dad still on the run ?
While no formal custody orders were in place, the child’s mother was the primary caregiver, and the girl was taken without the woman’s permission, said Detective Sergeant Dave Clifford, of Palmerston North police.
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 27th August 2007
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Posts RSS 2.0
Excuse me!
What POSSIBLE charges could there be!
Has there been some determination that mothers are ‘Primary Care Givers’?
I faced exactly this situation, although my children were older.
My ex- wife was acting as if I needed her permission for ‘Access’. I faced down the Hospital staf, CYPS idiots and the cops, by ADVISING them that I was an equal parent, in every way to the mother.
They only pulled their heads in because I stood up to them.
This father needs to stand proud, he has done nothing wrong.
Comment by John Brett — Mon 27th August 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Yes John, this is an assumed abduction. It is assumed because the mother is assumed the primary caregiver.
A very selective presentation of a “story”.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 27th August 2007 @ 12:52 pm
In this case, the police seem to have made the “assumption” that the woman is the primary caregiver. They may well be correct. There appears to be no real evidence that the father was trying to permanently deprive the child of access to the mother.
There is little point in criticising the police, as they know from experience that the illegal values (in breach of Care of Children Act clause 4.4 and previously Guardianship Act) that they are working by, are in accordance with their experience of “judge’s” behaviour in the “familycaught”. They are working “in the shadow of the familycaught”.
The caughts can only be pressured by public exposure, or by successful appeals on this issue. Appeals are a workable system, when the affected class of parties can work together, for example shipping companies, insurers, churches, unions, construction companies, political parties, beneficiaries and psychiatric patients. While fathers stand as broken and fractured groups, they can never afford to finance successful appeals. The legal workers profit from all attempts to do anything about such an issue. They profit even more from unsuccessful attempts at appeal, so why would they ever let a father’s appeal succeed? Until men can work together, in some form of class action, the status quo will drift on, to the detriment of our children.
The police haven’t said that they will prosecute this father, it is merely a thinly veiled hollow threat. Would they have the cheek to prosecute a father who, without the mother’s permission, took the child away, but was still inside NZ, when the police dismally fail to prosecute 60 international abductors every year? (These international abductors were intending to permanently deprive the child of access to the other parent, usually the father.) This is even when some of these abductors are returned to NZ under police escort!!??
Do these policemen always get their wife’s permission before they do anything at all?
In essence, the police and the familycaught lack the integrity and the stomach to prosecute women abductors, they prosecute few enough men abductors.
Laws on the books, that some people know lie unenforced, are a cancer on a democratic society and poison the public trust of the police and caughts. They confuse the issue of what behaviour is expected of a citizen, when they should clarify this issue.
Care of Children Act clause 5 shows the principle that parents should negotiate and agree on the care arrangements for their children.
I am sure that all capable parents who love their children support this principle.
When parents try to negotiate, they do so “in the shadow of the familycaught”.
Why then does the familycaught reward women for using fait accompli against their children and the fathers of their children?
Honouring of the principle of honest negotiation (COCA clause 5) can only occur when the familycaught refuses to allow women (and a few men too alas) to use fait accompli to avoid honest negotiation with the other parent.
While the familycaught protects child abductors (mainly women) from prosecution, the police are hamstrung to protect children from abduction. Why waste your time catching women abductors, when familycaught judges spring them out and actively support these women’s abductions? These “judges” allow the abductors the freedom to take children out of NZ, even after they have previously broken their own word and also familycaught orders.
Who is surprised when one of these mothers fails to return and another profitable Hague Convention case slumbers into profitably delayed action?
We need judges who are willing to care for children’s interests, ahead of their own profit.
Lets give the familycaught an honest shadow!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 27th August 2007 @ 3:04 pm