- 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.

Sun 26th September 2010

The father must not criticise the mother

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General,Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — MurrayBacon @ 10:28 am

When familycaught personnel utter these words, they are really refusing to look at the parental competence of the mother.

Although perhaps well meaning, for many cases where both parents are sufficiently competent in parental skills and mental health, their do-gooder approach completely fails to address the job entrusted to them by Parliament, for a significant and fairly large minority of cases where one or both parents are dangerous or hazardous.

Even if the couple were effective as together-parents, through complementing each others skills, this is only a very weak guarantee?? that each can be effective as separated-parents. In fact, many will not be sufficiently skilled as separated-parents and our society must protect children from hazardous or dangerous parents, whether dangerous by attitudes, mental health issues or outright physical violence.

The problem may be only temporary, but if fed by avaricious legal-worker dispute enhancement, then the hazard for the children may last much longer and do deeper harm to the children.

The argument about “more women or more men” as victims or as perpetrators is completely missing the points required to protect children. Averages and totals are statistics. Competent decisions about the care of individual children must be made on the basis of the characteristics of the individual parents, the actual mother and the actual father. Our familycaught “judges” lack these skills of seeing evidence about relationships and behaviour and weighing its relevance. Our children are left to the luck of statistics and perhaps the occasional protective intervention of strangers. In the end, these “judges” are as irrelevant as their skills, just gown-holders for odd photographs.

In the main, it is the children who suffer the worst, when these people fail to address the tasks of their job.

If you, as a father, have stood silent, in the face of their refusal to do their job, then you have elected to be complicit in their taking their wages without doing their job.

It may be a secret caught, but when you stand silent, you are backsliding with them.

By way of contrast, a lone judge in Surrey England, is now trying to communicate to parents, that abduction or other lower key forms of relationship-vandalism will not be accepted as normal parenting behaviour.

Interestingly, she has acted against the conflict of interest that acts onto legal workers in caughts, so that if her actions carry on, the cost of legal services will drop as fewer disputes are cared for by carelessness about the truth, pampered by perjury, developed by deception, increased by irrelevant procedures and milked as dry as the parent’s tits through manipulation in the caughts.

In the same way that children are best protected by holding their parents accountable, this same need for working systems of evaluation and holding to account is just as necessary for the “judges”. Lookup “bill wilson”, to see how NZ’s system for holding “judges” to account for their actions is simply in-effective – just for display purposes only!!

dailymail.co.uk Separating-parents-forced-attend-custody-classes-realise-damage-children

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:26 PM on 25th September 2010

Divorcing parents are being forced to go to custody classes so that they realise the damage their separation inflicts on their children, it was revealed today.

Couples in Surrey, where the scheme is being piloted, have to go to two free evening sessions in the hope they will reconsider their behaviour.

Surrey has become the test county for the programme after district judge Alison Raeside championed it and made it compulsory, according to The Times.

The sessions are not forced on couples where either side could be in any danger and are funded by Cafcass, the children’s courts service.

Classes: Parents in Surrey are having custody coaching so that they realise the effect of their separation on their children

Partners will not be sent to the same class and are placed with up to 10 others.

The current family law review could see the Separation Parent Information Programme rolled out across England and Wales.

Early results apparently indicate more than half of parents’ change their behaviour because of the classes.

Details of the scheme emerged days after a senior judge warned middle-class parents can damage their children permanently by using them as ammunition in the divorce courts.

Broadside: Sir Nicholas Wall said that in family break-ups parents rarely behave reasonably and intelligent parents are often the worst

Lord Justice Wall, the country’s leading family judge, told warring husbands and wives: ‘There is nothing worse for most children than for their parents to denigrate each other.’

He said that in family break-ups parents rarely behave reasonably and intelligent parents are often the worst.

‘Often the parties are fighting over again the battles of the relationship, and the children are both the battlefield and the ammunition,’ he said.

His broadside came in a speech on reforms to the family justice system in which he said it was vital to reduce the adversarial nature of the divorce courts.

He also attacked his fellow judges for allowing some cases to go before as many as ten different judges.

Having one judge sit in all the hearings involving a family is essential to provide consistency, Lord Justice Wall said.

In his speech to the pressure group Families Need Fathers, he said: ‘Separating parents who are unable to resolve issues between themselves rarely act reasonably.

‘People think that post-separation parenting is easy. In fact, it is exceedingly difficult, and as a rule of thumb my experience is that the more intelligent the parent, the more intractable the dispute.

‘Parents often find it difficult to understand that children both love and have a loyalty to both parents. There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other.

‘To use the trite phrase, each parent represents 50 per cent of the child’s gene pool. If a child’s mother makes it clear to the child that his or her father is worthless – and vice versa – the child’s sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged.

‘Parents simply do not realise the damage they do to their children by the battles they wage over them. A child is not a piece of property which can be parcelled up and moved around at will.’

Mr Justice Wall said that it was legitimate to criticise the family courts over the number of judges who become involved in a case.

He said that, while working as an Appeal Court judge, he found ‘cases in which as many as nine or ten judges had all dealt with the same case.

‘Each had had to read the papers: each had had to make a decision and, inevitably, the decisions are sometimes inconsistent,’ he said. ‘In short, there is a total lack of judicial continuity.

‘For a number of judges all to have to read the same bundle of papers is not only a waste of valuable judicial time: it is inefficient and leads to inconsistency.’

Lord Justice Wall made his speech in the midst of a review into the family courts, which handle parental separation, child custody, fostering, adoption and also ‘public’ cases concerning children removed from dangerous homes by social workers.

Around 20,000 family break-ups come before the courts every year, and fathers’ pressure groups have been increasingly vocal about alleged bias in favour of mothers.

There have been a number of demonstrations against the failure of the courts to act against mothers who shut fathers out of their children’s lives.

The Labour government considered tagging mothers to punish those who fail to abide by court orders but the idea was dropped.

8 Responses to “The father must not criticise the mother”

  1. Gerry says:

    Great article Murray! I note what Lord Justice Wall recently said about social workers in EH v London Borough of Greenwich [2010] EWCA Civ 344 –

    “What social workers do not appear to understand is that the public perception of their role in care proceedings is not a happy one. They are perceived by many as the arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system, and as trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process. This case will do little to dispel that perception.”

    Perhaps we could encourage our own Principal Family Court Judge to spend time talking to Lord Wall who is President of the Family Divisionvof the British Courts.

  2. Ford says:

    family court…a manipulating..well orchestrated,one sided circus..all was good while i was a sinle male .then i had kids to a nasty vindictive bitch…..all a woman has to do is scream abuse and its all ovr for the guy basically…cant say anything against the woman as it will be deemed as abuse…what a crock of sexist horseshit family court is…cant call her a liar…even tho she is blatantly telling porkies…calling her a liar is abuse…telling the truth about how abusive and minaipulating the woman really is ,is deemed as a man desperately seeking a defense…cant win with this garbage

  3. Ford says:

    i was made to feel like a bloody criminal…show remorse and considerations to a woman that was screwing me over as much as she possibly could…what a fantastic system huh…guy gets held responsible for what i dont really know…(all the lies and accusations of abuse i guess)then he gets screwed over by lawyers and judges…gets told to do anger management to sort an issue instigated by the systems treatment of the guy in the first place..then live under the auspices of the legal system for the nxt 19 yrs…made more difficuly by a lying using manipulating gameplaying bitch

  4. rc says:

    Interesting comment posted at The Spearhead recently by a former police officer (American):
    ——-
    It has been a long time since I saw feminism as anything but another avenue of attack on dominant culture. I doubt very seriously that the intent was ever the betterment of women. In fact, as a former criminal investigator and street officer I have observed the deadly effects of feminism on women. Many women feel that they are entitled to browbeat, berate, and abuse men without consequences. By rule of law they would be right. By law of nature they often only realize their folly too late. Again and again I have seen this. The couple that has 5 or 10 domestic disturbance calls then one final call.
    These aren’t the “burning bed” women. Those women don’t call the police. When that abuse comes to light it is usually a third party that makes the call. The most common is the dysfunctional couple that argue to a fever pitch until the guy has had enough. Often he will try to leave for awhile and she trys to block is exit, as she has not felt adequately satisfied with his level of torment. He removes her from his path, and she calls when he is gone citing that he has attacked her and is out on the road. A very common occurance. On the occasions when we arrive to find both at the home the male will be relatively calm while the female is hysterical or playing hard on the victim card. With the “imminent fear” standard in place women have learned to exploit this feature of the domestic abuse law. I taught rookie officers how to properly make the woman tip her hand to see if she was really in fear. Simply enough, you casually isolate the two parties and tell her that he will not be arrested on this occasion. When they are faking it, the fear act dissolves and you see who the aggressor really is. Not only will she aggress against the male partner but also at the officers. The scorned woman has zero control over her emotions in most cases. Her will be done or damn you all to hell. I can recall a couple of instances where we had visited a house on numerous occasions to witness this scenario. The male usually resigned to his fate, in full realization that the deck is stacked heavily against him, will be cooperative but full of frustration. Economics and children keep him from leaving this absurd situation, just as it does for many abused women. But then we get that call where this docile domesticated dog has been kicked one time too many and the she wolf has had her brains bashed in with some weapon of opportunity. Never before has she worn so much as a control mark, but apparently he came to the conclusion that he was the strongest mammal in the den and decided not to have his serenity fucked with any longer. Unfortunate for all involved, but easily avoidable if only the expectations of women were modeled on a more cooperative paradigm from the start.

    I am not saying this is all cases but easily a third of them bear strong likeness to what I describe. It is far more common that what most people think.

    It is easy to Monday moring quarterback a person in that situation and say that he should have just left. The most sympathetic will say”yes it would have been hard, but wouldn’t it be better than prison?” Try to be in that moment. Try to experience months or years of being subject to the whims of an irrational control freak who operates with impunity. Try to see through the realization that your tormentor will still hold the reigns on your life as they are awarded by the court without taking once into account what you have endured without cause or reason. The only path left to defy the powers that have emasculated you is to kill their beneficiary. Children are made orphans, lives are ruined and lost. Society is further destabilized. Objective attained.

  5. Skeptic says:

    Wow! rc.
    That’s a very powerful statement.
    I wish some NZ police (or ex police) would come out with a similar testament as my years of living in NZ tells me it’s pretty accurate for NZ too.

  6. rc says:

    I think the key point is that this man is a former police officer.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is a lot of resentment and awareness of men’s plight within the NZ police force right now, but like the hapless men they have to arrest, they too are faced with threats to their children, their retirement and their serenity should they talk back to the dominant partner in their employment relationship.

    Once out of the force and freer to speak their minds, perhaps some would talk more candidly. They would certainly lend a great deal more authority to cleaning up this issue if they spoke up.

  7. phil watts says:

    Murray, you said “our society must protect children from hazardous or dangerous parents, whether dangerous by attitudes, mental health issues or outright physical violence.”

    Did you take that out of Hitler’s or our own government’s feminist Femily Court or CYF anti-male and child kidnapping justification propaganda manuals?

    Only the truly arrogant and clinically insane (sociopaths) presume they are capable to ‘judge’ others sanity – not to mention the obviousl Human Rights and discrimination involved in banning those with so called ‘mental health’ and ‘attitude’ ‘issue’ (i.e. these people do no agree with those in authority, or are free thinkers, etc etc).

    Secret courts and ‘judges’ and the government ignoring parent’s right to their own children and a children’s right to 50/50 care by willing parents are the biggest dangers to a free society and to human rights.

  8. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear rc, thank you very much for your perceptive observations and comments. I think that you are dead right, about the police being among the most vulnerable victims of the prejudices and incompetences that are floating around at present in our familycaught$.

    I suggest that their weakness to these “ideologies”, lies in their vulnerability as puffed up macho males. Protectors acting against themselves!!!!????

    Maybe they need to know more about what protects children’s interests? If they did, they wouldn’t be so vulnerable to being manipulated and taken advantage of in familycaught$
    Of course, this same statement applies to all fathers.

    So, it seems that the vultures in familycaught$ take advantage of conflicts of interest, yet the police staff members are vulnerable to the impacts of conflicts of interest……

    So, what does the familycaught$ know, that our innocent and vulnerable bobbies don’t?

    How is it, that a familycaught$ judge can profit from allowing/enabling a NZ child to be abducted overseas, where the police – who actually do more to protect children from abduction (little that they do) are vulnerable to both having their own children abducted (they are mostly men=fathers)?

    They are vulnerable to being financially ripped off in familycaught$ and to having their children abducted overseas…..

    Dear phil, I can only suggest that you read all of the above texts again. You might find that we are roughly on the same page, if you go through the arguments carefully?

    Even so, you seem to believe that all parents are good for children. Mostly true, but there are a few gross exceptions.

    Too many fathers fail to protect their children’s relationships with themselves, even when the Care of Children Act specifically protects a child’s right to a good relationship with both parents!!!!
    But who takes legislation seriously, only easily manipulated fools. Certainly not the thieves of the familycaught$.

    What about mothers who asphyxiate their children (maybe about 20 or 30 per year?

    What about fathers who smash their children to death? Maybe only 10 or 20, but surely children should be protected from these fathers?

    But far and away the most dangerous mothers and fathers, are those who were emotionally neglected as children. No bruises to be seen, no broken bones to be picked up in x-rays. But emotional injuries that usually take decades of suffering to get through. Getting through isn’t being restored to a good life, it is just getting through…… There is no excuse for allowing this to happen to children. Making a quick buck is no satisfactory excuse. It is the comment of a judge who puts their own wealth ahead to the welfare of thousands of children….

    This is never their own fault. Who could expect a child (or the later adult) to take responsibility for being neglected during a slow placement for adoption? or due to an emotionally cold mother, resulting from her neglect during her own childhood. Let alone if both of these occurred together?

    I am suggesting that when such mothers are left alone as solo mothers, then the children are far more vulnerable to emotional neglect than when the children had daily access to both parents. If you wish to see this documented, either by examples or scientific research papers, then contact me directly?

    This is why I suggest that the familycaught$ profits directly, by increasing the dangers to children.

    I take NO enjoyment from what I say.

    I am a father guilty of failing to provide proper and correct protection for my own children, courtesy of familycaught$. I am not trying to be holier than thou, on the contrary – I hate my guilt in this department. Fast, hot lead could never make up for the damage done, only slow moving knives and garrots.

    Love, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

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