6 per cent and Labour 33.3 per cent.

The last Herald poll in August had National slightly ahead of Labour in the race for female votes – something the party could not achieve in any of the newspaper’s polls in the lead-up to last year’s election.

One of the potential negative spinoffs for National from publicity about Dr Brash’s alleged affair with businesswoman Diane Foreman was a drop in female support.

But a breakdown of female reaction to the affair story shows an interesting twist.

Asked if the public ought to have been told about Dr Brash’s supposed affair, 76.5 per cent of women said no.

I don’t know how many others are concerned about National’s reaction to gaining women’s support but for myself, I see this attitude showing. “I want to WIN at any cost and I will sacrafice the country’s and it’s people’s best interest to get what I want.”

I am starting to see that Don Brash thinks us females are just plain “stupid.” Are women today so gullable that we would think only of our own sex’s rights and give femenism even more power so that the National Party can power themselves.

And it doesn’t show much for his male image either. Does this man think that he will keep the male’s votes by going to the feminist side?

But just like every major political party in New Zealand is being shown up for, this man is being selfish and we have to realise there are big fish behind these political parties, the one’s that are bribing by paying cash to the party so that they get in and will work with other parties of their choosing. And Don Brash doesn’t care about that either.

Where did all the great “Heroes” and “Heroine’s” go?

Oh, sorry, I didn’t see you there.

This today by Roger Knight at Blogwonks –

I believe the reason for the gender discrimination in the legal system is motivated by the profits to be made with the plunder the breadwinner model of family law.

Criminal convictions of domestic violence assault require proof beyond reasonable doubt to a jury, but a restraining order only requires a female telling a judge (who as likely as not profited himself from the plunder the breadwinner practice of family law, or is unwilling to be a threat to those who do) that she is “afraid” of a man.

And restraining orders further serve the plunder the breadwinner model of family law for its practicioners.
(more…)

For all of us who are married, were married, wish you were married,
or wish you weren’t married, this is something to smile about the next
time you open a box of chocolates:

Sally was driving home from one of her business trips in Northern
Arizona when she saw an elderly Navajo woman walking on the side of the road.

As the trip was a long and quiet one, she stopped the car and asked
the Navajo woman if she would like a ride.

With a silent nod of thanks, the woman got into the car. Resuming the
journey,

Sally tried in vain to make a bit of small talk with the Navajo woman. The
old woman just sat silently, looking intently at everything she saw,
studying every little detail, until she noticed a white bag on the seat
next to Sally.

“What in bag?” asked the old woman.

Sally looked down at the white bag and said, “It’s a box of chocolates. I
got it for my husband”.

The Navajo woman was silent for another moment or two. Then,
speaking with the quiet wisdom of an elder, she said:”Good trade.”

Loosing a few minor battles like this won’t discourage the anti-male brigade – prospective male teachers will get the message in any case.

NZ Herald: Primary school teacher accused of rape wins $30,000

Police investigating a rape claim against a primary school teacher were “haphazard”, failed to take obvious lines of inquiry, made a premature arrest and were negligent, a judge has ruled.

The teacher, who has permanent name suppression, was charged with raping a 7-year-old when she was in his class in 1996. The name of the school is also suppressed.

He faced two charges of sexual violation by rape, one of indecent assault and two of assault when he appeared in Wellington District Court in June.

But in a rare move, Judge Bruce Davidson told the jury he was withdrawing the case because of the implausibility of the complaint.

And yesterday he awarded the teacher $30,000 costs.

Children are being “quarantined” from men by sexist recruitment policies in the early childhood sector, an industry body says.

Early Childhood Council chief executive Sue Thorne said children were missing crucial contact with male role models because men felt unwelcome in the profession.

The problem was linked to the “paedophile hysteria” that followed Christchurch’s Civic Creche abuse scandal involving Peter Ellis in the 1990s.

It was now too dangerous for male teachers to cuddle a distressed child or change a nappy because of the culture – and some parents refused to send children to centres that employed men.

Female domination of this industry is nearly complete:

A report issued yesterday by the Childforum research network says sexism is rife in the early childcare sector.

Of its 13,741 employees last year, just 132 were men, researcher Sarah Farquhar said.

“The child abuse argument has proven to be a convenient excuse to keep men out of an occupation that has been a site for feminist activism since the 1970s.”

There was no evidence that male teachers were more likely to abuse children, she said.

New Guidelines

New relaxed guidelines on physical contact between teachers and children are to be released today.

The guidelines advise NZEI members “to use common sense in all areas of their interaction with children and be mindful of situations that may expose themselves to unnecessary risk.”

Males teaching at primary schools are the next target:

A report by Auckland University education lecturer Alison Jones, released in 2003 highlighted interviews of primary school teachers and principals who spoke about their reluctance to touch children because of widespread social anxiety about sexual abuse.

The teachers reported wet and naked children wandering out of pool changing rooms looking for help in getting dressed, and girls lying prone on sports fields while male teachers sent children to find a female to help.

“In many instances, female teachers have had to be called away from their own groups to assist male colleagues afraid to touch or be alone with a child.”

Today I sent the following letter to the NZ Herald:

In your article: ‘Man who released Davis images says election spending the reason‘ published on September 24 2006, you reported: “Mr Bird, 62, has been associated with the men’s rights group Menz”.

MENZ is not about “men’s rights”, and it is not a group.

It is a website at www.MENZ.org.nz, owned and administrated by myself, with the aim of ‘promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience’.

Most men involved with gender politics in NZ will have contributed something to the site, or will have been mentioned by others over the last ten years, but there are no formal associations with any person or organisation.

For the record, I strongly disagree with Chuck Bird’s views on homosexuality. I am sure the majority of men active in the NZ men’s movement will be distressed and angry to have been portrayed as supporting this position.

As this has always been a divisive issue within men’s organisations, I actively discourage discussion of this subject on the website.

Incidentally, I have hugged and kissed men most of my life. As a secure heterosexual, I don’t see why anyone should imagine this to be sexually arousing.

John Potter

The Donkin Method ( A summary)

The Donkin Method for Child Support calculations is designed to provide a solution to the question of how a fair and reasonable child support system can be attained.

There is little doubt that the best outcome for children occurs when mum and dad share the responsibilities of parenting.

Shared parenting is best for kids.When separation of the parents occurs there is no reason why parent s should not be able to continue sharing the parenting of children.(1) Looking from the children’s perspective there is no reason why they should not continue to have both mum and dad parenting them.

It is a parents right to equally parent a child and a childs right to be parented by both parents.

The principle of equal parental responsibility is the basis of the Donkin Method of Child Support.

It is neither parent’s responsibility to support the other financially. It is each parent’s responsibility to support the children.
(more…)

TV1 Sunday’s documentary

They are an endangered species when it comes to working with toddlers. Those brave enough to chance it run the risk of being accused of child abuse. It’s serious, unfair the teachers say, and what’s more it’s bad for the kids.

Once again Ian Sinclair has shown it the way it is.

Sunday

You may have to click on a few good men in the middle column once you get to the page to see the video.

So I’ve been bit quiet lately. Been a bit busy, I have. Caring for a couple of girls on weekends. Two of them. In my care. Unattended. Unsupervised. And they’re happy!

For those that don’t know me, I’ve been Family Courtised: Accused; Trialed; Convicted; Sentenced and Hung. No evidence necessary; Allegations in essence that I “may” have done something unspecified against my own daughter. Supervised Access only permitted.

Except now I have a temporary parenting order in favour of these other two girls; not mine. No relation. Eating, sleeping, bathing etc all under my roof. And they trust me explicitly. These girls are aware – even attend with me – my supervised access to my own daughter. They can’t figure it. I talk openly and frankly with them, and about what, how and why I ensure their safety – physical and sexual.

You read right. Even the Court has agreed that they be in my care. Legally signed, sealed and delivered, for as long as required, with leave to apply for a permanent Parenting Order, if need be.

These girls have NO relationship with their mother, who last week sought without notice custody of one of them. Didn’t give a toss about the other one. So we, ever prepared, fought straight back and sent mother packing.
When I say no relationship, these girls have not lived with their mother for years; have no birthday or christmas contact, do not want to live with her, and have been assaulted by her husband. I would actually like to see some contact develop.

Their father is currently gravely ill in hospital, in a coma, although the prognosis is a little better just today. Should he be permanent incapacitated, (or worse), I will seek full guardianship and permanent parenting order. To be fair – I have kept my other case completely out of the arena of this one – but their dad knows ALL the details.

So where does leave my own children – barred from seeing me for more than a handful of supervised minutes, should i suddenly decide that I want to do the unmentionables?

Good question. Logic might dictate that I pose a far greater risk to the other unrelated girls – statistically, at least.

One day – and soon, the Court will have to answer a very simple litle set of questions: why does one FC rule me safe? And another not? Why are two (unrealted) girls safe? And another (related) not?