- 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.

Tue 8th April 2008

“Status Quo”

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — nzleagle @ 9:09 pm

In 19th-century diplomatic Latin, the original sentence was in statu quo res erant ante bellum “in the state in which things were before the war”. This gave rise to the shorter form status quo ante bellum “the state in which (it was) before the war”, indicating the withdrawal of enemy troops and restoration of power to prewar leadership, as well as other variations, such as status quo itself.

Arguing to preserve the status quo is usually done in the context of opposing a large, often radical change. The term frequently refers to the status of a large issue, such as the current culture or social climate of an entire society or nation. Status quo can also refer to the social status in the workplace or peer group school.

Politicians sometimes refer to a status quo. Often there is a policy of deliberate ambiguity, referring to the status quo rather than formalizing the status. An example of political ambiguity is the political status of Taiwan. Clark Kerr is reported to have said, “The status quo is the only solution that cannot be vetoed,” meaning that the status quo cannot simply be decided against; action must be taken if it is to change.

Sometimes specific institutions are founded to actively maintain the status quo. The United Nations, for example, was intended to help solidify the peaceful international status quo that immediately followed World War II.

 Now how many of us fathers have been let down by the “Status Quo”?

In my particular case, I was told that because of the amount of time he has been in his Mothers Care since we seperated (about a year now, the same amount of time its been going though court….) even after his Mother illegaly took day to day care, and makes it difficult to arrange contact, and can’t afford to pay her rent every week, that my chances of getting full day to day care is next to none because of the Status Quo.

 This apears to me to be where the Court system is letting people down, especialy our Children, sure in the short term leaving the child in the “Status Quo” might be a good option, but we need to be looking at long term solutions.  One parent  (the parent with current day to day care) might be an ok parent, where the child isn’t going to be in harms way, but might not get the care and attention needed to thrive, or have the best finacial means, but the other parent, might be able to provide the care and attention and the finacial means to provide the best possible situation in life, but because of the “Status Quo” the child might be left in the ok parents care.

3 Responses to ““Status Quo””

  1. Bruce says:

    Exactly what I am afraid of, a year exactly since I filed in the court for shared care and I can not get into the Manukau Family Court as my children are deemed to be not at risk, ie I dont beat them and the ex isn’t a druggie so go to the back of the que. As an aside does anyone know of a law? re children, girl 11 and boy 8, sharing a bedroom. I have to go to the expense of renting suitable accomadation so the kids have their own room when visiting while the ex goes for the cheap option and makes them share.

  2. MurrayBacon says:

    What is “Status Quo”?
    The familycaught can look back a little in time, or a long way back in time, until they find the status quo that they want to find!
    When it comes to weighing evidence, there are none so blind, as those who will not see.
    The best discussion that I have seen, on manipulating the meanings of words in legislation, to subvert the true english meaning, to match the judges emotionally crippled views about men and women taking care of children, is given in:
    The Primary Caretaker Theory
    By Ronald K. Henry
    Backsliding To The “Tender Years” Doctrine
    >
    http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/caretaker.php
    >
    This document refers to USA legislation, but the dynamics are essentially identical in the NZ context and just as unwise.

    For all of the lying in familycaught, sharing the care of children, by good faith negotiation and working together, offers children far more than an asset stripping familycaught process with an “empowered” mother who’s ego is too big, to share the care tasks with the other parent or to honestly share parenting information.

    Regarding the costs of providing a separate room for boys and girls:
    If you ask around your older family members, you will no doubt hear many stories, where children have shared rooms, including both sexes. There are some disadvantages, but these are not so dire, that you need to damage your financial security to avoid these problems.
    In fact, the issues of sharing offer many social advantages, these skills stand children in good stead for their whole lives. Make the best use of all of your rooms.
    Thus it seems that some legal workers and some mothers see this issue as a battering ram to use against fathers, essentially to the detriment of what the father can then offer to the children. (Is this what they really want?)
    To fund extra accommodation cost of say $4,000 per year (possibly even more), then you have to earn a lot more, to pay income tax (and possibly some “child support” too). Do the calculation yourself, you might be astonished to realise how much extra you have to earn, to be not a single cent better off.
    $4,000 *1.3 for income tax and *1/(1-0.24) for child support for 2 children
    It is higher if you have 3 children, work it out….
    Wisdom: Is it wise to pay for a room, 7 days a week, if it is only to be made good use of for say 2 days per week, maybe not even that?
    If you don’t see the requirement for extra rooms to be so critically important, then surely the person who sees it as soooo important will be willing to pay the total cost?
    If the father’s costs are “ignored” under the 40% threshold, then it becomes rather damaging to the father to make these additional, poorly justified expenditures.
    Even if you were in the top say 20% of the population before separation, you are probably now into the bottom 10 or 20% now that you are separated, especially while getting setup again.
    The past isn’t a good guide to what you can afford, your carefully calculated realistic budget is the best guide.
    >
    Access to familycaught hearings:
    Negotiate well directly with the other parent. Negotiate in good faith, but be able to handle the other party not showing sharing or good faith. This path of negotiating in the real world, offers far more value to families, than pissing into legal workers wallets in the momentary world of the familycaught. Communicate with as many of your partner’s friends and family as you can. You owe it to your children, to keep these lines of communication open and working. This is the best protection against lying and manipulation. The familycaught cannot help communication in the real world, in which the children live. It is worth “eating shit” to keep up working relationships with wider family – on both sides of the intimate relationship that has split. Don’t split the children’s whole world. These relationships can provide protection against lying and deception. Liars try to keep people apart and not communicating directly, so that their lies will not be found out. Good lines of communication counter this possible problem and besides, these relationships offer the children and you a lot of enjoying life.
    Although the familycaught isn’t prejudiced (they tell us this!***) it is obvious when you talk to people, that the woman gets a hearing in say 1 – 2 months and the man 9 months to never. If the familycaught wanted to be taken seriously, as acting to serve the public and children in particular, then there wouldn’t be any noticeable difference in access to hearings. You will notice that their personal financial interests are still well served (paramount!) by delayed access to hearings, it is only their customer’s interests that are not being served.
    Don’t wait patiently, you need to be proactive and apply for a hearing “date”, not just a hearing. They are giving you, what you are asking for!
    If the date offered is unreasonable, then write back and ask for an earlier hearing date.
    Deliver this letter by hand, ask for a date stamped receipt and make a long long long discussion with the Registrar explaining whey it is important for the children, without being too bloody minded about it.
    It is probable that you will need to do this several times, even to get to a hearing in just a few months. The familycaught judges just don’t take fathers or their relationships with children seriously, in the same way that you should not take them seriously. They see fathers only as workers, for asset stripping, with eyes as heartless as any other thief.
    ***In my opinion, familycaught isn’t sex prejudiced, they often treat women as badly as men especially in CYFs cases, at times I would say far worse than they treat most men. The main issues are lack of competence to handle family issues and weigh evidence and taking of advantage of the conflict-of-interests to their personal advantage in secret.
    Given the poor performance of familycaught when or if you get to them, the delayed access to a hearing isn’t really the detriment that it should be!
    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

  3. Karen says:

    Hi Murray

    We have just been to mediation and CFC (female) has been appointed to my husbands 13 yr old daughter. Apparently we will be spoken to aswell as the daughter and mother. We seriously believe their is parental and grandparental alientation. What really cracks me up about this WHOLE situation is that yes a child ( and even though she thinks she is 25 she is only 13)gets their views heard however I feel that too much is waited on their opinion or wants. How is a 13 yr old to really know what they want when the mother has been in this poor kids ear for the last 4 yrs and turning this kid against her dad????? The mother never had a relationship with her father and had many a step father in & out of her life so she doesnt BELIEVE her child needs a dad in her life??? WRONG!!!! She definitely needs a loving dad (like the one she has. I could understand if she was getting beaten or abused…..and the judge decided it was in her best interest not to see her dad….but when a 13 decides she only wants to see her dad 2 days a ftn when we currently have shared 50/50 of her brother I think thats a joke!! her mother is a hairdresser and the only 2 things that she is interested in is shopping and partying????so there aint much hope for my husbands daughter!!!!(even though at 13 she thinks these things are the most important things in life!!)

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