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

Tue 30th August 2011

An argument against victim feminism in the history of NZ democracy

Filed under: General — triassic @ 7:31 pm

Feminism is a vague term and can at times be driven by a heinous concept called, Victim Feminism. This concept claims that any misfortune, lack of opportunity or discrimination of the “female” is the fault of the “male” of the species. One of the many examples I will use to support this claim is the exposure that the feminist movement give to their lack of democratic rights in NZ before being given the vote in 1893. A lack of information is supplied in their argument that they, females, were specifically singled out as unworthy to vote and thereby oppressed by males.

The facts are that the first elections in NZ were held in 1853 and every 5 yrs thereafter. The criterion to vote was:
“¢ Males over 21 years of age
“¢ British Subjects
“¢ Owners of land worth £50 or more
“¢ Not serving a prison sentence
This deprived the majority of working males of a vote with only about 6% of the population having political power. By 1879 the property ownership clause was repealed and, by only a small margin a vote in parliament failed to extend the vote to women at that time. However, only 2 elections or 14yrs later they gained the vote in 1893. In contrast, working class males were denied the vote for 26 years or 5 votes later. To further appreciate the injustice, we should understand that these same men were forced to put their life on the line in the army whilst not having a vote in the process. Working class men have not focused on this “injustice’, having accepted it as a part of progress and not as a conspiracy against them. Feminists on the other hand have made it a major point in their claim of male oppression, developing it so well that it has become a part of our world view, as a search on Google will help to illustrate:
“¢ “Political history of female voting in NZ”, will bring up 64,400 hits
“¢ “Political history of voting in NZ”, will bring up 14,100 hits
“¢ “Political history of working class male voting in NZ”, will bring up 2,560 hits
The evolution of democracy in society is correcting many injustices across a large cross section of peoples. I therefore conclude that feminist’s credibility is damaged by the distortion of their case regarding repression and with the blaming of all men as the cause.

Mon 29th August 2011

Family Court review: initial issues for discussion by the Fatherhood Foundation

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 5:52 pm

The following points are being currently being circulated for discussion by the Fatherhood Foundation. Reproduced here with permission.

Sun 28th August 2011

Fathers Day Jamboree

Filed under: Events — Brendon Smith @ 12:41 pm

On September 4th from 12noon to 4pm, we are hosting a Fathers Day music and dance event.
Bring your family, instruments, songs or dance and join in the fun.
Local musicians will help blend the acts together,
low cost barbeque sausages will be available,
find fathering information and meet other parents.
Onehunga Community Centre – 83 Church Street
Call 525 1690 for queries or contributions!

Fri 26th August 2011


Filed under: General — Darryl X @ 10:05 am

by Attorney Sam Assini on July 29, 2011

The United States Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court’) issued an opinion on June 20, 2011 in the case of Turner v. Rogers. The case originated in South Carolina, and found its way to the highest court in the land. The only issue that was before the Court was whether a payor (person responsible to pay child support under a court order) was entitled to an attorney at his civil contempt hearings. The hearings were held for Mr. Turner’s failure to pay his court ordered child support.

The Court’s decision not only answered this question but opened the door for the appointment of counsel in a number of other situations. This is a big win for all citizens ordered to pay child support. It is going to be interesting to see how the courts in Florida, as well as other states, attempt to safeguard the payors’ additional due process rights afforded them through this opinion.

In civil contempt proceedings in Florida the payor must be served with a motion that details the specific contemptuous behavior. The payor must be served with a proper notice of the hearing on the motion. The motion and notice must alert the payor to the fact that incarceration is a sanction the opposing party is seeking. The hearing must be attended by the payee (the person receiving child support). The payee must prove that there is a child support order in place. And that the payor is delinquent in his payments and the amount of the delinquency. The payor then has the burden of proving his inability to pay. There is a presumption of ability to pay when the child support order is entered because it is based on the child support guidelines and the current financial resources and income of both parents.

Once the testimony and proof is elicited from the payor and payee the court must issue an order that specifically details the amount that is delinquent, the payors ability to pay, where the money/property is to pay the amount that the court finds the payor has the ability to pay. If the payor refuses to pay what the court finds he has the present ability to pay the court could incarcerate him as a coercive measure to try to force payment. In other words, the payor has the keys to the jail cell in his pocket.

For example, the payor has a child support payment that is delinquent in the amount of $50.00. During the contempt hearing the payor testifies that he/she has $70.00 in his pocket. The court directs the payor to give the payee the $50.00 that is owed in back support. The payor refuses to pay the $50.00 to the payee. The court can order the payor be incarcerated until such time as the payor pays the purge, the $50.00 that is owed and currently in his pocket. The payor has the ability to pay but is refusing and defying the court’s order. The payor can get out of jail whenever he pleases; he simply has to pay from the funds that are in his pocket.

The above is a typical civil contempt proceeding. There is nothing procedurally wrong with incarcerating a parent who has the financial means to support his child readily available and refuses to pay. The court uses the sanction of incarceration as a coercive method to obtain payment from the payor. Children of the payor and payee need to eat, have a roof over their heads and have the basic necessities of life. Civil contempt is an important tool in the court’s arsenal to assure payment of much needed child support.

On the other hand, when the payor does not have the present ability to pay and the court seeks incarceration, as was the fact pattern in Turner, the court is using its’ power to punish. The Court found that proper safeguards were not in place to protect against Turner’s right to liberty and a fair hearing. The proceeding turned criminal in nature. Therefore, various other safeguards must be afforded, including counsel.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution affords a criminal defendant the right to counsel. Some criminal offenders do not receive the right to counsel, for instance a person who is at a hearing for violation of probation. The issue before the Court is similar in nature. The person on probation knows what responsibilities they have in order to stay out of jail as does the payor of child support. The cases have already been adjudicated and the supplemental proceedings are merely enforcement mechanisms. If you don’t comply with the order of the court there are ramifications. For the probationer that might be incarceration and for the payor as well, BUT only if the court has found that the payor has the present ability to pay and refuses to do so.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution due process clause affords certain procedural safeguards in civil contempt proceedings. Civil contempt proceedings must be fundamentally fair. Freedom from bodily restraint is the core of the due process clause. The state may impose the burden of proving inability to pay on the payor and still be affording him these basic rights to due process.

From the record it appears that during much of the South Carolina proceedings Mr. Turner was suffering from drug addiction. Additionally, Mr. Turner was indigent. He was hauled into court on several occasions for his failure to pay the court ordered child support. The lower court on a number of occasions found Mr. Turner in contempt of court and ordered his incarceration. The last of these incarcerations was for twelve months. During his incarceration Mr. Turner obtained counsel and the litigation proceeded through the South Carolina courts, and culminating in the United States Supreme Court opinion.

Interestingly the issue before the Court was whether Mr. Turner should have received counsel when he attended the contempt proceedings in the lower court. The Court’s opinion went far beyond the issue that was raised and litigated in the lower courts. The dissent points out that the Court considered issues that were proposed in an amicus brief filed by the government. These additional issues were addressed in the Court’s opinion without giving the parties in the underlying case the ability to file briefs, or provide argument, regarding those specific issues.

Some may argue that this is a major setback to payors of child support. On its face you would think so. But that is not the case. The Court spelled out additional, specific safeguards that go far beyond what is the current civil contempt law in Florida. This is a huge win for persons caught up in a child support system that can’t seem to provide justice to any of the players involved.

The Court’s opinion left open several what ifs. What if the government is bringing an enforcement action? What if the payor is not afforded the opportunity to provide a financial affidavit prior to the hearing? What if the payor is not put on notice that the main issue he needs to prove at the hearing is inability to pay? What is the proper notice that must be afforded the payor regarding his inability to pay? What is a complex civil contempt case? What if the payee has representation?

First, when the government is seeking to have a payor found in contempt it usually initiates the proceeding to obtain reimbursement for welfare funds received by the custodial parent. The benefits received by the payee could be Medicaid insurance, food stamps, cash payments, or some other type of government assistance. The person who represents the state in the court proceeding is an experienced and learned attorney. These hearings were labeled by the Court as debt collection proceedings. They are held before a general magistrate and completed at a rapid pace. The payor shows up and is considered lucky if in the blink of an eye he is handed an order of contempt outlining arrears owed and how the arrears are to be repaid. If unlucky he is incarcerated.

Additionally, there are numerous payors waiting in the hall to get their day in court, it is their chance to explain why they cannot pay. But they face an experienced and learned attorney who prosecutes these cases day in and day out for a living. The payor is an innocent pawn, a goldfish waiting to be swallowed up by a hungry piranha. The reason the Court insinuated that the payor in these type of proceedings would need counsel is because these hearings are not fundamentally fair. That is because the state has a huge advantage.

Second, the Court opined that the payor would have to be provided with a financial affidavit of some sort to fill out prior to the hearing. How much time will the payor have to fill out the form? Who will be responsible to provide the form to the payor to fill out? What does the payor do with the form? Is the payor filling out this financial form under penalty of perjury? If 70% of the persons that are in arrears for child support earn ten thousand dollars or less per year, or have no earnings record at all. They are probably uneducated and would need legal assistance to properly fill out the form.

But, the financial form is a big win for the payors. The court will now have an affidavit in the lower court file for it to consider regarding present ability to pay. With that information before the court it will have firsthand knowledge of the payor’s present financial circumstances. The Court went on to opine that the lower court could illicit testimony from the payor regarding the information in the financial affidavit before the court finds no ability to pay on the face of the affidavit.

Third, the motion for contempt must put the payor on notice that his burden is to prove his inability to pay the child support as ordered. Remember the payor is a layperson who most likely won’t understand the legal meaning of ‘ability to pay’. The motion for contempt will need detailed language regarding the definition of ‘ability to pay’. This language will have to be something that a layperson can understand. Keep in mind, assets available to the payor could be used in some instances to prove ability to pay but the payor who is not represented by counsel would not have the knowledge of this as well.

Fourth, according to the Court’s decision the notice and motion must inform the payor that incarceration is a sanction that the court will consider at the contempt hearing. These sanctions are coercive in nature and not supposed to be a form of punishment for noncompliance with a child support order.

Fifth, the Court seems to allude to the fact that if the case is a ‘complex case’ then the payor should have representation by a trained advocate. What is a complex case? The average citizen that is caught up in the child support system does not understand the technical, legal and other jargon that surrounds such a proceeding. Every motion, notice, financial affidavit and their attendance at the hearing are ‘complex’ to them. When an individual is facing the sanction of incarceration the case is extremely ‘complex’ to that particular individual. The risk of deprivation of liberty increases with the ability of the individual in that particular case to understand what the proceedings are about.

Sixth, the Court suggests that counsel is appropriate for the payor if the payee has representation at the hearing. It appears that in order to level the playing field and afford the payor his due process rights of fundamental fairness he must be afforded counsel. This situation mimics the government having counsel when going after the payor for reimbursement of funds that were paid for government welfare. With an attorney representing the payor the playing field is leveled and the payor has a fair opportunity to present evidence of his inability to pay.

The payors rights at child support enforcement hearings have been protected by this opinion. There are a number of new hoops that the payee, or the government, will have to jump through in order to find the payor in willful contempt of the child support order should the court decide to use incarceration as a sanction. With a financial affidavit filed that shows little or no income, or assets, the court would be hard pressed to make written findings of fact that the payor has the present ability to pay.

Finally, we are left with more questions than answers with this opinion. I look forward to the lower court’s interpretation of the many issues it has raised. This opinion makes it significantly more difficult for the payees, and especially the government, to use incarceration as a sword to sever the basic constitutional rights of our indigent citizens. It is my opinion that this decision has enlarged basic due process rights in regards to civil contempt hearings for nonpayment of child support.

Sun 21st August 2011

Dunne what?

Filed under: Child Support,General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 10:10 pm

Child support payments are to be deducted directly from parent’s pay-packets, under new rules announced by the Government today.

Revenue Minister Peter Dunne this morning announced changes to child support arrangements, including how payments are calculated, having payments taken directly from parents pay-packets, and easing up on the penalties for those that default on payments.


It looks like a tax, its caluculated like tax,its administered by IRD, now Dunne wants to take it from your Pay like a tax and he calls child support. When will the charade stop and Dunne be honest. He supports taxing mums and dads who are not the Custodial Parent of their children to recover benifits despite those same benifits being recovered by general taxation.

Dunne has done nothing to correct the fundemental flaws of the legislation and this is just another patch that screws seperated parents.

Thu 11th August 2011

Chivalry alive and well?

Filed under: General — Bruce S @ 3:49 pm

From the New Zealand Herald – 11 August 2011

Man wakes to find naked woman in his bed
1:12 PM Thursday Aug 11, 2011
Waikato police say no charges are being laid after a young man woke early today to find a 40-year-old naked woman in his bed trying to take his clothes off.
A spokesman said the man had been drinking at his Melville neighbour’s house before heading home to bed.
“The man has been asleep and unaware of what was going on, with the 40-year-old intoxicated woman in his bed. His mother has heard a noise and went to have a look and found the woman, naked, trying to remove the victim’s clothes.”
The man’s mother called police but no charges are being laid.

Now, let’s reverse the gender here; wonder what the outcome might have been for the drunken 40 year old male trying to remove the clothes of the young lady?

Sun 31st July 2011

NJ Child Support ‘Sweep’ Grosses $196 per Debtor–1.1% of What’s Owed

Filed under: General — Darryl X @ 2:46 am

July 28th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

From Fathers and Families

New Jersey’s semi-annual sweep of child support debtors grossed 1.1% of what’s owed. Here’s a short article about it (NJ.com, 7/23/11).

The Garden State does this twice a year. Sheriff’s deputies fan out across the state arresting the major child support debtors. Slapped in irons and hauled off to jail, the non-custodial parents then come up with money to buy their way out of an extended stay behind bars.

So it’s always interesting to see just what the results are of these semi-annual raids. In the past they’ve been impressively unimpressive, and this year is no exception.

Here are the un-awe-inspiring totals: Number arrested – 1,074; total amount owed by those arrested – $18.7 million; total collected – $211,000.

The average amount owed per person is about $17,400; the average collected per person was $196. That’s a collection rate of 1.1%.

But this isn’t a story about the incompetence of law enforcement officials or the judiciary. It’s not a story about ‘deadbeat’ parents. No, it’s a story about the child support system whose draconian penalties fall on those least able to either fight the system or pay what they owe.

Seven years ago, the Office of Child Support Enforcement published this report. It states that 63% of non-custodial parents behind on their payments report earning $10,000 per year or less. Seventy-nine percent earn $20,000 or less. Now it’s true that not all of those parents are reporting everything they earn. It’s part of the child support system’s perfidious nature that it drives a lot of people underground into a cash-only economy.
But if you report $10k, the chances that you’re actually earning a lot more are slim. And keep in mind, the OCSE report was seven years ago; a lot has changed in the American economy since then, and not for the better. Back then the unemployment rate was in the mid-5% range. Now it’s 9.2% with men’s unemployment well higher even than that.

So when we read an article that tells us that 1,074 non-custodial parents were arrested for not paying their child support, that’s the portrait of those parents. Overwhelmingly, they’re poor.

That often means they simply don’t have the money to pay the support ordered by the court. It also means they can’t hire a lawyer to get a modification. And since the poor are more likely than those better off to be poorly educated, representing themselves in a modification hearing is essentially a sure bet to fail.

And even if they are ultimately successful at getting the order modified, it’s likely many months after they lost their job or hit whatever wall that made paying impossible. Those were months during which their arrearages went up and up, with penalties and interest attached. Those parents can’t pay the original amounts, much less several months at a time stacked on top of interest.

Those are the folks New Jersey is spending who knows how much to arrest every six months and collect one cent on the dollar of what’s owed.

Needless to say, there’s a better way. First, as the OCSE has urged for a long time, family courts should set child support levels at what parents can pay. I know it’s astonishing that they don’t, but the OCSE has been exhorting them to for years to little effect. But setting support levels too high is a sure recipe for arrearages and pointless ‘sweeps’ by law enforcement.

Second, states should reform their procedures for modifying support orders. As it is, those are simply too expensive and time-consuming for just about any parent who’s newly out of work. States should appoint special masters who do nothing but child support modifications, up or down. Those special masters should be tasked with hearing modification requests within two weeks of the time the motion is filed. Clerks in the master’s office should be trained to assist people filing for modifications by explaining what sort of evidence they need to bring to court to get the modification granted. The rules of evidence should be relaxed to allow documents and testimony that otherwise would be excluded as hearsay. Parent’s requesting modification should be able to represent themselves. There should be no new filing fees for modification requests.

Those expedited summary procedures would ultimately save parents time and the state money. Child support orders would more accurately reflect the parent’s ability to pay and arrearages wouldn’t build up while he/she waited to get a hearing. That would mean fewer police resources would be used to conduct twice-yearly sweeps.

The OCSE agrees; it’s recommendations are blunt.

The best way to reduce the total national child support debt is to avoid accumulating arrears in the first place. The best ways to avoid the accumulation of arrears are to set appropriate orders initially, modify orders via simple procedures promptly when family circumstances change, and immediately intervene when current support is not paid. Parents should share in the cost of supporting their children according to their ability. Designing a system that establishes appropriate orders will encourage payment of child support.

The child support system in this country is a disaster on many different fronts. For the most part, there are simple, commonsense ways to fix it. But it’ll take political will to do it. Sadly the poor don’t have much political clout.

Tue 26th July 2011

UK Govt warns fathers about child abduction risk

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 8:48 pm

UK Government warns fathers about child abduction risk

The UK Government is honestly warning UK fathers to watch out for any warning signs that the mother of their children might abduct them. Traditionally, the FINGER was publicly pointed at fathers, despite years of statistical data showing mothers were the culprits in the majority of cases!!…… Being practical, many abductors give very little warning at all. Even when fathers ask caughts to protect their child’s relationship with themself, the caughts override the father’s concerns and allow completely unprotected international travel. They actually scrape more money from abductions, than by saving children from this crime!

The Fatherhood Institute
30 June 2011

Dads warned to look out for signs of parental child abduction

Dads are being advised on how to prevent their children’s mothers abducting
them and taking them abroad.

According to a new Government campaign, every other day a British child is
abducted by a parent to a country which has not signed the 1980 Hague
Convention on international parental child abduction*.

The latest figures represent a ten per cent increase in new cases handled
by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2010/2011 and have been released
to mark the launch of the FCO’s child abduction prevention campaign.

Wed 6th July 2011

One in three campaign – male victims of domestic violence

Filed under: Domestic Violence — JohnPotter @ 11:51 am

Over the weekend I was sent a link to an interesting Australian podcast titled: ‘Meeting the needs of male victims of domestic and family violence’.

The website the podcast is hosted on turned out to be home to the the One in Three Campaign.

As we tried to publisise back in 1999, one in three victims of family violence and abuse is male.

The One in Three Campaign says:

reducing family violence against women and children has been firmly on the agendas of government for many years. Now is the time to move to the next, more sophisticated stage of tackling the problem: recognising men as victims as well.

The resources page lists a number of Australian agencies which offer support to abused men. There are also links to organisationes in the UK, Canada, USA and Europe. Nothing for NZ though.

I have to say I was concerned to see Courage to Heal listed as recommended reading, with the comment: “while this book is written by women for women and does not specifically address men’s issues, it nevertheless is an excellent book about recovery”. The misinformation in Courage to Heal produced thousands iatrogenic victims around the world, mostly elderly men and their adult daughters. Searching MENZ will result in numerous mentions.

In spite of this one ‘red flag’, the One in Three Campaign is an excellent initiative, and there is a huge amount of good information on the site. There is also a useful misinformation page, where misleading ‘statistics’ used publicly by agencies and individuals are corrected.

Tue 28th June 2011

Pro-female IRD

Filed under: Child Support,General — Mikey @ 1:23 am

Mum tells IRD that children are in her care to avoid Child support payments. Father is on DPB after loosing business during recession. Children are actually in shared care.

IRD takes word of mum and deducts child support from dad’s DPB. Mum tells IRD that dad is a fraud and works under the table. IRD takes word of mum and accesses dad at last years income. IRD keeps the accessed income in its formular.

Dad sits on the computer for three months noting every minute children are with him to prove shared care.

Dad disputes that children were in mum’s care. IRD places order on dad’s bank account and robbs the money from his account.

Dad cannot pay the rent and applies to WINZ for a food voucher. Dad has WINZ investigator knocking at his door to investigate “work under the table”.

It’s time the IRD wake up to such fraud.

Fri 24th June 2011

Institutionalised Sexism

Filed under: General — triassic @ 11:37 pm

Employers association Chief Alasdair Thompson is obviously not very savvy in media matters, however I have been amused how the media have sensationalised the matter yet seldom comment on the continual matter of institutionalised sexism within the family court and its interpretation of family law.

Few media ever report, or have probably never sat in the family court, where a father is attempting to gain equal access to his children or to stop his child’s mother from relocating to another town with the child.

Two displays of sexism at work in society scream out for publication on the front page of print and the lead story in electronic media:

1. Fathers required to prove they are capable (defined by a judge) of looking after children before being given equal shared care.

2. Fathers having their children relocated to another town because a judge decides it’s in the best interests of the child, i.e. Dad does not have the same status as mum so kids wont really miss him after a short time.

These examples are based on sexism and therfore supply the children involved a comprehensive message as to which parent they should respect and model themselves upon.

Telling females that their monthly bodily functions may be affecting their ability to be equal in work output, and thereby diminishing their total pay scale, seems insignificant in comparison. However, it is an easy story to beat up and takes bugger all effort to do any research on!!

Wed 22nd June 2011

A day in the NZ courts.

Filed under: General — Vman @ 3:41 pm

Bar worker Jodi McGregor, 24, was furious when her boyfriend – to whom she was pregnant – confessed he’d had sex with her friend. McGregor, of New Plymouth, invited the friend to her home for a party on February 12, got another woman to pin her down by holding her hair, and laid into her with her fists.


An 8-year-old girl was unflappable under cross-examination in the Invercargill District Court yesterday as she gave evidence of cruelty at the hands of her grandmother.

Rebecca Scandi Hughes, 17, was sentenced last year to 12 months’ jail with special release conditions, which include psychological counselling, for assaulting the same child on March 1, and assaulting her with a weapon, namely a coal shovel, between March 5 and 12.


A woman has driven into a shop window in Petone, near Wellington, crushing an employee on the way, police said.


Mon 20th June 2011

Does John Key think like David Cameron?

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 10:55 pm

PM must act, not rant, over single parents by Martin Fricker, Daily Mirror 20/06/2011

DAVID Cameron hit out at fathers who run out on their children yesterday and said absent dads deserve to be shamed in the same way as drink drivers.…………

Mr Cameron said: “It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised and the full force of shame heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale.

“They need the message rammed home, from every part of our culture, that what they’re doing is wrong.

“Leaving single mothers – who do a heroic job against all odds – to fend for themselves isn’t acceptable.”

This is what the Tories in the UK think. I wonder if the Tories here think the same?

What positive change has John Key and the National Party made to improve the child support (AKA child tax) system? Nothing!

I wonder how much John Key thinks like David Cameron?

Thu 16th June 2011

Child Support – Help

Filed under: General — Vanessa @ 9:35 am

Hi can someone help? My husbands ex wife has successfully applied for an admin review which we filed a cross application. The son attends private school and about a year ago she unilaterally put him into boarding saying she would meet the costs. She lives less than 9km from the school. The review officer ignored the fact no agreement was reached and said it only needed the expectation of one parent (ie her). We now pay the maximum formula asessment plus private school fees + boarding fees. A total of $2600 per month or $29,000 per year – the review officer has said we have to restructure our earnings, sell our house etc because my husband has first obligation to maintain his son in the style (she and he has become accustomed to). She has little outgoings, is the recipient of a family trust, has over 200k in the bank. I live with my husband with my daughter from a previous relationship, she objected to my husband receiving the discount for a dependants, so that was taken off us as well, my child has special needs and as such is enrolled in a non state school. My husbands income and her income are basically the same, the difference she has more cash, and no outgoings and a big Family trust. The maximum child support (1400 per month) is actually paying for her rent etc. She also gets the son to write letters to the IRD in support of her applications. We have a review hearing tommorrow for the cross application under Ground 1: The capacity of either parent to provide financial support for the child is significantly reduced because of a duty to maintain another child or person Ground 2: The capacity of either parent to provide financial support for the child is significantly reduced because it costs extra to cover the special needs of another child or person they have a duty to maintain. Ground 8: The child support assessment does not take into account the income, earning capacity, property or financial resources of either parent or the child. The issue here is she forced boarding, make us pay for it and just wants more and more

I dont hold my breath on this one but any assistance or ideas or pointing in the right direction ie relevant cases would be appreciated

Tue 14th June 2011

UK Child Support Changes

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 10:00 pm

Now life for non-resident parents is, potentially, about to get worse. In recent years, the level of a non-resident parent’s income being payable for maintenance was calculated on the following basis: 15 per cent for one child, 20 for two children and 25 for three or more children. Now, under a phased introduction, the proportions will change to 12, 16 and 19 per cent for someone earning less than £800 a week and 9, 12 and 16 per cent if the salary or wage is above that. These will be calculated on gross and not net income so, every wage- or salary-earning non-resident parent will have to pay more.

Guilty untill proven innocent

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 9:49 pm

WASHINGTON, June 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “”¦ This is to our President. President Obama remarks often “¦ It’s “¦ been two Father’s Day years in a row where he admonished fathers, especially African American fathers, to step up to the plate. Well, I’m an ex-baseball player; almost went pro years ago”¦ so my analogy is: When the fathers step up to the plate, we get a fast ball right between the eyes. “¦I’m not a teenage Dad, I’m not a Dad who doesn’t work, I don’t have a criminal past or an anger management problem, yet my little boy is growing up without his father.”

The above quote comes from the trailer for filmmaker Janks Morton’s powerful new film, Guilty Until Proven Innocent (GUPI

Sat 11th June 2011

Parental Conflict – Alienating a Child

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 1:53 pm

Auckland Family Court judge Margaret Rogers said more than 1000 pages of evidence had been filed with the court.

“At this point in [the child’s] life, [its] future should lie ahead of [it] full of promise and potential. But I fear for [the child] and for [its] future,” she said in a decision issued last year.

“I fear for [the child] for one simple reason. [Its] parents … have one of the worst parental relationships I have seen in 22 years of experience in the field of family law.”

The father may not be perfect but the headline “Kiwi mum battles to keep child” substanially discounts the mothers contribution to the alienation of this child from the father. To me the headline shows a clear bais – man is evil, woman is victim menatlity of the reporter.

The court was told that the child maintained a consistently negative view of the father and continually told a lawyer and a court-appointed doctor that it did not want to visit the father.

“A common theme for [the child] is to describe [its] father as evil, and emphatically state that [it] hates [the father].”

Judge Rogers said she found that the child was “alienated”. The court-appointed child psychologist defined this as “a child who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs towards a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent”.

The mother has denied she ever engaged in intentional or unintentional “alienating behaviour”.

Interesting denial by the mother, given the child has been in her care and is so young.

As to Mark Henaghan’s comments about money dragging out Family Court proceedings – surely the same logic must apply to one party (Mum) being granted endless legal aid compared to the father having to pay for his lawyer or self represent.

Letters to the Dompost please.



The Propaganda Never Ends

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:35 am

Here’s some insight into what is being taught to young women in schools etc about domestic violence, and below is my reply to the newspaper and to Ms Kearns.

This article, while containing some potentially useful content, is mainly feminist propaganda that will harm relationships, wreck families and children’s lives and increase the risk of partner conflict and violence. Gender terms for abuser and victim, as if only men ever commit domestic violence, are propaganda. It was unbalanced to refer only to unexplained statistics claiming violence toward females without mentioning that violence toward male partners is just as frequent. Further, it’s ridiculous to suggest that a man is likely to be violent if he asks for any of his preferences to be met, wants her to reply to his communications and/or to pick him up on time as arranged, and such advice will only encourage unrealistic expectations that safe males should passively accept any treatment from women without complaint. Also, it was misleading to confuse relationship conflict and domestic violence generally with the unusual Weatherston case that involved serious personality disorder. Violent reactions come from both genders and usually arise from bilateral relationship conflict, and until we understand this we will continue to fail in reducing domestic violence.

Fri 10th June 2011

The feminist Trojan horse in Family Law

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 10:18 am

Queensland MP George Christensen recently spoke to the Australian Federal House in opposition to plans intended to undo Family Law reforms put in place by the Howard government in 2006.

I have never heard a politician so clearly expose the feminist, anti-father agenda. Why don’t we have anyone like this in NZ?

But justice and maintenance of rights for fathers is an affront to this feminist ideology from this government. What a clever way to rob men and rob fathers of their rights! Surely no-one would vote against amendments aimed at protecting children and preventing family violence. But that is not what these amendments are really about. There is already protection in the current Act. The fact is that these amendments actually trivialise what is a very serious matter – that being family violence.

The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ waters down the meaning of violence and will, in effect, make family violence more acceptable – precisely the opposite of the purported aim of these amendments. These amendments should be seen for what they are. They are a Trojan horse, full of malicious code designed to deprive fathers of their rights.

Full transcript here, or watch the video:

Thu 9th June 2011

Evidence Based Practice – Gluckman

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 12:21 pm

Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, John Key’s chief science advisor has called for better development of teenagers.
Prime Ministers Science Advisory Committee

He also made another release, which in the longer run is far more important.
Evidence and policy formation

He also called for looking for evidence, before instituting new social policies and also when evaluating new social policies which have been newly instituted.

Whilst internationally this idea is several decades old and has been used actively in more careful development of legislation in european countries for over 2 decades, it is still quite novel inside NZ, alas.

Many of NZs economic disasters would have been avoided, if we had been more careful before introducing “innovative” legislation. Examples range from Building Act (leaky buildings), to DPB with the huge increase in solo parenting and the follow on effects of deprived parenting and dangerously behaved children. Another examples is the DV Act and the negligible improvement in women’s and children’s deaths by homicide – actually women’s perpetration of homicide has increased. There have also been increases in men’s suicide that that have resulted from caught abuse, through that Act. MENZ Quantitavive Figures My own analysis of the effectiveness of that Act is here.

If Sir Peter’s ideas gain traction in NZ Government, then we can hope to markedly reduce men’s suicides.

A very good example of a Government carrying out good quality relevant social research is Australia Institute for Family Studies. The coverage includes social, criminal, child development and protection, with a view to producing useful information, aimed at improving social quality for all Australians. Although the title says “family” they take a constructive interest in single people’s lives too. (Sort of like a Families Commission, but with a research budget and a strong sense of direction.)

National have indicated that they have an axe ready for Mental health Foundation and Families Commission and even the Press Council, that they don’t fund! Real murderers territory, kill everything that moves. If you want to support social development in NZ, not just by copying other countries, then put pressure to support relevant and good quality social research within NZ.

It is election year – lets push careful family oriented social policies as a leading issue.
Best regards, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

Tue 31st May 2011

CAFCASS encourage shared parenting with Hickups

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 11:35 am

In New Zealand, both the Care of Children Act 2004 and the CYFs Act 1989 legislation require the familycaught to protect children’s access to their own family, unless to do this would endanger the children. Even then, supervised access can be used to sustain relationships, without exposing the children to serious risk.

So, although Parliament require CYFs and the familycaught to behave in these ways, the day to day reality is that a large fraction of social “workers” do not act accordingly and fail to act to sustain relationships. I have seen several applications by social “workers” to familycaught, saying I have run out of time to contact the father and ask for dispensation from this requirement. I haven’t seen a familycaught “judge” ever try to enforce the law, in this situation. I believe that this is a result of unresolved traumas in the childhoods of these social “workers” and “judges”. These old problems prevent them from professionally carrying out their jobs. History

In UK, the same fights are going on too. Different legislation, even more bureaucratic and cumbersome, even less economically efficient than in badly featherbedded NZ!!!!

Sat 28th May 2011

Why don’t they treat children like dogs?

Filed under: General — JohnBrett @ 9:31 am

Judge tells feuding couple to share custody of dogs
By Edward Gay
5:30 AM Saturday May 28, 2011


Photo / Thinkstock
Photo / Thinkstock

A prominent political figure and his ex-wife have been told they must share the custody of their two dogs after a long-running dispute in the Family Court.

Strict suppression orders surround the case, which includes an allegation of dog-napping on the street of a plush Auckland suburb in November 2010.

The ex-wife – to be referred to as D – saw her ex-husband’s new partner walking the dogs and is alleged to have unclipped one of the animals from its lead and put it in a car.

D told the court in April she told her ex’s new partner: “You have my husband, you cannot have my dogs.”

Her ex-husband – referred to as C – sought the court’s intervention.

Judge David Burns issued his reserved decision yesterday.

He said he had not been asked to make a long-term arrangement but in the short term the couple had to share the dogs.

“Neither party seems to me to have any greater claim to the dogs than the other.”

Judge Burns directed that the dog which was allegedly snatched off the street should be returned to C.

“This is to be done by [D] delivering [the dog] to the groomer which both parties use and the groomer is then to deliver the dog to [C]’s care.”

He ordered that the dog stay with D for three months to make up for the “unilateral action” of C taking it.

He said that at the end of the three months, the dogs are to be looked after by C and D on a month-by-month basis.

“The changeovers to occur through the parties’ groomer so the party who has the dog is to deliver the dog in the morning to the groomer and the groomer is then to … deliver the dog to the other party …”

Judge Burns said he found that both C and D “profess a great love for their dogs”.

At the April hearing D told the court: “My dogs are my babies.” Her ex-husband said the dogs were part of his family.

Judge Burns also noted that the dogs provided companionship to each other. “I therefore … find that the dogs should not be split.”

He ordered legal costs to “lie where they fall”. Both C and D were represented by Queen’s Counsel.
By Edward Gay | Email Edward

Sun 15th May 2011

Schools arrange secret abortions

Filed under: Sex Abuse / CYF — Jono @ 6:55 am

This could be deemed not post worthy but anyways….

With the increase of Child Abuse being thrown out to the general public, I find it interesting how professionals can justify not telling the parents if there daughter has had an abortion. I then question if the boy who did it (if known) is also covered from his parents not knowing. New Zealand at least, in abortions the male has no say what-so-ever even if he wants the child or not. (Some) Females have been using that blackmail for donkey years (that in itself is abuse personally).

Personally, I have a daughter myself and the fact something like this is going to be hidden from me starts to question what else “im not going to be told” because im a male or parent as a whole.

This stuff story didn’t cover how the father felt about it. Dont we have a right to a say as well? Dont as parents have a right to know what is going on in our kids lives?

Dont these professionals understand that the parents would find out in the end? This isnt something you can put a “sticking plaster” on in the hope it goes away, its there for life. Personally, I would support my daughter (should that happen) cause at the end of the day, this is a traumatic experience for her. I would also support my son (if I had one). Wouldn’t it be beneficial that both family’s come together for a chat before they consider prosecutions for statutory rape.

Fri 13th May 2011

Woman guilty of sending threats to herself

Filed under: General — Vman @ 8:35 pm

A Rotorua woman has admitted sending threatening texts to herself in a bid to get her former boyfriend into trouble.

Jacinta Maree Hammond, 23, used a pre-pay phone to send the texts to her phone and then a few weeks later told police they were from her estranged partner, the Rotorua Daily Post reported.

She pleaded guilty to charges of making a false statement to police and wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice when she appeared in Rotorua District Court this week.

Judge Phillip Cooper remanded Hammond on bail for a pre-sentence report and sentencing on July 19.

Thu 12th May 2011

Separated with Children by Adam Cowie – Book Review

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 7:51 pm

In the preface of this self-published 130 page book, Adam writes that since his separation:

“the torment and legal battles I have had to go through since then I feel are rather unique”

Well, not quite. (more…)

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar