- 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

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

Thu 7th September 2006

Deborah Coddington: Hard to sympathise with angry, vengeful dads

Filed under: General — tonyf @ 5:10 am

Sunday August 6, 2006

Talk about the oppressed becoming the oppressors.

I used to voice support for groups such as the Union of Fathers, representing miserable dads barred from seeing their children by heartless ex-wives and partners. But lately they’ve taken to making life miserable for other families just because the mum or dad happens to be a Family Court lawyer.

Fathers’ groups say the Family Court destroys what we are expected to believe were happy families – but who separated in the first place? I don’t recall officials from the Family Court rampaging through suburbia, randomly selecting innocent families and forcing them to split up.

When mum and dad take their personal vendettas to the Family Court, it’s the children who suffer. When groups like Jim Bagnall’s Union of Fathers take their rage to the houses of family lawyers, it’s the justice system that suffers.

20 Responses to “Deborah Coddington: Hard to sympathise with angry, vengeful dads”

  1. tonyf says:

    Does she have a point?

  2. dad4justice says:

    Without notice protection orders were forced down my throat by rampaging armed lunkhead cops who burst into the family home and put a rifle to my head !!!!!! My daughters thought they were going on a ‘holiday’ to see their grand parents 3 July 2001 in the school holidays.They thought they were returning back to the happy family enviroment they enjoyed but dad got shipped off to a cell .They never got to say goodbye to their friends!!!!! The justice system has piled one lie upon another and the consequences to my family have been tragic – RIP mum . The cess pit family court brothel has meandered on since – 27 legal aid lawyers – 3 x s29a reports, 25 judges etc….etc…. without acknowledging the strenght of the existing bonds of love between father and daughters .Coddingtons opinion means swat as the justice system has shown hundreds of people that they are just scum as many know my fatherhood ability and credibilty has been unfairly destroyed. Remember well not one of the filthy scum brothel keepers have ever bothered to witness the loving intercation between dad & daughter in the 32 hours contact I have had since the 2001 ‘holiday ‘ !!!! I am going to get into these bastards – protest outside courthouse like never before as I got nothing more to lose .Have I got a point Deborah ??

  3. Bevan Berg says:

    Miserable dads barred from seeing their children by heartless ex-wives and partners.

    You don’t need to read past the first paragraph. In this sentence Coddington places a moral and legal authority with women. She has sympathy for men who were “barred”
    by women from seeing their children.

    The question for Coddington is this;

    Are you a journalist who doesn’t think about what she is writing, or a journalist who writes the way she thinks?

  4. Darryl Ward says:

    Here is my response, which was not published, that was made to Coddington’s comments (also included) in the Herald on Sunday about a month ago.

    6 August 2006

    Deborah Coddington claims she used to support fathers’ groups. I have been involved with various such groups since 1989 and I do not recall her ever lending support, other than paying lip service while an MP. Her opinion piece ‘Hard to sympathise with angry, vengeful dads’ shows her true colours.

    If she ever had been sympathetic to fathers, she would be aware of the uphill battle that many men face to remain part of children’s lives. She would know that most fathers only want what is best for their children. She would know that they face a system whose players profit by unnecessarily prolonging their children’s suffering. And she would know that they have taken to protesting outside the homes of those same players only because all else has failed.

    Then again, Miss Coddington is no stranger herself to profiting from other peoples’ suffering. Back in 1996, she published a directory of sex offenders and appeared to show no concern whatsoever when it was shown that the names of innocent people were included. As with the family court, it does not seem to matter how many innocent men are punished, so long as no guilty ones get off the hook.?

    Yours sincerely

    Darryl Ward
    (197 words)

    From the Herald on Sunday:

    Deborah Coddington: Hard to sympathise with angry, vengeful dads
    ?
    Sunday August 6, 2006
    ?
    Talk about the oppressed becoming the oppressors.
    ?
    I used to voice support for groups such as the Union of Fathers, representing miserable dads barred from seeing their children by heartless ex-wives and partners. But lately they’ve taken to making life miserable for other families just because the mum or dad happens to be a Family Court lawyer.
    ?
    The protesters are behaving the same way as the women they hate. Find a target, vent your wrath, take no responsibility for your actions and to hell with whoever gets hurt in the process.
    ?
    Last week we heard the 6-year-old son of family barrister Stuart Cummings was so terrified after a noisy weekend protest that he’d wet his bed. His 14-year-old sister ran screaming and hysterical from the home. Fathers’ spokesman Jim Bagnall reportedly had no regrets about their obviously threatening behaviour because Mr Cummings had acted for the children of a man who was protesting.
    ?
    Fathers’ groups say the Family Court destroys what we are expected to believe were happy families – but who separated in the first place? I don’t recall officials from the Family Court rampaging through suburbia, randomly selecting innocent families and forcing them to split up.
    ?
    Furthermore, only 5 per cent of the 60,000-plus Family Court cases filed annually actually end up in front of a judge. That leaves some 3000 parents who can’t see past their own selfishness to what’s best for their children. Then again, why would parents who treat children as if they are chattels think children might actually have feelings of their own? Parents who end up in court fighting over the kids, as if they’re no more precious than wedding presents, don’t deserve to be parents. Sometimes I wish the judges would strip both mum and dad of their rights and give the children to someone who really cares.
    ?
    When mum and dad take their personal vendettas to the Family Court, it’s the children who suffer. When groups like Jim Bagnall’s Union of Fathers take their rage to the houses of family lawyers, it’s the justice system that suffers.
    ?
    Because what sane lawyer would choose Family Court work when there’s a chance their weekend peace will be destroyed by carloads of men and women screaming like banshees? Turn the hose on them or throw rocks at their feet and you risk ending up in court yourself, defending a common assault charge.
    ?
    The trouble is with these protesters is that they’ll never be satisfied, no matter what happens in the justice system. Bagnall complains that despite protesting outside the courts, lobbying MPs and making submissions, “it got us nowhere”.
    ?
    He is categorically wrong on that. As an MP for Act, Dr Muriel Newman fought hard to open up the Family Court to public view and she did make a small difference.
    ?
    These days, except when one parent moves overseas, it is not possible to use the Family Court to permanently shut one parent out of a child’s life.
    ?
    The Family Court underwent a shake-up on July 1 this year when the Care of Children Act came into force. Parenting orders replaced custody and access orders, enabling more “shared parenting” as opposed to tugs-of-war over the kids. Under the new act, mums and dads are encouraged to continue parenting their children co-operatively, on a day-to-day basis if physically possible. “Interim orders”, which could prevent one parent from having any contact at all with a child and were often used to delay settling disputes, thus alienating that parent from their child for a dangerously long time, now have time limits. Breaching orders – once a common occurrence by a parent who, as Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier says would treat them as “therapeutic” – is punishable by up to three months’ jail.
    ?
    Boshier himself has been subjected to death threats, targeted by disgruntled fathers when a court decision went against them. If judges have any doubts about the difficult decisions they’re forced to make in Family Court cases, I’m sure subsequent threats must convince them they’ve made the right call. Maybe that “bitch” assisted by her “femi-nazi psychologist” wasn’t “making up” the accusations of violence after all.
    ?
    But vindictive parents care more about their own lives than the feelings of their children. It’s easy to use children as weapons to punish a former spouse; much harder to forgo revenge for the sake of a bewildered child’s happiness. Kids don’t ask for divorce, so why do these protesting fathers and supporters take pride in compounding children’s suffering?

  5. Intrepid says:

    It is a now well know fact that women are the ones choosing to leave relationships in much larger numbers than men in every Englsih speaking country. Therefore feminists might not actual be walking down the streets forcing families to break up on every block, but by applying pressure on the media they turn soup opera and movie stars into impossible role modals that would make men into boy toy talking metrosexual effeminates that most men would rather commit supuku than transform themselves into for mere feminist fashion. Often these caring talking boy toys are on 4th or 5th wife anyway(maybe Debbie longs to be Brad’s 3rd), for these men often rebel in their own time to what they must do to attract the right ratio numbers of women & gays in their jobs. Women just don’t get it with gay men. Gay men are competing with women for they don’t like them enough to want a wife and would love to steal their average bloke away from them. Gay men talk like women so women feel they are freinds, not mere aquaintances.

    The effeminate talking heads do actually break up families by making all husbands unable to match up with what many women follow in want of a real religion anymore ( aside from earth mother cults etc.)

    Deborah Coddington is mad and angry at men who are mad & angry. Think about it. If these men lay back and take it she would say these men aren’t tough enough and that is there problem( they should instead earn more money or something), and if they do as they are doing(slowly winning) they are too aggressive.

    Debbie clainms to be defender of children with no proof as such, just talk, and as I have stated many times wrapping yourself in a child is the 21st century form of wrapping oneself in the flag). Scoundrette is what I see in this new politican.

    Debbie is felling the pressure and sounds flustered and almost hysterical, and wishes to cast in the few chips she feels she has earned in having some empathy with men. We are men we are not interested in a bit of empathy at a sit down chit-chat. This is the time that Debbie could prove her mustard by supporting men to push the point home that something is terribly wrong, if she is on our empathetic side, but me thinks she never was. Deb has told a fib.

  6. Stephen says:

    Deborah Coddington, who I once admired and heralded as a defender of fatherhood a while back after having published what appeared an excellent article in North and South magazine has betrayed nz fathers and sadder still nz kids.
    Like so many before her, she been co-opted by the feminist oligarchy and has eventually shown her truer misandric colors.
    She’s now just another thread in the lace curtain which seperates good Kiwi men from justice and thier families.

    There are many signs of this in her weaselworded opinion piece.

    Think I’m just some ‘disgruntled Dad’ who is over-reacting?
    Go grab a coffee and settle in.
    I’m going to dissect this stinking carcas bit by bit.

    First off, She begins by trying to ellicit sympathy for ‘innocent’ court staff stating –

    I used to voice support for groups such as the Union of Fathers, representing miserable dads barred from seeing their children by heartless ex-wives and partners. But lately they’ve taken to making life miserable for other families just because the mum or dad happens to be a Family Court lawyer

    In doing so she conveniently bypasses the notions of feedback and natural justice.
    It’s simply kindergarten stuff really. If I do something nasty like lie about you in order to get our kids, and I’m aided, abetted and even encouraged to do so by a lawyer/s, whilst ‘court’ officials turn a blind eye in a secret star chamber I expect you’ll feel distraught, victimised. I further expect that eventually when over the initial shock you’ll be angry at the injustice of it all. I expect further that feedback will happen, because you’ll NATURALLY want to discharge your feelings TO THE SOURCE OF YOUR ANGST.
    Now contrast that kind of common sense compassion with Deb’s demonising diatribe against protestors.

    Next up she twists the knife further –

    The protesters are behaving the same way as the women they hate

    But Debs Dearie, since when did you become psychologist suddenly and find out FOR CERTAIN these protesters actually hate thier ex’s?
    Did you interview them and give them some psychological hate test?
    Yeah right.
    No, stupidly you just make another monumentally arrogant assumption and demonise protesters from the word go.
    Pathetic.

    She then tries to tug further on heartstings stating –

    Last week we heard the 6-year-old son of family barrister Stuart Cummings was so terrified after a noisy weekend protest that he’d wet his bed. His 14-year-old sister ran screaming and hysterical from the home.

    Whoopdedoo Debs,
    So you heard a rumor. And the rumour was from someone being protested against for being a liar, cheat and enviegler of public funds. And the rumour makes the protestors look like the bad guys.
    Gosh. How convenient.

    Next paragraph Debs goes on the offensive further –

    Fathers’ groups say the Family Court destroys what we are expected to believe were happy families – but who separated in the first place? I don’t recall officials from the Family Court rampaging through suburbia, randomly selecting innocent families and forcing them to split up.

    This is utter misleading crap.
    The groups are right to say the family ‘court’ does indeed split up happy families. You just have to raise your nose a little higher Debs and look beyond the nuclear family to see that makes perfect sense. Try selling your idea to a child loosing one whole side of thier ancestry – usually the father’s side, including the father’s extended family of uncles, aunt’s, grandparents, Great grandparents etc.

    It’s true the family ‘court’ don’t force parents to split up.
    Thier secret star chamber and ‘no fault’ divorce laws which can be unilaterally instigated by one parent (usually the Mom) with the economic safety nets of DPB and Lgal Aid simply facilitate it and makes it a helluva lot easier to do so.

    As if there weren’t enough invective against alienated parents Debs sticks the boot in again for good measure –

    Furthermore, only 5 per cent of the 60,000-plus Family Court cases filed annually actually end up in front of a judge. That leaves some 3000 parents who can’t see past their own selfishness to what’s best for their children. Then again, why would parents who treat children as if they are chattels think children might actually have feelings of their own? Parents who end up in court fighting over the kids, as if they’re no more precious than wedding presents, don’t deserve to be parents. Sometimes I wish the judges would strip both mum and dad of their rights and give the children to someone who really cares.

    So parents who want to excercise thier right to actually be active parents to thier children are selfish eh Debs?
    Duh!
    And it’s because many of us Dad’s care so much about our kids that we’ll go into that shithole the family ‘court and fight for them! Then you come along and brand us as selfish assholes for doing so.
    Double Duh!

    Debs asks –

    Because what sane lawyer would choose Family Court work when there’s a chance their weekend peace will be destroyed by carloads of men and women screaming like banshees?

    The question should be what sane lawyer would want to work in a secretive star chamber which masquerades as an open accountable publically institution of true justice upholding civilised levels of due process for accused parties in the first place?

    Debs, Debs, Debs ….

    She rants on further –

    When groups like Jim Bagnall’s Union of Fathers take their rage to the houses of family lawyers, it’s the justice system that suffers.

    Wakey, wakey Debs.
    Justice sytsem …the family ‘court’? Yeah right sis.

    She bangs on mindless of her own innept logic –

    The trouble is with these protesters is that they’ll never be satisfied, no matter what happens in the justice system. Bagnall complains that despite protesting outside the courts, lobbying MPs and making submissions, “it got us nowhere”.

    He is categorically wrong on that. As an MP for Act, Dr Muriel Newman fought hard to open up the Family Court to public view and she did make a small difference.

    What arrogant churlish piffle Debs.
    You know they’ll never be satisfied eh?
    Even when the family ‘court’ eventually succumbs to common sense is either wiped out or morphs into an institution whereby corroborated evidence and open public acountability are as in real courts the norms.

    So Muriel Newman made a small difference.
    Wow! We can all delight in uncorroborated allegations of child abuse being investigated and producing hugely protracted ‘court’ processes which render Dad’s financially and emotionally bankrupt and thus drive them away from thier kids.
    We can all dance in the streets singing hallelujah now at the way this is still happening in Kremlin like secrecy done under the guise of ‘in the best interests of the child’.

    Next up she puts on her compassion for falsely accused Dad’s hat –

    “Interim orders”, which could prevent one parent from having any contact at all with a child and were often used to delay settling disputes, thus alienating that parent from their child for a dangerously long time, now have time limits.

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you’re simply naive I have to disabuse you of extreme naivity here Debs.
    When one interim order expires, you simply apply for another.
    Interesting also that you make tacit acknowledgement that these orders have been used to unjustly alienate Dads – YET NO MENTION OF REPARATION AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.
    Nah, too bad for those countless Dads and thier kids who got shafted before our July 1st supposed ‘shakeup’.

    Also anyone know a single lying, purjuring, fraudulent Mom who’s got a single day in prison? Yeah right.
    Let’s all turn a blind eye to the notion of the punishment fitting the crime too shall we.
    So imagine I’m a Mom seperating from hubby. I lie and tell the ‘court’ the ex has emotionally abused our kid/s or worse yet he’s been molesting them.
    Now the court spends untold thousands of taxpayers money and the ex faces a barrage of investigation, is barred visits from his kid/s and has to spend money to defend himself. And because the ‘crime’ is one which would leave no physical sighns of having been perpetrated there’s the ongoing suspicion against him ad infinitum. He may also run out of patience and money and I get to keep the kid/s and get an income for doing so. I can join the Oprah daytime soap set and cruise on a benefit too. Bingo! Jackpot!

    But Debs outdoes herself further saving the ‘best’ for last.
    Incase we aren’t swayed by her polemic to believe that protesting parents are really heineous rabble rousers she adds this –

    Boshier himself has been subjected to death threats, targeted by disgruntled fathers when a court decision went against them. If judges have any doubts about the difficult decisions they’re forced to make in Family Court cases, I’m sure subsequent threats must convince them they’ve made the right call. Maybe that “bitch” assisted by her “femi-nazi psychologist” wasn’t “making up” the accusations of violence after all.

    Where’s your proof Deb?
    Let’s contrast your hysterical rantings with reality –
    Did anyone, anywhere, ever see Boshier having a police escort for protection?
    Did, but one single protestor get arrested for so much as breaking the legal sound limits for public protest, for blocking public access? For resisting police enforcement of any laws? Yeah right.

    So Debs, you use your position of influence as a journalist in nz’s most widespread daily newspaper to peddle this pernicious feminist propoganda.

    I believe you’ve outed yourself.

    Keep it up Sista, You’ll be getting a visit from protestors yourself at this rate.

    Now as that man I greatly admire, that stalwart of compassion on his mission to save nz’s kids Jim would say –

    Onwards!

  7. Intrepid says:

    Your best stuff to date Stephen. You really should be a journalist and have a column to give this kind of total BS a good disecting more often. Hint Hint!

  8. keith says:

    Perhaps our wise deborah should be dragged through the family court trying to prove her competence;etc ;as I did for 3 years;and won;to have regular access to her children;if she has any;and see how she feels at the end of it.And then she should try living in child support poverty;with no financial future;no nice holidays;better car ;etc;like other people.Try that deborah and then you might feel slightly bothered ;or like bothering these scum dickhead feminazi lawyers.Maybe your kid would piss his pants too because daddy has ruined another man’s life.

  9. Brett says:

    Yes I agree with Keith,most people dont have any idea what it is like to battle for years just to prove yourself to be a fit Parent,at the end of which you will receive a huge Lawyers bill,Child support each month and Children who have been totally brainwashed by a vendictive Mother,all sanctioned by the State,makes me ashamed to be a New Zealander,if I could go back in time and talk to my Grandfather just before he left to go and fight in North Africa in 1940 I would tell him not to bother.

  10. Stephen says:

    Intrepid,
    Thankyou for the praise.
    I’d be happy to extend my writing to other sites where I can disect more feminist codswallop. Any suggestions where?

  11. Intrepid says:

    Dear Stephen,
    Contact Timocrat.

  12. jake says:

    in response to comments on men having to match up to metrosexual feminized me, its true it is ridiculous but really it has alot more to do with the superficial marketable world of mass-media. it too goes for women as we have long heard women depicted in the media are of an unrealistic physique and this also goes for men. the actors of both genders in soap operas news media and magizines are not your avergae women and man from down the road they women are always beautiful beyond belief,and the men are always hunks with the latest (and unafordable for most) attire. yep its all true, but c’mon its the media theyre out to make a profit, so really they arnt gonna screen overweight jim with his bush shirt and trackpants.

  13. Intrepid says:

    Dear Jake,
    You say media like that is the end of the story, when it is just the beginning. Read Warren Farrel’s book “the Myth of Male Power” and look at the stats he provides in the back on how both sexes buy much more for women. So if the media is just selling (which is your key point), it is selling to effeminate. We must change the market by with how we spend our money.

  14. alf says:

    what a joke that hero stephen will talk on other sites like the know all he is. I can imagine what this loser looks like. And his missus if he has one will be a submissive bimbo. As for protesters outside the houses of lawyers well the protesters looked like nuts and no wonder they have a hard time in the FC. I bet they(protester) talk loud and try and take over the sittings like arrogant men that they are.No wonder they lose.As for intrepid he sounds like a 1 m(police term for mad). Why did the cops crash his house with guns?? Sounds like he was harrasing his ex with threats of violence. Hey Stephen you goof get a life.

  15. Stephen says:

    Alf,
    Seeing the prejudgements you posted

    what a joke that hero stephen will talk on other sites like the know all he is. I can imagine what this loser looks like. And his missus if he has one will be a submissive bimbo. As for protesters outside the houses of lawyers well the protesters looked like nuts and no wonder they have a hard time in the FC. I bet they(protester) talk loud and try and take over the sittings like arrogant men that they are.No wonder they lose.As for intrepid he sounds like a 1 m(police term for mad). Why did the cops crash his house with guns?? Sounds like he was harrasing his ex with threats of violence. Hey Stephen you goof get a life.

    I believe you obviously don’t know those of us protesting the family ‘court’.
    You seem to feel threatened and show much misplaced anger and hostility about a situation you clearly don’t understand.

  16. Intrepid says:

    Dear ALF,
    Wow when effeminates guess (or use their mystical crystal balls) they usually get one or two things right (as the odds usually would dictate), yet you missed both me & Stephen completely. I’m happily married and my wife is a tour de force in her own right. She doesn’t guess or use mysticism in place of thinking. If acting for what you believe is crazy, then these men would plead guilty. In North America mad means angry, which you yourself seem to be. So what’s your point? Do you honestly believe the average policeman is on the feminist state’s side, or your side for that matter? Please, what planet are you on? What is the word you use for yourself for those who whine on the sidelines, at the real actors of this world, and use their lack of thinking as a plus. Arf arf, arf arf! Down boy, sit, good poodle, Helen will rub your belly now.

  17. dad4justice says:

    We just had a sonic boom rock Christchurch or was it another PC liberal wet alf landing from planet clare ?

  18. Dave says:

    Far out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    “These days, except when one parent moves overseas, it is not possible to use the Family Court to permanently shut one parent out of a child’s life.”

    Debs, as you call her, helped me with my case at one point. Her involvement helped dramicatically to get my case away from the judge who was delaying it and to get it heard in 2 years rather than longer.

    She knows that her statement is false!!!

    Well I suppose technically she doesn’t know the final outcome.

    Does anyone have her email address. Perhaps I should thank her for her help and let her know it was in vain. Perhaps I should mention my horror at reading her published comments.

  19. Stephen says:

    Notice how alf can’t even spell my name correctly.

    Provocateur prevaricating preposterously prejudiced proposals.

    There you go. Some English homework.

    Enough said.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar