$6 Million for Family Court PR scheme
In Stuff today: Plan to help families cope with divorce
Parents about to divorce or separate are to be given free counselling sessions in a bid to lessen the impact on their children.
The $6 million scheme, unveiled by Justice Minister Rick Barker yesterday, was aimed at 15,000 parents who would separate or contemplate a split, during the next year, he said.
Mr Barker said not enough was being done to help parents.
The voluntary programme includes four hours of counselling, a DVD and written material, and coaches parents on the impact of divorce and how to involve their children.
…
The programme is an extension of an Auckland pilot scheme started in 2004, which had 100 per cent backing from the parents involved, Waitemata intern clinical psychologist Lynelle Gillard, said.
…
Auckland family lawyer Brian Gubb, who helped put the programme together, said it should be mandatory for all parents that were separating. “Otherwise the parents that you want on it, won’t (go).”
Isn’t this announcement good news, I hear readers ask? I think not. Superficially, it sounds quite promising (although astute observers may note that 100% support sounds just a little too good).
The pilot of scheme: Children in the Middle, was run on the North Shore and the Family Court published a report on the Parent Information Programmes here.
A perusal of the names behind the programme will cause considerable disquiet to any regular attendees of Mens Centre North Shore support groups! Notably lacking is any form of consumer representation, or any involvement by father’s support organisations. So who are the new experts on separation and divorce? The same lawyers, clinical psychologists, and court officials who have been at the forefront of the feminist father-removal programme!
The present programme was initiated by the Chairperson of the Auckland Family Courts Association, Brian Gubb, who contacted Associate Professor Fred Seymour at the University of Auckland Psychology Department to invite him to participate in setting up a programme in Auckland. The Auckland Family Court Association agreed to run a pilot programme and invited Lynelle Gillard, a Clinical Psychology doctoral student to be involved. It was decided to run CiM on Auckland’s North Shore. Support for the pilot was given by the then Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Patrick Mahony, the Auckland Administrative Judge, Judge Lawrence Ryan and the Ministry of Justice. After some initial consultation, an Advisory Group was established. Advisory Group members included Brian Gubb, Fred Seymour, Lynelle Gillard, Bruce Archer, Marg Dixon, Amanda Donovan, Hana Ellis, Andrew Finnie, Wayne Gates, Ian McHardy and Keith Young. Initial work in developing CiM took place during 2003, and CiM commenced in February, 2004.
Posts RSS 2.0
Anything that Brian Gubb is associated with has to be put in the ’suspicious’ box. This man and his old partner Lynda Kearns are a couple of family destroyers. They care nothing for the children involved in their quest to win a case. Even when it is clear their client is a liar and a disturbed mother they still cheat & lie in order to pervert justice. Because of this fakes standing with the court he believes he is above the law. They wasted legal aid money (your money) in order to disect me purely on a personal basis. I only hope they do to someone of an unsound mind what they did to me. Then they will receive what they deserve.
If you want to damage your partner and your child in the process this is the man to commision for the job.
Not true Mr Grubb???? If not then please sue me!!!!
PS
I will not be anonymous to Grubby man as we have already had correspondence.
Comment by Bryan N — Fri 12th May 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Can we organise a group of interested people to map this initiative with a father’s advocacy supervision? If there are enough people, say 5, ready to talk with each other, observe the programme, comment and then report publicly on how it compares with our understanding of reality for children and fathers post separation?
Comment by Ben Easton — Fri 12th May 2006 @ 6:05 pm
I attended this programme some time ago, in a bid to familiarise myself with the family law system, and also hopefully learn something that would be of benefit to my child.
My opinions and comments as to the worth of the programme were never sought, so it is surprising to read that the programme had “100 per cent backing from the parents involved”.
I’ll offer my opinions now.
Fred the Psychologist seemed to me a compassionate man who genuinely wanted to save children from the possible harmful consequences of parental separations, and he gave me some good advice. I also felt that Fred was attempting to put an unrealistically positive and simplistic spin on parental separation that just didn’t ring true, and did not reflect the injustice and powerlessness of my experience and that reported by so many fathers.
Brian the Lawyer talked a lot but said nothing substantial that I can recall. He seemed reluctant to let us ask questions, preferring the sound of his own voice. Brian wanted to know what legal representation each of us had, leading me to suspect that his primary motivation was to tout for business.
I would agree with Brian though, when he says that the programme should be mandatory for all parents who are separating. Otherwise, what’s the point, if a parent who wants to be constructive turns up, while a destructive parent is free to remain ignorant of the harmful effects of their behaviour?
I would also recommend losing the lawyers. A programme aiming to teach parents how to communicate constructively with each other has no need of their involvement.
Comment by PaulM — Fri 12th May 2006 @ 9:11 pm
More fodder for The Sisterhood economy. Note the article recognises research that children of separated parents are twice as likely to commit crimes, with 20 per cent of youth offenders coming from broken homes – 10 per cent more than those living with two parents. Again; this is not news to those of us in the know. These offending youths probably have little, if any, Contact with their fathers, who in turn have little, if any, real parenting* involvement, even if they do see them.
* I see ‘real parenting’ as recognising paternal parenting as of equal value and worth to maternal parenting, where both parents views, standards and techniques etc are valued, not with either party merely a subordinate delegate to the other. If daddy can only care for little Johnny or Janey on weekends, so long as he kowtows to every instruction given by custodial mummy (‘make sure they’re in bed by 9; Make sure they eat their greens; Don’t let them drink strong spirits; remember you must feed them the red pill at 8; the green pill at 12, and 4 black pills both before, during and after every feeding’ etc), that’s not real parenting. Real parenting puts the children’s interest paramount, and recognises both parents, irrespective of their differences, as vital to the long-term welfare of their children.
“Children whose parents went to Family Court were at the highest risk as they were often exposed to intense conflict and uncertainty”.
Maybe because they have to sit there, listening and agreeing to trumped up charges against daddy. Maybe because they’re having to take sides. Maybe they just want to have a normal daddy in their lives, who they can share their love and devotion to (in equal measures with mummy), who in turn just wants to love and protect them, and be a real daddy to them.
Is that so hard?
Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 13th May 2006 @ 6:46 am
Whether or not others consider me loopy my observations remain considered and without a contesting argument that does not rely on absolute ignorance. We fathers where on the end of an injustice working within the limitations of legislation and our right to protest can bring discord to our societal protections to such an extreme that our views, finaly will be considered. I think that this is a simple observation, neither loopy or sad.
The programme seems to me to be sensible, yet it is subject to the direction of the psychologists who have been trained in the practices to create its need and lawyers like Mr Gubb who seem to me to be driving an agenda that is deliberatly oblivious to necessary factors in its formation. When fathers become more confident about the power we presently hold they may wish to publish on this site some of those provable facts. Like for example that Judge Kendall lied in his judgment alluding to logic in its conclusions.
What he didn’t say is that he is a very mean man who didn’t want to protect the children he was presiding to serve. He played with symantics like they belonged to him. Or Judge Rota who illegally placed me into prison saying that if I talked about Constitution he would put me into jail and then did anyway. Why? It was because he didn’t want to talk about the constitution and he wanted to teach me a lesson. Why? Because he didn’t like me. I’m not sure if my 5 and a half day food and water strike had any impact on him, but hopefully that he broke the law will have some kind of redress.
Will it? This is an example of how men should stand. Tell the public what the people who operate teh system have done. Work it through and publish.
What about Judge Mather? The Ministry of Justice and the Court of Appeal are not interested to find out whether Steve Cleal the Family Court Manager at Waitakere lied, or Judge Mather. Mr Cleal did lie, that is already a fact but what about Mather then? Did he slip a note into my file, as it seems consistent with the evidence at the time, or did Mr Cleal not open the file when advising me in comlpete earnest that he was confused about what the Judge was doing with his judgement. He hadn’t made one. You would have to think Mr Cleal was at fault but it wasn’t as if Steve didn’t know about my case. Mr Cleal said “I don’t know what Judge Mather is doing, it is unusual”. I don’t know where the judgement is. Mysteriously a note appears in the file along with the judgement later when I finally get it that suggests that Mr Cleal doesn’t look in files when making earnest statement. Eh? A Manager who doesn’t open a file before making a very “crystal” clear statement. And that’s not all folks when it comes to opening up my file, that’s a promise. Judge Boshier should do something before it’s fully opened.
The previous comment on the article describes the needs of parents who are likely to be missed in the programme’s provisions it directed with the authority of the present psychologists and lawyers and judges like Judge Mather, Rota or Kendall. The past and present patsy game of “mummy knows best” is going to be entrenched in its formative construction. Bevan Berg’s view that children shall soon be able to sue the court is a view that is highly relevant to my comments here. We are in danger of allowing a new societal construction to evolve without dads standing with the kind of backbone our shoulders are supposed to require supporting our society and communities. We are standing like drooping victims. If our children are going to be able to sue the people who have done us harm it will be because we do something about it and not because the people who have done us harm have a natural tendancy to recognise the damage they cause.
Bevan’s relativity is profound to our observations on this new programme. The programme if implemented with adequate resourcing ($6M is nothing to the infrastructure it requires to make it economical) effectively replace the Family Court. It will not cost the parents anything against the thousnads of millions of dollars that have been drained from families in and at their most vulnerable condition. The money that lawyers use to furnish their appartments and lavish their fridges are the dollars and cents of our children’s inheritance. This programme should have been operative well before the people running the justice system decided to establish and separate the judicial process over families. They knew what they were doing then just like Mr Gubb knows what they are doing now. Making money. Calling us sad is a convenient exploitation of the facts. He should bet his children’s bottom dollar on me being sad. Whether or not I am angry with the same degree I contain my sorrow is a gamble I wouldn’t advise him to aggravate. Of course I am angry. His people stole my children. I am non-violent, but that should not make me his literal abusive target. That it does puts him well within the sights of being mine. This is an example of me asking fathers to stand straight and Mr Gubb as with any other exploitative lawyer, senior or otherwise quickly to improve their performances.
The State party of New Zealand has a considerabvle problem and they need to fix it quickly. I suggest that while fathers are roaming around thinking that they are the subjects of an injustice, we promote Judge Boshier to have a long and meaningful discussion with Bevan Berg. In the meantime for our children, brothers and families we need to concentrate on getting this programme where it isn’t just “mummy who knows best”.
Respectfully,
…on mother’s day. Please Judge Mather bring me back the children that you took away.
Regards,
Benjamin Easton.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 14th May 2006 @ 11:43 am
[...] To read what menz group thinks of this counselling visit “$6 Million for Family Court PR scheme” [...]
Pingback by NZ Single Parents Trust » Blog Archive » Plan to help families cope with divorce — Fri 19th May 2006 @ 1:36 pm
Re Linda Kearns as a family law counsel. I was stuipid enough to engage her for a child support case. She wound me saying we had a good case until the day of the hearing and then suddenly advised me to abandoned it as we weree walking in the door. She was useless, the IRD lawyer tied her up in knots. The woman is barely competent and hardly speaks in court. Anyone engaging her does so at their own risk. Avoid this lawyer if you can and don’t worry if your ex-partner engages her. She presents as an expert, in fact she has simply been ueseless for a long time and got away with it.
Comment by Gerry — Sat 15th November 2008 @ 12:10 am