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

I am a week away from what will hopefully be the conclusion of a 5 year process for shared care of my children. Due to the time it has taken to get this far two of my four children are now over 16 and have lost the extra time they could have spent with me if the Family Court had been more attentive to me case. I am representing myself and have made numerous complaints about the time it has taken from two bouts of counselling to two bouts of mediation to two psychologists reports to the delay of the final hearing due to the unavailability of the lawyer for child and the psychologist. Apparently according to various people the delays are unavoidable and due in part to my refusals to certain requests i.e. psychologist reports. I have tried every avenue to try and amicably come to an agreement but have been knocked back at every stage. I currently have the two children under 16, 5 days a fortnight and I was willing prior to a full hearing to accept one extra day but in her wisdom my ex decided she wants what she has and is not willing to accept anything less. So my original application at the full hearing will be for 50/50 shared care. I have had a protection order against me strongly dismissed for wasting the courts time and there are no reasons as to why I should be denied 50/50 except that my ex maintains that this is what my children want. However they are telling me something completely different and have told the psychologist and their lawyer the same thing. Why then do a have this knot in my stomach like I know the result will not go my way. From what I have read on this site and others the Family Court remains heavily in favour of the mother and I am afraid the same will apply to me despite the fact that I offer my children so much more than their mother can. I do not wish to have more time than 50/50 nor discourage the children’s relationship with their mother but I am fully aware that I will somehow be portrayed in a bad light by my ex’s lawyer who by the way is being paid for by legal aid. I am trying to put everything together to make my case as strong as I can. I do feel a little underprepared in relation to precedents for shared care and non-removal (ex has discussed with the children about moving) as well as not knowing how to make submissions at the end of the hearing. Any advice, contributions, references to material I can use would be very helpful at this stage. Also does anyone know what my chances of having my current wife approved as a Lay Assistant. Up until now I have felt reasonably confident of success but as I get closer nervousness prevails. What are my chances of actually getting a judgement at the hearing or will my case drag on for longer and put in jeopardy the extra time I could be spending with my youngest children? I am disgusted about how long it has taken to get this far and just want it to end.

Dear Readers,

The process has now reached full circle and is now in the final stage,

Directions in November 2007 by High Court Justice Asher directed submissions needed to be filed by 25th April 2008, IRD have failed, Lawyer appointed to assist has failed.

Crown Law who refused to forward on behalf of the Ministry of Justice as directed by Judge Rogers the questionable law requested for Higher Judiciary to give opinion, have advised me they will now be intervening on behalf of IRD Child Support as per letter 24/04/2008.

After speaking today with Maria Deligiannis (Counsel for the Commissioner for Inland Revenue) which started rather somewhat acrimonious developed into mutual concern, she had only received the file last week, was not fully aware of the phrasing of Justice Ashers requirements, knew nothing of the historical nature of the case, previous application, affadavits, memorandum or otherwise nor that she would be filing out of time.

Morning Tea and Lunch served at the High Court on the 9th May 2008.  Morning Tea  will consist of Hot beverage and pastries/sandwiches.  Lunch will consist of BBQ Steak, Chicken, Sausages, Salads and refreshments.

Kindest Regards

Paul Catton

East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families

(09) 940 6236

As a mother and as a woman who has had the privilege to live in the great time of feminist rulership I thought that since feminism was about equality my concerns for our sons would have been accepted, which they have been; and work would be done to give our sons fair treatment, which unfortunately is a whole other matter.

Never did I realise that being for equal rights as a female was to be non equal rights for my sons. I had no idea that I had signed up for an opposite rulership that I had been opposed of.

I find in the women’s groups that there is an attitude that men must fight as hard as women if not harder to gain equality to women. I find that in the funding sector male is not even an option. You don’t have a box to ask for funding that says male. But you have one that says female. Or disability or gay/lesbian or elderly or even child which is up to the age of 12 for a male.

You see, a male child is not considered a child after the age of 12. He is then considered a man because he has testosterone. Testosterone is the enemy of feminism. Gosh, throw that by me again. hehehe. But seriously, I am not joking you.

I was shocked to learn that under the human Rights Commission, men do not have rights. So every male child over 12 does not have rights. You see, men never did have rights. Only responsibilities. Us females started rights. But our own female leaders do not want to give rights to men nor our sons.

Girls risk falling behind in the classroom’
21/04/2008

Girls risk falling behind in the classroom because government policies focus on the education standards of boys, a report claims. A “significant proportion” of girls are struggling to read but many are not getting enough help, it is claimed.

About a quarter define themselves as “non-readers” because they find books boring and fear being labelled a “geek”. They are also less likely to get encouragement from family members to pick up a novel at home.

A study by the National Literacy Trust, a reading charity, says many young girls were “in danger of being overlooked by current policy drives”.

At the moment, girls continue to out-perform boys at every age in the classroom. They pull ahead in tests taken at the age of seven and extend their lead at 11, 14 and 16. More young women now go to university and are more likely to get a good degree.

A series of reforms have been aimed at boys to address the imbalance. This includes additional cash to buy books for boys. But the National Literacy Trust warns that the achievements of girls may suffer as millions of pounds of government funding focuses on gender-specific initiatives.

link

This is what we are up against to give our sons a fair go in education. It is a mountain that few of us even realised. But it exists because women gained power and through women studies at University level and millions of dollars in funding, we grew a movement of hate for our own sons without even knowing it.

Worthwhile link to read

I wanted the local newspaper to publish the following letter. I was hoping that some of the public in the small town we live in would come forward for the sake of X (child), but unfortunately the newspaper would not publish; their excuse, the public would have trouble understanding the letter.

Open Letter to the Public
I would like to commend a member of our valued community.

She deserves an Oscar for a most outstanding seven year performance. One I have been privileged to view and experience for six years. (more…)

Daily Telegraph (Australia) April 17, 2008
Teachers are being urged to stop using terms such as husband and wife when addressing students or families under a major anti-homophobia push in schools. The terms boyfriend, girlfriend and spouse are also on the banned list - to be replaced by the generic “partner” - in changes sought by the gay lobby aimed at reducing discrimination in classrooms. (more…)

Family First NZ says that the announcement of the death of three-year-old Auckland toddler Dylan Rimoni being treated as a homicide means that the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the flawed anti-smacking law.

“While good families are being investigated and thrown under suspicion because of the extremist anti-smacking law pushed by the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford, child abuse has continued at the same rate and the same old underlying issues of drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown and dysfunction continue to be ignored,”� says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. (more…)

I am 35yrs old ive seen alot in my time booze,drugs,gangs etc. I’d crossed paths with some of the most notorious gang members and the most hardened criminals done some things im ashamed to admit but i faced those demons and turned my life around i met my husband 6yrs ago had 2 more children and continued to raise my 4 we have 6 kiddies living with us my husband has contact with his two, 9yrs and 12yrs. When my husband and i met, his partner had left him for the third time, taking their children, alcohol was a contributing factor to the breakdown in their relationship on both parts, from that day she has taunted him, power tripping in knowing she had something he wanted but could not have, she stated in numerous emails “you will never see these children unless i say so”. (more…)

Judge Boshier stated in his presentation in Washington DC at the Capitol Hilton on June 1 2007:

…. It is a criminal offence to take a child from New Zealand knowing that there is an order giving day-to-day care or contact to another person, or knowing proceedings are pending or about to be commenced in respect of the child. There is a maximum fine of $2500 or a term of imprisonment of up to three months.[18] It is also a criminal offence to breach a parenting order.[19] Because these offences carry the possibility of imprisonment, Police can arrest any person committing such as offence without a warrant.[20] A person can thus be physically stopped from boarding a plane, for example, where there is no order preventing removal but leaving the country would breach a parenting order.

It is no defence that the person removing the child has rights of day-to-day care or contact, for parental responsibility is to be jointly exercised, and one parent cannot deprive the other parent their parental rights and responsibilities. This section applies to any person who takes a child. It is not specific to parents.

Apparently this only applies to men, fathers. Women can take their child out of the country, even if they state it is for a holiday, while court proceedings are pending, while their absence stops the person, i.e. the father, having contact with the child. Women are allowed to breach a parenting order. So what is the point of a parenting order in the first place and why aren’t the courts following what the Family Court Judge is stating. Are women above the Family Court? (more…)

Divorced from wealth - The Sydney Morning Herald - 19 April 2008.

The attack on the Australian Child Support changes continues:

“For the next generation of single women, it is about to get worse. Lawyers and social researchers believe changes to the child support scheme which come into force midyear will leave about 60 per cent of single mothers worse off than before. Fathers, in particular wealthy fathers, they say, will pocket the windfall.”

This is another example of a coordinated and orchestrated attack on the Australian changes to the Child Support Act.

“Dr Baldry also points to regime changes under the Howard government that are now starting to bite: welfare-to-work policies that penalised single mothers, and changes to child custody laws that introduced a presumption of shared care - even where there had been a history of violence.

She says it is not surprising that more middle-class women are relying on charities to supplement their weekly food bill.”

Peter Rabbit (Dunne) is living in a fairytale land. He has not delivered and that failure to deliver shows how much United Future cares about separated families!

Peter needs to ensure that stake holders are engaged as he promised. Relying on focus groups to create a child support position is inherently likely to produce a worse result for kiwi kids and parents .

Peter Rabbit has let loose officials to create a child support position and proposed methodology. I call it letting the loonies run the asylum

This approach to child tax collection , let the officials (Inland Revenue and Families Commission ) decide does not adress the fundemental flaws found in % of income model.

The child support Act 1991 is fundamentally flawed and no amount of tinkering is going to fix it.

RegardsScrap

This is my first post in this forum. I need help and advice. I am drowning and I really do not know what to do. I do not want to react. And I know anything I do will be used against me.

My story goes a long way back. Two years ago, my wife then, told me she was heading to a bbq. A day later, I got a phone call from Hawaii. A week later, I located her in Misery, USA.

In the USA, she was faced for a request to return the children. She disappeared. Nine months later, she reappeared in Holland and requested that I move in with her and the children.

I declined and pressed with my Hague petition for the return of the children. She got nasty and made allegations of abuse. Her allegations were dismissed in court. The children’s return was requested.

I was asked to travel to collect the children but upon arrival, they had disappeared. The mother was found and held in custody. The children had been removed back to the US by her parents.

She was freed pending appeal of the Hague decision and requested to cooperate with the local police to bring the children back. As soon as she was freed, she appealed the decision, made worse allegations and did a runner. She flew back to the US, her home. The appeal went in my favor.

That was over a year ago.

We had another hearing in Misery in August. The allegations escalated from worse to downright silly. I won traveled to the US in January 2008.

In the plane, she offered to move back in with me. I almost cried of DISGUST. After two years of running around the world crying wolf, blaming me for abuse that never happened, she wants to move back in with me. It felt like a solicitation for prostitution.

I had then been granted an Interim parenting order. Upon arrival in NZ, I found out she made more allegations and triggered section 60 of the child care act.

The children were taken away from me at the airport. The lawyer for Child (LFC) drove her to her new residence. Since then, my life has been hell.

We appeared in court to discuss the section 60 allegations. I wanted to have a ruling but both my attorney and the LFC concurred it was best not to. A consent memorandum agreement was introduced by the LFC as a stepped in regime of the children under my care. I was asked to be the reasonable party. I signed it after being told it was temporary and my parenting order would be preserved.

My parenting order was immediately dismissed. The LFC blamed the judge. The LFC, since then, has been acting unilaterally without consultation with me. He redrafted the order to make it last for a year.

He recently applied for a variation of the order to allow the mother to take the children away from Northland for a holiday. The order stipulates that neither parent can remove the children out of Northland unless approved by the other.

I only found out about the holiday when we had a teleconference with the judge to discuss holiday arrangements on Monday. We were due to discuss it prior, but her attorney was not available.

My attorney submitted my refusal to allow the children out of Northland. The judge decided otherwise and made an order.

The last time she went for a BBQ, it cost $80,000 US for attorney fees and NZ$30,000 in travel cost. These cost do not even reflect a tenth of what it truly cost considering the involvement of three Central Authority of three governments.

Worse, it cost my children their sense of identity and my daughter was abused by the same guy my ex married to prove that the children were settled (”they love their new daddy”, she said) and should not be returned.

The children names have been changed. I am certain she has applied for new passports under their new names. I cannot afford to send them on a holiday with the mother.

She is picking them up today to take them for a holiday. I do not trust her with the kids.

Any advice out here?